JUDGMENT 1. The applicants feel aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge10, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2012 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants against the judgment and order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2012. The applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of rupees one thousand each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months each. Applicant No.1 is son of applicant No.2. 2. It was the case of prosecution before the trial Court that complainant Roshan Damodhar Khobe was friend of applicant No.1 Anil as they were studying in one and the same school. The complainant had taken some money from applicant No.1 Anil by representing that applicant No.1 Anil would get diploma of computer course namely 'Smart Value'. Applicant No.1, however, did not appear for examination and he did not get the diploma. Applicant No.1, therefore, had a grudge against the complainant. It is the case of prosecution that applicant No.1 had taken the complainant Roshan to his field and had assaulted him by means of knife. It is alleged that applicant No.2 who is father of applicant No.1 had also assaulted the complainant by means of wooden handle of an axe. The matter was reported to police. The injured complainant was examined by the Medical Officer and after completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the applicants were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and were convicted and sentenced, as stated above. The appeal filed by both the applicants has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. In this regard it may be mentioned here that during the course of trial the complainant was examined as P.W. 2. The prosecution had examined in all ten witnesses, including Medical Officer P.W.10. The case of the prosecution was mainly based on the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 10. The learned trial Judge found evidence of P.W. 2 to be trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence of P.W. No.10. The prosecution had examined in all ten witnesses, including Medical Officer P.W.10. The case of the prosecution was mainly based on the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 10. The learned trial Judge found evidence of P.W. 2 to be trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence of P.W. No.10. Learned trial Court had also come to the conclusion that applicant No.2 had shared the intention of applicant No.1 and therefore, both of them were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate Court also took the same view and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel Mr. Khergade has submitted that the injuries sustained by the complainant P.W. 2 were not of serious nature and therefore, the applicants could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that both the applicants at the most could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In alternate, it was also submitted that the punishment imposed on the applicants is harsh in the nature. Further alternate plea was taken by learned Advocate Mr. Khergade that applicant No.2 could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. I have gone through the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 10 At the outset it may be stated here that P.W. 2 had sustained as many as five injuries which have been described by P.W. 10 as under : (i) Lacerated wound on neck front anterior side, size 8 cm x 2 cm, 3 cm deep. (ii) Stab wound on right hypochondrium region, 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. (iii) Stab wound on right iliac region 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, (iv) Stab wound on left lumber region, 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. (v) Lacerated wound on left hand at the base of left index finger posterior aspect 1.5 cm x 05 cm x muscle deep. 6. Mr. Khergade has submitted that P.W. 10 in his examination in chief itself has stated that the injuries were simple in nature and no vital organs were involved. (v) Lacerated wound on left hand at the base of left index finger posterior aspect 1.5 cm x 05 cm x muscle deep. 6. Mr. Khergade has submitted that P.W. 10 in his examination in chief itself has stated that the injuries were simple in nature and no vital organs were involved. However, I am not impressed by the arguments of learned counsel Mr. Khergade to the extent that the nature of injuries will decide whether applicant No.1 intended to cause death of P.W. 2 or he intended to cause bodily injury to P.W. 2 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. In my view, in a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code the nature of injuries of course is one of the factors to be taken into consideration. However, primarily it is intention of the assailant which will decide as to whether the case could fall under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, to determine as to whether the act of applicant No.1 could attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or not, it is necessary to consider the evidence of P.W. 2 in brief. P.W. 2 in his evidence has stated that applicant No.1 took him to the field and thereafter he took out a knife from his pocket and suddenly started assaulting P.W. 2. Applicant No.1 had inflicted knife blows on neck and abdomen of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has further stated that he gave dash to applicant No.1 and ran away from the spot. It is thus, clear that had the P.W. 2 not hit applicant No.1, the applicant No.1 would have inflicted few more injuries on P.W. 2. The intention of applicant No.1 is abundantly clear from the acts committed by him. In the present circumstances, had the P.W. 2 died, applicant No.1 would have been guilty of offence of murder. In my considered opinion, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate Court has given concurrent findings and I do not see any reason to disturb the concurrent findings given by two courts below in the case of applicant No.1. 7. In my considered opinion, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate Court has given concurrent findings and I do not see any reason to disturb the concurrent findings given by two courts below in the case of applicant No.1. 7. As far as applicant No.2 is concerned, the theory of sharing of intention by applicant No.2 has been stretched by both the Courts below beyond imagination. It has come in the evidence that applicant No.2 was not present on the spot. He had not seen applicant No.1 assaulting P.W. 2. There is no evidence that both the applicants had gone to the field together or there was meeting of minds of both the applicants which resulted in inviting P.W. 2 to the field of the applicants. It, therefore, appears that applicant No.2 was not knowing that P.W. 2 had been brought to the field by applicant No.1. It is possible that applicant No.2 was incidentally present in the field and was called by his son applicant No.1. Applicant No.2 had inflicted a blow on P.W. 2 by means of wooden handle of the axe. It is noted by me that applicant No.2 had not used the axe which was a deadly weapon and assault by means of axe would have resulted into death of P.W. 2. It, therefore, cannot be said that applicant No.2 has shared intention of applicant No.2. But applicant No.2 in my opinion, could have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, I pass the following order. i) The revision application is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The applicant No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone by him (i.e. 21st September, 2011 to 20th July, 2012) and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight days. ii) Fine has already been paid by applicant No.2. iii) Prayer of the applicant No.1 stands rejected. Revision application accordingly stands disposed of.