AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—All these three appeals are disposed of by this common order.

2. The Stale has filed two appeals, i.e., Crl. A. No. 567/2005 & Crl. A. No. 566/2005 questioning the acquittal of accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and enhancement of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 is also in appeal against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Accused No. 1 alongwith six others stood trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on the charge sheet submitted by the Nanjangud Police in Crime No. 3/99.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.1999 at about 1.45 p.m. at Ediga Mohalla Mosque in Nanjangud all the accused were members of unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Shabeer Khan-P.W. 3 and they committed rioting being armed with deadly weapons and they assaulted P.W. 3 by means of a knife. With such intention and under such circumstances that if by the said act they had caused the death of Shabeer Khan, they would have been guilty of murder and thereby they have committed the offences punishable as stated earlier. Accused Nos. 4 & 5 were apprehended by police on 12.1.1999 and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate and were admitted to bail on 5.2.1999. Accused Nos. 3, 6 & 7 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate on 28.2.2000. They were also admitted to bail. Accused No. 5 remained absent after committal of the case and he was secured under Non Bailable Warrant on 7.6.2004 and remanded to judicial custody and he was once again admitted to bail on 16.4.2004. A charge sheet is filed for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.1999 at about 1.45 p.m. all the accused went to Ediga Mohalla Mosque in Nanjangud and insisted that they propose to deliver a speech on tabalig (which would mean visiting the houses in order to offer prayer in the houses). The injured, i.e., P.W. 3 objected for delivering tabalig speech, since, such speech was not allowed in the Mosque earlier. All the accused were enraged by such serious objection raised by P.W. 3, Accused No. 1. took out a knife from his pocket and assaulted on the abdomen of P.W. 3-Shabeer Khan, while the other accused held P.W. 3. P.W. 3 sustained penetrating injury on the abdomen and he was taken to Government Hospital at Nanjangud by P.W. 2-the complainant. The Doctor at Nanjangud hospital referred him to major hospital at Mysore and he was taken to K.R. Hospital at Mysore in an ambulance. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 3 was operated and was an inpatient for one month. Immediately thereafter, P.W. 2 lodged a complaint at Nanjangud Police Station as a result of which a case has been registered as aforesaid.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and have got marked Exs. P1 to P14. The Doctor who treated P.W. 3, the injured is examined as P.W. 1. He would depose that as on the date of the incident, he was working as a medical officer at Nanjangud Government. Hospital. On 9.1.1999, P.W. 3 was brought to the hospital by PC 1408 and 316 of Nanjangud Town Police Station before him for examination with the history of injury to abdomen by 5 to 6 unknown persons at 2.45 p.m. in the premise of Eidgah. He examined P.W. 3 and on examination he found the following injury:

Inverted 7 shaped incised wound in the right Hypochandritum region measuring 3½ cm x ½ to 3/4 cm in. depth.

He would state that P.W. 3 was treated and was referred to a bigger hospital for a better treatment. He received a report, from K.R. Hospital after examination. He would state that the injury sustained by P.W. 3 was grievous in nature, as the injury would have resulted in the death of the patient if complication had arisen. The Doctor was cross-examined. But, however