The central legal point established in the judgment is that while the injuries inflicted were grievous, they were not serious enough to cause death, leading to the extension of the benefit of doubt to the appellants and the modification of the conviction.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for learned advocate Mrs. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellants and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent - State supported by learned advocate Mr. Sidharth H. Dave for the complainant.

2. All the appellants are convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 and under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code as under whereas they are acquitted under Sections 323, 324, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.1 Out of total fine that may be deposited by the appellants, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant for his treatment, if appeal is not filed. All the sentences are also ordered to be run concurrently and to extend the benefit of set off for the period of their custody during trial.

3. In support of prosecution case, 11 witnesses are examined and 28 documentary evidence are produced on record.

4. The sum and substance of the prosecution case as emerging from the charge at exhibit 15 is to the effect that on 07.09.2005 at about 4:00 a.m. all the accused have reached to the place of incident with dharia, axe, iron pipe and stick and started quarreling with the complainant stating that why he is filing complaint against them and during such quarrel, accused No. 1 has given a blow of dharia on the head of the complainant. However, complainant has tried to resist such blow by his hand and, therefore, he received serious injures on fingers of right hand. It is further alleged that at that time, accused No. 2 has also beaten the complainant by his Axe, which resulted into fracture on both legs of the complainant, whereas accused No. 3 has given a blow by iron pipe on chest of the complainant, which resulted into fracture of ribs, whereas accused No. 4 has also beaten the complainant on his head and shoulder with the stick and thereby all the accused have jointly beaten the victim and thereby they have intended to kill the victim and, therefore, they have committed an offence under Section 307, 323, 324, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that in addition to attack as disclosed herein above appellants have also threatened the complainant that they will kill him. Therefore, charge was also framed under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. Since, deadly weapons were used by the appellants they were also charged with the provisions of Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After trial, the learned additional Sessions Judge, Patan by impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2010 in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2007 convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

5. Being aggrieved by such conviction appellants have filed this appeal. To ascertain the legality or otherwise of such impugned judgment, we have to appreciate the evidence on record which is discussed herein.

6. Before we discuss the evidence of witnesses, if we consider further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused, it becomes clear that all the accused have in categorical terms disclosed before the Court that in fact the complainant and his supporters had beaten the wife of the appellant No. 1 and, therefore complaint was filed against them. Hence, to take revenge of such complaint, present complaint is filed and they are falsely implicated in such case.

7. So far as merits of the present issue is concerned, initially injuries of the complainant - victim is to be examined to ascertain that whether conviction under Section 307 can be sustained or whether it requires any interference.

8. To prove such injuries prosecution has examined doctor as PW No. 1 at exhibit 24. The witness doctor has examined the complainant - victim A