1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.250 of 1991 convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Complainant Pyarelal (PW3) was working as a Forest Guard. The Appellants were grazing cattle in the forest due to which dispute had been taking place. On 26.2.1991, in the evening hours, Pyarelal (PW3), Jagdish (PW8) and other guards were returning from their duty. It is alleged that on the way, the Appellants, who were armed with sword, tabbal and tangi, assaulted them. Appellant Bal Govind assaulted by a sword to Complainant Pyarelal due to which he fell unconscious. The matter was reported by Budhauram (PW2) vide Ex.P2. Jagdish (PW8) and Pyarelal (PW3) were medically examined by Dr. Manoj Jaiswal (PW9). He found an incised injury of 15 cms. long from upper border of left ear upto the upper border of the angle of mouth (lips). His report is Ex.P20. Vide Ex.P14A, he opined that if the primary medical treatment had not been given for long, the injury would have been dangerous to the life due to excessive bleeding and mental shock. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants as well as Munu alias Gopal and Bisahu for offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against all of them under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence.

4. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted Bisahu and Munu alias Gopal of the charges framed against them, but convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in the case. The sword by which, allegedly, Complainant Pyarelal was injured, has not been seized. He further submits that there was no previous enmity. Total 5 accused persons were there. Pyarelal sustained only one injury on his face which was simple in nature and no other injury was sustained by him. Therefore, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He further submits that even if the evidence available on record is taken as it is, the only offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He further submits that the matter is of the year 1991. The Appellants have already undergone about 2½–3 months, therefore, they may be sentenced with the period already undergone by them.

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants and supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He submits that since the injury was inflicted by a sword and that too the injury was caused on the face, it seems that the injury was caused with an intention to commit murder and, therefore, the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has rightly been imposed by the Trial Court.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care.

8. Ujitram (PW1) is the witness before whom clothes of Complainant Pyarelal (PW3) were seized vide Ex.P1. Budhauram (PW2), who lodged the FIR (Ex.P2), has stated that wife of Pyare