JUDGMENT : 1. These two criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 14.10.1988 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.218 of 1987 whereby the appellants Santu, Naresh, Ram Shankar, Prem Narain, Bahori, Jagannath and Bhudhar have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 148 I.P.C.. They are further convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. Both the sentences of all the accused appellants were directed to run concurrently. 2. As per the prosecution case narrated in the written report, Ex.Ka.6, Lallu, father of the accused Santu and Naresh was murdered. In the said case, Santu had named Shiv Balak Ram, complainant of the present case and others. At the time of the present incident, the murder cases was pending before the trial court. There was enmity between the complainant and Santu and others and a case under Section 107/117 CrP.C. was also pending in the Court. Due to the said enmity, on 23.6.1986 at about 6.00p.m. in village Shah Singhpur, P.S. Kamlapur, district Sitapur when the complainant Shiv Balak Ram was coming to his home after attending natural call, near Ahata of Ramasrey, situated towards north of the village, he saw accused Santu, Hori Lal and Jagannath, armed with guns, Naresh armed with double barrel gun, Ram Shankar and Prem Narain armed with addhi (half guns) and accused Bhudhar (since dead) was standing at a distance of 50 to 60 paces. On seeing Shiv Balak Ram, accused appellant Santu exhorted to kill and on this extortion, the accused persons started to fire on Shiv Balak Ram, causing injuries to him. In order to save her son, Smt. Shakunti, P.W.2 ran, however, she also sustained fire arm injuries. In the meantime, witnesses Ram Milan, Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1), Kanauji Lal, P.W.3, Lallu, Shamle and others reached near the place of the occurrence. On challenge being made, the accused persons ran away towards village Santraha. The complainant later on came to know that the accused persons are lying in ambush in the way towards the police station and as such, he did not proceed to police station for lodging the report in the same evening. On challenge being made, the accused persons ran away towards village Santraha. The complainant later on came to know that the accused persons are lying in ambush in the way towards the police station and as such, he did not proceed to police station for lodging the report in the same evening. On the next morning, he got the report of the incident ascribed by Gobardhan Lal, P.W.6 and proceeded towards police station in a bullock-cart along with his injured mother Smt. Shakunti. On reaching the police station at 8.00a.m. on 23.6.1986, he gave a written report, Ex. Ka-6 to Constable Sardar Husain, P.W.4, who prepared chick report, Ex.Ka.1 and registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149/307 I.P.C., P.S. Kamlapur, district Sitapur against all the accused persons. He also prepared Chitthi Majrubi of injured Shakunti and Shiv Balak Ram and referred them to the Medical Officer, Barai Jalalpur for medical examination. 3. The Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur examined the injuries of injured Shiv Balak Ram at 12.30p.m.. He found the following injuries : 1. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5 on the front of right thigh 16cm below the right anterior superior ilioc spine. Clotted blood present. 2. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5c.m on the anterior aspect of right thigh 19cm above right knee joint 3. Fire arm wound .5cm x 1c.m. on the anterior aspect of right thigh 13cm above right knee joint 4. Fire arm wound 1.00cm x .5c.m. on the medical aspect of right thigh 22cm above the right popliteal fossa 5. Fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5cm. on the anterior medical aspect of left thigh 21cm below the left anterior superiro ilioc spine. Clotted blood present. 6. Two fire arm wound 1.0 x 1.5cm and 1.5 x .5cm and the anterior aspect of left thigh 18cm and 19.5cm above left knee joint. 7. Fire arm would 1.0 x 1.5cm on the posterior aspect of left thigh 13cm above left popliteal fossa. On the same day at about 1.10p.m., injuries of Smt. Shakunti were also examined by the doctor who found following injuries : 1. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 16cm x 9cm on the lateral aspect of right upper arm. Size about 0.4cm x 0.2cm 2. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 19 x 11 cm on the anterio lateral aspect of right lower arm. 3. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 16cm x 9cm on the lateral aspect of right upper arm. Size about 0.4cm x 0.2cm 2. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 19 x 11 cm on the anterio lateral aspect of right lower arm. 3. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 13cm x 9cm on the upper part of right breast 4. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 7cm x 8cm on the right laterial side of abdomen 5. Multiple fire arm wounds in an area of 10cm x 4cm on the posterior lateral aspect of right knee joint. All the injuries were found to have been caused by fire arm. The injuries were kept under observation. X-ray of respective parts was advised and duration was about 18 hours. Injury memos prepared by the doctor are Ex.Ka-4 and Ex.Ka-3 respectively. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed and the accused persons have been charged under sections 148 and 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in support of its case. has examined Ramesh Chandra Mishra, P.W.1 , Shakunti, P.W.2, Kannauji Lal, P.W.3, HC Sardar Husain, P.W.4, the writer of chick and C.D. Dr. Pulak Raj, P.W.5 Medical Officer, Gobardhan Lal, P.W.6 the writer of report Ex.Ka-6 and Durga Prasad Singh, the investigating officer of the case. 6. In their statement under section 313 CrPC, the accused persons have stated that father of the accused Santu and Naresh was murdered in the year 1985. The complainant Shiv Balak Ram and others were named in the first information report lodged by Santu. The murder trial was pending against Shiv Balak Ram and others. They have stated that due to enmity and also because they are Khandani of the informant, they have been falsely implicated. The accused Bhudhar, Bahori Lal, Naresh and Rama Shankar being the witnesses in the murder case of Lalji have also been falsely implicated. It is stated that on the date of occurrence, a dacoity was committed in the house of complainant in the night and he along with his companions has been falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the police. 7. It is stated that on the date of occurrence, a dacoity was committed in the house of complainant in the night and he along with his companions has been falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the police. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a perusal of the injury report shows that injures were was kept under observation and none of the injuries received by the injured has been found to be serious or grievous to life. The injured Shiv Balak, informant of the case could not be examined as he had died even before his statement could be recorded. P.W. 1 Ramesh has been declared hostile. P.W.2 Shakunti, injured, though is not an eye-witness, has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that even if the entire prosecution story is taken to be true on its face value, the appellants can be said to have been wrongly convicted under sections 307/149 I.P.C. The case will not travel beyond Section 324 I.P.C. for the reason that none of the injuries received by the injured persons was found to be grievous or dangerous to life; the seat of injuries of both the injured, except injuries 3 and 4 of Smt. Sakunti, was also such that none could be said to have been caused on any vital part of the body. Although the accused persons were seven in number and all have allegedly fired shots from their respective fire arms. Only two shots fired on the injured and two from a distance causing no grievous injuries which prove that the intention of the accused was to cause injuries and not to commit any murder. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeals. He submits that a perusal of the injury report shows that the deceased Shiv Balak Ram had suffered seven fire arm injuries and the injured Shakunti has also received multiple firearm injuries on various parts of her body including right breast. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit murder. He submits that a perusal of the injury report shows that the deceased Shiv Balak Ram had suffered seven fire arm injuries and the injured Shakunti has also received multiple firearm injuries on various parts of her body including right breast. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit murder. He also submits that gravity of the injury is irrelevant for conviction under section 307 I.P.C. What is to be seen is the actual intent of the accused persons, the nature of the weapon used, severity of the blow inflicting multiple fire arm injuries for commission of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. There was a definite attempt to commit murder of both the injured persons. 9. P.W.1 Ramesh has not supported the prosecution version. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 Shakunti after hearing the sound of fire ran near the pond and saw that the accused Naresh armed with double barrel gun, Santu, Bahori and Jagannath with guns, Rama Shankar and Prem Narain armed with half guns and Bhudhar armed with Kanta were assaulting her son. When she went there, they shouted to kill the old lady also. Then, she also suffered fire arm injury and fell down. P.W. 3 Kannauji Lal has also supported the prosecution version, however, he is not an eye-witness. P.W.4 HC Sardar Husain has proved the chick report, Ext.Ka.1 and G.D., Ex.Ka-2. P.W.5 Dr. Pulak Raj, Medical Officer who examined the injuries of both the injured has opined that all the injuries are caused by fire arm. He has prepared the injury memo and proved it as Ex.Ka-3 and Ex.Ka-4. The x-ray plate has been proved as Ex.Ka-5. He has stated that the injuries received by Shiv Balak Ram have been caused from 3-4’ distance. He has also stated that all the fire arm wounds of Shiv Balak Ram have been caused by more than one weapon. 10. As regards injuries received by Shakunti, he has stated that these fire arm wounds have come from a distance of 1617’. It is possible that she has received these fire arm injuries from one weapon. 11. P.W.6 Gobardhan Lal, writer of report, has proved the written report, Ex.Ka-6. 12. S.I. Durga Prasad Singh is the investigating officer. He recorded the statements of complainant Shiv Balak Ram and Smt. Shakunti. It is possible that she has received these fire arm injuries from one weapon. 11. P.W.6 Gobardhan Lal, writer of report, has proved the written report, Ex.Ka-6. 12. S.I. Durga Prasad Singh is the investigating officer. He recorded the statements of complainant Shiv Balak Ram and Smt. Shakunti. He also took into his possession the clothes of both the injured, sealed the same and prepared memo Ex.Ka.7. At the place of occurrence he recorded the statements of Ramesh, Kanauji Lal and Lalau, the witnesses of fact. He collected blood stained and plain earth and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-8. He prepared memo Ex.Ka-9. He also found 7 empty cartridges at the place of occurrence, prepared memo Ex.Ka-10. He proved Ex.Ka.11 which is the gun of accused Jagannath. He has also proved charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-12. 13. The injured Shakunti in her statement has clearly stated that the accused persons Naresh, Santu, Bahori, Jagannath, Ram Shankar and Prem were armed with fire arm and Bhudhar was armed with Kanta and when she came at the place of occurrence, the accused persons also shot her. It is the testimony of the injured witness which is on higher pedestal than eye-witness.. Therefore, there is no reason for this court to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2. 14. P.W.3 Kannauji Lal, a witness of fact, though is not an eye-witness to the assault, however, after hearing the fire arm shot, he came out of the house and went behind his house and has seen the accused. He took the name after identifying them. Therefore, he has given the evidence against seven accused persons namely Naresh, Santu, Bahori, Jagannath, Ram Shankar, Prem and Bhudhar who were armed with weapons and were running towards west north direction of the village. 15. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that no grievous injury has been received by the injured and there is no repeated assault and therefore, the case will not travel to Section 307 I.P.C; rather it is to be converted under section 324 I.P.C. As regards submission of learned counsel is concerned, a perusal of the injuries received by both the injured reveals that they have received multiple fire arm wounds in various areas of the body. The injured Shakunti sustained five fire arm injuries. She was seriously injured. She was a surviving witness. The injured Shakunti sustained five fire arm injuries. She was seriously injured. She was a surviving witness. Shiv Balak Ram, compainant has sustained seven fire arm injuries which, according to Doctor, have been caused from more than one weapon. The trial court has held that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. Participation of all the accused persons with a view to commit murder of the injured persons has also been proved by the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3. 16. So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries are not grievous or life threatening, the contention of learned A.G.A. as recorded in preceding para 8 of the present judgment carries weight. The intention of the accused has to be seen from the actual injury as well as from the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the weapons used and severity of the blow inflicted. The injury reports of both the injured depict that Shiv Balak Ram has sustained seven fire arm injuries and Shakunti has received five fire arm wounds. All the injuries have been found to be caused by the accused persons. The ocular evidence is intact and corroborated by medical evidence. In reference to record, the trial court has rightly held that the accused persons had common intention of causing fatal injuries to both the injured persons. 17. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract Section 307 I.P.C. as under : “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. Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” The first part of Section 307 I.P.C. refers to “an act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder”. The second part of Section 307, which carries a heavier punishment, refers to ‘hurt caused in pursuance of such an ‘act. 18. In State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patill (1983) 2 SCC 28 , the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that a bodily injury sufficient under normal circumstances to cause death should have been inflicted. Relevant portion of para 9 of Balram Bama Patill’s case is reproduced as under : “9...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.” (Emphasis supplied) In State of M P v Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 , the Supreme Court held as under: “13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.” In Jage Ram v State of Haryana (2015)11 SCC 366 , it has been held that to establish the commission of an offence under Section 307, it is not essential that a fatal injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. To reproduce: “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc.” 19. From the above judgments, it is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. 20. In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were 12 wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. 20. In the present case, the nature of the injuries shows that there were 12 wounds. The weapon of offence was a firearm. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate that there was an intention to murder. The presence of 12 bleeding wounds as well as the use of a fire arm leave no doubt that there was an intention to murder. Thus, the second part of Section 307 I.P.C. is attracted in the present case. 21. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the doctor has not opined that the injuries sustained were grievous or life threatening has no force as the Doctor, P.W.4 has also not said that these injuries received by both the injured are simple injuries. All the injuries have been found to be caused by fire arm. They were kept under observation. X-ray was advised. Multiple fire arms have been used to inflict injuries on the injured persons as per statement of the doctor, therefore, the argument that there was no repeated assault and therefore, there was no intention to commit murder does not appeal. The fact that both the accused persons have received seven and five fire arm wounds does not rule out the possibility of repeated assault, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellants. 22. The accused persons had also clear motive for crime having been committed which is evident from a perusal of the first information report. The complainant Shiv Balak Ram was an accused in the murder of Lalji, father of accused Santu and Naresh and therefore, there was enmity between the parties due to that case. The murder of Lalji and the pendency of the case against Shiv Balak Ram at the time and date of the incident of this case is admitted to the accused appellants. Thus, motive has also been proved beyond doubt. 23. The accused Bhudhar has been charged under section 148 I.P.C. P.W. 2 Shakunti in her statement has stated that accused Bhudhar was armed with Kanta and was assaulting her son and he also was armed with deadly weapon at the time of occurrence and all the accused persons are closely related. The accused Santu and Naresh are real brothers. 23. The accused Bhudhar has been charged under section 148 I.P.C. P.W. 2 Shakunti in her statement has stated that accused Bhudhar was armed with Kanta and was assaulting her son and he also was armed with deadly weapon at the time of occurrence and all the accused persons are closely related. The accused Santu and Naresh are real brothers. The accused Rama Shankar, Prem Narain and Bahori are the sons of Rameshwar, thus, they are the real brothers. It has come in evidence that the accused Bhudhar resides in the house of Naresh and Bahori which also shows that all the accused except Jagannath reside in one and the same house and armed with deadly weapons, they formed an unlawful assembly with a common motive of committing murder of Shiv Balak Ram and Shakunti Devi, P.W.2. Nature of injuries as well as the weapons of offence clearly prove an intention to commit murder and hurt caused satisfies the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. Charges against the accused persons have rightly been proved under section 307 I.P.C., read with section 149 I.P.C and they have been rightly found guilty under section 148 I.P.C., and section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction awarded by the trial court is upheld. 25. The Superintendent, District Jail, Sitapur has sent a report dated 3.8.2021 wherein it has been stated that the accused appellants Santu, Naresh, Ram Shankar, Prem Narain and Bahori have already been released from jail way back in the year between 1991 and 1994 after giving them benefit of Remission Rules and they have been released from jail. Bhudhar has already died. 26. As regards accused appellant Jagannath of Criminal Appeal No.702 of 1988, he was released on bail by this court vide order dated 24.11.1994. In the said order, it has been observed that he has remained in jail for six years on the date of passing of the order. 27. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2010) 2 SCC, 229; accused was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. In the said order, it has been observed that he has remained in jail for six years on the date of passing of the order. 27. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2010) 2 SCC, 229; accused was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court has convicted accused under Section 326 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence to period already undergone on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years. 28. Considering the fact that the incident is of 1986, except the appellant Jagannath, who has already undergone a substantial period of six years in jail in the year 1994 at the time of grant of bail to him, all the other accused persons, namely Santu, Naresh, Ram Shankar, Prem Narain and Bahori have already been released from jail way back after giving them the benefit of Remission Rules by the government after serving more than six years of sentence and keeping in view the time lag, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 29. The appellant Jagannath has already served a substantive period of six years in jail, the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced with the period of imprisonment already undergone and it would be proper to reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 30. Both the appeals are disposed of, as above. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the trial court immediately along with a copy of the present order.