JUDGMENT : (Ananda Sen, J.) This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 983 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charges under Section(s) 323, 324, 341, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each convicts under Sections 307/34 IPC and other sentences for the other offences. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the evidences available on record and has convicted the appellants on the basis of conjecture and surmises. He further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the injuries were found to be simple in nature and there is no allegation of repetition of blow by any of the appellants as well as none of the injuries are sufficient to cause death in their ordinary course, thus no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellants. He also argues that the intention to commit murder has not been substantiated by any witness. He also submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to produce any credible witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellants and the investigation of the case has been done in a most perfunctory manner. Thus, on these grounds, the counsel for the appellants sought for acquittal of the appellants. 3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the the prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case, out of which, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have supported the case of the prosecution. She further submitted that the Doctor found injuries over the body of Ramesh Munda and Ghansi Devi. She also submitted that the I.O. of this case recovered the weapon used in commission of the crime, thus there is sufficient material on the record to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. She further added that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and they are liable to be punished. 4. She also submitted that the I.O. of this case recovered the weapon used in commission of the crime, thus there is sufficient material on the record to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. She further added that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and they are liable to be punished. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.2012, the informant Ramesh @ Rode Munda (P.W.4) recorded the fardbeyan at Referral Hospital, Silli before the Police stating therein that on 23.8.2012 at about 7:00 p.m., he was sitting on a bridge near his house. In the meantime, the appellants- Meghnath Munda who was crossing from there told the informant why he is murmuring and started abusing him. The informant told him that he is not murmuring about him and on this Meghnath Munda called his brother Sanatan Munda and father Shambhu Nath Munda. Sanatan Munda attacked the informant by Dowli, as a result, the informant sustained injury on his head, left leg and left hand. The appellants Meghnath Munda and Shambhu Nath Munda started to assault the informant by lathi blow. Informant became senseless. On hearing hulla, Krishna Munda and Bigan Munda (P.W.3) came and they taken the informant to Silli Hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Silli P.S. Case No. 64/2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial. 5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, as P.W. 1- Ghasi Devi, P.W. 2- Churamani Devi, P.W. 3- Bigan Munda, P.W. 4- Ramesh Munda (informant), P.W.5- Dr. Vidyanand Choudhary and P.W.6- ASI Mohan Ram. The prosecution has also exhibited the following documents; Ext.- 1: The injury report of Ghasni Devi. Ext.-1/1: Injury report of Ramesh @ Rode Munda, and . Ext.-1/2: The seizure list. P.W. 1- Ghashi Devi, deposed that on 23.8.2012 she was at her residence. Vidyanand Choudhary and P.W.6- ASI Mohan Ram. The prosecution has also exhibited the following documents; Ext.- 1: The injury report of Ghasni Devi. Ext.-1/1: Injury report of Ramesh @ Rode Munda, and . Ext.-1/2: The seizure list. P.W. 1- Ghashi Devi, deposed that on 23.8.2012 she was at her residence. On hearing hue and cry, she came out from her house and saw that Sanatan, Shambhu, Meghnath and Laxmimani Minz were assaulting Ramesh Munda (the informant) by dowli and lathi. When she went to save the informant, Meghnath and Shambhu also assaulted her. She also deposed that Shambhu assaulted by lathi blow and Sanatan assaulted by Dowli, Laxmimani assaulted by throwing stones, Meghnath assaulted by lathi blow, as a result of which, the informant fell down and became unconscious. She identifies the accused Shambhu Nath and claims to identify other accused. In cross-examination, she stated that a land dispute in between the parties has been going on since 20 years. P.W.2- Churamani Devi, deposed that a quarrel was going on by the side of the road and she went there on hue and cry. She saw that Shambhu, Meghnath and Sanatan cut Rode by Dowli. Shambhu assaulted Rode by lathi blow and he also assaulted her by lathi blow and she sustained injury on her head and leg. In cross-examination, she has stated that there was a dispute in between Rode and Meghnath since long and Rode was also assaulted in her house also. In para 13, she stated that the police had not questioned her. P.W.3- Bigan Munda, is the cousin of Ramesh Munda. He deposed that the occurrence took place on 23.8.2012. Shambhu, Sanatan and Meghnath and the wife of Shambhu assaulted Rode Munda by Danda, Lathi and Dowli. He was watching the occurrence from some distance and if he would have gone there, he might have been assaulted. He further deposed that the informant sustained injury on his hand, leg and above the left eye and blood was also oozing out. He further deposed that Officer-in-Charge had taken his brother to police station and after that he was taken to hospital. In cross-examination, in para 7 he stated that there is a land dispute between the parties since long. In para 9 he stated that the occurrence took place on the road side and Ramesh became unconscious there. He further deposed that Officer-in-Charge had taken his brother to police station and after that he was taken to hospital. In cross-examination, in para 7 he stated that there is a land dispute between the parties since long. In para 9 he stated that the occurrence took place on the road side and Ramesh became unconscious there. P.W.4- Ramesh Munda (the informant): has deposed that the occurrence took place on 23.8.2012 at 7:00 p.m. and he was sitting near a bridge. In the meantime, Meghnath came there and called Sanatan and Shambhu. On this Sanatan armed with Dowli and Shambhu armed with lathi came there and he was assaulted on his forehead, left hand and leg. He fell down and became unconscious. His son Krishna Munda and cousin Bigan Munda came there who brought him to his house and from there he was taken to police station thereafter he was also taken to hospital. In cross-examination, in para 3 he has stated that a land dispute between them has been going on since 20 years. P.W.5- Dr. Vidyanand Choudhary: who stated that he examined the injured namely Ghasni Devi and found contusion in chest caused by hard blunt force within twenty four hours. He opined that injury is simple in nature. On the same day, he also examined Ramesh Munda @ Rode Munda and found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound above left eye brow 2”x1” muscle deep (ii) Sharp cutting injury below and lateral left eye 1”x 1/2” x muscle deep. (iii) sharp cutting wound above left knee 3”x1/2” muscle deep. (iv) lacerated wound above ankle 1/2”x1/2” muscle deep. (v) lacerated wound left elbow 1” x 1/2” muscle deep. (vi) sharp cut injury left hand 1” x 1/2” muscle deep Mark of identification mole back. OPINION- Injury Nos.1, iv and v caused by hard blunt force within twenty four hours. Injury No. ii, iii and vi caused by sharp cutting object within twenty four hours. Injuries are simple in nature. P.W.6- ASI Mohan Ram: He is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 30.8.2012 he was posted at Silli Police Station as ASI. He deposed that he sent Rati @ Rode Munda for his treatment to Silli Hospital. He recorded re-statement of the informant and also recorded the statement of Ghasni Devi and Bigan Munda and Churamani Devi. He deposed that on 30.8.2012 he was posted at Silli Police Station as ASI. He deposed that he sent Rati @ Rode Munda for his treatment to Silli Hospital. He recorded re-statement of the informant and also recorded the statement of Ghasni Devi and Bigan Munda and Churamani Devi. He further deposed that on 24.8.2012 he raided the house of the accused and arrested them. He also recovered a dowli and prepared a seizure list. He identifies the seizure list (Ext.- ½). He found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the appellants. 6. After closure of evidences, the statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which they have pleaded not guilty. Appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. 7. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against the appellants to be proved and, thereafter, sentenced them as mentioned in para-1. 8. From the evidence laid by the parties, we find that the appellants have been charged and convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section(s) 323, 324, 341, 307/34 IPC. The informant (P.W.4) who is injured witness, stated that he was assaulted by the appellant with the help of lathi and dowli. Sanatan was armed with dowli and Shambhu was armed with lathi. In the FIR, he stated that he became unconcious, after he was assaulted on his forehead, left hand and leg. His son, Krishna Munda and Cousin Bigan Munda brought him to his house. We also find that Krishna Munda has not been examined by the prosecution. Bigan Munda has been examined, who stated that these appellants assaulted the informant and he watched the occurrence and he did not go near the informant as he was of the belief that he would have been assaulted also. P.W.3 stated that Ghasni Devi, who is P.W.1 was also assaulted but this fact has not been narrated in the FIR. In the entire FIR, the informant has not stated about the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence or the fact that P.W. 1 was also assaulted. P.W.1 Ghasni Devi stated in her evidence that when she went to save the informant from the assault and she was also assaulted by the appellants. In the entire FIR, the informant has not stated about the presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence or the fact that P.W. 1 was also assaulted. P.W.1 Ghasni Devi stated in her evidence that when she went to save the informant from the assault and she was also assaulted by the appellants. She stated that Meghnath assaulted the informant by lathi, as a result of which, he fell down and became unconscious. This statement suggests that before the informant became unconscious, Ghasni Devi reached there to save him and she was also assaulted. If this statement is to be taken as correct, then it is surprising as to why in the FIR, the informant has not disclosed the aforesaid fact about the presence of P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence when he was being assaulted. It is also surprising that P.W. 4, the informant, has also not whispered the aforesaid fact while he was deposing before the Court. Thus a doubt is created in our mind about the presence of P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence. 9. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307 IPC. Section 307 IPC 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. 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. Illustrations; (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section. (d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 10. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there has to be intention or knowledge that by the act, death can be caused and there should be, both intention and knowledge existing. In the instant case, from the evidence, we find that these two important aspects are missing. If the injury report of P.W.4 is seen, we find that there is sharp cut injury below the left eye, above the knee and left hand. These injuries, as per the Doctor, is caused by sharp substance. Out of these three injuries, two are on the hand and left knee. The Doctor opined that the injury are simple in nature and he has not opined that these injury would have caused death. Further the intention of the appellants not to cause death would be gathered from the fact that when admittedly P.W. 4 fell down unconscious, the appellants, who were armed with sharp cutting weapon, did not give any fatal blow on the neck or any vital part of the body which could have caused death. Appellants had the opportunity to cause death, but they did not. This suggests that intention of committing murder was not there. As there was no intention of causing death of the informant, we hold that the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC is bad. 11. Appellants had the opportunity to cause death, but they did not. This suggests that intention of committing murder was not there. As there was no intention of causing death of the informant, we hold that the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC is bad. 11. The fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the prosecution has able to prove the assault on the informant. The assault was by a dangerous weapon, which is dawli, a sharp cutting weapon. Since there was a assault and that too by a deadly weapon, this case is covered under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. In fact that Trial Court has also convicted the appellants for committing the offence under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC. We find no ground to interfere with the aforesaid conviction. The conviction under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC against the appellants is hereby sustained. 12. So far as the sentence is concerned, we find that the occurrence had taken place on 23.8.2012 and now we are in the year 2024. Nearly for about 12 years, the appellants have faced trauma of this criminal proceeding. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 remained in custody for 02 months 29 days, 02 months 29 days and 03 months 16 days respectively. Thus, in the interest of justice, it would not be proper to send the appellants back to jail. 13. Thus, we convert the sentence of imprisonment to what the appellants have undergone, but enhance the fine amount to Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each, which each of the appellants should pay within sixty days from today, to be deposited before the Trial Court. If the appellants deposit the fine amount within sixty days from today, they will be discharged from liability of their bail bonds. In the event of failure to deposit the fine amount within sixty days, the bail bonds of the appellants will be cancelled on expiry of sixty days and each of the appellants have to undergo imprisonment for further period of three months. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment. 14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 15. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.