JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench partially allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri found the respondents guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC) and sentenced each to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-.

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the proper conviction would be under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentences were to be reduced to the period already undergone.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 7.2.1997 daughter of the complainant was married to Sitaram and the complainant wanted to give his property to his daughter. Respondent-Imrat who is one of the close relatives of the complainant, objected to this and, therefore, on 2.3.1997 accused persons caused injuries to the complainant. At the time of the incident accused Imrat had a lathi in his hand and accused Komal had a farsa with him. They caused six injuries on the complainant. On the basis of the information lodged in the Police Station, investigation was undertaken and challan was filed against the accused persons for committing offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 506(2) IPC. However, as noted above, the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court noted that as per the evidence of the complainant Bhajan while he was going towards his house near the well accused persons armed with lathi and farsa obstructed his way. Imrat told the co-accused that complainant has to be killed. On hearing this Komal hit the head of the complainant with farsa. Imrat gave lathi blow on the wrist of right hand and left hand and left foot. Komal hit him once more with farsa which struck him on the head. The trial Court found the evidence of the witnesses credible and cogent and on the evidence of the doctor found the accused persons guilty and convicted them as afore-noted.

Before the High Court the only plea taken was that all the six injuries except injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapons and were grievous in nature. It was urged that there was no material to show that these two injuries were dangerous to life or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to them at the most the offence under Section 326 IPC was made out. This plea found acceptance of the High Court.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the injuries were on the head and were caused by sharp cutting weapons and the force with which the blows were given can be seen from the nature of the injuries on the head.

6. No one appears for the respondents in spite of service of notice.

7. The injuries which were noticed by the doctor are as follows:

"No.1 One cut wound on the back of head on the left side admeasuring 3.5 x 1 x 1 c.m.

No. 2. One cut wound on the right side of the head admeasuring 1 x 1 x 1.5 c.m.

No. 3. One abrasion mark on the left hand, rounded admeasuring 5 x 5 c.m.

No. 4. One crushed wound on the right elbow of 1 x 1 c.m.

No. 5. One crushed wound with swelling on the back side of right hand admeasuring 3 x 2 c.m.

No. 6. One crushed wound on the let feet measuring 4 x 5 c.m."

8. The doctor has categorically stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapons. The dying declaration of the injured was recorded on the request of the police.

9. It is to be noted that the alleged offences are of very serious nature. Section 307 relates to attempt to murder. It reads as follows:

"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 punis