Judgment Jaspal Singh, J. 1. By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.170-DBA-2002 and Criminal Appeal No.1448-SB-2001 preferred by the State of Haryana feeling dissatisfied against judgment dated May 4, 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby respondent/Mahinder Singh was acquitted whereas respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh alias Mangu were convicted but sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by Attar Chand-Complainant is that on March 19, 1999, Mahinder Singh, Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi who are real brothers and his immediate neighbourers started raising construction of a common wall after demolition of common wall towards his side. There was an exchange of hot words between his brother Kuldeep Kumar and Makhan Singh. Then Makhan Singh and Mahinder Singh rushed to their house and returned armed with a sword and a Gandasa, respectively. Mangat Singh @ Mangi picked up a lathi lying nearby and they all started hurling abuses. After scaling the wall, Mahinder Singh dealt a Gandasa blow on the head of his brother Kuldeep Kumar. When he tried to intervene, Makhan Singh directed a sword blow towards him and to ward off the blow, he raised his right hand and the blow landed on his right thumb and resulted into chopping of his right thumb. Mangat Singh @ Mangi inflicted a lathi blow on the left side of head of his brother Kuldeep Kumar. Hue and cry raised by them attracted Hakam Chand and Ujjagar Singh. Even thereafter, Ujjagar Singh inflicted a brick blow after picking it from the wall hitting on the dorsal side of left hand of the complainant. A lathi blow was also given to Kuldeep Kumar by Mangat Singh @ Mangi hitting on his right hand fingers. Whereafter, all the assailants fled from the spot with their respective weapons. 3. On receipt of information at Police Station Sadar Sirsa with regard to admission of Kuldeep Kumar in Hospital, ASI Ram Kishan visited Government Hospital, Sirsa. As the doctor opined that Kuldeep Kumar is unfit to make a statement, he recorded the statement of Attar Chand Ex.PG and made an endorsement thereon. The statement was sent to Police Station Sadar Sirsa, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PG/2 was put into black and white by ASI Om Parkash. As the doctor opined that Kuldeep Kumar is unfit to make a statement, he recorded the statement of Attar Chand Ex.PG and made an endorsement thereon. The statement was sent to Police Station Sadar Sirsa, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PG/2 was put into black and white by ASI Om Parkash. The investigating officer also visited the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained the opinion of the Doctor Ex.PE in respect of injury No.2 appearing on the person of Kuldeep Kumar. The said injury was opined to be dangerous to life. Accordingly, an offence under Section 307 IPC was added on March 29, 1999. He also arrested the accused-respondents and upon disclosure statement the accused effected recovery of weapons used in the crime. 4. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate which was committed to the Court of Sessions as an offence under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 5. On perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as well as documents annexed with it, the accused-respondents were charged to face trial punishable under Sections 307/326/324/323 with the aid of Section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the charge framed against the accused-respondents, the prosecution examined Dr. G.S. Somani (PW-1), Mohan Lal Draftsman (PW-2). Attar Chand injured (PW-3), Dr. J.K. Bishnoi (PW-4), Kuldeep Kumar injured (PW-5), Hakam Chand (PW-6), ASI Ram Kishan (PW-7) and Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW-8). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. When the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to accused-respondents for eliciting their explanation as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C by the trial Court, they denied them and pleaded innocence. Makhan Singh (DW-1) in his defence submitted as under: “I have been involved in a totally false case by the police. The true facts are that I and my co-accused Mangu were raising a straight wall within our own area on that fateful day. PW Kuldeep Singh arrived there and raised objection about the raising of wall at that site. We offered to refer the matter to the panchayat in case he was not satisfied with our action of raising wall in our own area. PW Kuldeep Singh arrived there and raised objection about the raising of wall at that site. We offered to refer the matter to the panchayat in case he was not satisfied with our action of raising wall in our own area. However, he did not appreciate our stand and he scaled the wall and jumped on our side of the property and removed almost one dozen bricks from the wall. At that juncture, my mother Smt. Thakri Bai told Kuldeep Singh to show restraint but Kuldeep Singh attacked her on the head with the reverse side of a Takua. He also gave fist blow which landed on her mouth which broke her teeth and she fell down. I rushed to her rescue and tried to raise her back on her feet but PW Attar Chand arrived there with an axe and gave an axe blow on my head. I did not cause any injury to anyone but my brother Mangu rushed to my rescue and caused injuries to the opponents in his self defence. The medical evidence led by the police would show that the complainant party was the aggressor who had inflicted more injuries to our persons than the injuries caused by us to them.” 8. Mangat Singh @ Mangu also adopted the defence plea as taken by Makhan Singh, which reads as follows: “I have been involved in a totally false case by the police. The true facts are that I an my brother Makhan were raising a straight wall within our own area on that fateful day. PW Kuldeep Singh arrived there and raised objection about the raising of wall at that side. We offered to refer the matter to the panchayat in case he was not satisfied with our action of raising wall in our own area. However, he did not appreciate our stand and he scaled the wall and jumped on our side of the property and removed almost one dozen bricks from the wall. At that juncture, my mother Smt. Thakri Bai told kuldeep Singh to show restraint but Kuldeep Singh attacked her on the head with the reverse side of a Takua. He also gave fist blow which landed on her mouth which broke her teeth and she fell down. At that juncture, my mother Smt. Thakri Bai told kuldeep Singh to show restraint but Kuldeep Singh attacked her on the head with the reverse side of a Takua. He also gave fist blow which landed on her mouth which broke her teeth and she fell down. My brother Makhan Singh rushed to her rescue and tried to raise her back on her feet but PW Attar Chand arrived there with an axe and gave an axe blow on his head. I rushed to the rescue my brother co-accused Makhan Singh and caused injuries to the opponents in my self defence. The medical evidence led by the police would show that the complainant party was the aggressor who had inflicted more injuries to us than the injuries caused by us to them.” 9. Mahinder Singh in his defence submitted as under: “I was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. I have been implicated in a totally false case by the police. I have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. I never produced any weapon before the police and rather, the same has been falsely planted upon me. I have been implicated in this case falsely by the police due to party faction in the village.” 10. The respondents, however, did opt to lead evidence in defence. Makhan Singh himself appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and reiterated the defence version. 11. After hearing learned APP, learned defence counsel and appraisal of the evidence, accused-respondent/Mahinder Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him whereas accused-respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi were convicted and sentenced as reflected in para-1 of this judgment. 12. Feeling dissatisfied against acquittal of respondent/Mahinder Singh and sentence awarded to the other respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi as well as their acquittal under Section 307 IPC, the State of Haryana has preferred the instant appeals which were admitted for hearing by this Court. Lower Court's record was also requisitioned and received. 13. Learned State counsel has assailed the impugned judgment contending that trial Court has gravely erred in disbelieving and ignoring the statements of PW-3/Attar Chand and PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar who are stamped witnesses. Their statements further find corroboration from the testimony of PW-6/Hakam Chand. Lower Court's record was also requisitioned and received. 13. Learned State counsel has assailed the impugned judgment contending that trial Court has gravely erred in disbelieving and ignoring the statements of PW-3/Attar Chand and PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar who are stamped witnesses. Their statements further find corroboration from the testimony of PW-6/Hakam Chand. A specific role has been attributed to respondent/Mahinder Singh by all the aforesaid witnesses that he inflicted a Gandasa blow on the head of PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar. Learned trial Court has observed on the basis of conjectures and surmises that accused-respondent/Mahinder Singh was not present at the scene of occurrence or that he did not cause any injury to PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar. In fact, there is cogent and convincing evidence to establish that Mahinder Singh was present at the spot and he did participate in the occurrence. Besides, the testimonies of both injured and eye witness PW-6/Hakam Chand, there is another piece of evidence which corroborates their statements. During the course of investigation, ASI-Ram Kishan arrested Mahinder Singh who produced the Gandasa Ex.P-5 vide seizure memo which was taken into possession vide Ex.PJ. 14. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard is absolutely against the evidence. In fact, Mahinder Singh caused injury No.1 on the head of Kuldeep Kumar which stands proved from the evidence available on file. There is also no evidence except oral and self serving statements to prove the plea of alibi. 15. It has further been argued by the learned State counsel that respondents have been acquitted for the commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC without any plausible reason. Injury No.2 appearing on the person of PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar has been opined to be dangerous to life by PW-1/Dr. G.S. Somani on the basis of the report of neuro-surgeon and x-ray report which have been over-looked by the trial Court. Much stress was laid on the opinion expressed by PW-8/Dr. V.K. Gupta, that injury No.2 on the head of Kuldeep Kumar “could be dangerous to life”. Mere non-production of C.T. scan in respect of injury No.2 appearing on the person of Kuldeep Kumar is not sufficient to discard or disbelieve the opinion rendered by PW-1/Dr. G.S. Somani to the effect that “injury No.2 was dangerous to life”. V.K. Gupta, that injury No.2 on the head of Kuldeep Kumar “could be dangerous to life”. Mere non-production of C.T. scan in respect of injury No.2 appearing on the person of Kuldeep Kumar is not sufficient to discard or disbelieve the opinion rendered by PW-1/Dr. G.S. Somani to the effect that “injury No.2 was dangerous to life”. Mangat Singh @ Mangi who is attributed injury No.2 having been caused with lathi also admitted the causing of injuries though allegedly in self-defence but the complainant party is not proved to be an aggressor. As such, it stands proved that Mangat Singh @ Mangi is liable for the commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC. 16. Challenging the sentence awarded to accused-respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi vide impugned judgment and order, it has been argued with vehemence by learned State counsel that punishment awarded to them is not commensurate with the nature and gravity of offences under which they have been convicted, i.e. under Sections 326/325/34 IPC. For the commission of offence falling under Section 326 IPC, the punishment provided is imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. Whereas under Section 325 IPC, the imprisonment may extend upto 7 years and under Section 324 IPC, the same may extend upto 3 years or fine or with both but respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi have been sentenced to the period already undergone by them which is 7 days short of 5 months by the trial Court. The sentence is, therefore, wrongly, arbitrary and adopting a sympathetic view, is not the intent of law. 17. While concluding his arguments, learned State counsel has submitted that impugned judgment of acquittal qua Mahinder Singh as well as acquittal of all the three respondents-accused under Section 307 IPC deserve to be reversed by setting aside the findings in this regard. As far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court under Sections 326/325/324 IPC is concerned, it requires to be enhanced as deemed appropriate by this Court. 18. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction submitting that learned trial Court, while acquitting respondent/Mahinder Singh and convicting and sentencing respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi, has effectively and judiciously dealt with all the aspects and evidence available on file. Impugned judgment is elaborate and well reasoned. 18. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction submitting that learned trial Court, while acquitting respondent/Mahinder Singh and convicting and sentencing respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi, has effectively and judiciously dealt with all the aspects and evidence available on file. Impugned judgment is elaborate and well reasoned. In the case in hand, as per medical evidence, three injuries were sustained by Kuldeep Kumar and two injuries were received by Attar Chand. Out of these injuries, injury No.3 on the person of Kuldeep Kumar and injury No.2 on the person of Attar Chand are simple abrasions which could be the result of a fall. Whereas, out of remaining injuries, a single injury each has been ascribed to each of the respondents just to falsely rope-in respondents in the instant case. PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar is alleged to have received two injuries on his head. It is quite possible that those injuries were caused by one of the assailants and not by two persons as alleged by the prosecution. 19. Moreover, Mangat Singh @ Mangi has taken the responsibility of causing injuries in self-defence There is also a tendency to involve others against whom the complainant-party has some grudge in addition to the real culprits. Respondent/Mahinder Singh was not present at the spot. He has been involved in the instant case being the real brother of Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi. 20. The next submission made by learned counsel for respondents is that PW-5/Kuldeep Kumar remained under treatment of PW-8/Dr.V.K. Gupta, a neuro-surgeon. He has categorically opined that it was a small size hematoma which “could be dangerous to life”. Moreover, being an expert in the field of neuro-surgery, he is the best witness to depose about the nature of the injury. Even otherwise, prosecution has failed to produce and prove the C.T. scan which was the basis of declaring injury No.2 appearing on the person of Kuldeep Kumar “dangerous to life”. In the absence of C.T. scan, learned trial Court has rightly observed that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out and diluted it to an offence under Section 325 IPC. 21. It has further been contended that sentence has been imposed upon respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi keeping in view the nature of the offences, facts and circumstances and legal proposition. 21. It has further been contended that sentence has been imposed upon respondents/Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi keeping in view the nature of the offences, facts and circumstances and legal proposition. Both respondents had already suffered incarceration and remained behind the bars for a period of approximately five months. The trial Court considered it sufficient and sentenced them to the period already undergone. As such, impugned judgment and order of sentence are absolutely in consonance with evidence and legal proposition. To fortify the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in cases Neelam Bahal and another v. State of Uttarakhand; 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 929; Raj Singh v. State of Haryana; 2000(10) SCC 151 ; State of Punjab v. Bant Singh; 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 135; Nand Singh v. State of Punjab; 2007(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 801 and Paramjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab; 2008(3) AICLR 240. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of both the appeals. 22. We have given an anxious thought to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 23. Before we proceed to delve upon the merits of these appeals, it would be desirable to consider the scope and jurisdiction of an appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal. 24. Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the State may prefer an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal but sub-section 3 of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly envisages that no appeal under subsections (1) and (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court which is a stage between an order of an acquittal and consideration of the judgment by the Appellate Court on merits as in the case of a regular appeal. It depicts that a judgment of acquittal is annexed with a definite value, which cannot be ignored by the Court. A presumption of innocence attached to an accused which stands further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. No doubt an Appellate Court, is empowered to re-appreciate, review and re-consider evidence before it but this power is required to be exercised keeping in view relevant principles of law relating to review, reweighing and re-appreciating evidence in order to come to independent conclusions. No doubt an Appellate Court, is empowered to re-appreciate, review and re-consider evidence before it but this power is required to be exercised keeping in view relevant principles of law relating to review, reweighing and re-appreciating evidence in order to come to independent conclusions. The scope of interference by an Appellate Court in an order of acquittal was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan; 1961 SCR (3) 120 as follows: “The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as (i) “substantial and compelling reasons”, (ii) “good and sufficiently cogent reasons”, and (iii) “strong reasons”, are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.” 25. This principle was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S. and another; AIR 2012 SC 1292 . 26. In the light of the aforesaid observations, it is evident that there is no embargo in law to re-appreciate, re-look, re-weigh, re-view or re-consider the entire evidence which is the foundation of an acquittal. On scanning of the evidence on record, if acquittal is found to be erroneous, perverse and against settled cannons of law, it should be set aside. 27. Now, we have to appraise and inspect carefully whether impugned judgment of acquittal under Section 307 IPC and sentence of undergone under other provisions suffers from any illegality, infirmity or is founded on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence or is perfectly justified. 28. 27. Now, we have to appraise and inspect carefully whether impugned judgment of acquittal under Section 307 IPC and sentence of undergone under other provisions suffers from any illegality, infirmity or is founded on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence or is perfectly justified. 28. The case of the prosecution as per the deposition of PW-3 Attar Chand is that Makhan Singh and Mahinder Singh started constructing a new wall after demolishing the common wall. A protest was lodged by Kuldeep Kumar in this regard which resulted into exchange of hot words between Kuldeep Kumar PW-5 and Makhan Singh-respondent. Makhan Singh rushed to his house and returned to the spot armed with a sword whereas his brother Mahinder Singh armed with Gandasa accompanied him. Mangat Singh picked up a stick (Lathi) lying nearby. Mahinder Singh opened an attack by dealing a Gandasa blow on the head of Kuldeep Kumar. In the meanwhile, PW-Attar Chand arrived there to rescue Kuldeep Kumar but he was attacked by Makhan Singh with the sword. He raised his right hand to ward off the blow. It landed on his right thumb and resulted into chopping of his right hand thumb. Accused Mangat @ Mangi gave a stick blow on head of Kuldeep Kumar. A second blow dealt by him at Kuldeep Singh landed on the palm of his right hand. 29. Mahinder Singh respondent has been acquitted by learned trial Court of a charge of an offence u/s 307 of the IPC while holding that he was not present at the spot i.e. on his plea of alibi and that injury ascribed to him might have been caused by his co-accused. The finding so recorded is based upon the deposition of Mangat Singh accused who appeared into the witness box as DW-1. The burden to prove alibi lies upon the person who pleads it under Section 103 of the Evidence Act, which provides as under: “103. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 30. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 30. Hon'ble Apex Court in case Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar; 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 620 SC has held that once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. It was further observed therein that the burden on the accused is rather heavy. 31. The prosecution has discharged the burden cast on it by examining Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 who are the stamped witnesses having sustained injuries during the occurrence. They have deposed in unison about the presence of Mahinder Singh and the injury inflicted by him upon the head of the deceased. To prove that he (Mahinder Singh) was not present at the time of occurrence, one of the respondents Mangat Singh @ Mangi has appeared as a defence witness and has deposed that Mahinder Singh, his brother had arrived at the spot about half an hour after the occurrence and shifted him as well as his mother to Sirsa for medical aid. Apart from this bald statement which has surprisingly been accepted, by the trial Court, there is no other evidence to corroborate this statement or as to where Mahinder Singh was at the time of occurrence. The trial Court could not have discarded the deposition of two stamped eye witnesses on the basis of this bald statement which is devoid of any merit. So, it can be said that there is no cogent or convincing evidence to establish the plea of alibi taken by Mahinder Singh especially in view of the categoric testimony of Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 that Mahinder Singh dealt a gandasa blow on his head which further stands fortified from the statement of another injured/eye witness Attar Chand-PW-3. Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 were subjected to thorough, probing and lengthy cross examination but the defence could not put any dent in their respective statements. The statements of Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 further stand fortified by the medical evidence. Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 were subjected to thorough, probing and lengthy cross examination but the defence could not put any dent in their respective statements. The statements of Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 further stand fortified by the medical evidence. Though, Mangat Singh @ Mangi while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 has stated that he gave a couple of blows on the person of Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 as well as that of Attar Chand-PW-3 in self defence of his person and property but this version of DW-1 is not sufficient to discard or disbelieve the testimonies of Attar Chand-PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5. The participation of all the respondents namely Makhan Singh, Mahinder Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi is fully proved on record. Makhan Singh inflicted injury on the right hand of Attar Chand-PW-3 which resulted into chopping off his thumb. Whereas, Mahinder Singh gave gandasa blow on the head of Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 and Mangat Singh @ Mangi dealt a stick blow on the head of Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 and the second blow inflicted by him resulted into infliction of injury on the palm of his right hand. 32. Now the question which requires determination is whether from the ocular as well as medical evidence, an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. The respondents were charge-sheeted to face trial under Section 307/34 IPC but respondents Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi have only been held guilty, convicted and sentenced under Sections 326,325,324,34 IPC whereas they were acquitted under Section 307/34 IPC. Mahinder Singh was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 33. Attar Chand/PW-3 and Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 were medico-legally examined by Dr. G.S. Somani/PW-1 and he observed following injuries on the person of Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5: “1. Incised wound 5 cms x 0.5 cms x bone deep on the right side of parieto occipital region of the skull, 13 cms above and behind the upper border of the right ear. The margines were clear cut with fresh bleeding. I had advised x-ray for the injury. 2. There were two lacerated wounds each measuring 2.5 cms x 0.2 cms. Both the wounds were located 1.5 cms apart on the left parieto occipital bone area of the skull, 11 cms above the upper border of left ear. The margines were ragged with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised. 3. I had advised x-ray for the injury. 2. There were two lacerated wounds each measuring 2.5 cms x 0.2 cms. Both the wounds were located 1.5 cms apart on the left parieto occipital bone area of the skull, 11 cms above the upper border of left ear. The margines were ragged with fresh bleeding. X-ray was advised. 3. There was an abrasion 3 cms x 3 cms on the palmer aspect of the right hand medically swelling on dorsal aspect of the hand for which x-ray was advised.” 34. He opined that injury No.1 was caused by a sharp edged weapon, whereas, injuries No.2 and 3 were with blunt. All the injuries were fresh. He also proved medico-legal report proved Ex.PA and skiagram Ex.PA/1 showing the seat of injuries. 35. The injuries observed by Dr. G.S. Somani/PW-1 on the person of Attar Chand/PW-3 are as under: “1. There was amputation of right thumb at its proximal part with clear margins of the remaining stump. The injury was profusely bleeding for which I had advised-x-ray. 2. Two abrasions each measuring 2 cms x 0.2 cm located 2 cms apart from each other on the dorsal aspect of left hand. Soft clot was present and I had advised x-ray for it.” 36. On the basis of x-ray examination and report of neuro-surgeon, he opined injury No.2 appearing on the head of Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 to be “dangerous to life”. However, injuries No.1 and 3 on his person were declared to be simple in nature. The learned trial Court has diluted injury No.2 to an offence under Section 325 IPC on the ground that Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 remained under treatment of Dr. G.S. Sumani on March 19, 1999 only from 3:10 p.m. to 8:00 p.m and then he was referred to Nureo-surgeon (Dr. V.K. Gupta/PW-8) who gave treatment to him on March 22, 1999. Dr. V.K. Gupta has deposed that Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 was admitted on March 22, 1999 and discharged on March 26, 1999. He expressed his opinion Ex.PN/1 to the effect that injury “could be dangerous to life” on the basis of C.T. Scan report but no C.T. Scan report was available on the file. Learned trial Court mainly relied upon the opinion rendered by Dr. He expressed his opinion Ex.PN/1 to the effect that injury “could be dangerous to life” on the basis of C.T. Scan report but no C.T. Scan report was available on the file. Learned trial Court mainly relied upon the opinion rendered by Dr. V.K. Gupta/PW-8 that it “could be dangerous to life” as the injury was of a small dimension which could have acquired dangerous proportions had the haemotoma enlarged with passage of time but fortunately for the patient, it did not grow further. The trial Court preferred to rely upon the statement of Nureo-surgeon Dr. V.K. Gupta for the reason that the injured Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 remained under his treatment for about four days. Accordingly, he observed that offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted and only offence under Section 325 IPC is made out. 37. It is well-neigh a settled principle that the important thing to be borne in mind while determining the question whether an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, is the 'intention' and not merely the 'injury'. It is not the requirement of law that injury, capable of causing death should have been inflicted. What is essential to attract provisions of Section 307 IPC is intention or knowledge with which it was done irrespective of its result. 38. In the present case, the assailants have chosen to inflict injuries with deadly weapons like gandasa and sword on the head of Kuldeep Kumar. The nature of weapon and seat of injuries otherwise depict the intention of assailants to cause death. Ex.PE is the letter written to SHO by PW-1/Dr. G.S. Somani declaring injury No.2 appearing on the head of Kuldeep Kumar/PW-5 as “dangerous to life”. Whereas vide Ex.PN/1 Dr. V.K. Gupta opined the said injury on the basis of C.T. Scan “could be dangerous to life”. Omission to produce on record the C.T. Scan is not sufficient to discard or disbelieve the opinion expressed by Dr. G.S. Sumani who not only took into consideration the report of Nureo-surgeon but also the x-ray report and C.T. Scan as is evident from Ex.PE. Dr. V.K. Gupta/PW-8 while expressing his opinion vide Ex.PN/1 has used the words, “could be dangerous to life” while explaining that haemotoma was of small dimension but there is nothing on record to suggest as to what would have been the size of haemotoma to be “dangerous to life”. 39. Dr. V.K. Gupta/PW-8 while expressing his opinion vide Ex.PN/1 has used the words, “could be dangerous to life” while explaining that haemotoma was of small dimension but there is nothing on record to suggest as to what would have been the size of haemotoma to be “dangerous to life”. 39. So, in view of medical evidence and other circumstances, it stands established that injuries on the head of Kuldeep Kumar/ PW-5 were caused by Mangat Singh @ Mangi and Mahinder Singh accused with their respective weapons with an intention and knowledge that these can cause death. Therefore, we are of the considered view that trial Court has committed an error while holding that offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted. 40. Now, coming to the contention of the learned State counsel regarding the imposition of lesser sentence upon the respondents Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi. There is no straitjacket formula for imposing sentence upon an accused. Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 922, observed that the courts cannot take a lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground of sympathy or delay as the same cannot furnish any ground for reduction of sentence. 41. The question with regard to the imposition of appropriate or adequate sentence and the principles to be adopted came up for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in case Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra; 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 524 in which, it was observed as under: “Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crimedoer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence.” 42. In the latest pronouncement in the case of State of M.P. v. Babulal and others; 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92, the law on issue of sentence was summarized as under: “In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings. The Punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscious of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing. Thus, it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages a criminal and as a result of the same society suffers.” 43. After considering all the facts and circumstances and the legal proposition, we find force in the contention of the learned State counsel. We are of the considered view that acquittal of Mahinder Singh-respondent and that conviction and sentence of accused Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi are not in consonance with the evidence as well as the law of imposition of sentence. The trial Court has taken a lenient and sympathetic view which otherwise tantamounts to the doing of in-justice. The sentence awarded is not commensurative with nature and gravity of offence committed by the accused-respondents. 44. The trial Court has taken a lenient and sympathetic view which otherwise tantamounts to the doing of in-justice. The sentence awarded is not commensurative with nature and gravity of offence committed by the accused-respondents. 44. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, if the case in hand is viewed, the punishment imposed cannot be termed to be either adequate or proportionate or commensurative with the gravity and nature of the offence. Though, the respondents-Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh @ Mangi have been convicted under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 IPC yet they have only been sentenced to 4 months and 23 days i.e. the period already undergone by them. They alongwith accused Mahinder Singh have been proved to have caused injuries in furtherance of their common intention armed with gandasa, sword and lathi on the head of Kuldeep Kumar-PW-5 as well as on the person of Attar Chand-PW-3. 45. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents referred to above are distinguishable. Moreover, each case depends upon its peculiar facts and circumstances. In case Neelam Bahal and another v. State of Uttarakhand (supra), the incident was 23 years old and the accused had undergone imprisonment for a period of one year. 46. In case Raj Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the appellant was an adolescent when he committed the offence. The period of 17 years had elapsed and further the appellant married during that period and was a father of two kids. 47. In case State of Punjab v. Bant Singh (supra), accused persons were convicted under Section 323 IPC who had faced the prolonged trial for 6 years and as such they were ordered to be released on probation. 48. In case Nand Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), the necessary ingredients required for bringing an offence under Section 307 IPC were lacking. The offence was diluted to one under Section 326 IPC and the accused had already undergone sentence of imprisonment for 10 months and 17 days. 49. In case Paramjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab (supra), it was observed that there was grave and sudden provocation and petitioners did not act cruelly and offence was converted from 326 IPC to 335 IPC and due to that reason they were released on probation. 50. 49. In case Paramjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab (supra), it was observed that there was grave and sudden provocation and petitioners did not act cruelly and offence was converted from 326 IPC to 335 IPC and due to that reason they were released on probation. 50. Adverting to the present case, it stands amply proved that all the respondents shared common intention and in furtherance thereof caused injuries to PW-3 Attar Chand and PW-5 Kuldeep Kumar. Mahinder Singh caused injury on the head of Kuldeep Kumar due to which, he made himself liable for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Further an injury No.2 on the head of Kuldeep Kumar has been attributed to Mangat Singh with Lathi, which comes within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. So, acquittal of Mahinder Singh and that of other respondents under Section 307 IPC is also set aside. 51. Mangat Singh is held guilty and convicted under Section 307 IPC. Further their sentence is not commensurative with the offences under which they have been convicted by the trial Court and deserves to be enhanced accordingly. So, both the appeals are allowed and they are held guilty and convicted as under: Name of respondent accused Offences Mahinder Singh U/s 324 IPC and U/s 307/326/323 read with Section 34 IPC Makhan Singh U/s 326 IPC and U/s 307/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC Mangat Singh U/s 307/323 IPC and U/s 326/324 read with Section 34 IPC. 51. On the point of quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that incident took place in the month of March 1999 i.e. a period of more than 15 years ago and since then, respondents are continuously facing the pains and strains of the protracted criminal proceedings. Lenient view be adopted while imposing the punishment of sentence. They have also remained behind the bars for a considerable period. But this Court has already observed that the acquittal of Mahinder Singh and others under Section 307 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial Court are inadequate and non commensurative with the offence complained of. In the given circumstances, no mitigating circumstance exists. They have also remained behind the bars for a considerable period. But this Court has already observed that the acquittal of Mahinder Singh and others under Section 307 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial Court are inadequate and non commensurative with the offence complained of. In the given circumstances, no mitigating circumstance exists. Accordingly, respondents are sentence as under: Name Offence Sentence Mahinder Singh U/s 307/34 IPC U/s 324 IPC U/s 326/34 IPC U/s 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Makhan Singh U/s 326 IPC U/s 307/34 IPC U/s 324/34 IPC U/s 323/34 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Mangat Singh U/s 307 IPC U/s 323 IPC U/s 326/34 IPC U/s 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-(five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month All the aforementioned sentences shall run concurrently. Period of detention already undergone by the respondents/convicts namely Mahinder Singh, Makhan Singh and Mangat Singh during investigation and trial shall be set off under Section 420 Cr.P.C.