JUDGMENT 1. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that there was a long standing feud between P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh on one hand and accused Gulab and Naval on the other. On 12-12-68 in the afternoon P. W. 1 Randhir and his brother P. W. 2 Jawansingh in the company of P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan were smoking `hukka' sitting in their 'bakhal'. At that time P. W. 6 Shibbmalso happened to come there. The accused-petitioner Naval, Hari Singh and four others Pyarsingh, Har Kishan, Gulab and Ramdayal (acquitted by the appellate court) formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to inflict injuries to Randhir and his brother and came to the house of P. W. 1 Randhir. Accused Gulab asked him to come out of the house, but the latter refused to oblige him and thereafter all of them entered the premises of the complainant and inflicted injuries on the persons of P. W. 1 Randhir and Jawansingh. Jagram and Malkhan intervened, but inspite of their intervention the accused succeeded in inflicting four injuries to P. W. 1 Randhir and two injuries to P. W. 2 Jawansingh. Their injury reports are Ex. P/5 and Ex P/4 respectively. One of the injuries sustained by Randhir was found to be grievous, after confirmation from X-ray examination. First Information Report of this occurrence was lodged at the police station, Hindaun on 13-12-1968 at 4 p.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is nine miles. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the six accused in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Hindaun. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of their case. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime. They examined two witnesses D. W. 1 Mangilal and D. W. 2 Punia in support of their case. The learned Magistrate found the defence story unreliable. Out of the seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution P. W. 6 Shibbu did not support the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh are the injured persons. P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan are close relatives of the complainant, both of them do not belong to the village where the occurrence took place. P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh are the injured persons. P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan are close relatives of the complainant, both of them do not belong to the village where the occurrence took place. The learned Magistrate after scanning the evidence and placing reliance on the statements of the injured persons P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh corroborated by the statements of Jagram (P. W. 3) and P. W. 4 Malkhan and P. W. 5 Dr. N L. Bharadwaj convicted and sentenced ail the six accused challaned before him as under - S. No. Name of the accused. Sec. of the I. P. C. under which convicted. Sentenced imposed. 1. Gulab 324 I. P. C. Six months' R. I. 326 read with Eighteen months' R. I. 149 I. P. C. 148 I. P. C. Nine months' R. I. 448 I. P. C. Three months' R. I. 2. Naval 326 I. P. C. Eighteen months' R. I. 324 read with Six months' R. I. 149 I. P. C. 148 I. P. C. Nine months' R. I. 448 I. P. C. Three months' R. I. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pyarsingh Harkishan Harisingh Ramdayal } 324 read with 149 I. P. C. Six months' R. I. 148 I. P. C. Nine months' R. I. 448 I. P. C. Three months' R. I. 326 read with 149 I.P.C. Eighteen months' R.I. 2. The petitioners along with four other accused preferred an appeal challenging their convictions and sentences which came up for decision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, who by his judgment dated 4-10-72 partly accepted the appeal. He acquitted accused Gulab, Pyarsingh, Harkishan and Ramdayal of all the charges framed against them. The convictions and sentences imposed against accused Naval by the trial court under sections 326 and 448, I. P. C. were maintained. He however, acquitted him of the offence punishable under sections 148 and 324, read with section 149, I. P. C. Conviction and sentence awarded to accused Harisingh under section 448, I. P. C., was maintained, but his conviction under section 324 read with section 149, I. P. C. was converted to section 323, 1. P. C., and he was sentenced to three months' R. I. He was acquitted of all the other charges framed against him. Hence this revision-petition. 3. The learned counsel Miss. P. C., and he was sentenced to three months' R. I. He was acquitted of all the other charges framed against him. Hence this revision-petition. 3. The learned counsel Miss. Sumitra Sankhla, appearing for the accused-petitioners, has contended that the prosecution witnesses have not come out with a correct version as to how the quarrel started. The appellate court held that accused Gulab, Pyarsingh, Harkishan and Ramdayal were falsely implicated and as such the conviction based on the testimony of such unreliable partisan and inimical witnesses P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh, cannot be maintained. The learned counsel further urged that P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhanare not the residents of the village where the occurrence took place. They had no reason to be on the place of occurrence and they can very well be termed as chance witnesses. It is proverbially rash to rely upon the statements of chance witnesses. In support of her contention she placed reliance on a Privy Council decision Ismail Ahmed Peepadi v. Momin Bibi and others, AIR 1941 Privy Council 11 . The case of the acquitted accused cannot be separated from that of the convicted accused-petitioners and the entire prosecution case must fail. In the alternative it was urged that there are material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the causing of the grievous hurt by accused Naval to Randhir at the most he could be convicted under section 324, I.P.C., and not under section 326, I. P. C. 4. Mr. Mathur, Public Prosecutor, urged that^ the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out simply because four accused were given benefit of doubt by the appellate court. He supported the judgment of the appellate court. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the parties. As regards the effect of the acquittal of the four accused it is sufficient to note that the State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. I will proceed on the assumption that the prosecution evidence regarding participation of these four accused in the assault on Randhir and Jawansingh on 12-12-68 has not been substantiated and the account of the occurrence given by the two injured and the two other eye witnesses is partly untrue. I will proceed on the assumption that the prosecution evidence regarding participation of these four accused in the assault on Randhir and Jawansingh on 12-12-68 has not been substantiated and the account of the occurrence given by the two injured and the two other eye witnesses is partly untrue. The presence of P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawan Singh on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, as they are injured persons and their presence at their own house was most natural. The two eye witnesses namely P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan are admittedly not the residents of village Kanjoli. P. W. 1 Randhir in his cross-examination admitted that both these witnesses are his sister's son. Their statements regarding participation of the four accused-persons (acquitted by the appellate court) in the assault has not been disbelieved. The first information report of this occurrence was lodged after nearly 24 hours of the occurrence on 13-12-69 at 4 p. m. P. W. 1 Randhir stated in his examination-in-chief that he reached Hindaun on the night of the occurrence. In such circumstances it does not stand to reason why the first information report of the occurrence was not lodged on 12-12-68 when the police station is also situated in Hindaun. The two injured were clinically examined by Dr. Bharadwaj on 13-12-68 at 4-30, p. m., in Hindaun. The appellate court was- wrong in observing that the injured were first medically examined and then the matter was reported to police. This unexplained delay in giving the first {information report thus casts a shadow of doubt regarding the prosecution story. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time between the occurrence and filing of the F. I. R. might have been utilised in settling down the prosecution story and it will be very unsafe to place reliance on the statement of P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan. The description of quarrel given by these two witnesses is also suggestive of the fact that they might not be present on the scene of the occurrence. If six persons would have attacked and P.W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan would have intervened, they would not have been spared. The description of quarrel given by these two witnesses is also suggestive of the fact that they might not be present on the scene of the occurrence. If six persons would have attacked and P.W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan would have intervened, they would not have been spared. The fact that they did not even receive a scratch, when considered conjunctively with the fact that they are not the residents of the village where the quarrel took place, creates a doubt about their presence on the scene of occurrence. 6. Now remains the statements of the injured witnesses P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh. P. W. 1 Randhir stated that on 12-12-68 he in the company of his brother P. W. 2 Jawansingh, P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan was enjoying 'hukka' At that time six accused-persons including the two petitioners after being armed with weapons came to his house. Gulab asked him to come out of the house oo that he may teach him a lesson, but the latter refused to oblige the former and as such all the six accused entered into his house and caused injuries to him and his brother. The witness further goes on to state that at the relevant time accused Gulab (acquitted by the appellate court) was armed with a `dharia' and the petitioner Naval had a `gandasi' with him and rest of them were armed with `lathis'. Gulab inflicted a `dharia' blow on his head and Naval inflicted a `gandasi' blow on the finger of his hand and the rest of them caused injuries with `lathis' He further stated that petitioner Naval inflicted a `gandasi' blow on the head of Jawansingh and thereafter the other accused inflicted `lathi' blows. More or less same is the statement of Jawansingh, but as regards the grievous hurt caused on the finger of the hand of Randhir he stated that finger injury was caused to Randhir by Gulab. Thus the evidence of both the witnesses on this crucial point is divergent. Besides that two F. I. Rs. have been exhibited on record which have been marked as Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. Ex. P/2 bears the signature of P. W. 1 Randhir and Ex. P/1 does not bear anybody's signature. In Ex. Thus the evidence of both the witnesses on this crucial point is divergent. Besides that two F. I. Rs. have been exhibited on record which have been marked as Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2. Ex. P/2 bears the signature of P. W. 1 Randhir and Ex. P/1 does not bear anybody's signature. In Ex. P/2 it has not been mentioned that accused Naval inflicted a `gandasi' blow on the hand of Randhir. This omission in the F. I. R. Ex. P/2 might have been made by in advertence, but it is of a serious nature, which, if read with the statement of P. W. 2 Jawansingh creates a reasonable doubt regarding causing of the grievous hurt by accused-petitioner Naval. No doubt the two courts below have held that the grievous hurt was caused to Randhir by accused-petitioner Naval, but these infirmities were not noted by the two courts below. In face of the above mentioned contradictory evidence, it would not be safe to mention the conviction of accused Naval under section 326, I. P. C. 7. Placing reliance on the statement of the two injured witnesses and the statement of Dr. N.L. Bharadwaj uphold the conviction of the accused-petitioner Harisingh under sections 448 and 323, I. P. C., the conviction of accused-petitioner Naval under section 448, IPC, is maintained. However, his conviction under section 326, I.P.C., is converted to section 324, I. P. C. 8. Now remains the question of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1968. The accused-petitioners were convicted by the trial court on 11-12-71 and on the same day they were taken in custody. On appeal they were released on bail on 22-12-71. Their appeal was decided on October 4, 1972, and both of them were again taken into custody on the same day. Thereafter in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 11-10-72 they were released from Jail on 26-10-72. Thus they have undergone the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 34 days. They are cultivators by profession and it will not be in the interest of justice to send them back to jail, after so long a time of their released on bail by this court. It is not going to have any reformative effect. Pendency of criminal proceedings for a period of more than seven years is in itself inhibitive for repetition of such offence. It is not going to have any reformative effect. Pendency of criminal proceedings for a period of more than seven years is in itself inhibitive for repetition of such offence. None of them is a previous convict. 9. Taking conspectus of the circumstances of the case I uphold the conviction of accused-petitioner Harisingh under sections 448 and 323, I. P. C., but reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to that already undergone by him, but in lieu of the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400f or in default of the payment of which he shall undergo; two months' simple imprisonment. 10. The conviction of accused-petitioner Naval under section 448, I.P.C., is maintained His conviction under section 326, I. P. C., is altered to that under section 324, I. P. C. The substantive sentence awarded to him under both the counts is reduced to the period already undergone, but in lieu of the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 750/- or in default of payment of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 11. Out of the fine, if realised, an amount of Rs. 250/- each shall be paid to the two injured P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh. Two months' time is allowed to the accused-petitioners to deposit the fine in the trial court. 12. The revision is partly allowed as indicated above. *******