The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of S. 324, IPC in place of S. 307, IPC based on the nature of the injury inflicted by the accused appellants.

SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 6-4-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 123/83 by which he convicted the accused appellant No. 3 Iqbal Mohammed for the offence under S. 307, IPC and accused appellants Nos. 1 and 2 Kailash and Babu Rao for the offence under Ss. 307/34, IPC and sentenced each of them in the following manner :-NAME of accused appellants convicted under section sentence awarded 1. Iqbal Mohammed 307,ipc five years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. 1. Kailash 307/34, IPC three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 300. 00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 11/2 months. 2. Babu Rao by the same judgment, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted present accused appellants of the charges for the offence under Ss. 147, 148 read with S. 149, IPC and also acquitted accused Dilip Rao, Ramesh and Shyamlal of all the charges framed against them.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- on 30-6-1983 at about 3. 00 p. m. , PW. 4 Vimal Chand lodged a written report Ex. P/4 before PW. 16 Mangilal Jain, SHO, Police Station Chouti Sadri stating inter-alia that his brother PW 1 Ratnesh Kumar had two shops, namely, Mamta Musical Palace and English Vine Store and both were given by him on rent. It was further stated in the report that on that day at about 2. 00 p. m. , when his brother PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar was sitting in his shop "mamta Musical Palace", Babu Rao (accused appellant No. 2), Dilip Rao, Iqbal Mohammed (accused appellant No. 3), Ramesh, Shyamlal and Kailash (accused appellant No. 1) arrived there and attacked on his brother PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar. It was further stated in the report that accused appellant No. 2 Babu Rao caught hold the hands of PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar and dragged him from the shop and, thereafter, accused appellant No. 3 Iqbal Mohammed gave a knife blow on the right rib, as a result of which, blood came out and at the same time, the accused appellant No. 1 Kailash, who was having a farsa in his hand, also caused injury to PW. 1 Ratnesh on his finger and, thereafter, they all ran away. It was further stated in the report that on the spot, witnesses Ajij Bakshi (PW 2), Chotu Khan (PW. 6), Vardi Chand (PW. 7), Tejram Rawat (PW 5) and others were present and thereafter, PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar was taken to the hospital by PW. 2 Ajij Bakshi and Prem Chand. The cause of dispute as narrated in the report is that driver of the accused appellant No. 1 Kailash dashed the vehicle of PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar and upon this, some altercations took place between them and over this, this incident took place. On this report, a regular FIR Ex. P/5 was chalked out and investigation was started and during investigation, PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar was got medically examined by PW. 9 Dr. S. S. Mehta and his injury report is Ex. P/9, which shows that he received one incised wound on right chest and two bruises, one on left side of chest and the other on right indext finger. The report given by PW. 14 Dr. Kailash Chandra Vyas about the injuries received by PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar, is Ex. P/13 and Indoor Patient Bed Ticket is Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/6 is the report, which was given by PW. 13 Dr. N. S. Kothari to SHO, Police Station Choti Sadri, in which, injury No. 1, which was on the chest of PW. 1 Ratnesh Kumar, was assessed as dangerous to life. The accused appellant No. 3 Iqbal Mohammed was arrested on 30-6-1983 through arrest memo Ex. P/11. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against six accused persons in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 19-10-1983, the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh framed charges for the offence under Ss. 148, 307, 326 and 323/149, IPC against the accused appellants and three other accused. The charges were read over and