JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 301/2000 before the Fast Track Court-I, Mysore is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2005 passed in the said case convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 341 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 days for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. 2. Appellant No. 1/accused No. 1 is the father while appellant Nos. 2 and 3/ accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. They are residents of Kumbara Koppal in Mysore. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 read with 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief was accused No. 1-Bettegowda, P.W. 1-Vyramudigowda and one Cheluvegowda-CW.6 are brothers. Long prior to 18.9.1999, the brothers had divided their joint family properties and were living separately. However, one of the properties was kept as joint and later a revenue lay out was formed in the said land and the sites so formed were sold jointly by the 3 brothers and the proceeds were being shared by them. However about 3 months prior to 18.9.1999, while accused No. 1 was not in town, P.W. 1 finalised the sale of one of the sites in the said layout to one Smt. Shivamma, mother of P.W. 5-Nataraj. After finalising the sale transaction, P.W. 1 by receiving part of the sale consideration, had delivered possession of the site to the said Shivamma. Thereafter said Shivamma started putting up construction on the said site. On return to the town, accused No. 1 and his two sons started objecting for putting up construction on the said site by said Shivamma on the ground that he had not received his share of the sale consideration in respect of the said site. On 17.9.1999, the accused had pulled down the wall constructed by said Shivamma on the said site. The purchaser Shivamma informed the same to P.W. 1 and requested him to intervene and settle the dispute. P.W. 1 promised Shivamma that he would speak to his brother and get the matter settled and asked her to proceed with construction. On 17.9.1999, the accused had pulled down the wall constructed by said Shivamma on the said site. The purchaser Shivamma informed the same to P.W. 1 and requested him to intervene and settle the dispute. P.W. 1 promised Shivamma that he would speak to his brother and get the matter settled and asked her to proceed with construction. In the morning of 18.9.1999, P.W. 1 went near the site and on the way he saw accused No. 1 near his house situated in the revenue lay out and called him for a discussion. However, accused No. 1 did not come near the site. Nevertheless, P.W. 1 went near the site and asked said Shivamma to proceed with the construction and returned to his house. After some time, accused Nos. 1 to 3 went near the site, obstructed the construction and pulled down the wall being put up therein. Immediately, said Shivamma came to the house of P.W. 1 and informed him about the acts committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3. At about 8.30 a.m., P.W. 1 once again went near the site and at that time he tried to persuade accused No. 1 by asking him not to obstruct the construction and that he would see that his share of the consideration would be paid to him. However, when accused No. 1 tried to go towards his house, P.W. 1 by holding the shoulder of accused No. 1 started requesting him to sit down for a discussion. On seeing this, accused No. 3-Jaikumar @ Suresh took out a knife from his pant pocket and stabbed on the stomach of P.W. 1 as a result of which P.W. 1 sustained injury on the stomach and the coils of the intestine started protruding through the wound. Therefore, P.W. 1 tried to hold his stomach by pushing the intestine coils inside by his hands and at that time accused No. 3 once again assaulted P.W. 1 with the same knife on the chest portion. At that juncture, accused No. 1 hugged P.W. 1 from behind. On seeing this, P.W. 7 who had come near the site following his father tried to rescue his father. At that juncture, accused No. 2 took out a chopper hidden below the mat of the scooter on which he had come there and tried to assault P.W. 1 on the neck. On seeing this, P.W. 7 who had come near the site following his father tried to rescue his father. At that juncture, accused No. 2 took out a chopper hidden below the mat of the scooter on which he had come there and tried to assault P.W. 1 on the neck. However, P.W. 1 raised his hands to ward off the blow as a result the blow fell on the left hand and similarly when accused No. 3 once again tried to assault him, he warded off the said blow by his right hand resulting in injuries to his both hands. When P.W. 7 went to the rescue of his father accused No. 3 stabbed P.W. 7 with the same knife on the stomach and accused No. 2 assaulted him with chopper causing him severe injuries. This incident was witnessed by P.W. 5-Nararaj, P.W. 9-Maya and others who were there. As a result of assault, both P.Ws. 1 and 7 fell on the ground and on seeing this, accused Nos. 1 to 3 left the place thinking that both of them have died. Immediately, P.W. 1 was taken in the autorickshaw owned by P.W. 5 to B.M. Hospital, Mysore while in another autorickshaw P.W. 7 was initially taken to the nearby Aditya Hospital and from there he was taken to B.M. Hospital. Both P.Ws. 1 and 7 were admitted to B.M. Hospital and were treated as inpatients. On admission of the two injured persons who had been brought there with history of assault, the Hospital authorities informed the police over phone and immediately P.W. 11-K.S. Krishna Murthy, Police Sub-Inspector, Jayalakshmipura Police Station, Mysore came to the B.M. Hospital and since P.W. 1 was in a position to speak, he recorded the statement as per Ex.P.1 and on return to the Police Station on the basis of Ex.P.1 he registered the case in Crime No. 113/99 and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P.9 and took up investigation. During investigation, P.W. 11 visited the scene of occurrence, drew up a spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and collected blood stained and sample mud from the scene of occurrence. Later, on the same day, he seized the blood stained clothes of the injured P.Ws. 1 and 7 under a mahazar Ex.P.3 as per M.Os.3 to 5 and 8. During investigation, P.W. 11 visited the scene of occurrence, drew up a spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and collected blood stained and sample mud from the scene of occurrence. Later, on the same day, he seized the blood stained clothes of the injured P.Ws. 1 and 7 under a mahazar Ex.P.3 as per M.Os.3 to 5 and 8. Thereafter he recorded the statement of the witnesses, deputed the staff to apprehend accused persons, recorded the statement of the other injured P.W. 7 who was taking treatment in the Hospital. During the investigation, the accused persons appeared before the Investigating Officer alongwith copy of the order of anticipatory bail and at that time the accused persons were arrested and released. 3. During interrogation, accused No. 3 made voluntary statement as per Ex.P-7 leading to recovery of knife and accused No. 2 made voluntary statement as per Ex.P-8 leading to recovery of chopper and at their instance, knife-M.O.2 and chopper-M.O.1 used for commission of the offence, came to be recovered from residential house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 situated in the revenue layout, under mahazar-Ex.P-4. During investigation, the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be laid. 4. On committal of the case, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and relied on documentary evidence Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10, as well as material objects M.O.1 to M.O.9. During the cross-examination of witnesses, the defence got marked Exs.D-1 to D-7, which are the portions of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication. 5. After hearing on both sides and on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held that though the prosecution has proved the incident of assault on P.Ws. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial and that of false implication. 5. After hearing on both sides and on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held that though the prosecution has proved the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and assisted by accused No. 1 and the resultant injuries suffered by P.Ws. 1 and 7, the evidence is not convincing to establish that the act of assault was committed with an intention or knowledge likely to cause death of P.Ws. 1 and 7. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge held accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and acquitted them of the charges punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. After hearing the counsel for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine as noticed supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are in appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader. 7. Shri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit as under: That the judgment under appeal is highly perverse and illegal, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the various infirmities brought out in the evidence of material witnesses which has rendered their testimony highly unreliable; that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C., though accused No. 1 was not charged for the said offence, nor he has told that he was being tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. In this regard, it is his submission that as could be seen from the charges framed and read over to the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, the only charge against accused No. 1 was for the offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C. and there was no charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. or for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against accused No. 1. Therefore, he contended that the absence of a specific charge against accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has caused great prejudice to his case and he has not been told to defend himself against such charge, as such, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error of law in convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, as such, the judgment in that regard is liable to be set aside that in the background of the ill-will, possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated in the case to prevent them from claiming their rightful share in the property unauthorisedly sold by P.W. 1 cannot be ruled out; that the reading of the evidence placed by the prosecution as a whole indicate the possibility of the alleged act of assault occurring in a spur of moment in the midst to verbal exchange when P.W. 1 tried to prevent the accused persons causing obstruction for construction and therefore, on the basis of alleged act of assault by accused Nos. 2 and 3, they cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.; that though P.Ws. 2 and 3, they cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.; that though P.Ws. 1 and 7 are shown to be injured persons their evidence would not inspire the confidence of the Court, as their evidence is full of contradictions and inconsistencies which have rendered their testimonies highly unreliable; that though according to P.W. 1, he was shifted to B.M. Hospital by one Shivamma and Nataraj (P.W. 5), according to the wound certificate-Ex.P-5 issued by the B.M. Hospital, P.W. 1 was brought to the Hospital by his wife Prema and though according to P.W. 11, during investigation it was revealed to him that the wife of P.W. 1 is a material witness, her statement was not recorded nor she was cited as a witness in the charge sheet, nor she was examined before the Court, therefore, there is serious doubt as to the presence of P.W. 5-Nataraj at the alleged scene of occurrence and he bringing P.W. 1 to the Hospital; that the evidence with regard to the place of occurrence is not consistent, as such, the alleged place of incident has not been satisfactorily proved; that from the evidence of P.W. 7, it is noticed that the conduct exhibited by him in not rushing to the rescue of his father, while P.W. 1 was being assaulted, is highly unnatural and therefore, the said circumstance creates great amount of doubt about P.W. 7 witnessing assault on P.W. 1 and this is further corroborated by his statement made during investigation and marked as Ex.D-3; that though according to P.W. 7, he was initially taken to Aditya Hospital and from there to B.M. Hospital, no material is produced to show this factor, nor any Doctor from Aditya Hospital was examined; that from the evidence of P.W. 11, it is clear that even before he could reach the Hospital, he had the information about the incident and commission of cognizable offence and therefore, Ex.P-1 which admittedly came into existence later in the hospital after the arrival of P.W. 11, could not have been considered as an information received first in point of time; that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 with regard to the number of assaults does not gain corroboration from the medical evidence and this has falsified their evidence with regard to the alleged assault by the accused; that the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9 clearly indicate that they cannot be treated as eyewitnesses to the incident and their presence at that place is also highly doubtful; that P.W. 5 being the son of Shivamma-the purchaser of the site, is a highly interested witness, therefore, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on his evidence and his evidence is full of material omissions and contradictions and his evidence regarding number of assaults as well as the site of injuries is contrary to the medical evidence and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 5; that similarly, the evidence of P.W. 9 is also full of material omissions and contradictions which has rendered her testimony unreliable, she was also not in a position to identify the weapons and the contradictions marked in her cross-examination would clearly indicate that she was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident of assault, as such, the Court below is in error in placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 9; that the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is not satisfactorily established by the evidence of P.W. 4 and having regard to the fact that the accused persons were residents of Kumbara Koppal, the alleged recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 from the house in the revenue site cannot be attributed to accused Nos. 2 and 3 and on that basis it cannot be said that those two weapons were in possession of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The user of M.Os.1 and 2 in the commission of the offence has also not been established by the medical and forensic evidence, since M.Os.1 and 2 were not sent to the Doctor for examination and report, nor the forensic report indicates the presence of the blood relating to the blood group of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The user of M.Os.1 and 2 in the commission of the offence has also not been established by the medical and forensic evidence, since M.Os.1 and 2 were not sent to the Doctor for examination and report, nor the forensic report indicates the presence of the blood relating to the blood group of P.Ws. 1 and 7 on M.Os.1 and 2 and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have placed any reliance on the alleged recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 and its user in the alleged commission of offence; that according to the evidence of P.W. 11, the sealed packet containing M.Os.1 and 2 were opened in the Police Station for the purpose of showing the same to P.Ws. 1 and 7, but his evidence does not indicate that any mahazar was drawn in that regard and whether those weapons were again resealed before sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as such, there is serious doubt as to whether the very same weapon said to have been seized at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as such, the alleged seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 had lost its value; that the evidence on record does not clearly establish that the accused had shared any common intention and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting accused Nos. 1 to 3 with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. 8. 1 to 3 with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. 8. Alternatively, he contended that even according to the evidence of material witnesses, the only overt act attributed against the accused No. 1 was that he hugged P.W. 1 from behind after P.W. 1 was stabbed by accused No. 3 on the stomach and on the chest portion and before P.W. 1 was assaulted by accused No. 2 with a chopper and in the absence of any evidence regarding accused No. 1 instigating his two sons to assault P.W. 1 or P.W. 7 and in the absence of any evidence regarding sharing of common intention, accused No. 1 could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C.; that having regard to the stage at which accused No. 1 said to have hugged P.W. 1 from behind and thereafter, he was assaulted by accused No. 2 with a chopper would indicate that if accused No. 1 had hugged P.W. 1 from behind and thereby restrained P.W. 1 from moving further and facilitated accused No. 2 to assault, accused No. 1 also should have sustained some injuries and since admittedly accused No. 1 had not sustained any injury, the story of the prosecution that accused No. 1 hugged P.W. 1 from behind cannot be believed, as such, the conviction of accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is without any basis; that having regard to the site and nature of the injuries suffered by P.Ws. 1 and 7 as a result of the alleged assault by accused No. 2, the act committed by accused No. 2 would not fall under Section 326 of I.P.C. and at best it may fall under Section 324 of I.P.C., since the injuries said to have been inflicted by accused No. 2 on P.Ws. 1 and 7, had resulted in only simple injuries. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for acquittal of accused No. 1 from all the charges and also modification of the conviction as against accused Nos. 2 and 3. 9. 1 and 7, had resulted in only simple injuries. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for acquittal of accused No. 1 from all the charges and also modification of the conviction as against accused Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader sought to justify the judgment under appeal and contended as under: That the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded findings which are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, as such, the judgment under appeal does not warrant interference by this Court; that though there are some discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7, it has not rendered their testimonies unreliable; that fact of P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustaining injuries as alleged by them is corroborated by the medical evidence and the accused have not disputed P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustaining injuries on that day, therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 7 being injured eyewitnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground of minor inconsistencies or discrepancies or contradictions; that the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9 corroborates the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 7 with regard to the acts of assault by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the role assigned to accused No. 1 and the evidence read as a whole would clearly indicate that accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the background of the ill-will, by sharing common intention caused grievous hurt to P.Ws. 1 and 7 and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, the points that arise for my consideration are: “1. Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court? 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.?” 11. There is no serious dispute with regard to the inter se relationship between the accused and the material witnesses namely P.Ws. 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.?” 11. There is no serious dispute with regard to the inter se relationship between the accused and the material witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 7. P.W. 1 is the younger brother of the accused No. 1, while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of accused No. 1, P.W. 7 is the son of P.W. 1. It is also not in dispute that accused No. 1, P.W. 1 and their another brother Cheluve Gowda had divided family property except one property and they were residing separately. From the evidence it is also clear that after the death of their father, the three brothers formed a revenue layout in the land which they had retained jointly, sold some of the sites and had shared the proceeds. From the evidence it is further clear that while accused No. 1 was not in town, P.W. 1 had finalised the sale of one of the sites situated in revenue layout to Smt. Shivamma-mother of P.W. 5-Nataraj and also had received part of the sale consideration and thereafter, the purchaser was putting up construction thereon. It is also an undisputed fact that accused No. 1 has not been paid of his share in the said site. Evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 7 would establish that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had objected for Shivamma proceeding with the construction on the ground that they have not received their share of consideration, in respect of the said site. This obstruction caused by accused Nos. 1 to 3 for proceeding with the construction appears to be the immediate cause for the incident alleged. 12. As noticed supra, though the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge did not find satisfactory evidence in respect of the said charge. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the evidence does not satisfactorily establish that the act of assault by accused on P.Ws. 1 and 7 was with an intention to take away their lives. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the evidence does not satisfactorily establish that the act of assault by accused on P.Ws. 1 and 7 was with an intention to take away their lives. It is under those circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 13. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred at about 8.30 a.m. on 18.9.1999 near the site sold to Smt. Shivamma and in respect of the said incident of assault, the F.I.R. came to be recorded between 11 and 12 a.m. on the same day in B.M. Hospital, Mysore, in the form of statement of P.W. 1 as per Ex.P-1 and based on the same, the case came to be registered and the F.I.R. was submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P-9. According to the endorsement made on Ex.P-9, the F.I.R. reached the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 3.20 p.m. on the same day. From the evidence of P.W. 11-Police Sub-Inspector, it is clearly established that while he was in the Station House, at about 11.00 a.m., he received telephonic information from B.M. Hospital about admission of injured person with history of assault and immediately he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 1 as per Ex.P-1. There is no serious cross-examination to P.Ws. 1 and 11 with regard to the recording of the statement as per Ex.P-1 between 11 and 12 a.m. on that day in the Hospital. Of course, as stated by P.W. 11, he had received telephonic information from the hospital. It is on this basis it was contended that information received by P.W. 11 from the Hospital should have been treated as information received first in the point of time, as such, Ex.P-1 cannot be treated as F.I.R. 14. I find no substance in this contention for the reason that from the evidence of P.W. 11 itself, it is clear that he received a vague information that a person has been admitted in the said Hospital with history of assault. I find no substance in this contention for the reason that from the evidence of P.W. 11 itself, it is clear that he received a vague information that a person has been admitted in the said Hospital with history of assault. It is well settled that a vague telephonic information, which does not give all the necessary particulars to constitute cognizable offence, cannot be termed as information received first in point of time on the basis of which the Officer In-charge of the Police Station could proceed to register the case as required by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The information said to have been received by P.W. 11 was not complete, in the sense, it did not furnish him the information as to who was the victim, who was the assailants, at what time the incident occurred and at which place. Therefore, the information received by P.W. 11 did not provide all the necessary details so as to constitute cognizable offence, for P.W. 11 to act on the same to register the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ex.P-1 was not the information received first in point of time. Having regard to the fact that the incident occurred at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m. and immediately the injured persons were brought to the Hospital and thereafter, the statement of P.W. 1 was recorded, I find no delay in recording the F.I.R. and similarly, I find no delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate. 15. No doubt, the evidence on record would indicate that there were some amount of animosity and ill-will between the two brothers and their family members. However, on this ground it cannot be said that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. The reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 would indicate that their evidence is consistent with regard to the incident of assault as well as the place of the incident. Their evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by them is corroborated by the medical evidence. Of course, from the meticulous examination of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7, it is noticed that they were assaulted five times i.e., three times by accused Nos. 3 and two times by accused No. 2. Their evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by them is corroborated by the medical evidence. Of course, from the meticulous examination of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7, it is noticed that they were assaulted five times i.e., three times by accused Nos. 3 and two times by accused No. 2. However, according to the wound certificates-Ex.P-5 in respect of P.W. 1 and Ex.P-6 in respect of P.W. 7, as also from the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured in B.M. Hospital, P.Ws. 1 and 7 had sustained only three injuries namely one injury on the stomach while other two injuries on other parts. On this basis, it may be said that there is some inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 and the medical evidence. However, on this ground the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 cannot be discarded. It may be that to this extent the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 appears to be exaggeration. Nevertheless, the presence of the wounds as mentioned in Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 on the persons of P.Ws. 1 and 7 is not seriously disputed by the defence during the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 7 as well as P.W. 8-Doctor who examined and treated the two injured persons. In fact, the tenor of the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 7 would indicate that the accused have not disputed P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustaining injuries on that day. The attempt on the part of the defence was that P.W. 1 had sold away number of sites in the revenue layout without the consent of his other two brothers and therefore, all those purchasers were agitating against him and thereby P.W. 1 had incurred the displeasure of several persons in the locality and P.W. 1 appears to have been assaulted by someone among them. Thus, the evidence on record clearly establishes that P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustained grievous and simple hurt on that day. 16. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 9, it is established that the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 occurred near site sold to Shivamma. However, in the wound certificates-Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 while mentioning the history it is stated that the incident occurred in revenue Badavane, 18th Cross, near Surya Bakery, Mysore. 16. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 9, it is established that the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 occurred near site sold to Shivamma. However, in the wound certificates-Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 while mentioning the history it is stated that the incident occurred in revenue Badavane, 18th Cross, near Surya Bakery, Mysore. In the cross-examination of material witnesses, it is brought out that Surya Bakery is at a distance of about half a kilometer from the disputed site. It is on this basis the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the scene of occurrence is not established. I find no substance in this contention also for the reason that what has been mentioned in Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 is that the incident of assault occurred in revenue Badavane, situated near Surya Bakery and not that incident occurring near Surya Bakery. The consistent evidence of material witnesses is also to the effect that the incident occurred near the site sold to Shivamma in revenue layout and Surya Bakery may be situated close to the revenue layout. Therefore, I find no reason to hold that the evidence with regard to the place of incident is not consistent. On the other hand, there is consistent evidence with regard to the incident occurring near the site sold to Shivamma in the revenue layout. 17. P.Ws. 1 and 7 are shown to be injured eyewitnesses. It is fairly well settled that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses carries more weight and evidence of such witnesses could be the sole basis for recording conviction and the evidence of the injured witnesses is not necessarily to be corroborated by other witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 with regard to the incident of assault is consistent and cogent. Of course, some contradictions and inconsistencies have been brought out in their cross-examination and those contradictions have been proved through the Investigating Officer. I have closely perused these contradictions marked in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 7 and I find that these contradictions are minor and they do not affect the substratum of their evidence with regard to the incident. Therefore, the contradictions and inconsistencies brought out in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 have not rendered their testimony unreliable. Their evidence with regard to the incident is further corroborated by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9. 18. Therefore, the contradictions and inconsistencies brought out in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 have not rendered their testimony unreliable. Their evidence with regard to the incident is further corroborated by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9. 18. No doubt, from the evidence of P.W. 7, it is clear that he came near the site in question following his father and he stood at a distance and from there he saw accused No. 3 stabbing his father-P.W. 1 on the stomach and chest with a knife and thereafter, accused No. 1 hugging P.W. 1 from behind and then accused No. 2 assaulting with a chopper and at that juncture he went to the rescue of his father. Thus from the above, it is clear that P.W. 7 did not immediately rushed to the rescue of his father. The learned counsel for the appellants terming this conduct on the part of P.W. 7 as highly unnatural contended that there is serious doubt about P.W. 7 witnessing the assault on P.W. 1. It is fairly well settled by catena of decisions that different persons react in different ways in a given situation and there cannot be any settled norms in respect of the behaviour and reaction of a person to any given situation. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and also it depends upon the mental setup of the person. No doubt, according to P.W. 7 he did not go to the rescue of his father before P.W. 1 was assaulted. It has to be borne in mind that P.W. 1 was being assaulted by accused Nos. 2 and 3 with dangerous weapons. Therefore, conduct of P.W. 7 in not immediately rushing to the rescue of his father cannot be termed as unnatural. When his father was being assaulted by two persons, if P.W. 7 thought that if he go to the rescue of his father, he would also be assaulted, such a thinking cannot be said to be unnatural. In fact, according to P.W. 7, he went to the rescue of his father and at that time he was assaulted. The evidence on record would clearly establish that P.W. 7 was assaulted when he went to the rescue of his father. The presence of injury on P.W. 7 is the stamp of proof for his presence at the scene of occurrence. The evidence on record would clearly establish that P.W. 7 was assaulted when he went to the rescue of his father. The presence of injury on P.W. 7 is the stamp of proof for his presence at the scene of occurrence. According to the evidence of material witnesses, the whole incident occurred within about 1 or 2 minutes. It is not brought out in the evidence by the defence that at the time of assault on P.W. 1, P.W. 7 was elsewhere and on seeing, he came there. Therefore, when the whole incident occurred within a minute or two and since P.W. 7 was also shown to have sustained injuries, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 7 that he witnessed the incident of assault on his father-P.W. 1. I find no circumstance to doubt the presence of P.W. 7 at the scene of occurrence. 19. No doubt, in the wound certificate-Ex.P-5, P.W. 1 was shown to have been brought to the hospital by his wife Padma and said Padma has not been examined as a witness before the Court, whereas, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 7, P.W. 1 was brought to the hospital in the autorickshaw by P.W. 5. In the light of this it was contended that the presence of P.W. 5 is doubtful. Admittedly, P.W. 5 is the son of Shivamma, the purchaser of the disputed site. There is no serious challenge to the evidence of P.W. 5 that he owned an autorickshaw and on that day he had come near the site with the autorickshaw by transporting bricks therein. When the incident occurred near the site purchased by the mother of P.W. 5, his presence at that place cannot be termed as unnatural. P.W. 1, while being brought to the Hospital in the autorickshaw of P.W. 5, on the way, possibility of wife of P.W. 1 accompanying him to the Hospital and at the Hospital she taking him to the Doctor, therefore, her name being entered in the wound certificate-Ex.P-5 cannot be ruled out. In view of the fact that Smt. Prema the wife of P.W. 1, according to the prosecution, was not an eyewitness to the incident, her non-examination is not fatal to the case of the prosecution nor in my opinion, she was a material witness to unfold the prosecution story. In view of the fact that Smt. Prema the wife of P.W. 1, according to the prosecution, was not an eyewitness to the incident, her non-examination is not fatal to the case of the prosecution nor in my opinion, she was a material witness to unfold the prosecution story. Even according to the Doctor, P.W. 1 was conscious when he was brought to the Hospital and was capable of furnishing the history and according to the Doctor, the history was furnished by the injured. Therefore, Smt. Prema wife of P.W. 1 is not a material witness. The say of P.W. 11 that later he was of the opinion that Smt. Prema was a material witness, has no basis. There are no circumstances to doubt the presence of P.W. 5 at the scene of occurrence. His evidence corroborates the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 7 with regard to the assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7. 20. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 9 would also indicate that she was an eyewitness to the incident of assault. According to her, she is a neighbour of the disputed site and was residing at that place. According to her, on hearing the galata, she came out of the house and from there she saw the assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7. The fact that P.W. 9 was residing in the neighbourhood of the disputed site has not been seriously challenged in her cross-examination. Therefore, there is every possibility of P.W. 9 having witnessed the incident. The contradiction brought out in the cross-examination of P.W. 9, in my opinion, has not rendered her testimony unreliable. The presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 at the disputed site in or about the time of the incident is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in placing reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 9 with regard to the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7. There is no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in recording the positive finding in this regard. No doubt, there is some discrepancy with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and its user. 1, 5, 7 and 9 with regard to the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7. There is no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in recording the positive finding in this regard. No doubt, there is some discrepancy with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and its user. From the mouth of P.W. 8-Doctor, it is elicited that the tip of the knife-M.O.2 is not pointed but it is blunt because of bend and with such weapon a stab wound could not be caused. However, the witness has denied the said suggestion. It has to be borne in mind that the weapons were shown to the witnesses after lapse of about three to four years of the incident. The weapons have been handled by the Police and Officials of the Court during this period. Therefore, the possibility of the tip bending towards either side during this period cannot be completely ruled out. P.Ws. 1, 5, 7 and 9 have identified M.Os.1 and 2 as the weapons used by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for inflicting injuries. Of course, M.Os.1 and 2 stated to have been recovered from the residential house situated in revenue layout, wherein accused Nos. 1 to 3 were stated to be residing whereas in the charge sheet they were shown as residents of Kumbara Koppal. The fact that accused Nos. 1 to 3 owned a house in revenue layout formed by them is not disputed. Therefore, merely because in the charge sheet they have been shown as residents of Kumbara Koppal, it cannot be said that the house situated in revenue layout was not belonged to the accused. As per the evidence of P.W. 4 the Panch witness, he stood outside the house, while accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside and brought out the weapons M.Os.1 and 2. In the light of this answer, it was contended that seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 cannot be attributed to any one of the accused. However, reading of the mahazar and also the evidence of P.W. 11 would clearly indicate that accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside the house, brought out the chopper and knife and accused No. 3 produced the knife, while accused No. 2 produced the chopper. The fact remains that accused Nos. However, reading of the mahazar and also the evidence of P.W. 11 would clearly indicate that accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside the house, brought out the chopper and knife and accused No. 3 produced the knife, while accused No. 2 produced the chopper. The fact remains that accused Nos. 2 and 3 went inside the house and brought out M.Os.1 and 2 and therefore, the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 has been rightly attributed to accused Nos. 2 and 3. I find no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard. The seizure is satisfactorily established from the evidence of P.W. 4. 21. No doubt, from the evidence of P.W. 1, it is clear that when accused No. 1 was about to leave the place without heeding to the request of P.W. 1, P.W. 1 by holding the upper arm of the accused No. 1, asked him to sit down for a discussion. This circumstance in my considered opinion cannot be termed as a provocation as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. The circumstance of P.W. 1 selling the site in question without the consent of accused No. 1 and without authority also cannot be a circumstance of provocation for the accused to inflict injuries. No doubt, the accused persons were well within their right in causing obstruction for the construction by the purchaser. However, the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 was not sequel to any kind of provocation. The defence has not been able to bring out any circumstance, which would indicate that either P.W. 1 or P.W. 7 provided any kind of provocation for the accused to commit the act of assault. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel with regard to the alleged provocation. Thus, from the evidence of material witnesses read as a whole, it is clear that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the incident of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the resultant injuries received by P.Ws. 1 and 7. 22. The next question would be as to whether the accused shared a common intention. From the evidence, it is clear that the accused came near the site in question with a view to obstruct construction by the purchaser. 1 and 7 by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the resultant injuries received by P.Ws. 1 and 7. 22. The next question would be as to whether the accused shared a common intention. From the evidence, it is clear that the accused came near the site in question with a view to obstruct construction by the purchaser. In view of the fact that accused No. 1 had not received his share of the sale consideration, it cannot be said that accused had no right to cause obstruction for the construction. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused came near the scene of occurrence with an intention to commit acts of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7. Merely because there were some ill-will or animosity between accused on the one hand and P.Ws. 1 and 7 on the other hand, it cannot be inferred that the acts of assault on P.Ws. 1 and 7 were in furtherance of a common intention shared by accused Nos. 1 to 3. Even according to the evidence of material witnesses, the act of assault was by accused Nos. 2 and 3. The role assigned to accused No. 1 was that he hugged P.W. 1 from behind. It is not the say of P.Ws. 1 and 7 that at the time of the incident, accused No. 1 uttered any word of instigation to instigate his two sons to assault P.Ws. 1 and 7, nor it is their say that accused No. 1 after hugging P.W. 1 asked his two sons to assault P.W. 1. From these factors, I am of the considered opinion that there are no circumstances to infer that the acts of assault was in furtherance of common intention on the part of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, I find difficulty in accepting the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 sharing common intention and committing the acts of assault in furtherance of such common intention, therefore, accused could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, if the application of Section 34 of I.P.C. is not attracted, then each of the accused will have to be found guilty for their individual overt acts. 23. As noticed supra, the role assigned to accused No. 1 was that he hugged P.W. 1 from behind. 23. As noticed supra, the role assigned to accused No. 1 was that he hugged P.W. 1 from behind. He did not inflict any injury either to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 7. No doubt, the consistent evidence on record establishes the presence of accused No. 1 at the scene of occurrence. As noticed supra, P.Ws. 1 and 7 have not stated that accused No. 1 had uttered any instigatory words. According to P.Ws. 1 and 7, the act of hugging by accused No. 1 was after accused No. 3 stabbing and assaulting P.W. 1 on the stomach and chest with the knife. After the alleged hugging of P.W. 1 by accused No. 1, the assault on P.W. 1 was by accused No. 2 with a chopper. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 that soon after accused No. 3 stabbed P.W. 1 on the stomach with a knife, the intestinal coils came out of the wound and on seeing this P.W. 1 tried to push the intestinal coils inside and held his both palms on the wound. In such circumstances, the hugging by accused No. 1 should have been over the upper arms of P.W. 1. If thereafter, P.W. 1 had been assaulted by accused No. 2 with a chopper it is highly difficult to believe that P.W. 1 could ward off the blow by raising his hands and in that event there was every possibility of accused No. 1 sustaining injury. Admittedly accused No. 1 had not sustained any injury. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that the possibility of P.Ws. 1 and 7 roping accused No. 1 in the background of the ill-will and animosity cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the say of P.Ws. 1 and 7 that accused No. 1 hugged P.W. 1 from behind is not probable and cannot be believed. Therefore, the overt act attributed to accused No. 1 is doubtful, as such, accused No. 1 is entitled for benefit of doubt, as such he is entitled for an order of acquittal. 24. The evidence on record clearly establishes that as a result of assault by accused No. 3 with a knife, both P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustained grievous hurt, while the assault by accused No. 2 with chopper resulted in simple injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 7. 24. The evidence on record clearly establishes that as a result of assault by accused No. 3 with a knife, both P.Ws. 1 and 7 sustained grievous hurt, while the assault by accused No. 2 with chopper resulted in simple injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 7. In the absence of any circumstances indicating the accused sharing common intention, the act of assault by accused No. 2 would attract the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. while the act committed by accused No. 3 would attract the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. Therefore, to this extent, the judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be modified. 25. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already spent about 16 days in custody after the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and since the incident occurred about 12 years ago, lenient view be adopted in the matter of sentencing accused No. 3. From the evidence, it is established that both P.Ws. 1 and 7 were treated as inpatients in the Hospital for nearly 25 days. As a result of the acts of assault by accused Nos. 2 and 3, P.Ws. 1 and 7 were made to undergo pain and suffering and were also made to spend considerable amount for the treatment apart from agony. The Court below has sentenced accused Nos. 2 and 3 to undergo imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offences for which accused Nos. 2 and 3 are now found guilty by this Court, the time lapse from the date of the incident to this date and also keeping in mind the period of custody undergone by accused Nos. 2 and 3 after the pronouncement of the judgment of the Trial Court, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if accused No. 2 is sentenced for the period of custody already spent and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/- and accused No. 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/-. 26. As a result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. 75,000/- and accused No. 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/-. 26. As a result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions judge insofar as it relates to accused No. 1-appellant No. 1 is concerned, is hereby set aside. (i) Accused No. 1 is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him; (ii) The bail bond and surety bond executed by accused No. 1 are ordered to be discharged (iii) The fine amount, if any, deposited by him is ordered to be refunded to him; (iv) In modification of the judgment of conviction insofar as it relates to accused Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, accused No. 2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. while accused No. 3 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. ; (v) Accused No. 2 is sentenced to the period already spent by him in custody after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Trial Court and in addition to this he is sentence to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/- while accused No. 3 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 75,000/-; (vi) In default to pay the fine, accused Nos. 2 and 3 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; (vii) Accused No. 3 is entitled for set off of period of custody already spent; (viii) On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- shall be paid to each P.Ws. 1 and 7 as compensation; (ix) Accused No. 3 is directed to surrender himself forthwith before the learned Sessions Judge and upon such surrender, he shall be committed to the prison to serve the sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the learned Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of accused No. 3 and to commit him to the prison. (x) Four weeks time is granted to accused Nos. 2 and 3 for payment of fine.