JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since both these appeals have been instituted against one and the same judgment, and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. 2. The present appeals have been instituted against Judgment dated 31.8.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (HP) in Sessions Case No. 4/2010, whereby appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 397/2011 and respondents in Cr. Appeal No. 510/2011, (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused have been convicted under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. However, they have been released by giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act on probation of good conduct. They were directed to enter into bonds of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount undertaking therein to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon by the Court. Bonds were to remain in force for two years. Accused were directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of bonds executed by them. Bonds were furnished, attested and accepted by the learned trial Court. Accused have also been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victims to be borne by the accused equally. 3. Cr. Appeal No. 397/2011 has been filed by the accused against their conviction under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. Cr. Appeal No. 510/2011 has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the accused, after forming common intention, on 6.6.2009, at about 8.30 PM at village Malahat wrongfully restrained Shri Bal Krishan while he was going to his in-laws house. It is alleged that the accused after forming common intention gave beatings to Shri Bal Krishan with such an intention and knowledge which could have caused death of said Bal Krishan. It is also alleged that the accused on the said date, time and place intentionally caused simple hurt to Bal Krishan and his wife Shashi Bala. It is alleged that the accused after forming common intention gave beatings to Shri Bal Krishan with such an intention and knowledge which could have caused death of said Bal Krishan. It is also alleged that the accused on the said date, time and place intentionally caused simple hurt to Bal Krishan and his wife Shashi Bala. Complaint was lodged with the police by the complainant vide DDR Ext. PW-7/A. Victims were medically examined. IO recorded the statement of Smt. Shashi Bala, wife of the injured, vide Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 CrPC. Thereafter, FIR Ext. PW-11/B was registered at Police Station, Una. IO took into possession incriminating articles and also obtained MLC of Bal Krishan and his wife Smt. Shashi Bala from the Medical Officer. IO also collected CT scan report of Bal Krishan from medical clinic at Nangal. He also obtained record of Bal Krishan from PGI Chandigarh. Matter was investigated and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 5. Prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. Accused were convicted as noticed above and were released by giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, accused were acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Hence, two appeals came to be filed, one by the accused against their conviction under Sections 341, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and another by the State against the acquittal of accused under Section 307 IPC. 6. Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate appearing for the accused in both the appeals, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and his clients have been wrongly convicted under Sections 341, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 7. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused under Section 307 IPC. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully. 9. Smt. Shashi Bala (PW-1) deposed that her husband was a shopkeeper at Village Malahat. Driver of the tractor trolley had brought bricks in his tractor being taken to the house of accused Devinder Kumar. The bricks were unloaded in the house of accused Devinder. 9. Smt. Shashi Bala (PW-1) deposed that her husband was a shopkeeper at Village Malahat. Driver of the tractor trolley had brought bricks in his tractor being taken to the house of accused Devinder Kumar. The bricks were unloaded in the house of accused Devinder. At about 4.30 PM, the driver again brought bricks of accused Devinder Kumar. At that time, she and her husband had stopped the tractor loaded with bricks on the ground that it was disturbing the foundation of their house. At about 8.30 PM, on 6.6.2009, she alongwith her husband and daughter Bharti was going to the house of her mother. Accused Devinder and Gaurav came to their shop and gave beatings to her husband. Firstly, they asked her husband to stop as they wanted to talk to him regarding the bricks. Thereafter, Devinder caught hold of her husband and Gaurav attacked her husband and gave fist blows and also with some object on his head. Her husband fell down on the spot. Accused continued beating her husband with kicks even after he fell down. She raised hue and cry. Accused gave beatings to Shashi Bala also. Accused Gaurav gave fist blow to her head. Accused was having some sharp edged weapon in his hand which caused injury on her head and on her back. She also lost golden chain, which was recovered later on. Accused had come with an intention to commit murder of her husband as well as her. People gathered there and accused remained present. With the help of Sh. Lekh Raj Sharma, she took her husband to the RH Una for treatment. She and her husband were medically examined. She has proved her MLC mark A. Police recorded her statement under Section 154 CrPC. Her husband was referred to PGI Chandigarh by the Medical Officer RH Una. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her husband was riding the scooter at the time of incident. 10. Statement of Shashi Bala (PW-1) has been corroborated by Kumari Bharti (PW-4). She testified that in the year 2009, she was studying in 7th class. On 6.6.2009, she and her father were going to their house from the shop after locking the same at about 8.30 PM. Her mother was also accompanying them. Accused Devinder Kumar and Gaurav met them near the house of her uncle Krishan Lal. She testified that in the year 2009, she was studying in 7th class. On 6.6.2009, she and her father were going to their house from the shop after locking the same at about 8.30 PM. Her mother was also accompanying them. Accused Devinder Kumar and Gaurav met them near the house of her uncle Krishan Lal. Accused Devinder caught hold of her father from back side and accused Gaurav inflicted injury on the head of her father with some object. Her father fell unconscious. Even then the accused continued beating her father. Her mother came to the rescue of her father. Accused gave beating to her mother also. Thereafter, her uncle took her father to the hospital in the vehicle. She and her mother also accompanied her father. Her father had also vomited blood while he was taken to the hospital. Her father was admitted in the emergency ward. The police took into possession shirt of her mother and Banian of her father vide memo Ext. PW-4/A. She denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident. 11. Statement of Dr. Raman Puri (PW-2) is material. He testified that on 6.6.2009, at 9.20 PM, he examined Bal Krishan son of Jagdish Ram, resident of village Malahat. The injured was brought by Smt. Shashi Bala, wife of the injured with the alleged history of being beaten and being hit on the head. History was given by the wife of the patient. There was history of vomiting after injury. He vomited in the causality also. On examination, the patient was drowsy. Patient was admitted and surgeon was called. On 1.9.2009, as per the medico legal case summary report from the Department of Neuro Surgery, PGI Chandigarh, Admission No. 70126 CR No. 520802 date of admission 8.6.2009, and date of discharge 10.6.2009, Mark B was presented before him and on the basis of which he opined that the injuries No. 2 and 3 were dangerous to life. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were simple in nature. All the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon within the probable duration of 2 to 4 hours. The injuries mentioned in MLC were possible if first blow is caused on the head of a person i.e. temple area with great force. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were simple in nature. All the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon within the probable duration of 2 to 4 hours. The injuries mentioned in MLC were possible if first blow is caused on the head of a person i.e. temple area with great force. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were possible if a person is pushed and he falls on the ground and if he is hit with kick blows. He issued MLC Ext. PW-2/A. On the same day, he also examined Smt. Shashi Bala. He noticed following injuries: “1. 1 ½ cm x 1 ½ cm reddish abrasion over right temple area. 2. Multiple soft haematomas present over back of scalp. Tenderness present.” 12. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have any record which could show that injuries No. 2 and 3 of Ext. PW-2/A were dangerous to life. Volunteered that on the basis of the clinical condition of the patient and report from Department of Neuro Surgery of PGI, he was of the opinion that injuries No.2 and 3 were dangerous to life as the injuries were found in the temple region of the head. 13. Dr. Lalit Bhardwaj (PW-3) stated that the patient Bal Krishan was admitted in their hospital on 8.6.2009. He was posted as a Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, PGI Chandigarh. Patient was referred to their hospital by Zonal Hospital Una. Patient was conscious. As per the clinical record and CT findings the patient had right FTP acute on Chronic subdural haematoma with significant mass effect. On the same day right FTP Craniotomy and evacuation of the haematoma was done. Patient was kept under observation and discharged on 10.6.2009. The head injuries on right frontal temporal and parietal region were dangerous to life. He issued medico legal case summary Ext. PW- 3/A. 14. Lekh Raj (PW-8) deposed that in the year 2009, at about 7 PM, he heard noise from the side of Rajesh’s house. He reached the spot immediately. Bal Krishan was lying face down in the Gali near the house of Rajesh. Accused Devinder Kumar and accused Gaurav were beating Bal Krishan. Accused also gave kick blows to Bal Krishan. Some ladies also witnessed the occurrence. Bal Krishan was lying unconscious on the spot. He, with the help of lady, lifted Bal Krishan from the spot. Bal Krishan was lying face down in the Gali near the house of Rajesh. Accused Devinder Kumar and accused Gaurav were beating Bal Krishan. Accused also gave kick blows to Bal Krishan. Some ladies also witnessed the occurrence. Bal Krishan was lying unconscious on the spot. He, with the help of lady, lifted Bal Krishan from the spot. He asked his son Neeraj Kumar to take Bal Brishan to the hospital in a vehicle. Accused Gaurav also inflicted two-three slaps on Smt. Shashi Bala wife of Bal Krishan. 15. Bal Krishan (PW-9) testified that he was coming from shop to his house. Accused Devinder Kumar and Gaurav met him near the stairs of house of Krishan Kumar. Accused told him that they had some work with him. He told them that he was busy on that day as he was going to his in-laws’ house. He assured them that he shall meet them on the next day in the morning. Thereafter, accused Devinder caught hold of him and accused Gaurav gave grip blow with his hands on his forehead. He fell down and became unconscious. He regained consciousness in the hospital on the next morning. He was checked by Dr. Chauhan, who referred him for CT scan, which was conducted in a private clinic at Nangal. The occurrence was seen by his wife Shashi Bala. 16. Dr. Satbir Singh (PW-10) deposed that he has done CT scan of Bal Krishan. There was subdural haematoma measuring 17.8 mm in depth in the right fronto temporal parietal region. 3rd and right lateral ventricles were compressed and midline was shifted towards left side by 10.8 mm. The injury mentioned could be dangerous to life if the haematoma increased in size. He issued report Ext. PW-10/A. 17. ASI Bir Singh (PW-11) was the IO. He alongwith Constable Balwinder Singh reached RH Una. Bal Krishan was under treatment. He moved an application to MO RH Una Ext. PW-11/A for the medical examination of Bal Krishan. Medical Officer opined that Bal Krishan was not fit for making statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Shashi Bala, wife of Bal Krishan, Ext. PW- 1/A, under Section 154 CrPC. He obtained treatment summary Ext. PW-3/A. He also obtained the opinion of Medical Officer RH Una on the basis of treatment summary from PGI Chandigarh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that many persons had assembled on the spot. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Shashi Bala, wife of Bal Krishan, Ext. PW- 1/A, under Section 154 CrPC. He obtained treatment summary Ext. PW-3/A. He also obtained the opinion of Medical Officer RH Una on the basis of treatment summary from PGI Chandigarh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that many persons had assembled on the spot. He has not taken the scooter into possession. 18. Dr. Satinder Chauhan (PW-12) deposed that on 7.6.2009, at 4 PM, he examined patient Bal Krishan son of Sh. Jagdish Ram in emergency who was admitted in main surgical ward vide indoor No. 4012 dated 6.6.2009 and on seeing CT report, Ext. PW-10/A, with impression subdural haematoma right fronto temporal left parietal region, he referred the patient to PGI Chandigarh for further management. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were instructions of the government that in medico legal cases, the CT scan is to be conducted in the Government hospital. Volunteered that in cases of emergency the injured are advised to conduct CT scan in private diagnostic centres for treatment purposes. 19. Prosecution has duly proved that the accused have given beatings to Bal Krishan (PW-9). He was given beatings on the head with kick and fist blows. He fell down and became unconscious but accused kept beating him. Shashi Bala (PW-1) tried to save him. She was also given beatings. Bal Krishan (PW-9) has deposed the manner in which he was accosted by the accused and given beatings and was given treatment in the hospital. Statement of Bal Krishan (PW-9) has been duly corroborated by Shashi Bala (PW-1) and their daughter Kumari Bharti (PW-4). According to Shashi Bala (PW-1) and Kumari Bharti (PW-4) accused had given beatings to Bal Krishan (PW-9) with kick and fist blows. According to Shash Bala (PW-1), accused Devinder caught hold of her husband and another accused Gaurav gave kick and fist blows and he was hit with some object. Similarly, Kumari Bharti (PW-4) has also deposed that accused Devinder caught her father from behind and Gaurav inflicted injury from back side with an object. Her father became unconscious. Statements of Shashi Bala (PW-1) and Kumari Bharti (PW-4) are natural and inspire confidence. There are no material contradictions in the statements of these witnesses. 20. Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, has argued that Bal Krishan (PW-9) received injuries due to fall from scooter. Her father became unconscious. Statements of Shashi Bala (PW-1) and Kumari Bharti (PW-4) are natural and inspire confidence. There are no material contradictions in the statements of these witnesses. 20. Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, has argued that Bal Krishan (PW-9) received injuries due to fall from scooter. This plea, can not be accepted in view of overwhelming medical evidence produced on record which only leads to one conclusion that Bal Krishan (PW-9) was beaten up by the accused and caused grievous injuries on his person. Dr. Raman Puri (PW-2) has issued Ext. PW- 2/A. According to him, injuries No. 2 and 3 were dangerous to life. Injuries No.1 and 4 were simple injuries. He has also examined Shashi Bala (PW-1) and issued MLC Ext. PW-2/B. Shashi Bala (PW- 1) has also received injuries. Dr. Lalit Bhardwaj (PW-3) has proved medico legal case summary Ext.PW-3/A. According to him also, head injuries on left fronto temporal parietal region were dangerous to life. Bal Krishan (PW-9) remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 8.6.2009 to 10.6.2009. Dr. Satbir Singh (PW-10) has also proved report Ext. PW-10/A. According to him also, there was subdural haematoma 17.8 mm in depth in the right fronto temporal parietal region. 3rd and right lateral ventricles were compressed and midline was shifted towards left side by 10.8 mm. Dr. Satinder Chauhan (PW-12) has categorically deposed that on 7.6.2009 at 4 PM he examined the patient Bal Krishan. It was an emergency case. He was admitted in main surgical ward. He referred the patient to PGI Chandigarh for further management. He proved Ext. PW-12/A. 21. Case of the prosecution is that the accused were requested not to disturb the foundation of the house of the victims. Accused thereafter met victim in his shop. He was given beatings by the accused primarily on the head resulting into grievous injuries. The very fact that accused have given beatings primarily on a vital organ of the body i.e. head, shows that they had the intention to kill Bal Krishan (PW-9). It is settled law that the cases where offence is made out under Section 307 IPC, it is the intention and not the injury. Though, in the present case, accused have beaten up Bal Krishan (PW-9) resulting into grievous injuries. It is the guilty intention or the knowledge with which injuries are caused irrespective of its result. It is settled law that the cases where offence is made out under Section 307 IPC, it is the intention and not the injury. Though, in the present case, accused have beaten up Bal Krishan (PW-9) resulting into grievous injuries. It is the guilty intention or the knowledge with which injuries are caused irrespective of its result. Thus the learned trial Court has erred in law by coming to the conclusion that the accused had no intention or knowledge to kill Bal Krishan (PW-9). The learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC. 22. Accused have wrongly restrained Bal Krishan (PW-9) and his wife near their house at Malahat. Accused have also caused injuries on the person of Shashi Bala (PW-1). Dr. Raman Puri (PW- 2) has issued MLC Ext. PW-2/B qua Shashi Bala (PW-1). She has received simple injuries which were caused with blunt weapon. Shashi Bala (PW-1) tried to intervene to save the life of her husband. She was also beaten up by accused. Accused kept on beating Bal Krishan (PW-9) despite the fact that he had become unconscious. Injuries No. 1 and 4 caused to Shashi Bala (PW-1) were simple in nature. 23. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 510/2011 preferred by the State is allowed. Judgment dated 31.8.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (HP) in Sessions Case No. 4/2010 is modified and the accused are convicted under Sections 307, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 24. Cr. Appeal No. 397/2011 is dismissed. 25. Accused be produced on 26.5.2016, to be heard on quantum of sentence. Registry is directed to prepare and send the production warrant of the accused to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, forthwith. 26. List on 26.5.2016.