A.P. Sahi, J. This appeal on behalf of nine appellants is against the conviction under Sections 148, 307/149 of the appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 coupled with under Section 323 read with 149 IPC. The appellant Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been convicted under Sections 147/149/307 and 323/149 IPC with their respective sentences without any fine. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants has informed that this Court has already taken notice of the death of appellant no. 4 Ramdhani on the report of the Magistrate concerned and therefore the appeal against the said appellant stands abated. He has also filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the status of the age and health of the other appellants in order to establish their current status and also to indicate the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants, thirty three years hence, that is at the time of the institution of this appeal when the appellants were let off on bail. The incident is of 17th of January, 1979 at about 8.00 am in the morning when it is alleged in the F.I.R. that Kamlesh Narain the injured was watering his agricultural fields from Tubewell No. 36 which is a Government Tubewell. It is alleged by the first informant who is the brother of the injured that it was the turn of the informant to water his fields when at about 8.00 am the appellants with a premeditated and preplanned concerted design came on the spot to divert the flow of the water towards their own field upon which the injured Kamlesh Narain urged that he would be requiring the water only for a couple of hours whereafter they could utilize the same. On hearing this the deceased appellant Ramdhani, who was armed with a licensed gun called upon the other assailants and exhorted them to assault the injured as he is not listening to him. On this the appellant no. 1 Bare Babu assaulted the injured with a Spear ( Barchhi). The informant Bishnu Narain alongwith his father Babu Ram rushed to the spot and also received Lathi blows alongwith the injured. On hearing the hue and cry, the F.I.R. disclosed the arrival of Kulpat and Satya Narain together with Roop Narain who witnessed the scene when the assailants ran away towards the South of the village. The informant Bishnu Narain alongwith his father Babu Ram rushed to the spot and also received Lathi blows alongwith the injured. On hearing the hue and cry, the F.I.R. disclosed the arrival of Kulpat and Satya Narain together with Roop Narain who witnessed the scene when the assailants ran away towards the South of the village. The F.I.R. nominates Bare Babu - appellant no. 1 to be armed with a Spear ( Barchhi), Shatrughan son of Baijnath to be armed with a Pharsa, Ram Dhani armed with a licensed gun and the other assailant-appellants Onkar, Bhagwan Din, Ramkesh, Krishna Dutt and Dhirendra armed with Lathis who inflicted the injuries. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at about 10 am and the medical report was prepared after the examination of the injured Kamlesh Narain whose injuries are as follows:- M.I. Black mole on right side of face 2 cm. below the upper lip. Examination of injuries: ( 1) Lacerated would 7 cm. x 1 cm. x Bone deep on left side of head 9 cm. above the left ear. Direction oblique, Bleeding present ( 2) Penetrating would of entrance 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. x 2 cm. on Dorsal side of left hand 3 cm. above the root of index finger. Margin clear cut. Direction posterior anteriorly and slightly upward. ( III) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. on Dorsal side of left hand 2 cm. above the root of middle finger. ( IV) Penetrating wound of entrance 0.3 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 0.4 cm. on left side of abdomen, 6 cm. above and one O'clock position from the umbilicus. ( V) Red contusion 4 cm. x 1 cm. on back of left leg 5 cm. below the knee joint. Opinion: All injuries are simple except injuries No. ( 1) to ( III) which are kept under observation Advised X-ray skull and left hand. Injury No. ( I) ( III) & ( V) are caused by blunt object. Injury No. ( II) & ( IV) are caused by sharp pointed weapon. Duration: within 6 hours. Bishnu Narain the informant was also examined who was shown to have received one injury of contusion on his left forearm caused by a blunt object with an advise of an X-Ray. Injury No. ( II) & ( IV) are caused by sharp pointed weapon. Duration: within 6 hours. Bishnu Narain the informant was also examined who was shown to have received one injury of contusion on his left forearm caused by a blunt object with an advise of an X-Ray. Babu Ram the father was also examined with two injuries of contusion of a similar nature on his left arm. The appellants were committed to the sessions court and they were charged for having committed offences for which they were tried and have been ultimately convicted. The prosecution examined the doctor who prepared the medical report as P.W.-1., the informant Bishnu Narain as P.W.-2, the injured Kamlesh as P.W.-3, Roop Narain as P.W.-4, another doctor P.C. Chandel as P.W. -5 and the Sub Inspector of Police Satya Veer Singh as P.W.-6. The accused got themselves examined together with a defence witness Garib Das D.W.-1. The trial court vide judgment dated 20.9.1982 upon an assessment of the evidence convicted the appellants. Hence, this appeal. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi has extensively taken the court through the evidence on record and he submits that there was no such common intention or object of a premeditated design as alleged by the prosecution and the intention appears to have accrued on the spur of the moment relating to a dispute of watering of fields. The carrying of a gun by Ramdhani was an embellishment as there was no fire arm injury. The allegation of the use of a sharp edged weapon, namely, a Pharsa is uncorroborated by any medical report, inasmuch as, there is no cut injury of such a sharp weapon that could be used in its natural course. He contends that there is no internal injury on any vital part of the body so as to construe the commission of an offence to commit murder. He contends that the recital in the F.I.R. and its corroboration by the injured witness about the intention is clearly at the best to teach a lesson and not to commit any murder, inasmuch as, there was neither any intention nor any knowledge attributable for the alleged use of the weapons in the hands of the assailants. He contends that the recital in the F.I.R. and its corroboration by the injured witness about the intention is clearly at the best to teach a lesson and not to commit any murder, inasmuch as, there was neither any intention nor any knowledge attributable for the alleged use of the weapons in the hands of the assailants. He therefore submits that the number of accused has been exaggerated and it is evident that three of the accused Ramdhani, Ramkesh and Dhirendra have been admitted by the prosecution witnesses including the injured witness that they did not assault the injured. He further contends that the attempt of the prosecution to establish the injury from a Pharsa on the basis of the statement of the doctor is absolutely misplaced, inasmuch as, injury no. 1 is clearly caused by a hard and blunt object and not by a sharp weapon. He submits that the prosecution never came up with a case that the Pharsa had been utilized from its blunt side so as to cause such an injury and therefore the statement of the doctor during cross examination is of no avail in the absence of any such case pleaded by the prosecution. He further contends that there is no supplementary medical report of any grievous injury and in the absence of any motive or prior dispute the entire story has been trumpet up so as to implicate the appellants. This exaggeration is therefore writ large for which there is no basis. He further contends that in view of the facts disclosed in the supplementary affidavit relating to the age of the appellants and their status of health as well as the fact that the appellants have waited for more than 30 years for the disposal of their appeal the conviction of the appellants should be set aside and they deserve to be acquitted. In the alternative he also contends that in the event this court comes to the conclusion that some of the appellants deserve to be convicted then in that view of the matter, at the most the injuries should be treated to be minor and superficial injuries and with no damage to any vital part they should be treated to be injuries punishable under section 323 IPC or at the most 324 IPC. He further submits that in view of the fact that appellants have undergone incarceration for the periods as referred to in the supplementary affidavit, their sentences should be converted into fine and the appeal be disposed of accordingly. In support of his submissions Sri Chaturvedi has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganesh and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 ( 78) ACC 343 and the judgment of the apex court in the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2010 ( 69) ACC 454 ( Supreme Court). In order to understand the impact of the alleged injury of Pharsa as claimed by the prosecution, Sri Chaturvedi has relied on paragraph 8 of the judgment in the case of CH.Madhusudana Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1994 SCC ( Criminal) 275. He therefore contends that in view of the aforesaid background the appeal be allowed and the conviction be set aside. Learned AGA on behalf of the State has however urged that the injury that was aimed at the abdomen was prevented by resisting the thrust of the Spear ( Barchhi) by the hand of the injured. He contends that the injury was clearly attempted to cause something fatal as all the assailants had come prepared and armed to assault the injured. They had not come to simply and forcibly divert the course of the water channel but they clearly intended to do something heinous. The intention has to be therefore gathered from the manner in which the assailants arrived with full preparation and the same should not be underestimated to be an act of sudden provocation. Reliance is placed on the decision of State of M.P. Vs. Kedar Yadav reported in 2009 ( 17) SCC Pg. 280. The injury caused on the head was by a "Pharsa", but by its converse side, namely the blunt side of it as suggested in the testimony of the medical examiner. The minor error of description of a "Barchhi" and "Ballam" has been explained by the injured himself in his deposition and as such no capital can be made out of it. The minor error of description of a "Barchhi" and "Ballam" has been explained by the injured himself in his deposition and as such no capital can be made out of it. The incident being one of broad day light, there is no mistake of identity and the defence has not provided any evidence to the contrary so as to disbelieve the prosecution version. It is urged that even if a couple of the accused have not inflicted any actual injuries or have not assaulted, still their presence cannot be doubted and they being accomplices, are entitled to receive the same penalty as their companions. Having heard learned counsel for either side and having perused the records, the first issue to my mind that deserves attention is the motive part and the intention to commit the offence for a common object and with knowledge. The principles on this issue that are to be applied are dealt with in the decision of Kesar Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008 ( 15) SCC Pg. 753. Learned AGA is however right in his submissions that so far as an offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned the law on the subject for gathering intention, the seat and nature of the injury are not the final components, has been dealt with in the case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC Pg. 843 as reiterated and followed in State of M.P. Vs. Kedar Yadav ( supra). What is intention and how it is to be understood in distinction to knowledge has been explained in Kesar Singh's case ( supra). Reference can be had to the decisions in the case of Roy Fernandes Vs. State of Goa reported in 2012 ( 3) SCC 221 and Virendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 ( 8) SCC 407 . In the light of the same, the incident in the present case has to be assessed. There is no element of previous enmity. The only immediate cause is a dispute over watering of fields. There is no prior incident either preceding the incident recently or remotely. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2010 ( 8) SCC 407 . In the light of the same, the incident in the present case has to be assessed. There is no element of previous enmity. The only immediate cause is a dispute over watering of fields. There is no prior incident either preceding the incident recently or remotely. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the most lethal weapon, as alleged to be available on the spot in the hands of Ramdhani, namely a gun, was not utilised actually to cause any injury if the intent was to commit murder. The dimension of the alleged sharp-pointed weapon is negligible and no repeated blows are alleged. The prosecution never came up with a suggestion to strike a blow on the head of the injured by the converse side of "Pharsa". The appellants counsel is therefore right in placing reliance on the decision of CH. Madhusudana Reddy ( supra). There is no damage to any vital part nor any internal injury has been reported. These objective assessments coupled with a dispute over the change in course of water channel in the morning, therefore do not clearly establish a preconcerted design to commit murder. To make the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC the prosecution evidence on record fails to pass the tests as observed in Kesar Singh's case ( supra). The intention therefore was not to commit a heinous offence like murder, but there is no doubt that intention to cause hurt is very much present. The medical report does not contain any supplementary material for e.g. an X-ray or ultrasound to establish the existence of grievous hurt. The injuries were described as simple except injury No. 1 and 3 that did not yield or reveal anything further on being kept under observation. There is a probability of a sudden fight but at the same time the assemblage with weapons is there. The resistance of the injured to delay the change of course of the water channel may have given rise to an exchange of heated dialogues but there is no evidence of any preceding altercation between the parties so as to suggest an existing ongoing perennial dispute. The dialogue began by the injured suggesting that the watering can be done by the accused after a couple of hours. The dialogue began by the injured suggesting that the watering can be done by the accused after a couple of hours. This may have infuriated the accused who might have rushed for their weapons to threaten the injured or even to teach him a lesson. No other motive was even suggested by the prosecution for the court to gather a pre-existing ulterior motive so as to raise a probability of some preconcerted design. In the absence of any clinching material, the motive or intention to commit an attempt to murder is not established. The conversion of the intention into an overt act is to be viewed in the aforesaid background. From that angle, the court is unable to find the material available on record to travel upto the length so as to describe the offence committed as an attempt to commit murder. Three witnesses, namely Kulpat, Satya Narain and Roop Narain were nominated in the F.I.R. but two of them Kulpat and Satya Narain never came forward to support the prosecution story. Roop Narain stated that he was in his field when the incident took place. At one place he states that he witnessed the actual assault and in the next sentence he states that he arrived when a hue and cry was raised. He then admits that the entire story was narrated to him by injured Kailash. This inconsistency in his statement was sought to be improved during cross-examination but ultimately he admitted that he was involved in several cases in a contest with the accused. This existence of litigation therefore clearly reflects on his being an interested witness who was tried to embellish the story of the prosecution on the narration of Kamlesh. His actual presence at the time of occurrence is therefore doubtful which makes his ocular testimony incredible. Then comes the claim of the appellants based on the testimony of DW-1 Garibdas, the tubewell operator who has stated that the tubewell was out of order on the date of incident, and therefore it is urged by Sri Chaturvedi that the story of watering of fields is absolutely imaginary. I am not prepared to accept this testimony as the relevant document of such faults being recorded and communicated were not produced by Garibdas. Apart from this the site plan prepared by the I.O. does indicate the watering of fields and the flow of water-channel. I am not prepared to accept this testimony as the relevant document of such faults being recorded and communicated were not produced by Garibdas. Apart from this the site plan prepared by the I.O. does indicate the watering of fields and the flow of water-channel. Thus it cannot be said that the dispute did not arise out of watering of fields. To the contrary the existence of sudden provocation contradicts this probability. Accordingly no capital can be made out of this by the defence. Now coming to the statement of the injured, the same has to be accepted as in my opinion it is difficult to overcome their testimony which is corroborated by medical reports. If any exaggeration does exist relating to Ramdhani, Ramkesh and Dhirendra, the same can be discarded, but their entire testimony cannot be shrugged off as the incident is of daylight and appears to have occurred with the active participation of at least the appellants, except Ramkesh and Dhirendra whose presence is doubtful. The law is explained clearly in the case of Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 ( 5) SCC Pg. 602 which affirms the principles as laid down by the High Court in the judgment reported in 1990 Cr.L.J. Pg. 2531 ( Para 28). That having been established the nature of the injuries do definitely conform to the ingredients of Sections 323 and 324 IPC. They have been proved to have been inflicted due to the assault as alleged. Consequently, except the appellant No. 8 Ramkesh S/o Shiv Dularey ( wrongly spelt as Rakesh) and appellant no. 9 Dhirendra, are held guilty of having caused injury to the victims and are therefore liable to be sentenced. Accordingly all the appellants except Ramdhani ( since deceased), Ramkesh and Dhirendra are found guilty of having caused hurt to victims as defined and punishable under Sections 323, 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, and not under Section 307 IPC. The issue of sentencing still remains to be considered. The principles as discussed in the judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar reported in 2008 ( 7) SCC Pg. 550, if taken notice of, will make the task easier. The issue of sentencing still remains to be considered. The principles as discussed in the judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar reported in 2008 ( 7) SCC Pg. 550, if taken notice of, will make the task easier. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh ( supra) and that of the Apex Court in the case of Neelam Bahal ( supra). In my opinion the nature of the allegations against Bare Babu and Shatrughan, who are stated to be armed with sharp edge weapons, be assessed from that point of view. The dimension of the injuries said to have been caused by a "Barchhi" by Bare Babu has been delineated hereinabove and they resemble a similarity as in the case of Neelam Bahal ( supra). The injury by an alleged knock by the reverse side of a "Pharsa" carried by Shatrughan was not the case pleaded by the prosecution at all. This doubt therefore is not removed and the learned counsel has rightly placed reliance on the case of CH. Madhusudana Reddy ( supra). The injuries of Lathi are all simple in nature. It is here that the facts brought forth in the supplementary affidavit deserve to be noticed. It is stated that Onkar is not in a sound state of mind. The others are aged enough and the relevant paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are quoted hereinunder:- 4.That amongst the aforesaid Appellants, one of the appellants, Ramdhani has died during pendency of trial whereas the appellant Onkar is man of unsound mind who is detained in solitary room in his house and his behaviour towards the public spite of the treatment by the expert doctors, he could not be cured. 5.That the appellant, Krishna Dutt is presently aged about 67 years whereas appellant, Bare Babu who is elder brother of appellant, Krishna Dutt, is presently aged about 75 years. Appellants, Bhagwan Din, Shatrughan, Raghubir Prasad and Onkar are presently aged about 69 years, 64 years, 94 years and 66 years respectively. The Photocopies of the Identity Cards of Bhagwan Din, Shatrughan, Raghubir Prasad, Krishna Kumar @ Bare Babu, and Krishna Dutt are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SA1 to this Supplementary Affidavit. Appellants, Bhagwan Din, Shatrughan, Raghubir Prasad and Onkar are presently aged about 69 years, 64 years, 94 years and 66 years respectively. The Photocopies of the Identity Cards of Bhagwan Din, Shatrughan, Raghubir Prasad, Krishna Kumar @ Bare Babu, and Krishna Dutt are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SA1 to this Supplementary Affidavit. 6.That appellant, Bare Babu is elder about 8 years from his younger brother Krishna Dutt whose real name is Krishna Kumar. 7.That appellant, Raghubir Prasad is father of the appellant, Krishna Dutt and Bare Babu who is presently aged about 94 years and he is on his death bed who is not able ever to walk and perform his routine work. 8.That the appellants and complainant as well as injured witnesses are relating to same family and presently after lapse of considerable time, they have developed cordial relations and since the date of incident till yet not other incident took place between the parties either civil or criminal in nature and both the families are residing peacefully having no grievance against each other. 9.That the Appellants have never challenged in past who are not previous convicts and the present case is solitary criminal case in which they have been convicted." They have also been inside gaol for sometime and have been under the Democles Sword for about 33 years of pending trial and appeal. Accordingly the appellants, other than Ramdhani ( deceased), Ramkesh S/o Shiv Dularey ( wrongly described in the memo of appeal as Rakesh appellant no. 8) and Dhirendra, are to be dealt with a lenient view on sentencing even though they have been found guilty for committing an offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 readwith Section 149 IPC. Reference can be had for support from the decisions in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Chand reported in 2005 ( 51) ACC Pg. 870 and Sukhram Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 ( 68) ACC Pg. 584. Their conviction is therefore accordingly upheld with the modification in their sentences with stand converted to the period undergone coupled with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each on all the convicted appellants. In the event of failure to deposit they shall undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof. State of U.P. reported in 2010 ( 68) ACC Pg. 584. Their conviction is therefore accordingly upheld with the modification in their sentences with stand converted to the period undergone coupled with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each on all the convicted appellants. In the event of failure to deposit they shall undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof. So far as Ramkesh and Dhirendra are concerned their participation and presence becomes doubtful as the evidence against them is unconvincing and almost uncertain. They appear to be victims of exaggeration and embellishments that remain uncorroborated. They are therefore entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant no. 8 Ramkesh S/o Shiv Dularey and appeallant no. 9 Dhirendra is set aside. The sentences of the other appellants shall stand modified as ordered hereinabove.