Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1993 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in Sessions Case No. 8/1982, whereby accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Accused appellant Dharmendra @ Chippu:

Convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month' SI

Accused appellant Nahne @ Ghanshyam:

Convicted for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months' SI.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

"On 6.9.1991 Bal Kishan (informant) gave a statement before the police that when he was coming from his house and reached near the shop of Rameshwar Panwala, the accused appellants emerged from the nearby street and Chippu said that he (informant) had an altercation on the previous day, for which he must be punished and after making this statement, accused appellant Nanhe Mali caught hold of him while accused appellant Chippu @ Dharmendra inflicted a knife blow on his stomach, as a result of which he fell down. On the basis of said statement, FIR No. 334/1991 came to be registered against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 307, 341 IPC. Thereafter investigation was started and on completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellants before the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution produced 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has passed the judgment and order dated 30.8.1993 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants, as indicated here-in-above."

3. Against the said judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

4. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that this case jumps under Section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC because there was no intention or knowledge of the accused appellants to cause death of the injured. He has further contended that the statements which have been recorded during the course of investigation by the police under Section 161 CrPC and the statements, which have been recorded by the Court, are contradictory in nature. He has drawn the attention of this court on the statement of PW-1 Pashupati Nath, who is simply the witness of seizure memo; on the statement of PW-2 Dr. P.C. Vyas, who initially stated in his statement that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause, death in the ordinary course of nature, but later-on stated in his own statement that if injured would not have been provided medical aid in time, then the injury could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has further contended that in this case, the injured was given proper medical aid in time and the alleged injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has drawn the attention of this Court on cross-examination part of this Court on cross-examination part of the statement of Dr. P.C. Vyas, PW.2. He has further contended that Girraj, PW.3, who is the star witness of the prosecution, has been declared hostile. He was further drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW.4 Dr. A.K. Mathur and contended that he has given the contradictory statement in his chief and cross-examination. Further he has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW.5 Bal Kishan and contended that there are contradictions in his statement. He