H.R. Krishnan, J.

The six appellants are all members of one family--one should rather says of one branch of a family, the other branch of which is represented by Bapulal, and his son Kailash, who was the victim of an attack by these six persons, with the use of lathis and at least one cutting weapon (farsa) and one pointed weapon (ballom). The appellants Siddhu, Madan, Brijlal and Jeetmal are brothers inter se and also the brothers of Bapulal father of Kailash, Triveni is the son of Brijlal while Ghanshyam is the son of Jeetmal. They have all been convicted under section 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under that count. They have also been convicted under section 307 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years and again under section 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six years. All the sentences to run concurrently.

Between the branch of these appellants and that of Bapulal there had been serious disputes regarding agricultural land. A year or two before this incident which was on 13 1-1971 there were proceedings under sections 145 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code between the two groups. Two or three months before this incident one of the appellants had started a criminal case against Bapulal's branch which seems to have been pending at that time. On this background it is admitted by both the parties that at about 9-0 A. M. on 13-1-1971 when Kailash was cutting grass at the fields a short distance outside the village he was set upon by a number of assailants and belaboured very severely. The results showed that the total effect was one endangering life. There were 14 marks found on him when he was examined medically in course of the day. Two of them were incised wounds on the head, one more than 5" wide and the other 1" wide. However, the bone was not cut, and each by itself was a simple injury; if we take into account the possibility of danger to life, the weapon being a sharp edged one and the part of the body being the head, it becomes grievous injury endangering life. There were two penetrating wounds, simple, indicating that some sort of pointed weapons had been used. There were 10 lathi marks two of which involved fractures of bones one on the foot and the other on the left hand. The remaining eight marks were lathi blows each simple by itself though the cumulative effect was serious.

The prosecution case is based on the evidence primarily of the victim who was examined after some days when he regained consciousness in the hospital, and of his mother Kesarbai P. W. 6 who states that she was with him when he was attacked and gave a first information report at the police station about 9 or 10 miles away at about 3-30 P. M. taking the injured man in a bullock cart. It may be noted that there is a third witness Hajari who was sent by Kesarbai to her husband at the village to arrange for a bullock-cart. But Hajari's evidence in the Sessions Court was altogether colourless he being obviously anxious not to displease either faction. Anyway, the most crucial evidence is that of Kesarbai.

According to her she was nearby when her son was cutting grass in the field and all these six appellants appeared in a body armed with farsas, spears and lathis and began to attack Kailash. Having given him the beating the results of which have already been set out they went back leaving the injured man lying on the ground unconscious. Kesarbai sent a message to her husband Bapulal who arranged for the bullock cart and took his son to the police station. On these materials all the appellants had been charged under sections 148 and 307 read with 149 and again 307 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. The unlawful common object in the view of the lower Court was to kill Kailash outright. However, he having survived the attack, the charge was for attempt because in the event of his death it would have been a case of murder.

The app