JUDGMENT &ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. The revision petitioners were convicted under Section 447/324/34 IPC in GR Case No.545/2003 by learned SDJM, Biswanath Chariali and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 (three) months under section 447 and imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 324 IPC. 3. The revision petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction. However, modified the sentence reducing the term of imprisonment to 1 (one) month for the offence under Section 447 IPC and imprisonment for 6 (six) months under Section 324 IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Court of Sessions, the revision petitioner has preferred the instant appeal. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the evidence brought on record did not constitute any offence under Section 324 IPC and therefore, conviction of the accused persons under Section 324 IPC was illegal and required to be set-aside. It has also been contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witness being relations of the injured and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. The learned Addl. PP contended that the evidence brought on record was sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused persons and therefore, conviction and sentence of the accused persons by the learned appellate Court requires no interference. 6. Section 324 IPC reads as under: 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 7. 7. A plain reading of the provision of section 324 IPC makes it appears that in order to establish a charge under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove the following ingredients of the offence. 1. Voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, 2. or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death 3. by means of fire or any heated substance. 4. by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, 5. by means of any explosive substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, 6. by means of any animal. 8. As per the medical evidence, PW-3 Lokeswar Borah sustained the following injuries: (i). one lacerated injury over the right side of the scalp. (ii). one lacerated injury over the left side of the face. (iii). one lacerated injury on the left hand, over the left index finger, (iv). one lacerated injury on the left forearm. 9. PW-4 Aruna Bora sustained the following injuries: (i). tenderness present over the chest. (ii). tenderness present over left side of lower abdomen. (iii). scratch injury present over the left side of the face. 10. Pw-6 Upen Bora sustained the following injuries: (i). scratch injury over the forehead. (ii). tenderness with swelling present over the right side of the scalp. (iii). tenderness with swelling present over the left arm. all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon as per the doctor. 11. Therefore, evidently the injuries were not caused by any of the categories of weapon mentioned under Section 324 of the IPC. In absence of such evidence, that injuries were caused by the categories of weapon mentioned in the section 324 IPC, there cannot be any offence under Section 324 IPC. The evidence brought on record also transpires that the prosecution witnesses have given different versions with regard to the weapon used and according to doctor simple injuries received by Pw-3, Pw-4 and Pw-6 were caused by blunt weapon. Thus, the oral evidence as well as the medical evidence makes it abundantly clear that no offence under Section 324 IPC was made out and this aspect of the matter seems to have escaped the notice of both the courts below. 12. Charges were framed under Sections 447/448/324 IPC. Thus, the oral evidence as well as the medical evidence makes it abundantly clear that no offence under Section 324 IPC was made out and this aspect of the matter seems to have escaped the notice of both the courts below. 12. Charges were framed under Sections 447/448/324 IPC. The offence under Section 324 IPC having not been established, conviction of the accused persons under Section 324 IPC by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court appears to be illegal. So far the conviction under section 447 IPC is concerned, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the offence under Section 447 IPC has been proved, inasmuch as, the testimony of the prosecution witness with regard to criminal trespass remained unshaken. Only because the witnesses were relations, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. Since the witnesses were apparently natural witnesses and they successfully withstood the cross-examination, their testimony cannot be brushed aside. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the accused persons under Section 447 IPC awarded by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court cannot be faulted. 13. From the evidence, it appears that both the parties are close relations and the occurrence took place in the year 2003 and in the meantime, 14 years have elapsed. Thus, having considered the nature of offence and facts and circumstances, under which offence was committed and that the parties are related to each other, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is reduced to fine only. Accordingly, the sentence of the accused persons is modified to the extent of payment of fine of Rs.500/- each in default to imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days. 14. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the revision petition is partly allowed. The revision petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and to pay the fine or in default to serve out the sentence. 15. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae, I hereby provide that she will be entitled to fees, as Legal Aid Counsel as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Ms. Kanungoe. 16. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae, I hereby provide that she will be entitled to fees, as Legal Aid Counsel as per the norms fixed by the Legal Services Authority Regulation. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Ms. Kanungoe. 16. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. Send back the LCR.