JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 29.09.1997 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Merta in Sessions Case No.54/1996 (31/1994) convicting appellant No. 1 - Pokar Ram for offences under Sections 307, 147 and 323 IPC and sentencing him as under:- Accused U/s Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine Pokar Ram 307 IPC 5 Yrs. R.I. 2500/- 1 month's S.I. 147 IPC 1 Yrs. R.I. 250/- 7 days S.I. 323 IPC 6 months R.I. 250/- 7 days S.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently. After realization of fine of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.2,000/- be given to Bhagirath Singh. The appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 - Chela Ram, Ram Singh, Nanuram and Baluram respectively have been sentenced under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('the Act') on filing personal bond of Rs.1,000/- for a period of two years. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : on 03.04.1994 at about 11:30 PM Ravi - PW-2 lodged an FIR at Police Station Makrana alleging therein that on 03.04.1994 at about 11:00 AM he along with some workers were working on the quarry of Teja Bawari (DW-1); when Pokar Ram along with Chelaram, Baluram, Nanuram and Ramsingh and four others came in his unnumbered jeep having lathi and farsi in their hands and asked them to stop the work; he was told not to quarrel and let the complainant call his father; he sent Parma Ram for calling his father, who arrived after 15-20 minutes and asked why the accused were quarrelling, but they attacked him by lathi and farsi and his father ran away, when Pokar Ram asked others to sit in the jeep and that they would kill Colonel and started the jeep and moved the jeep on his father; thereafter they ran away from the place; his father received grievous injuries on both hands and legs. 3. On the said report an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 IPC; after investigation challan was filed; on behalf of prosecution 8 witnesses were produced including PW-2 - Ravi, PW-3 - Bhagirath Singh (injured), PW-5 - Parma Ram and PW-6 - Dr. Man Singh; documentary evidence was also produced. 4. 3. On the said report an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 IPC; after investigation challan was filed; on behalf of prosecution 8 witnesses were produced including PW-2 - Ravi, PW-3 - Bhagirath Singh (injured), PW-5 - Parma Ram and PW-6 - Dr. Man Singh; documentary evidence was also produced. 4. After statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused led evidence and produced three witnesses including Pokar Ram as DW-3; after trial as above, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinbefore. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the entire story sought to be made out by the prosecution is baseless and the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged incident and involvement of the appellants; it was submitted that the entire allegation revolves around the complainant along with other persons working at the mine of Teja Bawari, which from evidence is proved to be Mine No.75, whereas, qua the Mine No. 75 Teja Ram has specifically stated in his statement as DW-1 that the same was given to Nadan Singh for working and Nadan Singh has produced the agreement as Exhibit-D/5 in this regard. The complainant and the injured have failed to produce any document regarding their working of the mine and complainant Ravi has claimed the mine as Mine No.83-84 and, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court deserves to be set aside. 6. It was further submitted that the allegation against Pokar Ram has been trying to run over the injured by jeep, however, there is no crush injuries on the body of the injured - Bhagirath and from the statement of the parties, no specific injury has been assigned to Pokar Ram and, therefore, his conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained; it was submitted that neither the Radiologist nor the Technician was examined and in absence thereof, the prosecution has failed to establish that the injury alleged was grievous in nature and, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. 7. Reliance was placed on Kanji and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCD 1140 (Raj.) and Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) R.Cr.D. 111 (Raj.). 8. 7. Reliance was placed on Kanji and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCD 1140 (Raj.) and Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) R.Cr.D. 111 (Raj.). 8. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court; it was submitted that on the statements of complainant - Ravi, injured - Bhatirath and Prema Ram it is established beyond doubt that the incident in fact had happened and Bhagirath suffered injuries on account of the action of the accused and, therefore, the minor contradiction in the number of mine by itself is not sufficient to acquit the appellants. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. As already noticed hereinbefore, the trial court convicted five accused under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and appellant No.1 was additionally convicted of Section 307 IPC and in so far as appellant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, they have been given benefit of the probation and appellant No.1 was awarded sentence. 11. The statements of complainant - Ravi son of injured Bhagirath as PW-2, Bhagirath as PW-3 and Parma Ram as PW-5 are consistent, inasmuch as, they have clearly indicated that Ravi along with other persons including Parma Ram were working in the mine when the accused persons arrived at and started quarrelling, Parma Ram went and called Bhagirath and when Bhagirath came at the site he was attacked by the accused and when Bhagirath tried to run away, Pokar Ram along with 2-3 persons, climbed the jeep and tried to run over Bhagirath, when he suffered injuries. 12. Despite sufficient cross-examination, the said witnesses to the extent of the above aspect of the matter could not be dislodged and to that extent the prosecution has sufficiently proved the case. 13. In the injury report (Exhibit-P/5) injury Nos.8 & 12 have been indicted by PW-6 - Dr. Man Singh as grievous. The injuries indicated are as under:- "8- fuyxw ftl ij lkstu gqbZ o ftlds uhps dh fQxwyk gM~Mh ds uhps dh gM~Mh VwVh gqbZ] lkstu dk vkdkj 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 bapk nkgus Vdus ds ckgj dh vksjA 12- fuyxw ftlds mij lkstu vkbZ gqbZ ftlds uhps Qhej gM~Mh dh xnZu o mldk xzsVjVksisVj esa QszDpj ik;k x;kA 3x3 bap ck;sa tkap ds mij dh vksj ,oa ckgj dh vksjA " 14. Further, the Doctor in his statement clearly indicated that the injuries 8 and 12 can be of lathi and farsi and that there was no crush injury in Exhibit-P/5 and if the vehicle runs over a person twice, the injuries as indicated in Exhibit-P/5 cannot be suffered and that the injuries were not fatal. 15. It is an admitted fact that neither the Radiologist nor the Technician in relation to the X-ray Plates, which were exhibited, were examined. 16. In view of the fact that a specific allegation was made against Pokar Ram trying to run over injured Bhagirath while driving the jeep and which has been found by the trial court as an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC the lack of crush injuries on the body of the injured and even lack of any abrasion or wound along with the injuries 8 and 12 except for the swelling therein, the allegation regarding Pokar Ram trying to run over the injuries while driving the jeep has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt besides the fact that on account of lack of evidence by Radiologist and/or the Technician, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the injury Nos.8 & 12 were grievous in nature. 17. So far as the submissions made regarding the conviction under Sections 147 and 323 IPC of the appellant No.1 is concerned, in view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, the same does not require any interference and further the conviction and grant of probation to the appellant Nos.2 to 5 also does not call for any interference. 18. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.1 has undergone imprisonment for one month and 14 days and that the incident pertains to the year 1994 i.e. almost 22 years back while rest of the accused have already been granted benefit of probation, the appellant No.1 is entitled to similar relief. 19. Having considered the above submissions and the fact about passage of over 22 years from the date of incident and the fact that the appellant No.1 has undergone sentence for one month and 14 days, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant No.1 to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant No. 1 - Pokar Ram under Section 307 IPC is set aside and his conviction under Sections 147 and 323 IPC along with appellant No.2 to 5 is sustained. As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant No.1 has undergone substantial sentence and, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 is reduced to the period already undergone.