JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30-09-2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2003, convicting the accused-appellant, under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and sentencing each of the two accused-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 5 months each. 2. I have heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellants and Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The facts, leading to the case, is that on 03-08-2002, at about 1.30 p.m. while the injured went out to his paddy field for the purpose of seedling, both the accused-appellants inflicted injuries on his person with sharp cutting weapon resulting in his hospitalisation in the Kanaklata Civil Hospital at Tezpur. 4. On the basis of above facts, PW2, Smti Lily Das, mother of the injured, lodged the FIR with the Salonibari Police Outpost, which forwarded the same to the Tezpur Police Station for registration of the case. Accordingly, Tezpur Police Station Case No. 488/2002, under Sections 307/326/34 of the IPC was registered, investigated into it, collected evidence, arrested the accused-appellants, and after completion of the investigation, finally, submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 307/326/34 IPC. 5. On appearance of the accused-appellants before the learned trial Court of Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, after exhausting all required formalities, a formal charge against the accused-appellants was framed under Sections 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded innocence. Accordingly, the trial commenced. 6. The point for determination, in view of the facts of the case, is that whether the accused-appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries on the person of Sri Ranjan Das (PW3) with a sharp cutting weapon with a view to commit murder. 7. For determination of the above issue, we have the evidence of 12 witnesses on record including the Medical Officer (PW1) and the Investigating Police Officer (PW11). 8. The evidence of PW1, Dr. 7. For determination of the above issue, we have the evidence of 12 witnesses on record including the Medical Officer (PW1) and the Investigating Police Officer (PW11). 8. The evidence of PW1, Dr. Sudhanwa Kalita, is taken up first for discussion with reference to the other witness as his evidence throws light on the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and so far as the intention of the accused-appellants is concerned in committing the aforesaid offence of committing injuries to the PW3, victim, Ranjan Das. PW1 examined the injured, PW3, Ranjan Das on the date of occurrence itself at Kanaklata Civil Hospital and he has recorded his findings as follows: “1. Sharp cut wound over the scalp, six in numbers of varied sizes. Sizes varies from 3” x 1” to 1” x1” (Bone deep). 2. Sharp cut wound over left lateral side of the neck. Size is approximately 3” x 1” x 1”. 3. Sharp cut wound over the right thigh. Size 3” x 1” x ½”. 4. Sharp cut wound over the right Dorsum of the hand. Tendon of 2nd and 3rd fingers cut and injured. Size 3” x 3” x 1”. 5. Sharp cut wound over the right index finger. Size 1” x 1”. 6. Sharp cut wound over the left middle finger. Size 1” x 1”. 7. Sharp cut wound over the palm of the left hand. Size 1” x 1”. 8. Sharp cut wound over the right side of the abdomen. Size 1” x 1”. 9. From the evidence of the doctor, it appears that on his examination, he found 8 injuries on the person of the injured PW3, which are all caused by sharp cutting weapon. As per his opinion, except the Injury No. 4 mentioned in his report, Vide Ext. 1, other 7 injuries were simple in nature. He has further stated in his evidence that the injuries he found were sufficient to cause death of the injured. He also opined that the injuries were fresh. 10. In his cross-examination, the defence could not elicit anything to discredit his evidence rather he was categorical in respect of the fact that the injured was brought to the hospital within 6 hours of his sustaining injuries and blood was oozing out at that time from his injuries. 11. Let us, now, look into the evidence of PW3, injured. 10. In his cross-examination, the defence could not elicit anything to discredit his evidence rather he was categorical in respect of the fact that the injured was brought to the hospital within 6 hours of his sustaining injuries and blood was oozing out at that time from his injuries. 11. Let us, now, look into the evidence of PW3, injured. The injured (PW3), Ranjit Das is found to have stated in his evidence that both the accused-persons Jitu Phukan and Bitu Phukan were brothers, and at the time of occurrence, both of them caused injuries to his person with a sharp cutting weapon. His evidence hinted that the accused-appellants engaged labourers to reap their seedling in their paddy field and after reaping their seedling, they came to the field of this witness for planting some paddy there. They were taking rest beneath a tree at the relevant time of occurrence. Both the accused persons appeared there and assaulted him with Khukri thus causing him the injuries. From the tone and tenor of evidence of PW3, it appears that they had some disputes in respect of the paddy field although that has not come out from the evidence on record very specifically. 12. He also deposed about the injuries he sustained over his scalp and other parts of the body. On his request, Durga Kalandi (PW6) arranged a vehicle, but he was taken to the hospital by his mother. He was also referred to the GMCH, where he underwent treatment for about 1 and ½ months. It appears from the evidence of PW1 and PW3 that the injuries claimed to have been sustained by the injured were found in his person by the doctor. 13. The evidence of PW5, Sri Uttam Das, who is the eye witness of the occurrence, has explained in his evidence the sequence leading to the occurrence and also the fact that the injured was assaulted with Khukri by the accused-appellants. He only told about the occurrence to the mother of the injured, PW2. It has come out from the evidence of PW2, mother of the injured that she was told about the occurrence by the PW5, Uttam Das. So on this point, the evidence of PW2 and PW5 appears to be corroborative. He only told about the occurrence to the mother of the injured, PW2. It has come out from the evidence of PW2, mother of the injured that she was told about the occurrence by the PW5, Uttam Das. So on this point, the evidence of PW2 and PW5 appears to be corroborative. The eye witness account of the incident narrated by the PW5 remained intact even during his cross-examination confirming the accusation that the accused-appellant caused injury to the person of the PW3. 14. The evidence of PW6 is of no relevance so far as the occurrence is concerned, because, he expressed his ignorance about the occurrence. 15. The evidence of other witnesses, i.e., the evidence of PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW9 is not of much aid to the prosecution as they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, but they all heard and they did not have direct knowledge about the occurrence. 16. PW10, Sri Prakash Ranjan Gharphalia, is the Executive Magistrate, who went to Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur for recording the dying declaration of the injured in view of the initial impression of the doctor that injured was likely to die. Accordingly, he recorded the statement of the victim, vide Ext. 3. 17. In view of the evidence above, it appears that both the accused-appellants assaulted the injured, PW3, Ranjan Das, causing injuries to his persons. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the accused-appellants intended to cause death of the deceased. There is no such injury on vital parts, which would have been sufficient, in ordinary course, to cause death of the injured and no prudent man would have believed that such injuries would have been sufficient to cause death of the injured. 18. There was also no evidence, on record, to the fact that the accused-appellants had knowledge that the injuries caused to the PW3 were likely to cause his death. The evidence also fails to bring forth the intention of the accused-appellants to the effect that they intended to cause death of the injured. 19. 18. There was also no evidence, on record, to the fact that the accused-appellants had knowledge that the injuries caused to the PW3 were likely to cause his death. The evidence also fails to bring forth the intention of the accused-appellants to the effect that they intended to cause death of the injured. 19. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be a case not under Section 307 of the IPC, rather, as per the medical report, this is a case under Section 326 of the IPC, in respect of Injury No. 4, and a case under Section 324 of the IPC, in respect of the remaining injuries. Accordingly, the accused-appellant, Jitu Moni Phukan is convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of the IPC. In respect of the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan, separate order is being passed hereinafter. 20. Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel for accused-appellants has submitted that, in view of the evidence on record, the accused-appellants ought to have been found guilty under Section 324/325 IPC. However, he has further submitted that, keeping in view the age of the accused-appellant, Jitu Moni Phukan, the punishment imposed appears to be harsh and he ought to have been dealt with leniently. According to him, on the date of occurrence, he was 19 years 3 months of age. On the other hand, he has submitted that the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan is a juvenile, which plea was not taken before the learned trial Court and that this is for the first time he has raised this issue before this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has produced a copy of the Admit Card, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education. On perusal of the same, it appears that the date of birth of the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan is 03-07-1985. The date of occurrence in the instant case is 03-08-2002, as such, prima facie, below 18 years of age. 21. That being so, in the opinion of this Court, an inquiry is required to be made so far as the plea of juvenility of the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan is concerned. The date of occurrence in the instant case is 03-08-2002, as such, prima facie, below 18 years of age. 21. That being so, in the opinion of this Court, an inquiry is required to be made so far as the plea of juvenility of the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan is concerned. Therefore, the case of the accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, with a direction to hold an inquiry in respect of his juvenility and to record his findings, and thereafter, to take appropriate steps as per law. 22. So far as the accused-appellant, Jitu Moni Phukan is concerned, as stated above, he is a young boy of below 20 years of age and as submitted by learned counsel for the accused-appellants, he deserves to be dealt with leniently in respect of punishment. 23. Considering the age of accused-appellant, Bitu Moni Phukan at the relevant time of occurrence, the fact that has come out from record that he is a student, studying in degree third year, this Court also feels that he should be dealt with leniently in respect of punishment. Therefore, on his conviction under Section 326 IPC, he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for further period of 15 days, and on his conviction, under Section 324 IPC, he is sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentence will run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone by accused-appellants be set off. 24. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. 25. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.