Judgment The appellant in Crl.A.No.11 of 2005, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1083 of 2004 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004 are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the total fine of amount Rs.30,000/-, a sum of Rs.20,000/-was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim-P.W.2. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, appellants herein/accused 1 to 3 have preferred the above three Criminal Appeals before this Court. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- On 09.07.2000 P.W.4 was talking with his friend. At that time, the first accused was teasing the girls, who were passing that side. P.W.4 and his friend questioned the first accused. The first accused assaulted both P.W.4 and his friend and therefore, they went and informed about this occurrence to P.W.2. P.W.2 went and questioned the first accused and also reprimanded him. After some time, the first accused came along with accused 2 and 3. The first accused attacked P.W.2 on his head with knife and accused 2 and 3 attacked P.W.2 with casuarina sticks. P.W.1, the father of P.W.2, who had witnessed the occurrence, took P.W.2 to the hospital. (ii) P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugam examined the victim P.W.2 on 09.07.2000 at about 5.50 p.m., and prepared the Accident Register-Ex.P.3 and admitted him in the hospital as inpatient. P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital and saw the victim-P.W.2 in Ward No.1. At that time, P.W.2 was unconscious and therefore P.W.5 got Ex.P.1-complaint from P.W.1 and he came back to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.384 of 2000 for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.2. (iii) P.W.9-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation in this matter, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.8 and a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.9 and he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. (iii) P.W.9-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation in this matter, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.8 and a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.9 and he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 10.07.2000 at 9.30 a.m., P.W.9 arrested the third accused and in pursuance of the confession given by him, P.W.9 recovered a knife and two casuarina sticks. On the same day at 12.30 p.m, P.W.9 arrested the accused 1 and 2. P.W.2 was discharged from the hospital on 20.07.2000. The Doctor P.W.7 gave an opinion-Ex.P.4 stating that the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. P.W.9 recorded the statements of P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugam and P.W.7-Dr.Senthilnathan, who performed the operation for the injuries sustained by the victim-P.W.2. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused. (iv) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and produced M.Os.1 and 2. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. (v) The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above. 3. Mr.Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.11 of 2005 and 1083 of 2004/accused 1 and 2 and Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004/third accused and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 1 to 3 submitted that P.W.1 could not have been an eye-witness to the occurrence and Ex.P.1-complaint had been prepared belatedly. It is further submitted that even according to the prosecution case, the offence would not fall under Section 307 I.P.C. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on receiving information from the hospital, the police went to the hospital, but since the victim-P.W.2 was not in a position to speak, the complaint was received from P.W.1, who is also an eye-witness to the occurrence and the evidence of the victim-P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1, father of P.W.2 and also by the evidence of P.W.3-wife of P.W.2. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there was no delay in preferring the complaint and the occurrence had taken place on 09.07.2000 at 5.00 p.m. and the F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 11.00 p.m. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 7. It appears that there was some quarrel among P.W.4 and the first accused. P.W.2 went in support of P.W.4 and he had questioned and reprimanded the first accused. Aggrieved by the act of P.W.2, the first accused went and brought the accused 2 and 3 and P.W.2 was attacked by accused 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W.2 in chief examination that he was attacked by accused 1 to 3 had not been shattered in the cross examination. The evidence of P.W.2 is also corroborated by the evidence of his father-P.W.1 and his wife P.W.3, who had witnessed the occurrence. In Ex.P.3-Accident Register, it is mentioned by the Doctor that the victim-P.W.2 was brought by his wife and it was informed that the victim was assaulted by known persons with Knife and Urutukattai. The prosecution had established the fact that P.W.2 was attacked by accused 1 to 3 on his head using knife and casuarina sticks and P.W.2 had sustained serious injuries. 8. Though it was contented by the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence would not fall under Section 307 I.P.C., on perusal of medical evidence, it is apparent that the victim had sustained very serious injuries on his head and there was fracture of skull bone. The operation was performed and the victim could survive. The accused attacked the victim on his head, which is vital part, with knife and casuarina stick. The act was done by the accused with an intention of causing such bodily injury which was endangering to the life of the victim. Of course, the injury had not resulted in fatal but it was only due to medical service rendered by the doctors. If the act of an accused with an intention to cause death or knowledge that his act would result in death of a person is complete, and if that person survives, then the accused would be liable under Section 307 I.P.C. 9. If the act of an accused with an intention to cause death or knowledge that his act would result in death of a person is complete, and if that person survives, then the accused would be liable under Section 307 I.P.C. 9. All the accused 1 to 3 came deliberately to attack P.W.2 with deadly weapons knife and casuarina stick and all the three accused attacked the victim-P.W.2. There was common intention among accused 1 to 3 for attacking the victim and causing injury which may result in causing death. Hence, the conviction on the accused 1 to 3 imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. is proper and therefore it is confirmed. 10. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that now more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of occurrence and according to their instructions, accused 1 to 3 are not involved in any other case. 11. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and as more than 12 years had elapsed from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, is reduced to a period of one year rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount and the default sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are confirmed. 12. Except the above modification only with regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, all the above Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused 1 to 3 and send them to prison in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.