The main legal point established in the judgment is the modification of the conviction from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 324/34 IPC based on the nature of the injuries inflicted and the reduction of the sentence due to the relationship between the parties and the time elapsed since the incident.

1. The first information report (FIR) no. 459/1997 was registered on 24.06.1997 on the complaint of Paramjeet Singh (PW-1), resident of C-26, Tihar Camp, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi regarding an incident that had occurred at his said residence at about 11.15 p.m. on 23.06.1997. Two persons including said Paramjeet Singh (PW-1) had been injured in the incident, the other Amarjeet Singh (PW-7) being his brother, Babli (PW-3) the wife of their brother being an eye witness, the crime reported having statedly been committed by the appellants, they being sons of maternal uncle of the victims and consequently well known.

2. On the basis of report of investigation under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the charge-sheet) which was submitted upon conclusion of investigation, both the appellants were summoned and were eventually put on trial in sessions case 10/1998 on the charge for offences under Section 307/452/34 IPC. On the conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 09.11.2001, both the appellants were held guilty, as charged, and by order on sentence passed on the same date, punishment was meted out in the form of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5000/- for offence under Section 307/34 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 452 IPC.

3. The present appeal was filed jointly by both the convicted persons to assail the said judgment and order on sentence.

4. The appeal was admitted. But, when it came up for consideration both the appellants absconded and would not appear. It was with great difficulty that the presence of the second appellant Vijender Singh @ Dabbu could be secured. The other appellant Shailender Singh continues to be elusive. Since both were represented by the same counsel, and had joined in filing the appeal, the matter has been heard finally with the counsel appearing also for the first appellant as amicus curiae.

5. As per the allegations in the FIR (Ex.PW-4/B), the first appellant Shailender Singh (A-1) had come to the house of the complainant at about 11.00 p.m. and when he was questioned as to the purpose of his visit, he (A-1) got infuriated and started questioning as to why he could not come. There is enough material to substantiate the allegations in the FIR, that the parties, though related closely, had been on inimical terms, and would not even talk to each other. The appellants clearly were living separately in a house in a distinct locality and did not have any purpose or justification to call on the victims at such late hour of the day.

6. Be that as it may, the presence of A-1 in the house led to a quarrel wherein A-1 and the first informant (PW-1) came to be involved in grappling. It is stated that A-1 ran away from the scene at that point of time and returned after fifteen minutes at which stage he was accompanied by second appellant Vijender Singh @ Dabbu (A-2), both of them having forcibly entered into the house, started roughing up PW-1 and his brother (PW-7). It was alleged in the FIR that both the appellants threatened the victims that they would not be left alive. A-1 allegedly caught hold of PW-7 while A-2 attacked with the knife. It was also alleged that PW-7 too was also caught hold of by A-1 and attacked by A-2 with the knife, it resulting in injuries being suffered by him on his nose.

7. The record of investigation clearly shows that report to the police by residents of the locality, resulted in the local police arriving at the scene and, besides other steps, taking away the two victims to the hospital. It is stated that A-1 had also suffered injuries in the process and was caught from the spot, A-2 being arrested later. As per the prosecution case, the knife used in the crime was recovered at the instance of A-2 from a public place.

8. No separate charge for possession of knife under Section 25 Arms Act was laid. The evidence about the recovery of knife is rather hazy. There is no clarity by an