ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. IA No. 1007 of 2020 Criminal Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 has been filed by Manoj Rajak who is the informant of Bishnugarh PS Case No. 59 of 2006. 2. The registry has reported that there is delay of one day in filing this Criminal Appeal. 3. IA No. 1007 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of one day in preferring this Criminal Appeal. 4. Having been satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant in this Interlocutory Application, the delay of one day in filing this Criminal Appeal is condoned. 5. Accordingly, IA No. 1007 of 2020 is allowed. Cr. Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 with Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 6. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 has been filed by Nirmal Rajak, Sudama Rajak and Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh (now dead) to challenge the judgment of their conviction under sections 323, 341 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded in ST No. 189 of 2013. 7. The informant has filed Cr. Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 to challenge the acquittal of the accused persons under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Mr. Mr. A.K. Rashidi, the learned counsel for the convicts has tendered a copy of the the death certificate of Appellant No. 3, namely, Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh. 9. Taken on record. 10. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 shall abate qua Letari Ghatwar. 11. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Manoj Rajak recorded by the officer-in-charge of Bishnugarh police station, a First Information Report vide Bishnugarh PS Case No. 59 of 2006 was registered under sections 323, 325, 452, 380 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. On 12th May 2016, charges against Nirmal Rajak , Sudama Rajak and Letari Ghatwar @ Letari Singh were framed for committing the aforesaid offences. 13. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in support of the prosecution case that accused persons attempted to murder Babulal Rajak and caused grievous injuries to PW2 and PW5. The father and the mother of the informant are the injured witnesses who have tendered evidence as PW1 and PW2 and their testimony has been accepted by the trial Judge. 14. The father and the mother of the informant are the injured witnesses who have tendered evidence as PW1 and PW2 and their testimony has been accepted by the trial Judge. 14. As PW5, the informant has stated in the Court that he received a telephonic information on 4th October 2006 that Nirmal Rajak, Sudama Rajak, Shibu Baitha and Letari Singh have trespassed his house, damaged the household articles, assaulted his father and taken away Rs. 2000/-. On receiving this information, the informant came home and found his father in injured condition. In the meantime, the accused persons armed with lathi and danda etc. again came there and started assaulting him and his father which caused bleeding injuries to them and his father became unconscious. The informant has further stated that when his mother intervened she was also beaten by Shanti Devi but, in the meantime, his neighbours rushed there and the accused persons fled away. 15. The testimony of an injured witness lends assurances to the Court that being a victim the witness was present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of the injured witness is sufficient to record conviction of the accused provided his testimony does not suffer from any inherent improbability and it inspires the confidence of the Court. 16. In “State of Maharashtra v. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble” (2007) 14 SCC 627 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “29. …. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, apart from being eyewitnesses, were injured witnesses. Their presence at the place of occurrence, therefore, cannot be doubted. Only because they were inimical to the respondents, the same by itself cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. Although in accepting the same, some amount of caution is required to be maintained. ……………………………………………………………………………… 39. Though it is true that it is not necessary to invariably accept the version of the injured witnesses but it is well settled that greater weight has to be given to the testimony of the injured witnesses. We see no reason to disbelieve them and we agree with the view taken by the trial court. (See Nain Singh v. State of U.P, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ramappa Halappa Pujar v. State of Karnataka.)” 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in “Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 as under: “26. (See Nain Singh v. State of U.P, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ramappa Halappa Pujar v. State of Karnataka.)” 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in “Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 as under: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.” 18. The trial Judge has put implicit reliance on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 who are the injured witnesses. These witnesses are intimately related to each other, therefore, their evidence has been challenged on the ground that their testimony is laced with motive. 19. This is well-accepted proposition that the evidence of a related witness is not rejected merely because of his relationship with the victim. In “State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram” (2004) 8 SCC 660 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the testimony of a related witness cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship and the only requirement in law is that his testimony should be examined with due care and caution. Indeed, a related person shall be the last person to implicate an innocent person in the crime. 20. In “Mano Dutt v. State of U.P” (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24. Indeed, a related person shall be the last person to implicate an innocent person in the crime. 20. In “Mano Dutt v. State of U.P” (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24. …..Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party.” 21. Mr. A.K. Rashidi, the learned counsel for the convicts has contented that the parties are close relatives, they are agnates and a counter case was lodged by the convicts for the same occurrence. The submission made by the learned counsel for the convicts is that the trial Judge while imposing punishment under sections 323/34, 341/34 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code did not consider the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused persons and has imposed harsher punishment upon them. 22. PW4, Dr. Anubha Shankar examined the injured Kolha Rajak on 5th October 2006 and has found the following injuries: I. Lacerated wound over left eyebrow 1" X 2 1/2” bone deep. II. Lacerated wound in middle of head 1/2" X 1/4" X bone deep III. Tenderness over right shoulder IV. Abrasion over right knee 1/2" X ¼". On same day, PW4 has also examined the injured Etwariya Devi and found the following injuries on her person: Swelling on upper lip. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/4" over nose. On that day, the doctor also examined the injured Manoj Rajak and has found the following injuries on his person: I. Lacerated wound on right side of occipital region of skull 1 1/2” X 1/2”facia deep II. Abrasion 1/4" X 1/4" over nose. On that day, the doctor also examined the injured Manoj Rajak and has found the following injuries on his person: I. Lacerated wound on right side of occipital region of skull 1 1/2” X 1/2”facia deep II. Abrasion on left cheek just below left eye ½" X 1/4" III.No clinical features of head injury. 23. Apparently the medical evidence appears to be in tune with the ocular evidence and the occurrence as such has been proved to happen on the date and time as stated by the informant. However, the manner of occurrence and the injuries suffered by PW1, PW2 and PW5 do not reflect the requisite intention or knowledge as envisaged under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads 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.” 25. The offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code requires that if the act alleged had been done with such intention and knowledge which if accomplished the accused would have been charged for murder. Therefore, the gist of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is that the attack on the victim must be with such intention or knowledge that it would cause his death. 26. In “State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao” (2003) 10 SCC 434 the Supreme Court has observed as under: “20. ...... Therefore, the gist of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is that the attack on the victim must be with such intention or knowledge that it would cause his death. 26. In “State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao” (2003) 10 SCC 434 the Supreme Court has observed as under: “20. ...... The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as : (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.” 27. Therefore, the aforesaid being the position in law, we do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused persons under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the injuries caused by the accused persons particularly the injury nos. 1 and 2 which are bone deep shall attract the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused cannot be let off lightly by holding them guilty for causing hurt as defined under section 319 of the Indian Penal Code. It was legal for the trial Judge to convict the accused persons under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for a lesser offence, even though he has recorded their acquittal under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and no charge was framed under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. The offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment of RI for 3 years or with fine or with both. 29. 28. The offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment of RI for 3 years or with fine or with both. 29. This is in our mind that the occurrence has taken place about 17 years back and the judgment of acquittal was rendered in the year 2019 and, in the meantime, the accused persons have suffered on account of pendency of the criminal case against them. 30. Having regard to the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts, they are convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 20,000/-each under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 31. To that extent, Criminal Appeal (V) No. 06 of 2020 is allowed. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1048 of 2019 filed by the accused persons is dismissed. 32. By an order dated 10th December 2019, the convicts have been granted bail by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on depositing the fine amount.The bail bonds furnished by them are cancelled and they shall surrender to serve the remaining sentence if the fine amount is not deposited within 6 weeks. 33. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX.