JUDGMENT : The appellants call in question the legality of the judgment of conviction dated 22.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 23.06.2015 passed by Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1994 whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default clause and further convicted under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default clause and also convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Both the appellants have further been convicted under Section 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The backdrop facts, as projected by the prosecution in the first information report, in nutshell, are as follows:- On the basis of a written report submitted by the informant Dr. K.K. Sinha on 28.09.1993, Sadar P.S. Case No. 95 of 1993 was instituted under Sections 447, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of Arms Act and subsequently Sections 25(1)(b)/26/35 of Arms Act were also added with the allegation that on the same day at about 05:10 P.M., when the informant was examining the patients in his clinic, Dr. Arun Sarkar (PW-1), Dr. Mithilesh Das and Dr. Kedar Kulkarni of the informant‘s Advanced Diagnostic Center entered into his chamber with a set of M.R.I. Films to discuss the matter. The informant then stopped to call the next patient and began discussion on the films and the findings. During discussion, he noticed that a person was trying to enter into his chamber and the compounder was persuading him not to enter since the discussion with the doctors was going on, but that man anyhow entered inside the chamber and also called two of his associates. While discussion was on, two of them slowly walked up to his table and occupied the empty chairs before him but the third person remained standing. While discussion was on, two of them slowly walked up to his table and occupied the empty chairs before him but the third person remained standing. When the doctors left the room, the informant enquired from one of them sitting on the chair as to what they want, on this, one of the person identified himself as Kamal Kishore Bhagat (appellant no.1) and said that they all belong to AJSU Party and introduced his other two associates as Sudarshan Bhagat and Alester Bodra (appellant no.2). The said Kamal Kishore Bhagat informed that a meeting of his party is scheduled in Patna tomorrow and they are going to participate and they need money and demanded money from the informant which he refused to pay. It is also alleged that the three enraged on his refusal and one of them Sudarshan Bhagat asked him why he would not give them the money and does he understand the consequences of this refusal. Upon which, this informant enquired does he mean Rangdari (extortion) by force, the said person said Yes, it is. But even then, the informant refused to pay at which, the said person stood from his chair, stared at the face of the informant and gave a very forceful slap on his left cheek and also gave a forceful fist over his mouth, which resulted injury over his lip and it started bleeding. The informant felt dizzy and was totally amazed to find what had happened because he never expected that a person, who came for such a demand, should give him assault on his face. Thereafter, Kamal Kishore Bhagat gave a blow which the informant tried to defend by putting his right hand but the same caused fracture in his right index finger. It is alleged that Kamal Kishore Bhagat took out his revolver and attempted to kill him at which he started shouting for help. Hearing his cry, his compounder Nawal and several persons, who were waiting as patients or patients relatives, by opening the door of clinic, entered into his chamber and caught hold of them and saved him. The crowd pulled them out of his chamber and as there was profuse bleeding, the informant was taken inside his residential house, which is within the same compound where the informant heard the sound of gun or revolver firing. The crowd pulled them out of his chamber and as there was profuse bleeding, the informant was taken inside his residential house, which is within the same compound where the informant heard the sound of gun or revolver firing. The informant also came to know that there were more associates of the assailants who were waiting outside in an Ambassador Car but when they were trying to flee away, the crowd captured them also. Someone informed the police and police arrived there. In the meantime, one of his associate gave a telephonic call to Dr. Mazid Alam (PW-2), who came immediately and took the informant to his Nursing Home for his treatment. 3. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against two accused persons namely Kamal Kishore Bhagat and Alester Bodra under Sections 447/34, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act showing the third accused Sudarshan Bhagat as deceased. Accordingly, the court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. Here, I would like to mention that at the instance of the present appellant no.2 Alester Bodra, for the same date of occurrence, a case was lodged bearing Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 96 of 1993 against the informant Dr. K.K. Sinha, his son Pappu Sinha and others for committing offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sudarshan Bhagat inside the Campus of the informant of the present case. 4. After commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the two appellants under Sections 448, 387, 325 and 307/34 of I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The defence as made out by the appellants, who had earlier pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried, in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated that they had never assaulted anyone rather when they had gone to meet the doctor for treatment of one of the patient, there was a little hot discussion, whereafter on the direction of the informant, his security guards and his son attacked on them and assaulted them. After which, the appellants and another person became unconscious and the police brought all the three to RIMS for their treatment but one of his colleague Sudarshan Bhagat died during the treatment. The defence had examined one witness i.e. the Investigating Officer of the instant case, who was also appointed as Investigating Officer of the case lodged by the appellant no.2 Alester Bodra. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 is Arun Sarkar, P.W.2- Dr. Majzid Alam, P.W.3- Dr. Krishna Kant Sinha, the informant, P.W. 4 – Nawal Kishore Sinha and P.W. 5- Mahendra Nath Tiwari and after their examination, one witness Bajun Hembrom was examined as court witness. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the trial Judge has discussed the entire evidence on record giving detailed reasons for accepting the case of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 7. Mr. Surendra Singh learned senior counsel for the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence seriously contended that there are several loopholes in the case of prosecution, which makes it unworthy of acceptance and one of the challenge of Mr. Singh was that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of a long written report (Ext.-2) of the injured himself, who had claimed grievous injury (hair crack) on the index finger of his right hand and such a detailed written report by a person having such an injury is improbable. Another contention that has been advanced by Mr. Singh is that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was any intention of the appellants to kill the informant and the prosecution version even if be accepted in totality, no offence punishable under Sections 307 I.P.C. is made out as the ingredients like intention responsible to constitute the offence under the above section is completely lacking. No deadly weapon or any weapon for assaulting the informant was used rather the injuries as alleged were by fists and slaps and without any plausible ground, the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. A comment was also made that though the informant has stated that the appellant no.1 was armed with a revolver and by pointing out revolver, informant was threatened but there is no such evidence or even finding of the court below that any fire-arm was used. The injuries, save and except one grievous injury i.e. the hair crac‘ on the index finger of the right hand, all other injuries were found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. As such, at best the offence committed by the appellants, even if be accepted, will come within the ambit of Section 325 and not under Section 307 I.P.C. Mr. Singh further seriously contended that the trial court has mainly relied upon the injury report (Ext.-1) but has failed to consider that the said report was prepared by Dr. Mazid Alam (P.W.2) almost after two and half months of the date of occurrence and the x-ray plate dated 28.09.1993, relying upon which the said injury report seems to have been prepared, has not been brought on record by the prosecution. Hence, the recording of conviction, relying upon such injury report, cannot sustain in the eye of law. It was also contended that for the same day of occurrence, the present appellant no. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. against the informant of this case and his son and other persons under Section 302 and several other provisions of Indian Penal Code but the injuries sustained by the appellants have not been explained by the prosecution in the instant case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much importance as non-explanation of such injuries shows that the origin and the genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed, which leads to irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come up with a true version of the occurrence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case Laxmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 S.C.C. 394 . In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case Laxmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 S.C.C. 394 . It was further contended that no Expert of medical field was examined by prosecution to settle the issue whether after providing the conservative treatment, one can write such a long written report and absence of any expert opinion creates a cloud of suspicion over the entire prosecution case. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention relied on the case Ramchandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Limited and others; (2009) SCC 709. Lastly, the learned senior counsel urged the alternative submission that even on the basis of the evidence if the court comes to the finding of extortion, at best, the conviction would fall under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 387 I.P.C. 8. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel representing the State contended that the findings recorded by the trial court on analyzing the evidences available on record should not be disturbed. It was also submitted that to justify a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted rather the court has only to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge. 9. First of all, I would like to examine the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 387/34 I.P.C. The question, which has come up for consideration is whether the extortion can be attributed to the appellants on the basis of the evidence on record. Once it is held that there was an extortion, in as much as both the appellants along with his another associate came with the common intention to the clinic of PW-3, the only question, which remains to be considered is whether the appellants intended to cause the death of P.W. 3 or whether they simply intended to commit extortion by putting the informant PW-3 in fear of death or bodily injury. 10. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence on record. Before coming to any conclusion, it is necessary to examine the testimony of the two witnesses the informant Dr. K.K. Sinha (P.W.- 3) and Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.4), the compounder. 10. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence on record. Before coming to any conclusion, it is necessary to examine the testimony of the two witnesses the informant Dr. K.K. Sinha (P.W.- 3) and Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.4), the compounder. P.W.3 while corroborating the entire allegation levelled in his written report (Ext.-2) further reiterated that he was examining the patients in his clinic when Dr. Mithilesh Das, Dr. Kedar Kulkarni and Dr. Arun Sarkar of his Diagnostic Center came to discuss on M.R.I Films and during discussion, he noticed that after opening the entry door of his clinic, one person was trying to enter inside and his compounder Nawal (P.W.4) was perhaps asking him not to enter inside the chamber as the P.W.3 is in discussion with other doctors but the said person entered inside his chamber and called his two other associates also into the chamber. The witness further testified that all the three came before him and two of them sat over the vacant chairs and the third remained standing. When the three doctors after discussion left the chamber, the witness enquired from them and one of them disclosed his identity as Kamal Kishore Bhagat (appellant no.1) and other two as Sudarshan Bhagat and Alester Bodra (appellant no.2) and they informed that they are the leaders of AJSU Party and their party has a rally at Patna and a number of persons have to go to Patna and for that, huge amount is required so they have come for money but they did not disclose the specific amount. The witness refused to pay the money by saying that he did not give money to the political parties, which enraged the two persons sitting on chair and they came near the witness and threatened that ?did not you know the result of this denial.? When the witness replied that it means Rangdari, they immediately replied that he may understand the same. The witness asked them to leave the chamber but the person, who identified himself as Sudarshan Bhagat, gave him one forceful slap on his left cheek and another fist blow. When the witness replied that it means Rangdari, they immediately replied that he may understand the same. The witness asked them to leave the chamber but the person, who identified himself as Sudarshan Bhagat, gave him one forceful slap on his left cheek and another fist blow. Kamal Kishore Bhagat also gave one fist blow on his mouth, which caused bleeding injury on his lip and when Kamal Kishore Bhagat gave another blow, he tried to protect himself with the right hand but the blow caused injury on index finger of his right hand. The witness raised an alarm whereupon Kamal Kishore Bahgat took out his revolver and pointed towards him and gave a threatening to shoot if money is not paid but till then, some of his staff and patients‘ relatives rushed inside his chamber and they overpowered the three persons and took them out of his chamber. Since, blood was oozing out from the injury on lip, his one of the staff gave a telephonic call to Dr. Mazid Alam, who immediately came there and took the injured-informant to his clinic where after preliminary check, his lip was stitched and the finger was x-rayed. After coming back to his residence, he handed over the written report (Ext.-2) to the police. During lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from him to anyway affect the prosecution story or creates doubt over the reliability of evidence of P.W. 3. This witness has explained the procedure for checking up of patients at his clinic stating that first of all brief history of the patients is noted down in the office. Thereafter considering the nature of ailment, date for examination of the patient by this witness is normally fixed and even number might come after a month. The suggestion given to this witness that the accused persons had entered into his chamber with a request to treat their driver Nayeem Alam, has been completely denied by the witness. 11. The evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. K.K. Sinha has received ample corroboration from the testimony of the witness P.W. 4, who was the compounder of P.W. 3 and this witness while confirming his presence at the place of occurrence, has further confirmed that on the date of occurrence, he was at the clinic of Dr. 11. The evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. K.K. Sinha has received ample corroboration from the testimony of the witness P.W. 4, who was the compounder of P.W. 3 and this witness while confirming his presence at the place of occurrence, has further confirmed that on the date of occurrence, he was at the clinic of Dr. K.K. Sinha (P.W.3) where he used to sit near the gate of chamber of the doctor and on that date also, as usual he was dealing with the patients and was sending patients one after another in chamber as per their number when three persons came and tried to enter inside the Chamber of the doctor and when he resisted, one of them forcefully entered into the chamber and the others also followed and entered into the chamber. When the three forcefully entered in the chamber, at that time, Dr. Arun Sarkar and other doctors were busy in discussion with P.W.-3 on MRI Films of patients. After discussion, Dr. Arun Sarkar (PW-1) and other doctors came out leaving Dr. K.K. Sinha. The three persons remained inside the Chamber. After sometime, he heard the alarm of Dr. K.K. Sinha and when he opened the door saw blood was oozing out from the lips of Dr. K.K. Sinha. The patients and their relatives, who were waiting outside, also rushed into the Chamber hearing alarm and overpowered the three persons and took them out and assaulted them. Because of such assault, one person became unconscious and died subsequently in hospital. His evidence has also remained unshattered in the cross-examination and to me he appears to be a truthful witness. Thus from the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the involvement of the appellants along with the deceased accused stands amply established. 12. In order to determine the intention of the appellants and their resultant act, the ingredients responsible to constitute offence under Section 387 I.P.C. are necessary to be examined, which reads as follows:- “387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.—whoever in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. Apparently to constitute the offence under Section 387, the most important requirement is that there ought to be some visible overt act, which may reflect the natural and normal inference that the accused persons had, in fact, put a person or had made an attempt to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt and without any visible act, simply using the threatening language is not enough to constitute that offence. In the instant case, P.W.3 in his evidence has clearly testified that all the three accused persons forcibly entered inside his chamber even when they were informed that P.W-3 was busy in discussion with other doctors, and when other doctors left the room, they demanded Rangdari. The witness when refused to give any Rangdari, Sudarshan Bhagat threatened that did not you know the result of denial and thereafter assaulted him twice on his face. The appellant no.1 Kamal Kishore Bhagat gave a forceful blow on his face, which caused injuries in his lip and second blow caused hair line fracture in index finger of right hand. After assault also, this witness denied to give any money then appellant no.1 took out his revolver and pointed towards the witness and threatened him with dire consequence but as PW-3 raised alarm, PW-4 and several other persons waiting outside the chamber with their patients entered into the Chamber and overpowered the three persons. The visible overt act on the part of the appellants would be clear from the evidence that on refusal or denial to meet their demand of money, P.W.-3 was assaulted by the appellant no.1 and Sudarshan Bhagat the deceased. The entire occurrence of extortion was committed by the appellants in furtherance of common intention and each of the appellant would be constructively liable under Section 387/34 of I.P.C. P.W.2 Dr. Mazid Alam, who had examined the informant Dr. K.K. Sinha (PW-3) immediately after the occurrence, has testified in his evidence that he found the following four injuries on the body of the injured Dr. Sinha:- (i) Lacerated wound of size 1”x1/2”x1/2” over left part of upper lip near angle of mouth. (ii) Bruise 4” in diameter over temporal region left side. (iii) Bruise over upper lip in left half. (iv) Swelling over right index finger. Sinha:- (i) Lacerated wound of size 1”x1/2”x1/2” over left part of upper lip near angle of mouth. (ii) Bruise 4” in diameter over temporal region left side. (iii) Bruise over upper lip in left half. (iv) Swelling over right index finger. The witness has further stated that on his advice, x-ray of right index finger was done in his clinic and two linear fracture in proximal thalamx of right index finger were found and the injury report (Ext.-1) was prepared. It appears from the Ext.-1 that it was marked exhibit without any objection from defence side but apparently this injury report was prepared after more than two and half months of the date of the occurrence though the injured-informant was examined on the date of occurrence and x-ray was also done on the same day. However, the prosecution has not brought on record the said x-ray report. 14. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impact created by the evidence has to be assessed as a whole and then it has to be judged whether the evidence is to be accepted for basing a conviction or is to be discarded. The doctor has found all the injuries as simple in nature except the injury showing swelling of right index finger, which was later on detected as linear fracture. The medical evidence fully corroborates the oral testimony of the two witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 of assault and this visible overt act clearly leans towards the act of extortion from the informant-PW-3 by putting him in fear of death. The Police had seized one revolver with one cartridge strucked in the barrel of revolver and two unused cartridges immediately after occurrence from the possession of appellant no.1, which was marked as Ext-4 on the testimony of PW-5. 15. At this juncture, the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the injury report was prepared on 18.12.1993 almost after two and half months of occurrence, so no reliance can be placed, needs to be discussed here. From the injury report dated 18.12.1993, it appears that P.W.-3 was examined by P.W.2 Dr. Mazid Alam on 28.09.1993 and the report was based on x-ray plate R-9 dated 28.09.1993 of P.W.3 showing linear fracture in proximal thalamx of right index finger. From the injury report dated 18.12.1993, it appears that P.W.-3 was examined by P.W.2 Dr. Mazid Alam on 28.09.1993 and the report was based on x-ray plate R-9 dated 28.09.1993 of P.W.3 showing linear fracture in proximal thalamx of right index finger. Here, I would like to discuss the evidence of P.W.-5 the Investigating Officer, who in paragraph 9 of his evidence has clearly stated that he had received the injury report of Dr. K.K. Sinha (P.W.-3) and a reference of that is mentioned in paragraph-38 of the case diary. In paragraph-6 of the case diary also, there is a reference of medical examination of Dr. K.K. Sinha by Dr. Mazid (P.W.-2) so, it is not that P.W.3 was not examined by P.W.-2. This is also clear from the evidence of P.W.5 that there is a reference of injury report but the same is not available in case diary. The above injury report (Ext.-1) was obtained subsequently when the Investigating Officer did not find the original injury report in case diary. It is well settled that for the fault of the Investigating Officer, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out when the oral evidence is consistent on the point of assault. Even when the injury report (Ext.-1) was marked as exhibit in court, no objection was raised on behalf of defence. Apparently, there was grievous injury and the impact of the same if read with seizure of revolver conjointly constitute the offence under Section 387 I.P.C. I find that the court below has also analyzed the evidences of witnesses carefully and I do not find any noticeable discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to discard them. 16. For applying Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part of another accused even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. It has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in doing a criminal act. Neither P.W.3 nor P.W. 4 have testified that Alester Bodra the appellant no.2 had caused any injury to the informant P.W.3. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, that there was plan and meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence. Neither P.W.3 nor P.W. 4 have testified that Alester Bodra the appellant no.2 had caused any injury to the informant P.W.3. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, that there was plan and meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence. Obviously, Alester Bodra with the same intention had entered inside the chamber of P.W.3 alongwith the two accused persons including the appellant no.1. No doubt, he had not taken part in assault but the three had entered in the chamber with common intention. Section 34 I.P.C. has clear application to the facts of the instant case and seems to have been rightly and properly applied by the trial court. 17. Now coming to the stand of the learned counsel for the appellants that in reality, Section 307 I.P.C. had no application as there was no intention of the appellants to kill the informant (PW-3), I have considered that plea. To justify a conviction under Section 307 of IPC, it is not essential that the bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Obviously, the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances. Whether there was any intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of each case. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury. In the instant case, Dr. K.K. Sinha (PW-3) while after examining patients in his chamber was taking part in a discussion attended by other doctors on M.R.I. films, the appellant no.1 Kamal Kishore Bhagat forcibly entered into his chamber and on his call, his two other associates also entered inside the chamber. When the discussion with the doctors ended and they came out of the chamber, the entire occurrence took place, which I have already discussed above in the preceding paragraphs. Undoubtedly, it was a planned action on the part of the appellants to commit the offence of extortion but it is not sufficient to justify that the intention of the appellants was to make an attempt to commit murder. Undoubtedly, it was a planned action on the part of the appellants to commit the offence of extortion but it is not sufficient to justify that the intention of the appellants was to make an attempt to commit murder. On critical analysis of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses specially P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, there appears to be no intent of the appellants to kill the informant. The intention pre-dominantly was only confined to the demand of money (Rangdari) by putting the informant-P.W.3 in fear of death or injury and not to kill the informant. Even Kamal Kishore Bhagat as per the testimony of P.W.3 being enraged after his refusal to pay the money (Rangdari), took out his revolver and pointed the same towards the informant but he did not use that revolver. If it would have been the intention of appellant no.1, there was no intervening circumstance of any resistance preventing the appellant no.1 from causing death of the informant-P.W.3. It is true that the informant after seeing the revolver raised alarm, whereafter P.W.4 and other persons including the relatives of the patients waiting outside the chamber rushed inside the chamber and overpowered the appellants. But even before that, there was ample opportunity before the appellant no.1 to fire from that revolver. It has come in evidence that appellant no.1 and Sudarshan Bhagat (the deceased) had given only fists blow on the face of the informant and even none of the blow was on any vital part of the body. 18. In a case Parsuram Pandey and others Vs. State of Bihar; (2004) 13 SCC 189 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present:- (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder, and (b) The doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence of attempt to murder. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place.” 19. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not explained the injuries of the appellants and the cause of death of Sudarshan Bhagat, one of the associate of the appellants, as to how the appellants and the said Sudarshan Bhagat got injuries. Here, I would like to say that the learned counsel for the appellants while making submission informed the court that in the case lodged at the instance of the appellant no.2 for the same date of occurrence, the police after due investigation has submitted final form against Dr. K.K. Sinha (PW-3) and so no explanation from P.W.-3 regarding the injuries sustained by the appellants appears to be necessary. However, PW-4 has clearly explained those injuries in his evidence that after hearing the alarm of PW-3, he immediately entered into the chamber and other persons waiting outside, who were mostly the relatives of the patients, also entered in chamber and overpowered the appellants and his associate and pulled them out of the chamber and assaulted them. The witness has also explained that subsequently he came to know that one of the injured Sudarshan Bhagat died during treatment and in connection with that case, he was arrested by the police. 20. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. Singh. The witness has also explained that subsequently he came to know that one of the injured Sudarshan Bhagat died during treatment and in connection with that case, he was arrested by the police. 20. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. Singh. According to the prosecution, the appellant no.1 had given one blow on the face of the informant and when he gave the second blow, P.W. 3 tried to defend from his right hand, but the force of the blow caused fracture in the right index finger of the informant. When I take into account the aforesaid factors, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that from the facts proved, it cannot be said that the appellants had any intention to cause death. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the facts proved do not make out a case under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, but the allegation proved on the basis of evidence makes out a case under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code in which the appellants have already been convicted by the court below. 21. As regard to the conviction of the appellants under Section 448/34 I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has already proved that the appellants along with one of his associate in furtherance of common intention forcibly entered into the chamber of the informant with intention to extort money from the informant by putting him in fear of death or grievous injury. Since the offence against the appellants have already been proved under Section 387 I.P.C., in such circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the entry of the appellants in the chamber of PW-3 was made with intent to commit an offence. In my opinion, the court below has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 448/34 of I.P.C. also. 22. Hence in the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the said charge, but the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34, under Section 448/34 and also under Section 387/34 of I.P.C. are, hereby, affirmed and maintained. 22. Hence in the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the said charge, but the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34, under Section 448/34 and also under Section 387/34 of I.P.C. are, hereby, affirmed and maintained. The bail bonds of the appellants, who are on bail, are hereby cancelled with a direction to them to surrender in court below within a fortnight from the date of this judgment for serving out the sentence awarded to them, failing which the court below shall take all coercive steps for their arrest.