JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar, Camp at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 219 of 2003, whereby both the accused were held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 307,364, 365, 368 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. For offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year; for offence under Section 364, the accused were ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year; for offence under Section 365, the accused were ordered to undergo imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of eight months and for offence under Section 368, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and, in default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year. No separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section135 of the Bombay Police Act. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused persons have preferred present Criminal Appeal. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:- "2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.10.2003 at about 11 a.m., the accused had come to Village-Motasurada on motor cycle and told the complainant that they have some work with him as one boy has expired in Village-Badi Padva. By saying this, the complainant was taken to Badi Padva village on the motor cycle, and from there, he was taken to Kundhada village. Thereafter, he was illegally confined even on 7.10.2003. By saying this, the complainant was taken to Badi Padva village on the motor cycle, and from there, he was taken to Kundhada village. Thereafter, he was illegally confined even on 7.10.2003. On the same day, the accused with a common intention to commit the offence, took out the victim from the said room and accused No. 2 by saying that you are having an illicit relation with the daughter of Ahir Budhabhai cut off the penis of the complainant. While accused No. 1 had cut off the nose of the complainant. Due to such act of the accused persons, the victim had died. With these allegations the complaint was filed against the accused persons. 2.2 On complaint being filed, investigation was carried out and the accused came to be arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Complainant-Mukeshbhai Hirabhai Makwana 13 2 Savitaben Ukabhai 20 3 Kumataben Kalubhai Makwana 21 4 Ukabhai Monabhai Makwana 22 5 Lakhabhai Valabhai Mobh. 45 6 Nareshbhai Dilipbhai Bhatt. 47 7 Dipakbhai Rameshbhai Maheta 48 8 Laxmanbhai Sardulbhai Bhatiya 50 9 PSO, Vinodray Odhavjibhai 51 10 Head Constable-Edelaji Thana Sangath 53 11 Girvansinh Laghubha Vala 54 12 Mohanbhai Laxmanbhai 56 13 Medical Officer, Harshadbhai Padmakant Chauhan 60 14 Kailasben Babhlubhai 65 15 Dr. Dinesh Harjibhai Gohil 68 16 Balvantsinh Himmatsinh Chavda 72 2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Description 1 Order of investigation 2 Station diary entry no. Dinesh Harjibhai Gohil 68 16 Balvantsinh Himmatsinh Chavda 72 2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Description 1 Order of investigation 2 Station diary entry no. 137/03 3 Complaint 4 Panchnama of the physical condition of the complainant 5 Panchnama of the place of offence 6 Panchnama of arrest of both the accused 7 Panchnama of taking blood samples of the accused 8 Panchnama of the clothes of the injury wore by him at the time of incident 9 Complaint given by Badhabhai 10 Medical certificate of complaint 11 Certificate of the hospital 12 Medical certificate of the accused 13 Report of serious offence 14 Wireless message sent to the higher officer 15 Report for addition of section 307 16 Map of the place of offence 17 Panchnama of the physical condition of the complainant 18 Notification of prohibition of weapons 19 Dispatch note sending muddamal for analysis to FSL, Junagadh 20 Receipt pf muddamal bring received by FSL 21 FSL report 22 Serological report 2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence to the accused, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeal is preferred before this Court." 3. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellants-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. He submitted that in this case the accused are wrongly implicated in the offence. He submitted that even if the evidence of the complainant, Mukeshbhai Makwana, Exh. 13 is taken into consideration, he has stated that from the place of incident at Kundhada he went to Palitana for taking treatment by walking which at the distance of 30 kms. He, therefore, submitted that if anyone receives injury in vital organ of his body, he could not walk for 30 kms., and, therefore, the conduct of the complainant is doubtful. He, therefore, submitted that if anyone receives injury in vital organ of his body, he could not walk for 30 kms., and, therefore, the conduct of the complainant is doubtful. He also submitted that the alleged incident has occurred on 7.10.2003 at about 5 p.m. as per the prosecution case and the victim has received medical treatment on the next day i.e. on 8.10.2003 at about 6 p.m., therefore, he remained without treatment for 24 hours, this shows that the injury sustained by the victim was not serious and it was not sufficient to cause death. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused persons of the offences alleged against them. He submitted that even if the case against the accused persons is believed, they can be held guilty for offence either under Sections 323 or 324 or 325 of IPC and they cannot be held guilty for the offences as alleged. In view of this, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the appellants-accused is just and proper and he has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. Learned APP has contended that taking into consideration the medical evidence, evidence of the complainant, and other witnesses, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while imposing the sentence on the accused and, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the appellant-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the State. We have also gone through the evidence on record. We have also perused the medical evidence. In the evidence of Dr. Harshadbhai Padmakant Chauhan, PW-13, Exh. 60, he has stated that the injury in question can be said to be serious injury and if the person receiving such injury is not given medical treatment immediately, it may result into his death. He also stated that if proper treatment is given such injury would get heal within 8 to 10 days. Harshadbhai Padmakant Chauhan, PW-13, Exh. 60, he has stated that the injury in question can be said to be serious injury and if the person receiving such injury is not given medical treatment immediately, it may result into his death. He also stated that if proper treatment is given such injury would get heal within 8 to 10 days. This witness also stated that the victim was not in anemic condition. This condition narrated by the doctor is of the victim who reached to the hospital after walking the distance of 30 kms. from the place of incident. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused have attacked the victim with weapon like knife and also cut off his private part and his son, therefore, the offence in question is serious in nature. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused have committed the offence in question and the motive is also proved by the prosecution. It is the case of the accused that they have committed the offence as the victim was having illicit relation with a girl, however, even if it is believed to be true, it do not give any right to the accused to take law into their hands. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused persons, however, considering the evidence of the doctor and the fact that the victim was in a position to walk and reach the hospital 30 kms. away from the place of incident, the sentence imposed upon the accused persons is required to be reduced appropriately. Therefore, this Criminal Appeal is required to be partly allowed by reducing the sentence. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused persons recorded by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar, Camp at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 219 of 2003 is confirmed, however, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced in the following manner. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused persons recorded by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar, Camp at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 219 of 2003 is confirmed, however, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced in the following manner. For offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the accused are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 364, the accused are ordered to undergo imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 365, the accused are ordered to undergo imprisonment for three years and for offence under Section 368, the accused are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. All the sentences to run concurrently. Remaining part of the impugned judgment shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified and the sentence imposed upon the accused persons is reduced to the aforesaid extent. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused be given set off to them. If the sentence already undergone by accused persons is more than the sentence imposed by this Court, the accused persons shall not surrender before the jail authorities, however, if the period already undergone is less than the sentence imposed by this Court, they shall surrender before the jail authorities within a period of ten weeks from today to serve the remaining period of sentence. Bail bond, if any, of the accused shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if lying here, to the concerned trial Court forthwith.