JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.7.2006 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.22/2002, whereby the appellants/accused persons have been held guilty for the offences under Section 307/149 IPC, sentenced to five years RI each with fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo six months RI; under Section 323/149 of IPC, sentenced to six months RI each with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo one months RI each; under Section 148 of IPC, sentenced to one year RI each with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo three months RI each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant's house is adjacent to the house of co-appellant Kalyan Singh. Kalyan Singh and his sons had planted a tableau of jhankro in the midst of his house and house of complainant, and due to wind jhankars lie at the side of complainant's house. On asking by the complainant to remove the jhankars co-appellant Kalyan Singh refused to do so then Jandel Singh, nephew of complainant Ganga Singh removed jhankars. All the appellants/accused persons started beating Jandel Singh with lathi. Jandel Singh received injuries on head and near right temporal. Appellant Garsingh came with axe and assaulted on Jandel Singh. Complainant rescued Jandel Singh then appellant Kalyan gave him lathi blow. Complainant suffered injuries on back and right hand. The matter was reported to Police Station Ambah, District Morena, on which basis the police registered a case at Crime No. 214/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC. After due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against appellants/accused persons. 3. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 307/149. The appellants/accused persons abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication in this case and they have lodged report against the complainant side. 4. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record held the appellants guilty for the offences and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above. Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. 4. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record held the appellants guilty for the offences and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above. Aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as per medical reports (Ex. P/12 and P/16) no injury was found to be dangerous to life. As per prosecution story, axe blow was allegedly inflicted by the appellants No.1-Pramod Singh, No.2-Bhure Singh and No.5-Gar Singh on the vital part of the body of Jandel Singh but learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no injury was fatal. Only incised wounds were found on head and temporal region of the head and linear fracture was found on the body of Jandel Singh which was caused by hard and blunt object. Hence, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. 7. Ex. P/15 is query report whereby query was made by Police Station Ambah District Morena. In response to that query, Dr. Yogendra Singh has opined that injuries were grievous in nature but no opinion has been given as to whether injuries caused were fatal. 8. Jandel Singh (PW-7) has made omnibus allegation against the present appellants for causing injuries. He has also admitted that the injuries as mentioned above were inflicted by appellants to him. He has admitted in para 4 of cross-examination that there was no previous quarrel between him and the appellants. They were residing as neighbours and are farmers. There are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding committing offence under Section 307 of IPC, as concerning medical expert has not opined that the injuries caused to the victims were dangerous to life or on vital part. The injuries caused to the injured persons appear to be caused by hard and blunt object and are grievous in nature. Hence, no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most the appellants are found to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Hence, no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most the appellants are found to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned judgment dated 1.7.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 22/2002 is modified to the extent that the appellants are held guilty of offence under Section 325/149 of IPC instead of Section 307/149 IPC. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 325/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 of IPC. 10. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellants are hereby sentenced to two years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 325/149 IPC; six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/149; and, one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 148 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, each appellant shall suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 325/149 IPC, one month under Section 323/149 and one month under Section 148 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the appellants shall be adjusted towards the above mentioned sentence imposed by this Court. The order passed by the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized article is hereby affirmed. 11. All the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are now cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court without any delay so that they may be sent for execution of remaining part of their jail sentence. 12. A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information to prepare the supersession warrant of the appellants in terms of the sentence awarded against the appellants by this judgment. With the modification in the judgment of the trial Court to the above extent, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.