JUDGMENT 1. Since the aforesaid appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment of conviction, this judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals. 2. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.6.1996 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.252/1993, convicting the appellants under section 307/148, 323/148 and 324/148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, simple imprisonment for six months and simple imprisonment for one year, on each count respectively. All the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. 3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 13.3.1990 at about 10 O’clock in the night when Surendra, Ramswaroop, Jawahar along with Ajay Charls and Christopher were coming back from the house of Sanjay Khatri after attending a party, five accused persons viz. Ashok, Mohan, Ramesh, Alexander and Simon confronted them near Deevan Bada and assaulted them with swords, iron rods and lathi. Accused Ashok and Mohan were armed with swords, Ramesh and Alexander were armed with lathis and Simon had iron rod. It is said that there was some past dispute between Ajay Charls and the accused persons. As a result of assault, Ramswaroop, Jawahar and Surendra suffered injuries. It is also alleged that accused persons set fire to Motorcycle and Luna moped of the injured persons. On receiving some information, police reached at the spot and carried injured persons to Police Station Ranjhi, were Sub-Inspector A.H. Rizwi (PW8) recorded first information report Ex.P-1 on being lodged by Surendra (PW2). Injured persons were sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, where Dr. C.B. Arora (PW11) examined their injuries. Though, injured persons were referred to Medical College, Jabalpur for further treatment, but no evidence was adduced before the Court in that regard. 4. After arrest of the accused persons and completion of the investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against five accused persons. The case was thereafter committed for trial. 5. Charges, against the accused persons were framed under sections 148, 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to them, at the time of occurrence there was no light in the locality and that injured persons were assaulted by the mob of about 100-150 persons because in the past they had threatened the residents of Deevan Bada. 6. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to them, at the time of occurrence there was no light in the locality and that injured persons were assaulted by the mob of about 100-150 persons because in the past they had threatened the residents of Deevan Bada. 6. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Judge held the accused-appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. However, finding the evidence doubtful against accused Simon and Alexander, acquitted them of all the charges. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge mis-appreciated the evidence of eye-witnesses. Since there was no light at the time and place of occurrence, it was not possible for the aforesaid witnesses to have identified the assailants. At the time of occurrence, injured persons were under intoxication, therefore, they had indulged in quarrel with the residents of Deevan Bada. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error in holding the appellants guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code because it was not established by the prosecution evidence that intention of appellants was to commit murder of injured Ramswaroop. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State justified the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons and submitted that it was amply proved by the prosecution evidence that appellants attempted to commit murder of Ramswaroop. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. 9. Prosecution case mainly rested on the evidence of injured eye-witnesses viz. Surendra (PW2), Ramswaroop (PW3) and Jawahar (PW5). Other alleged eye-witnesses viz. Ajay (PW6) and Ajit Singh (PW9) did not support the prosecution case, therefore, they were declared hostile. Complainant Surendra (PW2) stated that in the night he was going back after attending a party at the house of Sunjay Khatri. He was on Motorcycle with Ajay and Gandhi. Ramswaroop and Jawahar were riding another Luna. Christopher was also going on a separate Luna. As soon as they reached near Deevan Bada, accused Ashok, Mohan, Ramesh and two other persons to whom he did not know surrounded them. Ashok and Mohan had swords and Ramesh had lathi. They started assaulting them with their respective weapons. Ramswaroop and Jawahar were riding another Luna. Christopher was also going on a separate Luna. As soon as they reached near Deevan Bada, accused Ashok, Mohan, Ramesh and two other persons to whom he did not know surrounded them. Ashok and Mohan had swords and Ramesh had lathi. They started assaulting them with their respective weapons. One person gave blow with rod on his face and accused Ashok dealt a sword blow on his right thigh. All the five accused persons assaulted to Ramswaroop and Jawahar also. Due to assault they suffered injuries on head, nose and mouth. Since, there had been light in the temple, he identified the appellants. After beating accused persons ignited their motorcycle and mopeds also. On shouting a number of persons from the locality reached there. They were taken to police station where he lodged first information report Ex.P-3. He, Ramswaroop and Jawahar were then sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. He denied that after consuming liquor he and other injured persons went to Deevan Bada to beat the boys residing there. He also denied that they abused the people of the locality therefore they were assaulted by them. Despite a lengthy cross-examination nothing substantial could be elicited out to indicate that this witness was not assaulted by the appellants. His evidence stood corroborated from the evidence of Ramswaroop (PW3) and Jawahar (PW5). It was categorically stated by these witnesses that they were confronted by the accused persons when they happened to pass on their motorcycle and mopeds from near Deevan Bada. Accused Ashok and Mohan had assaulted them with swords and Ramesh had caused injuries to them with a lathi. Like Surendra, these witnesses also could not identify the other two accused persons. Ramswaroop (PW3) stated that Mohan dealt a blow of sword on the right side of his head and Ramesh inflicted lathi injury on his foot. He stated that people of the locality carried them to police station, but in the mean time accused persons set their vehicles on fire. The omissions or the contradictions pointed out in the evidence of these witnesses were in the matters of details and did not go to effect the core of their evidence. 10. The evidence of Surendra (PW2) stood further corroborated by the first information report Ex.P-3 lodged by him immediately after the occurrence. 11. The omissions or the contradictions pointed out in the evidence of these witnesses were in the matters of details and did not go to effect the core of their evidence. 10. The evidence of Surendra (PW2) stood further corroborated by the first information report Ex.P-3 lodged by him immediately after the occurrence. 11. The evidence of defence witnesses Bharat Singh Lodhi (DW1), Deepak Lala (DW2) and Narendra Mishra (DW3) to the effect that there was no electricity in Deevan Bada and it must have been dark, does not inspire confidence since it was specifically stated by Surendra (PW2) that there was light in the temple. As far as the question of identification of appellants is concerned admittedly they were known to injured persons from before and they were beaten for about 15-20 minutes atleast. It has been suggested by the defence to the aforesaid witnesses that in the past they had intimidated the persons residing in Deevan Bada, and accused persons had lodged some report against them in the police station. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the injured persons could not have been identified their assailants. 12. The evidence of Surendra (PW2), Ramswaroop (PW3) and Jawahar (PW5) stood further corroborated from the evidence of Dr. C.B. Arora (PW11), who examined their injuries in Victoria Hospital and found them to have been caused by sharp edged and hard/blunt weapons. Dr. Arora stated that on 13.3.1990, he examined Ramswaroop and found following injuries : (i) Incised wound on right parietal area 2.5”x1/2” x scalp deep. (ii) Incised wound on middle of forehead longitudinal. (iii) Incised just above second injury 3/4”x1/4” x scalp deep. (iv) Lacerated wound on left lower 3rd portion of thigh anteriorly 2.5”x1.5”. (v) Lacerated wound on left leg small 3 in number on anterior side 1/2”x1/2”. (vi) Lacerated wound on right leg, compound fracture with open injury. In the opinion of Dr. Arora these injuries were caused by sharp edged, hard and blunt objects. The injury report is Ex.P-17. On examining the person of Jawahar, he found : (i) Lacerated wounds on parietal area of the scalp which were five in number 1/2”x3/4”, 1.5”x1/4”, 1.5”x1/2”, 1/2”x1/2” and 2.5” x 1/4”. All these wounds were scalp deep. (ii) Abrasion 1/2”x1/2” on right foot. (iii) Lacerated wound 1/2”x1/2”, 1” above left eye brow. (iv) Lacerated wound 1/2”x1/2” on nose. (v) Lacerated wound 1/4”x1/4” on upper lip. All these wounds were scalp deep. (ii) Abrasion 1/2”x1/2” on right foot. (iii) Lacerated wound 1/2”x1/2”, 1” above left eye brow. (iv) Lacerated wound 1/2”x1/2” on nose. (v) Lacerated wound 1/4”x1/4” on upper lip. (vi) Contusion on both shoulders. The aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The injury report is Ex.P-18. On the person of Surendra, he found : (i) Lacerated wound 1/2”x1/4” on upper lip. (ii) Incised wound on right thigh cutting anterior muscles. (iii) Incised wound 1/2”x1/4” on left thigh. (iv) Incised wound on left leg in middle 1/3 portion. (v) Contusion on both shoulders and wrist joint. (vi) Hematoma on right eye. (vii) Contusion on both parietal areas. (viii) Lacerated wound 1.5”x1/2” x scalp deep on left parietal area. The aforesaid injuries were caused by sharp edged, hard and blunt objects. The injury report is Ex.P-19. 13. Dr. Arora (PW11) stated that in the injury report of Ramswaroop Ex.P-17 though he had mentioned about the fracture of the bone of the leg, but final opinion could be given only after X-ray examination. He admitted that he had referred the patient to Medical College, but he did not refer him for X-ray examination. 14. After sincerely appreciating the evidence of injured eye-witnesses in the light of medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that learned trial Judge committed no error in holding that appellants assaulted Surendra (PW2), Ramswaroop (PW3) and Jawahar (PW5) with sharp edged as well as hard and blunt weapons and caused injuries to them. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and from the nature of injuries suffered by injured Ramswaroop, no offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, therefore, the conviction of appellants under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was wrong. At the most, appellants could have been convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants have been convicted by the learned trial Judge under sections 324 and 324/148 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Surendra (PW2) and Jawahar (PW5), whereas for the injuries caused to Ramswaroop (PW3) they have been held guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants have been convicted by the learned trial Judge under sections 324 and 324/148 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Surendra (PW2) and Jawahar (PW5), whereas for the injuries caused to Ramswaroop (PW3) they have been held guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge observed, and in my opinion rightly, that it’s not only requisite intention which makes an accused liable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but it’s his knowledge also, which is important. If from the circumstances it could be inferred with certainty that assailant knew that under those circumstances if he by his act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. Learned counsel submitted that prosecution failed to prove that appellants had any motive against the injured persons. The first information report disclosed that they entertained animus against Ajay Charls (PW6) only and further that at the time of occurrence injured Ramswaroop was under the spell of liquor as was evident from the statement of Dr. C.B. Arora (PW11). He submitted that there was nothing on record to indicate that assailants were prevented to cause further or serious injuries to Ramswaroop because of any intervention by some body. The injuries of Ramswaroop were not proved to be dangerous to his life. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the other hand submitted that from the conduct of assailants and the nature of injuries, it was rightly held by the trial Court that appellants knew that they were likely to cause death of Ramswaroop. It is true that incised injuries were caused by appellants on the head of Ramswaroop, but all the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature. If appellants intended to cause death of Ramswaroop they were not prevented to fulfil their desire since none intervened to prevent them from doing so. It is true that an accused may be held liable for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code even if no injury was suffered by the victim, but when injuries have been caused to victim, the intention or the knowledge of the assailant could be gathered objectively from the nature of injuries and the part of body whereon the injuries were caused. It is important to note that Dr. C.B. Arora (PW11) did not say that injuries found on the body of Ramswaroop were grievous or dangerous to his life. It is important to note that Dr. C.B. Arora (PW11) did not say that injuries found on the body of Ramswaroop were grievous or dangerous to his life. In the circumstances of the case in hand, in my opinion, it remains in the region of suspense whether appellants intended or knew that by their acts they would cause the death of Ramswaroop, therefore, it would be preferable to hold that they intended to cause hurt to Ramswaroop with deadly weapons making them liable to be punished under section 324 or 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of appellants under section 307/148 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to one under section 324/148 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Ramswaroop. The conviction of appellants on other counts i.e. under sections 324/148 and 323/148 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to other injured persons is affirmed. 17. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident in question occurred in the year 1990 since then about 22 years have elapsed, therefore, the sentences of the appellants be reduced, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of injuries caused to Ramswaroop (PW3), I am of the opinion that no much indulgence can be shown. Accordingly, for the offence under section 324/148 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Ramswaroop, appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellants by the trial Court under sections 324/148 and 323/148 of the Indian Penal Code are affirmed. All the jail sentences awarded to appellants shall run concurrent. Bail bonds and surety bonds of appellants are cancelled. They shall surrender immediately for serving out their remaining sentence. 18. Appeal partly allowed. A copy of this judgment be kept in the record of Criminal Appeal No.1063/1996.