S.K. Phaujdar, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 3.3.1979 recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in S.T. 486/75 whereby the court was pleased to convict all the appellants under Section 307/149, Indian Penal Code and to sentence all of them to R.I. for four years. By the same order, the appellants Sri Krishna and Arjun were convicted under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and, on that count, sentenced to R.I. for two years each. The learned court below directed that the sentences were to run concurrently. The accused persons were on bail and were taken into custody after conviction. At the outset, it may be indicated that the appellant, Rajendra Singh son of Bhagwan Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal and a report confirming his death has been received from the concerned CJM. The appeal, therefore, stands abated against this appellant Rajendra Singh. The case as made out by the prosecution was that about 4 p.m. on 29.4.1974 one Prem Shanker had taken a cartload of sugarcane to the cane centre at Khuraiya. He was in a queue awaiting weighment. The appellant was also waiting and quarrel arose for priority. The appellants Shiv Raj left the place after threatening Prem Shanker. The next part of the story took at about 6 p.m. When Prem Shanker was returning on his cart to the village, on the way, he had also picked up his brother, Krishna Behari and both were proceedings on the same cart. When they reached near the field of one Bachhan Singh, the accused appellants stopped them. These appellants were allegedly armed variously with guns, bhalas, Kantas and lathis. At the dictation of Shiv Raj Singh, Ganga Singh and Dwarika Singh, who held guns, the others assaulted Prem Shanker and Krishna Behari with bhala, kantas and lathi allegedly with a view to kill them. The suffered injuries and had gone to Pooranpur Hospital and had lodged a report at Pooranpur Police Station. During trial, the prosecution examined two injured persons, Prem Shankder and Krishna Behari, and in addition thereto the prosecution also examined the investigating officer and the doctor. The trial court was satisfied about the participation of each individual accused in the unlawful assembly and was further satisfied that in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly injuries were caused to the above two persons, which in the opinion of the learned Trial Court was an attempted murder. Accordingly, the orders of the aforesaid conviction and sentence were recorded. The appeal had been pressed before me mainly on the ground that the case was not one of an offence of attempted murder even if the allegations were believed in toto. The learned counsel submitted that had the appellants an intention to kill these two persons, they could have easily done so when they had guns with them. But, admittedly, no gun shot was fired and that would reflect that they had no intention to kill. He also submitted that the nature of injuries were simple and the case, at the worst was one of causing hurt and not an attempt to murder. It was the second contention of the learned counsel that more than 20 years have passed from the date of occurrence and more than 15 years have passed from the date of conviction and sentence. He pleaded that the appellants had, at different stages, suffered imprisonment either at the pre-trial stage or after trial or even during the pendency of the appeal. It was his contention that keeping in view this aspect the period already undergone would be sufficient punishment in the nature of the case. I would take up the first point raised by the learned counsel to see if the offence was really one under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the trial Court judgement indicates that the learned court below had discussed the injuries of Prem Shanker and Krishna Behari, but that was done not with a view to analyse if a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was made out. He gave more thought on the participation of the different appellants in the incident than on the application of Section 307 Indian Penal Code upon the proven facts. He had discussed the evidence and came to definite conclusion of participation of different accused persons in the unlawful assembly being armed with different weapons and he convicted them either under Section 147 or under Section 148, Indian penal Code depending on the weapons each had held. Only thereafter he jumped to a conclusion that there was no iota of doubt left in his mind that the victims were attempted to be murdered. To see whether it was a case of attempted murder or one of hurt simplicitor, we must look to the medical evidence. P.W.4 Dr. Sukhdeo Gupta, had examined the injured persons. For Prem Shanker, the injuries were two incised wounds, one near the umbilicus and the other on the chest near left nipple and both were muscle deep. The other injuries were abraded contusions, on the back and another contusions also on the back. According to the doctor, the injuries were simple. There is nothing to indicate that these injuries had endangered life in any manner. On Krishna Behari there were four incised wounds two near the right ear, one near the left ear and the 4th on the back. The first two were bone deep. The third one was scalp deep and the fourth muscle deep. There is no evidence that any bone was cut or fractured. This injured had two punctured wounds one near the umbilicus and another near the vertebra, both muscle deep. The other injuries on him were abrasions. These injuries were also simple in nature, according to the doctor, and there is nothing to infer that these injuries had endangered life. I may now refer to the text of Section 307, Indian Penal Code. It reads as follows:- "307. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned...." In the present case the act complained of is of causing injuries as aforesaid. Such act must have been done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if death had ultimately resulted as result of the act, the accused would have been guilty or murder. Emphasis must be laid on the term 'intention' or 'knowledge' and 'under the circumstances.' Intention is to be inferred from the nature of the act itself and the circumstances proved by the prosecution. The prosecution proved that three of the appellants had guns with them, but not a single gun was fired. The prosecution proved the use of Bhala and kanta and lathi but the injuries caused were simple and muscle deep and had not endangered life. It is very difficult to infer that the accused persons had any intention or knowledge that they would kill the injured persons by their joint or individual actions. The blows were accomplished and the result was only muscle deep injuries. It is, therefore, unlikely that any of them had intended killing of the two injured persons. At the worst, they intended and caused hurt only to them. The participation of the accused persons with arms is well-proven fact and their convictions under Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code may not, therefore, be interfered with. The injuries caused were simple by means of lathis, bhalas and kantas and read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code each may be held liable for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code in addition to their being guilty under Section 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code as found by the learned trial Court. I may now travel to the question of sentence. The record does not make it clear as to what was the period of detention of these appellants before trial, i.e. during investigation awaiting bail, but it is made clear before me that the conviction was dated 3.3.1979 on which date the appellants were taken into custody. Bail was granted to them by this court on 7.3.1979 and they could have been released on bail not before 8.3.1979. It is submitted before me by the learned counsel, and not controverted by the learned AGA, that on a particular date of hearing the appellants did not turn up and their counsel was also not present and this court had directed cancellation of their bail bonds and for their re-arrest. It is submitted before me that after this cancellation, they were taken into custody on 5.1.1995 and have sent to custody till then. Adding these two periods, it is found that they have already spent about seven weeks in custody. Keeping in view the fact that the offence was committed 20 years ago and that the conviction was recorded 15 years ago and the accused persons had already undergone about 7 weeks in imprisonment and keeping in view further that the ultimate conviction stood out to be one under Sections 324/149, Indian Penal Code along with Sections 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code for different accused appellants, I feel that the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice in the circumstances of the present case. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part, subject to the above modification of conviction and sentence. The appellants need not be detained in custody any further. They may be set at liberty immediately on receipt of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately. Appeal Allowed, Sentence Modified. ;