JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

These cross appeals arise out of the common judgement dated 27.09.1994 pass by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Vide impugned judgment:

(i) all the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 325 IPC; and

(ii) they were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as follows:

Accused Maninder Singh

u/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years

Accused Nirmal Singh

u/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years

Accused Harvinder Singh

u/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years Accused Harjinder Singh

u/s 324/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years

2. The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused under sections 307 and 325 IPC, and sought the conviction of all the accused thereunder. The accused - appellants, in turn, have assailed their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC and prayed for their acquittal.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having meticulously re-appraised the entire evidence, we are persuaded to affirm the view taken by the learned trial Court. Consequently, both appeals fail for the reasons recorded hereinafter.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, on 24.10.1998 complainant Balwinder Singh (PW-1) along with his wife Manjeet Kaur and nephew Gurpreet Singh, attended a Jagrata at the residence of his brother-in-law, Bharat Bhushan. The accused - Nirmal Singh and Harjinder Singh, brothers of the complainant, and Maninder Singh and Harvinder Singh, nephews of the complainant, were also present.

5. As per allegations, at about 10:00 PM, while the complainant was descending the stairs after dinner and reached the main passage, the accused allegedly waylaid him. Accused Harjinder Singh raised a Lalkara exhorting that the complainant be killed. Accused Nirmal Singh dealt a Kirch blow which struck the nose of the complainant. Accused Harvinder Singh gave Datter blows, which the complainant claimed to have warded off with his hands, sustaining injuries thereon. Accused Maninder Singh stabbed him twice on the abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon. Upon the alarm raised by the complainant, his wife, nephew and Jaimal Singh (PW-2), the accused are stated to have fled with their respective weapons.

6. The complainant was first taken to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, and thereafter to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 25.10.1998, his statement was recorded and the FIR (Ex.PA/2) was registered.

7. PW-1 Balwinder Singh, and PW-2 Jaimal Singh (eyewitness) supported the occurrence and attributed specific roles to each accused, asserting that the accused had acted with the intention to kill, while raising Lalkaras.

8. PW-3 Dr. Gurcharan Singh of Civil Hospital Ludhiana, examined the complainant at 11:30 PM on 24.10.1998 and noted 9 incised wounds, declared injuries Nos.1, 2 and 7 under observation and the remaining as simple, all caused by a sharp-edged weapon; he proved the MLR (Ex.PB) and pictorial diagram (Ex.PB/1). On 25.10.1998 at 3:00 PM, he declared the injured unfit to make a statement (Ex.PC/1).

9. PW-3/A Dr. Jagdeep Singh (Radiology) CMC, conducted X-rays on 25.10.1998 and found no fracture (Ex.PD).

10. PW-4 Dr. Sharad Ramdas, CMC, Ludhiana, examined the complainant on 25.10.1998 and recorded multiple lacerations (Ex.PE). He opined that injuries No.4 and 7 were grievous, others simple, all caused by sharp-edged weapon. During cross-examination, he conceded that he did not measure the depth of injuries, did not consult the report of the radiologist and that injury No.7 was not subjected to X-ray.

11. The prosecution also examined PW-5 ASI Surinderjit Singh, PW-6 Head Constable Varinder Singh, PW-7 Head Constable Rajpal Singh and PW-8 Dr.Rohit Garg; FSL report (Ex.PX) was tendered into evidence.

12. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating circumstances and claimed false implication due to a property dispute arising out of a collusive decree al