JUDGMENT : The appellants were convicted by the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “trial Court”) in S.C.No.302/2012, by the judgment of conviction dated 9.12.2013 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the elder sister of the complainant (PW4) Imran, is PW5–Apsari. She is the wife of accused No.2/appellant No.2 herein and was married to him about one year prior to the date of the incident. Since she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was deserted by her husband while she was pregnant, she was living in her parents’ house, where she gave birth to a baby girl. In order to enter the name of the said baby girl in the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Ration Card maintained in the family of said Apsari, which was required to avail the benefit under Bhagyalakshmi Scheme launched by the State Government, on 16.12.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., PW5 – Apsari and mother, cousin brother, aunt, younger brother of said PW5 Apsari, went to the house of the accused, which was also the matrimonial home of PW5 and requested for the BPL card. The accused who were three in number, including the present appellants, at the abetment of accused No.4, apart from refusing to give the Ration Card, also abused PWs.1 to 5 in filthy language, assaulted them making use of two machetes and inflicted multiple injuries and attempted to kill them. However, PWs.1 to 5 could able to escape from them and went to the hospital. In that connection, PW4 (CW1) Imran lodged a complaint with the respondent Police on 16.12.2011, in the night at about 11.45 p.m., which was registered in the respondent Police Station Crime No.189/2011, against the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 114, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against all the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 114, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against all the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 114, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses from PW.1 to PW12 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P11 and material objects from MO1 to MO10 were marked. From the accused side, neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. 4. After hearing the arguments from both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 9.12.2013 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2013, convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly, however, acquitted them of the offence punishable under Sections 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. It acquitted accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 114 of IPC. It is challenging their conviction, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this appeal. 5. The respondent – State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader. 6. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. The appellants/accused earlier were being represented by their counsel. However, when the matter was listed for final hearing, the said learned counsel for the appellants had remained absent. Considering the fact that the appeal was of the year 2014 and causing further delay in disposing of the matter was not in the best interest of justice, this Court by its detailed order dated 06.03.2020 appointed learned counsel Sri Rakshith R., as an Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the appellants and conduct the case of the appellants in this matter. Accordingly, the said learned Amicus Curiae is representing the appellants in the matter. 8. Heard arguments of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the records from the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the said learned Amicus Curiae is representing the appellants in the matter. 8. Heard arguments of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the records from the trial Court. 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Special Court. 10. In view of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are : (1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 16.12.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., near the house of appellants at Neelakanta Nagar in Nanjangud Town, within the limits of respondent Police Station, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 to PW4 and by assaulting and causing injuries to PW4 (CW1) Imran, PW1 (CW2) Shahida Begum and PW2 (CW3) Abdulla, with machetes, attempted to murder them and thereby have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC? (2) Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence impugned in this appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 11. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the undisputed fact remains that accused No.1 is the father of accused No.2. PW5 Apsari, is the wife of accused No.2. PW1 (CW2) – Shahida Begum is the mother of PW4 – Imran and PW5 Apsari. PW2 Abdulla is the cousin brother of PW5 and PW3 – Shameenataj is the aunt of PW5 – Apsari. It is also not in dispute that about one year prior to the alleged incident, PW5 Apsari was given in marriage to accused No.2 and that alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 joined by other members of the family were subjecting her to cruelty, demanding additional dowry, said PW5 Apsari had came back to her parents’ house though she was pregnant for three months and delivered a baby girl during her stay in her parents house. In that regard, accusing the accused of cruelty meted out against her demanding dowry, said PW5 had filed a criminal case against the accused, which criminal case is said to be still pending. Accused and the family of the complainant are the residents of Nanjangud Town. In that regard, accusing the accused of cruelty meted out against her demanding dowry, said PW5 had filed a criminal case against the accused, which criminal case is said to be still pending. Accused and the family of the complainant are the residents of Nanjangud Town. It is in the light of these undisputed facts, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are required to be analysed. 12. The material witness who speaks about the alleged incident are PWs.1 to 5, PW6 and PW11. As already observed above, PWs.1 to 5 are inter se the relatives. All these witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5, in their evidence have uniformly stated that in order to request and collect the BPL Ration Card from the father-in-law of PW5 – Apsari, all the five of them, at about 7.00 p.m., went to the house of the accused. Among them, PW1 asked accused No.1, who is the father-in-law of PW5, to give them the Ration Card to include the name of the newly born child in it to avail the benefit of Bhaghyalakshmi Scheme Bond. However, accused No.1 apart from refusing to give the Ration Card, abused them in filthy language and after telephoning to accused No.4 and getting some instructions from him, joined by accused Nos.2 and 3, who were also present in the said house, assaulted these five persons who had gone to their house. In the said assault, the accused made use of two machetes and inflicted injuries upon these five persons. 13. PW-1 has stated that in the process of assaulting them, accused No.1/appellant No.1Ekbal Pasha assaulted on her right hand with the machete and he also assaulted her son (PW4) on his head and near the neck with the same machete. Accused No.3 joined them and attempted to assault her. However, these people could able to escape from them and went to Government Hospital at Nanjangud. After taking treatment there, as referred by the doctor, they went to K.R. Hospital at Mysuru for higher treatment. She also stated that in the said incident, the clothes worn by her son sustained with blood. The witness has identified two machetes at MO1 and MO2 and her veil at MO3. She stated that she was inpatient in the hospital for about twelve days and her son was inpatient for fifteen days. 14. She also stated that in the said incident, the clothes worn by her son sustained with blood. The witness has identified two machetes at MO1 and MO2 and her veil at MO3. She stated that she was inpatient in the hospital for about twelve days and her son was inpatient for fifteen days. 14. PW2 (CW3) – Abdulla has stated that, in the incident, accused No.2 went inside and brought two machetes and using one of them, accused No.2 assaulted him on his head stating that there is already a criminal case made against them and let there be one more case. He also stated that accused No.1 also assaulted him with a machete near his left elbow. The same accused assaulted PW1 on her hand. PW4 Imran was also injured in the said incident. The witness stated that the clothes worn by him were stained with blood in the incident. This witness also identified two machetes at MO1 and MO2 and his shirt at MO4 and Banian at MO5. He stated that he took treatment both at Nanjangud Government Hospital and at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein he was inpatient for about sixteen days. 15. PW3 (CW5) Shameenataj has stated that accused No.1 assaulted PW1 with machete, accused No.2 assaulted PW2 and to her and accused No.1 also assaulted PW2 Abdulla. She stated that CW6 and CW7 rescued them in the incident. This witness also identified both machetes at MO1 and MO2. 16. PW4 (CW1) Imran has stated that in the incident, accused No.1 assaulted PW2 Abdulla and accused No.2 assaulted with machete on the head and arm. Accused No.3 assaulted him on his head with a machete. This witness has also identified the weapons at MO1 and MO2 and all the other material objects marked by the prosecution from MO3 to MO10. Stating that the police have conducted a scene of offence panchanama in his presence, he has identified the said panchanama at Ex.P2. He has also stated that the clothes worn by him, PW2 and his mother – PW1 were blood stained and that himself had delivered those clothes to the police. The witness has identified them at MO3 to MO5. He has identified his T-Shirt at MO10, which according to him was seized by the police under mahazar at Ex.P3. 17. He has also stated that the clothes worn by him, PW2 and his mother – PW1 were blood stained and that himself had delivered those clothes to the police. The witness has identified them at MO3 to MO5. He has identified his T-Shirt at MO10, which according to him was seized by the police under mahazar at Ex.P3. 17. PW5 (CW4) – Apsari has stated that her father-in-law (accused No.1) assaulted her mother with the machete on her right arm. Similarly, he also assaulted PW2 with the same machete on his head. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted her brother Imran with a machete on the backside of his head. However, nobody assaulted her. She stated that Fateh Ahmad (PW6) rescued them from the assault and thereafter, the injured were shifted to hospital. This witness also has identified the two machetes at MO1 and MO2. All these witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5 were cross-examined from the accused side, wherein they adhered to their original version. 18. In the cross-examination of PW1 from the accused side, a suggestion was made to the witness that these people had gone in a number of twenty to twenty five to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and had threatened them to burn their house. Though the witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true, but, by making such a suggestion, the accused have shown that on the date and time of the alleged incident, these persons had been to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and some incident had taken place in the said house. Similarly, in the cross-examination of PW2 also from the accused side, a suggestion was made that all these people joined together, attempted to wrongly confine accused Nos.1 and 2 in their house and locking the said house, attempted to put fire to it. They also suggested to the witness that in the push and pull of the group, the witness has sustained injuries. By making these suggestions to PW2, once again the accused have admitted that some incident had taken place in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 on the alleged night where these witnesses sustained some injuries. Apart from the suggestions made to PWs.1 and 2, the accused have also made similar suggestions to PW5 in her cross-examination, wherein it is suggested that, in the said disturbance, it was not visible who was assaulting whom. Apart from the suggestions made to PWs.1 and 2, the accused have also made similar suggestions to PW5 in her cross-examination, wherein it is suggested that, in the said disturbance, it was not visible who was assaulting whom. By making such a suggestion, once again the accused have shown that such an incident or disturbance has taken place and some act of assault had also taken place. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 would clearly go to show that on the alleged night of 16.12.2011, all these five people had been to the house of accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein the accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted PWs.1 to 4, in which process, the machetes at MO1 and MO2 were also used. 19. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 about the incident is further corroborated by the evidence of PW6 (CW6) Fateh Ahmed Khan and PW11 (CW7) Saleem. PW6 has clearly and categorically stated that he actually seen the incident, wherein PWs.1, 2 and 4 sustained injuries and were rescued by him and sent the injured PWs.1, 2 and 4 to the hospital. Among them, PW2 had sustained injury near his head, PW1 had sustained injury on her hand and PW4 had sustained injuries on his head and near neck. Interestingly, this witness was not cross-examined from the accused side. As such, the entire evidence of PW6 has remained undenied. PW11 has stated that at the time of incident, he was in front of his house which was at a distance of about 200 ft. from the house of the accused. He saw accused No.3 chasing PW2 Abdulla on the road and assaulting him with the machete and remaining accused assaulted PWs.1, 3 and 4. However, he stated that he did not go to their rescue. The complainant (PW4) in his complaint itself has mentioned about the presence of PW6 and PW11 as eye witnesses and rescuing them. PW4 even in his evidence, so also, PW5 in her evidence, have stated about the presence of PW6 and he rescuing them. PW4 in his evidence has also stated about the presence of PW11 and he rescuing them. The complainant (PW4) in his complaint itself has mentioned about the presence of PW6 and PW11 as eye witnesses and rescuing them. PW4 even in his evidence, so also, PW5 in her evidence, have stated about the presence of PW6 and he rescuing them. PW4 in his evidence has also stated about the presence of PW11 and he rescuing them. However, PW11 has stated that he did not rush to their rescue, on the other hand, PW6 has stated that he not only witnessed the incident, but also rescued the injured and sent them to the hospital and the said evidence has since stood undenied from the accused side, it fully corroborates the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses i.e., from PWs.1 to 5, which go to show that the accused, more particularly, accused Nos.1 and 2 (present appellants) have assaulted PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 and caused injuries to them, in which process, two machetes at MO1 and MO2 were also used by the accused. 20. The evidence of two medical doctors i.e., PW7 Dr.Saikumar and PW8 Dr. T.D. Govindaraju, would further corroborate the evidence of above said material prosecution witnesses about the injuries said to have been sustained by them. PW7 – Dr.Saikumar, Casualty Medical Officer, at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, has stated that on 16.12.2011, at 11.10 p.m., he examined the injured Abdulla who had gone to his hospital with a history of assault on the same night at 8.00 p.m. He was referred from Nanjangud Taluk Hospital. The witness has stated that on examination of the patient, he noticed the following injuries : (1) Sutured wound over the center of forehead. (2) Sutured wound over the frontal and biparietal scalp. (3) Sutured wound over the left elbow with swelling and tenderness. He opined that the Xray did not reveal any fractures. PW2 was in the hospital from 17.12.2011 to 20.12.2011. In that connection, he has issued a referral copy of the certificate addressed to the Nanjangud Taluka Medical Officer. The very same witness has further stated that on the same night, he also examined another patient by name Shahida Begum who had gone to his hospital with the same history. She was also investigated by Orthopedics Department. In the Xray of left elbow, no fractures or any bone injuries were found. PW8 – Dr. The very same witness has further stated that on the same night, he also examined another patient by name Shahida Begum who had gone to his hospital with the same history. She was also investigated by Orthopedics Department. In the Xray of left elbow, no fractures or any bone injuries were found. PW8 – Dr. T.D.Govindaraju, the Senior Specialist of General Hospital, Nanjangud, stated that on 16.12.2011, at 9.00 p.m., he examined a patient by name Abdulla who had gone to his hospital with the history of assault on the same day. On his examination, he noticed the following injuries : (1) Lacerated wound over the forehead measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone depth, bleeding present. (2) Lacerated wound over scalp extends from right parietal eminence to left occipital region measuring 10 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep. (3) Lacerated wound over extents of aspect left forearm upper 1/3 measuring 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 1 cm bleeding present. After the first aid, he referred the patient to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for further management. The witness opined that these injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by any sharp object. Accordingly, he has issued a wound certificate, which he has identified at Ex.P4. The witness has further stated that on the same night at 9.25 p.m., he examined another patient by name Shahida Begum who had come to the hospital with the same history. On examination, he noticed the following injuries upon her : (1) Lacerated wound over right forearm, extensor aspect measuring 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm bleeding present. (2) Lacerated wound over right forearm just above wrist joint, measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. (3) Lacerated wound over palmer aspect of right thumb, measuring 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm. He has opined that all these injuries were simple in nature. After giving first aid to this patient, she was also referred to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, for further evaluation. Accordingly, he has issued a wound certificate, which he has identified at Ex.P5. The witness has further stated that on the same night at 9.40 p.m., he examined yet another patient by name Imran who had also gone to his hospital with the same history. Accordingly, he has issued a wound certificate, which he has identified at Ex.P5. The witness has further stated that on the same night at 9.40 p.m., he examined yet another patient by name Imran who had also gone to his hospital with the same history. On examination of the patient, he noticed a linear abrasion over right side of naphe of the neck, measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm with bleeding. He has opined that the said injury is simple in nature. Stating that he has issued a wound certificate in that regard, he has identified the same at Ex.P6. The witness has opined that all these injuries on these patients could be possible if they were assaulted with weapons like MO1 and MO2 machetes. The witness has further stated that on 2.3.2012, he examined MO1 and MO2 weapons sent by the Investigating Officer and opined that injuries mentioned in the wound certificates could be possible with the weapons like MOs.1 and 2. He has marked his opinion at Ex.P7. In his cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that if injured falls on a hard surface and comes in contact with any hard object, the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate could be possible. 21. Thus, the medical evidence by PW7 and PW8 would further corroborate the evidence of material witnesses and would go to show that all the three injured had sustained multiple simple injuries and according to PW8, those injuries are possible to be caused when assaulted with machetes at MO1 and MO2. As such, the injuries and the relationship of the weapons at MOs.1 and 2, which weapons were also identified by the injured witnesses, has stood established. the relationship of the weapons with the injuries and the fact that in the assault, PWs.1, 2 and 4 had sustained injuries also stands established. Though PW3 also has claimed that she too has sustained injuries, but, there is no corroborative evidence from the doctor in this regard. 22. The next question for consideration would be as to whether the said act of the accused, more particularly, the present appellants, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, would constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 23. 22. The next question for consideration would be as to whether the said act of the accused, more particularly, the present appellants, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, would constitute an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submitted that even though it is taken that the appellants have assaulted the alleged victim, still, the said act at the maximum may attract Section 324 of IPC, but, it would fall short of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the alleged act of the accused who have assaulted the victims using deadly weapons like machetes at MOs.1 and 2 itself establishes that they intended to cause the murder of the victims, as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC also. 24. Section 307 of the IPC reads as below: “307. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” A reading of the aforesaid Section would go to ‘show that, if the act committed by the accused has ‘resulted in the death of a victim, then, the act would ‘become an act of murder. However, if it results in an ‘attempt only, then Section 307 of IPC would be ‘attracted. An offence under Section 307 of IPC is a very ‘serious offence and it requires the same very factors to ‘be proved as are needed to prove an offence under ‘Section 302 of IPC, except that in this case, the act falls short of the death of the deceased which is necessary under Section 302 of IPC. 25. An offence under Section 307 of IPC is a very ‘serious offence and it requires the same very factors to ‘be proved as are needed to prove an offence under ‘Section 302 of IPC, except that in this case, the act falls short of the death of the deceased which is necessary under Section 302 of IPC. 25. In the instant case, none of the injured witnesses i.e., from PWs.1 to 4 and the witness accompanying PWs.1 to 4, who is PW5 and also an independent eye witness i.e., PW6, have any where stated that any of the accused had any intention to cause the death of any of the alleged assaulted witnesses. None of them any where whispered either that the accused stated that they would kill them or that the act of the accused was intended to kill any of them. Further, it is not even their evidence that the injury inflicted upon them would have been in an ordinary course cause their death. Even the doctors i.e., PWs.7 and 8 also have not stated that any of the injuries would have led to the death of the injured. Thus, even though the complainant in his complaint has stated that the accused stating that they would kill them, had assaulted them, but, their evidence has failed to show that any of the accused had any intention to kill or any knowledge that their act would cause the death of the injured. 26. Further even according to the injured witnesses, the alleged overt act of the accused, who said to have assaulted on the vital organs of the injured, more particularly, on the head, varies in their descriptions. According to PW1, it was accused No.1 who is said to have assaulted on the head of PW4, whereas, PW4 has nowhere whispered that accused No.1 inflicted any injury upon his head. On the contrary, he has stated that it was accused No.3 who inflicted injury on his head. Incidentally, the medical evidence shows that there was no head injury on PW4, but, he had a simple injury on the naphe of the neck. PW2 has stated that accused No.2 has assaulted on his head, however, PWs.1 and 5 have not stated about the same. Incidentally, the medical evidence shows that there was no head injury on PW4, but, he had a simple injury on the naphe of the neck. PW2 has stated that accused No.2 has assaulted on his head, however, PWs.1 and 5 have not stated about the same. PW5 has stated that accused No.2 and accused No.3 assaulted PW4 on the back of his head, however, PW2 has not stated anything about accused No.3 and moreover, as already observed, doctors have not noticed any injury on the back of the head of PW4. In this way, the alleged description of the assault on the vital organs of the body of the injured by using machetes at MO1 and MO2 has not been corroborated with medical evidence. Thus, when the evidence of none of the injured would go to show that the accused had any intention to kill them or their evidence when does not show that the accused had the knowledge that their act would cause the death of any of the injured and lastly, when the medical evidence also does not even support that the injury to any of the injured witnesses were on the vital part of their body, the necessary ingredients of Section 307 of IPC falls short of. However, the trial Court merely because two machetes at MO1 and MO2 are said to have been used in the commission of the crime has shown hasty in holding that there was an attempt to murder by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case. The said finding now proves to be erroneous. 27. Regarding motive behind the alleged commission of the crime, all the material witnesses from PWs.1 to 5 have uniformly stated. All these witnesses in their evidence have stated that in order to get entered the name of the new born child in the Ration Card to enable to avail the benefit under the Bhagyalakshmi Scheme, they went to the house of the accused to ask for and to collect the Ration Card since accused No.2 was the father of the said child born to PW5 and accused No.1 was the father-in-law, in whose custody, the said Ration Card was there. These witnesses have stated that when these people through PW1 asked for delivery of the said Ration Card, the said accused No.1 did not only refused to deliver the Ration Card, but, also proceeded to assault them joined by the other accused. Thus, the motive behind the alleged commission of the crime has been uniformly attributed by each of the material witnesses. The said evidence regarding motive has not been categorically or specifically denied in the cross-examination of those witnesses from the accused side. Thus, the motive behind the alleged commission of crime also stands proved. 28. The defence of the accused is multifold. The first defence is that PWs.1 to 5 when they had been to the house of the accused, in the quarrel, they themselves fell and sustained injuries. They also took second defence stating that since the accused, more particularly, accused No.2, who is the husband of PW5, did not fulfill the unreasonable demands of his wife i.e., PW5, her family members with an intention to perform her marriage with another person, lodged a false complaint against the accused. The suggestions in this regard were made to PW1 in her cross-examination, however, the said witness has not admitted the same as true. Similarly, the accused took one more defence that in push and pull in a mob, PW2 sustained injuries. The said suggestion was made to PW2 in his cross-examination, however, the witness has not admitted the same as true. Fourthly, the defence taken by the accused was in the form of a suggestion made to the doctor i.e., PW8 suggesting to him that if a person falls on a hard surface and comes in contact with sharp object, the injury found on the victim would occur. The doctor has not admitted the said suggestion as true. Thus, even though the accused had taken four different defence, but, none of them could able to raise any suspicion in the case of the prosecution. 29. The doctor has not admitted the said suggestion as true. Thus, even though the accused had taken four different defence, but, none of them could able to raise any suspicion in the case of the prosecution. 29. Thus, the analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as made above clearly would go to show that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants as accused Nos.1 and 2, joined by the other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, have voluntarily assaulted and caused hurt to PWs.2, 3 and 4 by using two machetes which are at MO1 and MO2 and thereby have committed alleged offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. However, the act of the accused had fallen short of an offence attracting Section 307 of IPC. Still, the trial Court by its erroneous appreciation of the evidence placed before it has held the accused No.1 and 2 even guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. As such, to the extent of setting aside the said finding of the trial Court with respect to holding the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence deserves to be interfered with. 30. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction dated 9.12.2013 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2013, passed by the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in S.C.No.302/2012, holding the appellants i.e., accused No.1 – Ekbal Pasha, son of Jama Sabru and accused No.2 – Sadiq Pasha, son of Ekbal Pasha, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, is set aside. Both the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the conviction of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and the order on sentence passed against them is confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 stands cancelled. However, the conviction of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and the order on sentence passed against them is confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 stands cancelled. The Court acknowledges the services rendered by Mr.Rakshith R., learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in this matter and recommends the registry to consider paying him an honorarium of a sum of not less than Rs.5,000/. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the trial Court immediately. The appellants are also entitled for a free copy of this judgment.