1. Appellant Babloo alias Sujeet, after having been convicted in ST. No. 195/91 under section 307, I.P.C., wherein he was awarded R.I. for 5 years together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 324, I.P.C. for causing injuries to two persons, namely Motilal and Ganesh and sentenced to 4-4 months' R.I. on the said counts together with a fine of Rs. 100-100/-, approached this Court by means of present appeal for setting aside the conviction and sentence.

2. The appellant is resident of village Madhia, district Sagar and appears to be a religious person as the occurrence in question took place when the appellant, complainant Shailendra, Motilal and Ganesh were participating in a Keertan. The alleged incident took place on 24th August, 1990 in village Madhia during the night hours while the Keertan at the resident of Rama (P.W. 10) was going on. The report of the occurrence was lodged by Shailendra (P.W. 11) at about 2.00 A.M. in the night the same day at P.S. Cantt. Sagar, which is Ex. P/9. In the alleged incident Shailendra, Motilal and Ganesh received injuries.

3. According to prosecution, in the night of 24th August, 1990 at the house of Rama (P.W. 10) in village Madhia Keehan was going on, wherein complainant Shailendra (P.W. 11) was present and he was playing Jhoola (musical instrument). Motilal (P.W. 12), Lalloo Patel (P.W. 13) and Ganesh (P.W. 14) were also participating in the said Keertan, while Keertan was going on the accused-appellant is said to have taken said 'Jhoola' from the hands of complainant Shailendra, which was objected to by him, whereat the accused-appellant caught him and took him out side the house of Rama (P.W. 10) and inflicted knife injuries on his chest as well as leg. Motilal (P.W.12) and Ganesh (P.W. 14) who went there to pacify the matter were also inflicted injuries by knife by the accused-appellant. However, the matter could be pacified by Lalloo (P.W. 13) and Rama (P.W. 10). Thereafter the report of the alleged incident was lodged by Shailendra (P.W. 11) at P.S. Cantt. Sagar and a case was registered as Crime No. 325/90. After investigation of the crime, charge-sheet was submitted that the case was handed over to the Session Court.

4. Before the Session Court the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Ramkishan, the witness of seizure of clothes of Shailendra was examined as P.W.1 Dr. V.K. Mishra Radiologist, who performed the X-ray of the injuries on the persons of Shailendra was examined as P.W. 2. Dr. B.R. Agrawal who medically examined Shailendra (P.W.11), Motilal (P.W 12) and Ganesh (P.W. 14), was examined as P.W. 3. Mevalal, the witness of fact was examined as P.W. 4 Bhagwandas, who is also the witness of fact, was examined as P.W. 5. Ramesh Kumar, Head Constable, was examined as P.W. 6. Dhanpatram, the Head Constable, who got the site plan prepared, was examined as P.W. 7. Dinesh Kumar, Constable, who produced the copy of the F.I.R. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, was examined as P.W. 8. Manmohan, a Lecturer, who was the witness of seizure of clothes of Shailendra, was examined as P.W. 9. Rama the person in whose house the 'Keertan' was being performed was examined as P.W. 10. Shailendra, the complainant, was examined as P.W. 11. Motilal the person who received injury was examined as P.W. 12. Lalloo Patel, the witness of occurrence was examined as P.W. 13. Ganesh, the person who received injuries was examined as P.W. 14. Dr. Prafulla Kumar Dhagat, Surgical Specialist, who performed the operation on the person of Shailendra was examined as P.W. 15 and Sarvjeet Singh Chahal, the Investigating Officer, was examined as P.W. 16.

5. As usual, the defence was that of denial.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Penal Lawyer for the State.

7. The appeal has come up for hearing after having been expedited and the hearing of the appeal was expedited on the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where he would not like t