JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.Robinson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in S.C.No.102 of 2006 dated 26.09.2007, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.I, Thanjavur. 3. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that P.W.4 and P.W.5 did not disclose the presence of P.W.1 in the scene of occurrence. It is further stated that the Doctor who recorded the statement has stated that somebody has signed at the time of admitting the patient and the column for who accompanied the patient is kept vacant. Hence on the side of the appellants, it is stated that the presence of P.W.1 is not proved by the prosecution. 4. It is further stated that there is contradiction as to the availability of police before the injured was taken up to the hospital. 5. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that except P.W.1 and 2 and other witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely Dr.A.Bharath and Amir Bacha, P.W.5, namely Natarajan turned hostile. It is stated that there was an oral quarrel between accused and P.W.1 and P.W.2 and entered into compromise at the Village Panchayat. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are having previous enmity against A1 and A2. It is stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 and accused are having enmity due to election motive. It is further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not corroborated by the other two independent witness, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witness and their evidence is not acceptable. 6. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are having enmity with so many other persons and that P.W.1 has admitted that one Amar Singh, Kattappa @ Mahadevan and Thangapirakasam oppose P.W.1 in Panchayat Election and A1 and A3 support them respectively and they work against P.W.1. 7. It is further stated that P.W.1 has refused payment for temple in Village panchayat and his shop was handed over to his relative Murugan. 7. It is further stated that P.W.1 has refused payment for temple in Village panchayat and his shop was handed over to his relative Murugan. P.W.1 has further admitted that he is having a case for assaulting one Kama who is the aunty of one Raja and there is one more case pending against P.W.2 for assaulting one Sebastian and that somebody else might have attacked P.W.2, since so many persons have motive against P.W.2. 8. On the side of the appellants, it is further argued that none of the witness have stated that there is light facility at the time of the occurrence and that P.W.11 also has admitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had not deposed anything regarding the availability of light at the occurrence place. 9. On the side of the appellants, it is further stated that the Observation Mahazer witness and the confession witness were turned hostile and only their signature were marked as Exs.A.5 and 7, and that Mahazer witness were turned hostile, and that Exs.A.8 to 10 are not proved by the prosecution. It is further stated that there is suspicion as to the time of FIR as there is contradiction between the times given in the FIR and in the complaint and in the evidence of P.W.2. 10. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that motive between P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the accused is clearly narrated in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is further stated that though Observation Mahazer and Mahazer witness turned hostile. All those witness admitted their signature in those documents. It is further argued that the official witness have supported the case of the prosecution and no enmity between official witness and the accused is suggested by the defence side. It is further argued that even on the basis of evidence of Investigation Officer conviction can be given. 11. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that injuries are proved by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 to 10. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that A1 assaulted P.W.2 and caused injuries on his hands and A2 assaulted P.W.2 and caused injury on his legs. P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the weapons used by the accused and the weapons are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 have deposed that A1 assaulted P.W.2 and caused injuries on his hands and A2 assaulted P.W.2 and caused injury on his legs. P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the weapons used by the accused and the weapons are marked as M.Os.1 and 2. The injuries are narrated in AIR copy Ex.P.2 and Medical report Ex.P.3 reveals that there were injuries on the legs and hands of P.W.2. P.W.10 deposed that she took x-ray and filed X-ray report, Ex.P.12 and X-ray reveals that there were fractures on the right side of hand, wrist and ring finger and there is fracture in the right tibiya and alna bone. 12. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that all the injuries are simple in nature and the fracture in the ring finger and fracture in tibiya cannot be named as grievous. This contention of the appellants is wrong as the fracture cannot be named as simple injury and as per Ex.P12, victim is having four fractures. Hence, it is decided that those injuries are grievous in nature. 13. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that all the injuries are not in the vital parts of the body and there is no intention for the accused to murder P.W.2 and hence, Section 307 IPC is not made out and the accused may be made liable only for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 14. From the evidence of P.W.11, it is clear that P.W.2 did not given any statement before police regarding the wordings used by the accused at the time of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not elicit the fact that there is motive for A1 and A2. And Sufficient enough to attempt to commit murder. Occurrence witness P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. In this circumstances, the motive for A1 and A2 to attempt to commit murder is not clearly proved by the prosecution. 15. For the reasons stated above, this Court came to conclusion that the Trial Court judgment has to be set aside as to conviction and punishment under Section 307 IPC alone. Hence, the charge is altered into Section 326 IPC as A1 and A2 have used grievous weapons and caused grievous injuries. The charge under Section 307 IPC is not made out against A1. 16. Hence, the charge is altered into Section 326 IPC as A1 and A2 have used grievous weapons and caused grievous injuries. The charge under Section 307 IPC is not made out against A1. 16. The trial Court order is modified and A1 and A2 are convicted under Section 326 IPC and were punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo a further period of one month simple imprisonment. 17. With the above observation, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. No Costs.