( 1 ) THE main question which has surfaced in both these appeals is whether the conviction and sentence of original accused persons of the offence punishable under Sec. 324, I. P. C. , in the impugned judgment and order in place of original charge under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34, I. P. C. , can be said to be justified ? Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1993 is preferred by the State for enhancement invoking powers under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), whereas Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995 which is preferred by the original accused persons invoking powers under Sec. 374 of the Code which, as such, was originally preferred before the Sessions Court at surendranagar being Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1993 which came to be transferred and is given Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995. In substance, both the appeals arise out of one order of conviction and sentence between the same parties. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1993 are the original accused; whereas appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1995 are the same persons. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred as they were originally arraigned like that accused Nos. 1 and 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, accused No. 1 Premshanker is sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500. 00 and in default, to undergo further R. I. for six months; whereas, accused No. 2 Dinesh who is also the brother of accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo three years R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 and in default, to undergo further R. I. for one year and eight months, after holding them guilty by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1990 by passing the order on 21-12-1992 for having committed offence under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. Since both the parties have questioned the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence order recorded in the impugned judgment, it would be appropriate to first have a close look into the few material and important relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case has been that the incident in question occurred on 30-6-1989 at 9-30 a. m. , in the agricultural property (field) situated at village kichada of Dasada Taluka of Surendranagar district. One complainant Rama Kanu along with injured Hari Lakhu and one P. W. Deva Pathu went to the disputed field which was purchased by injured Hari from one original owner Jivtiben. There was some dispute in respect of boundaries. Therefore, the complainant, injured and Deva Pathu had gone to ascertain the said boundaries of the field purchased by Hari.

( 4 ) IN the course of visit by the aforesaid three persons, the accused persons emerged and there was exchange of words between the injured and the accused. There was also a scuffle. Accused No. 1 thereafter is alleged to have given Dharia blow on the head of the injured Hari. Accused No. 2 is alleged to have given two knife blows on the abdomen of the injured. Fortunately, the injured survived from major mishap. He was shifted to the Community Health Centre at Patdi where the injured was examined by Dr. S. M. Makwana who referred the patient to V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad where the patient was kept as indoor patient and during the course of treatment, he was operated upon and was discharged on 12-7-1989. In the meantime, upon the complaint of Rama Kanu, P. W. 3 who was along with the injured at the relevant time, offence came to be registered against the accused persons and investigation thus had commenced. In the course of investigation, medical evidence was obtained and deep-seated motive was also found. Therefore, upon completion of the investigation, the accused persons came to be chargesheeted and were sent up for trial before the Sessions Court at Surendranagar whe