JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of this appeal are that complainant Gulaba P. W. 7 and injured Beni Ram P. W. 6 were working in their threshing field in village Kasimpur at about 6-7 a. m on 12-4-1972. The cattle of the accused Shyamlal and Sarwan trespassed into the threshing grounds. When their forage was objected to, they abused ; and attacked Beni Ram when he turned the cattle out of threshing floor for the third time. Accused Sarwan gave a lathi blow on Beni Ram and then caught hold of him, while Shyam Lal inflicted a Farsi blow. He became unconscious. Gulaba could not intervene because he was threatened to be similarly dealt with if he too dared. Report of this incident was lodged at 5 p.m. in the police station Kotwali Dholpur. A case was registered and after investigation, the accused were chalaned for trial under sections 307 and 447 Indian Penal Code The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur convicted Shyam Lal under sections 326 and 447 Indian Penal Code and awarded him seven years and one month of hard labour. He convicted Sarwan under sections 323 and 447 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one month respectively. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is dated 28-7-72 against which this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants. 2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. 3. The prosecution produced seven witnesses out of whom Agna P. W. 2, Charan Singh P. W. 3, and Lajja Ram P. W. 4 turned hostile to the prosecution and sided with the defence. The case of the defence as disclosed in the statement of Shyamlal under section 342 Cr. P. C. was that Sarwan and Buddha Ram clashed with each other. Sarwan fell down and his neck was pressed by Beni Ram. He rushed to his help with a Hansiya and delivered a Hansiya blow to Beni Ram in order to rescue Sarwan. Sarwan's case was that he grappled with Beni Ram over the goats. He slipped and Beni Ram sat upon him and pressed his neck. He was rescued by his brother. There was no need to produce any evidence in support because the aforesaid hostile witnesses had supported their plea. Sarwan's case was that he grappled with Beni Ram over the goats. He slipped and Beni Ram sat upon him and pressed his neck. He was rescued by his brother. There was no need to produce any evidence in support because the aforesaid hostile witnesses had supported their plea. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discarded the evidence of the other witnesses but he believed this story of Beni Ram supported by Dr. N. S. Sarin who examined his injuries. The case of the prosecution was also supported by the statement of Gulaba Singh P.W. 7, who lodged the first information report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that as a matter of fact the statement of Shyam Lal lent assurance to the prosecution evidence and he found no hesitation in holding that accused Shyam Lal delivered sharp weapon injuries to Beni Ram and accused Sarwan caused three simple injuries. 4. The learned counsel submitted that Beni Ram P. W. 6 was unable to say how many Farsi blows were given by Shyam Lal. He further stated that when Sarwan gave the first lathi blow, he became unconscious. How could he then see that Shyam Lal had attacked him and that too with a Farsi ? Beni Ram said that the accused Sarwan gave him only one lathi blow but the injury report showed three blunt weapon injuries and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is also that Sarwan was responsible for all the lathi blows. As a matter of fact the evidence of Beni Ram should be thrown away completely because he saw nothing. 5. In the end the learned counsel submitted that Sarwan has already suffered one week's sentence of imprisonment and has been facing this case for the last four years and therefore, he should be let off on the sentence already undergone or a fine should alone be imposed, while Shyam Lal should be acquitted. 6. I have considered over these arguments and it will be sufficient to observe that they have not the slightest force. If the other witnesses have chosen to side with the defence, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Beni Ram P. W. 6 and Gulaba P. W. 7. The victim has deposed that he was attacked by both the persons and the occurrence was seen by his brother Gulaba Singh. If the other witnesses have chosen to side with the defence, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Beni Ram P. W. 6 and Gulaba P. W. 7. The victim has deposed that he was attacked by both the persons and the occurrence was seen by his brother Gulaba Singh. Even the persons who have chosen to turn hostile, have admitted that Shyam Lal came with Hansiya in his hand. The plea of self defence suggested is so flimsy in character that it does not create any doubt in respect of any ingredient of the offence. The sentence no doubt appears to be excessive. The sharp weapon injuries caused consisted of fracture of 3rd. 4th and 5th metacarpal bones of the left hand and there was one wound on the head and another on the right fore-arm which were simple. Abrasions were two,; one over the right hand and the other on the left shoulder. 7. I therefore, partly accept the appeal, maintain the convictions of the appellants but reduce the sentence of accused Shyam Lal to two years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 326 Indian Penal Code The sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment under section 447 Indian Penal Code is maintained. He is on bail and shall surrender to his bonds in order to serve the sentences which shall run concurrently. 8. The sentences of Sarwan are set aside. He is not a previous convict and deserves to be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He shall be released provided he furnishes personal bond in the amount of Rs. 500 and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so within a period of one year, and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He is allowed one month's time to furnish the requisite bonds. *******