JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. 1. These two criminal appeals have arisen out of one judgment which has been delivered in one sessions trial, thus are being disposed of simultaneously by this common judgment. In these criminal appeals, challenge is levied to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No. 83/1998 whereby and whereunder he convicted both the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. In brief, prosecution case is that complainant Shatrughan Lal Sonwani was 18 years old and resided in Mudapar, Distt. Korba. Earlier the complainant and the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das were working under one K.N. Singh. On 13-10-1997 in the morning appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das along with his friend came to the house of complainant and they all three went for outing and reached near Halipad. During chitchatting the friend of the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das caught hold the complainant, appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das took out knife and caused injuries in his stomach, chest, back, thighs of right and left feet. To save himself, the complainant held the knife as a result of which he also received injuries in his right palm and left - palm. The complainant was shifted to Government Hospital, Korba. Concerned doctor intimated to Police Out Post, Rampur. After inquiry, an F.I.R. under (0) number was lodged there on the very day against the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das and another person. On 14-10-1997, Crime No. 668/1997 was registered in Police Station, Korba. During investigation, Test Identification Parade was conducted and the complainant identified another accused Mohd. Anjar alias Monu. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against both the appellants under Section 307/34 of the IPC. 3. The trial Court framed charges against both the appellants under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Both the appellants abjured the charges levelled against them and faced trial. To bring home the charges against the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The appellants have not examined any witness in their defence. 3. The trial Court framed charges against both the appellants under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Both the appellants abjured the charges levelled against them and faced trial. To bring home the charges against the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The appellants have not examined any witness in their defence. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals. 5. Mr. Akhil Kumar Agrawal, counsel for appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das argued that there are so many discrepancies in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses. Prosecution has failed to show that what were the reasons behind the said incident. Alleged seized knife was not found with blood stains. None of the injuries individually was sufficient to cause death, thus conviction and sentence of the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das is bad in law. 6. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, counsel for appellant Mohd. Anjar Alias Monu argued that name of this appellant is not mentioned in the FIR registered in (0) number. The test identification parade is not reliable. Thus the conviction and sentence of this appellant is not sustainable. 7. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate appearing for the State argued that the aforesaid conviction and sentence are based on the sufficient evidence available on record. Thus no interference is called for. 8. Ms. Sunita Jain, Adv. for the complainant supports the arguments advanced by the Government Advocate. 9. As per alleged MLC report Ex. P-10, P.W. 11 Dr. A.D. Puraina had examined the complainant Shatrughan Lal Sonwani and found following injuries:- 1. Stab injury 6 x ½ cm x muscle depth Right clavicular region 2. Stab injury 6 x ½ cm x muscle depth Upper part of scalp 3. Stab injury 3 x ½ cm x muscle depth Right to lower chest wall 4. Stab injury 3½ cm x muscle depth Between right index to middle finger 5. Stab injury 3 x ½ cm x 1 cm At lower of L-5 Vertebral region 6. Stab injury 2 x ½ cm x muscle depth 1/3 Medical surface of middle finer of left hand 10. As per Ex. P-10, injury was dangerous to life and all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. As per alleged query report Ex. Stab injury 2 x ½ cm x muscle depth 1/3 Medical surface of middle finer of left hand 10. As per Ex. P-10, injury was dangerous to life and all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. As per alleged query report Ex. P-11, the said doctor replied that the aforesaid injuries mentioned in Ex. P-10 were dangerous to life. 11. P.W. 11 Dr. A.D. Purania in para 8 during cross-examination says that due to haste, in place of 'injuries' he mentioned only 'injury' in the sentence 'injury is dangerous to life' in Ex. P-10. 12. There is no such evidence on the strength of which it could be said that the said explanation is not natural. Thus this Court believes the said explanation given by said witness. 13. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. P-10 is untrustworthy in the reference that, allegedly said doctor had found the injuries mentioned in Ex. P-10 on the body of the complainant, were dangerous to life and caused by hard and sharp object and Ex. P-11 is also untrustworthy. Thus this Court believes Ex. P-10 in the said reference and Ex. P-11. 14. As per alleged report Ex. P-13, said doctor had examined one knife and found that the injuries of the complainant may be caused by the said knife. He had also examined one pant, one shirt and found some stains on them which may be human blood. 15. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. P-13 is not believable in the reference that allegedly said doctor had examined one sharp object, one pant, one shirt and found some stains on them which may be human blood. Thus this Court believes Ex. P-13 in the said reference. 16. As per alleged FSL report Ex. P-15, blood stains were found on one pant Article A-1, one Shirt Article A-2, soil Article 'C and blood was not found in Gupti Article B and plain soil Article D. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that Ex. P-15 is not believable. Thus this Court believes on Ex. P-15. 17. P.W. 2 Satrughan Lal Sonwani says in paras-3 & 4 of his statement on oath that the appellant Mohd. P-15 is not believable. Thus this Court believes on Ex. P-15. 17. P.W. 2 Satrughan Lal Sonwani says in paras-3 & 4 of his statement on oath that the appellant Mohd. Anjar alias Monu had caught hold him and the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das caused injuries below throat, right thigh, left thigh, in his hand and other parts of the body. 18. P.W. 3 Bharat Lal Chauhan who is brother of the complainant says in para 8 during his cross-examination that in the hospital complainant had told to him that both the appellants took him out and he was assaulted by knife. 19. P.W. 5 Pranlal says in para 2 of his statement on oath that he had found the injured Shatruhan Lal and he had told him that two persons have caused the incident. 20. PW/6 Dularu Ram Chouhan who is the father of the complainant says in para-2 of his statement on oath that the accused present in the Court had come in his house, they and the complainant had gone for an outing. 21. P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani says in para 12 during his cross examination that this is true that he and some other persons were seeing the program of Upasna Singh from the roof of the school and that roof fell down, thus he had got injuries. 22. P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani says in para 14 that next day of the said program the alleged incident was happened. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it could be said that this statement is not natural. Thus, this Court believes this statement. Thus, the appellant does not get any help from the said statement of paragraph 12 of PW/2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani. 23. P.W. 2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani in para-11 says that he and the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das were -working together under Contractor K.N. Singh. There is no such material on record which indicate that, said statement of said witness is not normal. Thus this Court believes said statement of said witness. 24. P.W. 2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani says in actual para-24, (incorrect paragraphing has been made and this paragraph again renumbered as para No. 14), that he does not know Mohd. Anjar either by name or by face. 25. Thus this Court believes said statement of said witness. 24. P.W. 2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani says in actual para-24, (incorrect paragraphing has been made and this paragraph again renumbered as para No. 14), that he does not know Mohd. Anjar either by name or by face. 25. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that during the recording of the evidence in Trial Court, P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani had not identified the appellant No. 2 Mohd. Anjar @ Monu. 26. During the cross-examination, in paras 13, 15 and 16 it has been suggested to P.W. 2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani that the appellant Mohd. Anjar @ Monu allegedly was present at the time of incident. 27. It has not been suggested to P.W. 6 Dularu Ram Chouhan that allegedly when the appellant Mohd. Anjar @ Monu had come along with the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das at that time he was not knowing the name of the appellant Mohd. Anjor @ Monu and was also not knowing him by face. 28. P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani in para-6 that he could not know reasons as to why the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das had beaten him. He says in para-18 that this is true that there was no enmity between him and the appellants. 29. In the case in hand, the prosecution case is based on the direct evidence and not on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the motive becomes irrelevant and the appellants do not get any benefit from the said statements of paras-6 and 18 of P.W.2 Shatrughan Kumar Sonwani. 30. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that said statements of paras- 3 & 4 of P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani, said statement of P.W. 3 Bharat Lal Chauhan, said statement of P.W.5 Pranlal and said statement of P.W.6 Dularu Ram Chouhan, do not inspire confidence. 31. P.W. 14 Assistant Sub-inspector Ramesh Chandra Verma says in paras-1 to 3 of his statement on oath that he had seized blood stained one full shirt and one full pant, blood stained soil and plain soil from Shatrughan Lal Sonwani. P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani in para 8 and 10 and P.W. 3 Bharat Lal Chauhan in para 4 say the same facts. 32. P.W.2 Shatrughan Lal Sonwani in para 8 and 10 and P.W. 3 Bharat Lal Chauhan in para 4 say the same facts. 32. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that the alleged seizure of one full shirt and one full pant Ex. P-3, alleged blood stained soil and plain soil Ex. P-4 are not believable. Thus, this Court believes Exs. P-3 and P-4. 33. P.W. 14 Ramesh Chandra Verma says in para-1 that the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das had given memorandum and he had seized one knife (Gupti) from the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das at this instance from shrub. 34. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which ii could be said that the alleged memorandum Ex. P-6 and alleged seizure Ex. P-7 are not believable. Thus, this Court believes Exs. P-6 and P-7. 35. In FIR registered at (0) number Ex. P-12 it has been mentioned that the appellant Ajju @ Ajay Kumar Das and his friend had caused injuries on the body of complainant by knife. 36. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that in the reference that allegedly the appellant Ajju @ Ajay Kumar Das was present along with his friend, the appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das has caused injury on the body of the complainant with sharp cutting object, Ex. P-12 is not natural. Thus, this Court finds that Ex. P-12 is natural in that reference. 37. After full appreciation of the evidence discussed here before, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of incident the appellant Mohd. Anjar @ Monu had caught hold the complainant. The appellant Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das had caused injuries to the complainant mentioned in Ex. P-10 by hard and sharp object which were dangerous to life. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balaram Rama Patil AIR 1983 SC 3051, observed that "To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. P-10 by hard and sharp object which were dangerous to life. 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balaram Rama Patil AIR 1983 SC 3051, observed that "To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary' circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof." 39. In Lachman Sinah v. State of Haryana 2006(10) SCC 524 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to justify conviction under Section 307, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death to be inflicted, but it is sufficient if there is present an intention coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 40. In Ratan Singh v. State of M.P. 2009(12) SCC 585 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, and circumstances that injury inflicted simple or minor will not rule out application of the section. 41. 40. In Ratan Singh v. State of M.P. 2009(12) SCC 585 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, and circumstances that injury inflicted simple or minor will not rule out application of the section. 41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fireman Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2015 SC 3101 held that "to justify a conviction under Sec-307, IPC the court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murder and it would depend upon facts and circumstances of the case - although nature of injuries caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to intention of accused, such intention may also be gathered from the circumstances like nature of weapon used, parts of body where injuries were caused, severity of blows given and motive, etc." 42. From the evidence discussed herebefore, it is noticeable that the appellant-Ajju alias Ajay Kumar Das has done such act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, aforesaid judicial precedents laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court are applicable against the appellants. This Court finds that no exception referred to Section 300, IPC is attracted in the case in hand. 43. Considering the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the charges under Section 307/34 of the IPC against the appellants. Thus, this court holds that the appellants are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC. 44. Looking to the above-mentioned circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view regarding sentence. The sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 45. After complete and full appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid. 46. Thus, this Court confirms the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-10-2001. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merit deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled. 46. Thus, this Court confirms the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-10-2001. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merit deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are canceled. They are directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining part of sentences.