JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. Since both these appeal arise out of judgment dated 12-3-2003 delivered by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 162/1999, they are being decided together. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). They have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.100/- . The original accused nos.1 to 3 have challenged their conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2003 which has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code). Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2003 has been preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code for enhancement of the sentence as imposed by the trial Court. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20-7-1999 the appellants and their father - Motiram had entered the premises of Shankar Sakharkar and Vinod Sakharkar. They assaulted them with an intention to kill them. Both Shankar and Vinod received injuries in the said assault which was carried out with the help of a knife and stick. Their brother Pramod lodged a report and an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the appellants and their father were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The accused did not plead guilty and were hence tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court sentenced them in the manner stated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2003 submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 307 and 448 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court sentenced them in the manner stated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2003 submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 307 and 448 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. He submitted that the injuries suffered by Shankar and Vinod were not at all grievous or life threatening. As per the medical evidence on record, both of them had suffered simple injuries and hence, there was no question of any offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code being made out. He submitted that the version of PW4 - Shankar and PW13 - Vinod did not corroborate the evidence on record. There was previous enmity between the parties and on the previous day of the incident, Shankar and Vinod had lodged a report against the accused persons. He then submitted that even the weapon alleged to have been used in the assault was found to be blunt by the Medical Officer and the same could not have caused any fatal injury. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties with regard to alleged encroachment, it was clear that the injured Shankar and Vinod had falsely implicated the appellants. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellants were entitled for acquittal. 4. Shri R.S. Nayak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand submitted that both PW4 and PW13 were injured witnesses and hence, their version was required to be accepted. The injuries suffered by them were sufficient to cause death as deposed by Dr. Shende - PW9. The injury suffered indicated stab wounds and as both victims had undergone hospitalization for period of more than 10 days each, their conviction under Section 307 of the Penal Code was justified. The injury certificate issued by the Medical Officer also indicated the same. As per the report of the Chemical Analyzer blood was found on the weapon seized at the instance of accused no.3 - Raju. He, therefore, supported the conviction and further submitted that the punishment imposed by the trial Court was on a lower side and the same ought to be enhanced under Section 377 of the Code. As per the report of the Chemical Analyzer blood was found on the weapon seized at the instance of accused no.3 - Raju. He, therefore, supported the conviction and further submitted that the punishment imposed by the trial Court was on a lower side and the same ought to be enhanced under Section 377 of the Code. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh and others 2011 Cr.L.J. 2162 and Jameel v. State (2010) 12 SCC 532 . 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance we have also examined the records of the case. Since the prosecution has examined both the injured witnesses, their deposition can be scrutinized at the inception. PW4 - Shankar has been examined vide Exhibit-42. He stated that the house of the appellants was adjacent to his house and that accused no.4 - Motiram was his paternal uncle. He has stated that there was a dispute with regard to encroachment on the area of 3 ft. lane between the houses of the parties. He stated that at about 6.30 a.m. to 7 a.m. the accused had started abusing the family members of Shankar and Vinod. Shankar told the accused not to abuse them but appellant No. 3 Raju rushed on him with a knife. The accused nos. 1 and 2 and one Tukaram caught hold of him while Raju assaulted him with a knife on his stomach and buttocks. Their uncle Narayan was also present. Vinod had also come there and he was also assaulted by Raju on his stomach, thighs and waist. Shankar has stated that he went by foot to the hospital of Dr. Agrawal while Vinod was taken on a bicycle. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that on the previous day of the incident, he and his brother had fixed a barbed wire fencing near the lane between the house of the accused and the common wall. He denied the suggestion with regard to the assault on the previous day alleged to have been made by himself and Vinod on the accused persons. 6. Vinod, PW13 who is the other injured eye witness was examined below Exhibit-68. He denied the suggestion with regard to the assault on the previous day alleged to have been made by himself and Vinod on the accused persons. 6. Vinod, PW13 who is the other injured eye witness was examined below Exhibit-68. He has deposed about Shankar being initially assaulted by Raju and when he had gone there to protect Shankar, he was also assaulted by Raju. This witness has stated that he had become unconscious in the courtyard and was taken to the hospital along with Shankar. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on the previous day an altercation had taken place between his family and the appellants. He stated that he had not mentioned to the police authorities that he had become unconscious after the attack. He further admitted that though the police station was at a distance of about two furlong from his house he had not given any report of the incident. 7. The report of the incident has been lodged by Pramod PW1 below Exhibit-28. He is the brother of Shankar and Vinod, but he has stated that he was asleep when the incident took place. PW2 - Chandrabhagabai who was the mother-in-law of Shankar was examined below Exhibit-31. She has stated that he was present at the house of Shankar when the appellants had come there. She has deposed that two persons had caught hold of Shankar while third person had assaulted him by knife. This witness has not narrated about any assault on Vinod. 8. Since both the victims suffered injuries and were medically examined, the prosecution has examined three doctors in that regard. PW10 Dr. Kunjilal Agrawal at Exhibit-52 has deposed that on 20-7-1999 Shankar and Vinod had come to his Hospital on account of bleeding injury. After examining both of them, he had prepared separate medical prescriptions at Exhibits 54 and 55. He gave both the victims injections and saline. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that both the injured had come to his Hospital on foot. He had not seen the depth of the injuries. He has further stated that he had given normal treatment to both the injured victims. This witness has not stated that the injuries suffered by both of them were grievous or were likely to cause death. This witness then referred both the victims to the Primary Health Center. The next doctor examined is Dr. He has further stated that he had given normal treatment to both the injured victims. This witness has not stated that the injuries suffered by both of them were grievous or were likely to cause death. This witness then referred both the victims to the Primary Health Center. The next doctor examined is Dr. Vinayak Khobragade, PW11 who was working as the Medical Officer at the Primary Health Center. After examining Shankar and Vinod, this witness issued a medical certificate with regard to Shankar at Exhibit 59. The injuries found were lacerated wound on the right thigh, lacerated wound on the right lower abdomen and contusion on left gluteal region. The medical certificate with regard to Vinod at Exhibit 60 indicates lacerated would on left laternal epicondyl, abrasion on right thigh and lacerated wound on right side of lower abdomen. He has stated that both patients were conscious and there was no bleeding from the ear, nose or mouth nor there was any vomiting. This witness also examined the weapon alleged to have been used in the attack. He gave his opinion at Exhibit-65 stating that said weapon was having a blunt edge. In his cross-examination he stated that the injuries were superficial and were not sufficient to cause death. The injuries were also possible by falling on a thorny object or barbed wire. 9. Dr. Raju Shende, Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital was examined as PW9. He has stated that he had found one stab injury on right illiac fossa that had penetrated the abdomen. There was injury to mesentry as well as two small injuries. According to this witness, the injuries were sufficient to cause death if not operated within proper time. As regards injuries on Vinod, he has stated that there was a stab injury on right illiac fossa with penetrated the abdomen and also purporting injuries. The injuries were grievous and sufficient to cause the death if not treated within time. He has stated that Shankar was admitted in the hospital from 20-7-1999 to 30-7-1999 while Vinod was admitted from 20-7-1999 till 4-8-1999. In his cross-examination he stated that both patients were conscious when they were admitted in the hospital. He admitted that dimensions of the stab injuries were not mentioned. He further stated that there was no injury to any vital organ of either of the injured. 10. In his cross-examination he stated that both patients were conscious when they were admitted in the hospital. He admitted that dimensions of the stab injuries were not mentioned. He further stated that there was no injury to any vital organ of either of the injured. 10. The accused came to be arrested on 20-7-1999 and a sword stick came to be seized on memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from accused no.3 Raju. This sword stick was seized from the window of the house of Raju. As per the spot panchanama at Exhibit-37 the sword stick was rusted and pointed. Its description does not indicate presence of blood stains. As noted above, this weapon was sent to Dr. Khobragade for examination and as per his opinion at Exhibit-66 the said sword stick was not sharp edged. In fact, he has stated that the weapon was having a blunt edge. The witnesses to the above seizure of the weapon have, however, turned hostile. This seizure was effected by PW18, ASI Gedam below Exhibit-94. He has further deposed about a knife being discovered by accused no.3. Though he has identified the dagger shown to him as the weapon that was discovered, in his cross-examination he stated that a knife was different from a dagger. 11. For the purposes of making out an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, the act done by the accused should be with such an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act death is caused, the accused would be guilty of murder. Shankar and Vinod were initially examined by Dr. Agrawal who has deposed that both of them had come to his hospital on foot and that he had given normal treatment to both of them. After administering injections and saline, they were referred to the Primary Health Center. Dr. Khobragade at the Primary Health Center has clearly admitted that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death. It is only Dr. Shende who was the Medical officer at the Civil Hospital who has deposed that the injuries suffered by them were sufficient to cause death if not treated within time. However, he admitted that there was no injury to any vital organ of either of the injured and that both the patients were fully conscious. It is only Dr. Shende who was the Medical officer at the Civil Hospital who has deposed that the injuries suffered by them were sufficient to cause death if not treated within time. However, he admitted that there was no injury to any vital organ of either of the injured and that both the patients were fully conscious. Considering the overall evidence on record in this regard along with the weapon of assault which was stated to be blunt by Dr. Khobragade, we do not find that this evidence is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by Shankar and Vinod were grievous and could have caused death. It is to be noted that under Section 320 of the Penal Code any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits is designated as "grievous". Admittedly, Shankar was hospitalized for a period of ten days while Vinod was hospitalized for a period of fourteen days. The evidence on record is thus not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Penal Code. 12. At the same time, however, the evidence on record is consistent with regard to appellant no.3 - Raju assaulting both Shankar and Vinod. Both the injured witnesses are consistent in their version as regards the assault by Raju. There is no reference to any assault either by appellant Nos.1 or 2. It will, therefore, have to be held that the appellant no.3 alone is liable to be convicted for having voluntarily caused hurt to Shankar and Vinod under Section 323 of the Penal Code. However, considering the fact that the incident took place on 20-7-1999 out of a dispute with regard to encroachment and further considering the fact that the appellant no.3 was enlarged on bail during pendency of these appeals, we are inclined to grant him benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 13. As regards the offence under Section 448 of the Penal Code is concerned, the same pertains to house trespass. There is, however, no evidence on record to indicate any such house trespass as defined by Section 442 of the Penal Code. 13. As regards the offence under Section 448 of the Penal Code is concerned, the same pertains to house trespass. There is, however, no evidence on record to indicate any such house trespass as defined by Section 442 of the Penal Code. PW16 Bhaurao Farande who was the Investigating Officer has clearly admitted that he did not verify the documents with regard to ownership about disputed land. The spot panchanama at Exhibit-35 is also not sufficient to make out commission of any offence punishable under Section 448 of the Penal Code. The conviction of the appellants for said offence is, therefore, not sustainable. 14. As it has been found that the appellant nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted and only the appellant no.3 is liable to be punished for having committed offence punishable under Section 323 of the Penal Code, there is no question of considering the prayer for enhancement of the sentence as prayed for in Criminal Appeal No. 343/2003. Hence, the decisions relied upon in that regard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor do not fall for consideration. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed: (1) The appellant nos.1 and 2 are exonerated of the offences punishable under Section 307 or under Section 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) The appellant no.3 (accused No.3) is found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. (3) However, he is given benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and time of one month to execute necessary bonds before the trial Court for that purpose. (4) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by the trial Court after appeal period is over. (5) Appeal No. 216/2003 is partly allowed. (6) In view of this, the appeal filed for enhancement vide Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2003 by State Government is dismissed. Order accordingly.