JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that a day prior to the date of the occurrence accused Chatra uprooted the gram crop from the field of Gordhan. Gordhan went to make a complaint about the act of Chatra to his father Moti, which infuriated the accused Chatra. It is alleged that on February 11, 1973 when Gordhan was passing in front of the house of Chatra, the two petitioners along with their father Motilal with a common intention to assault, rushed towards Gordhan and Chatra inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Gordhan as a result of which he fell down. Prabhu, brother of Gordhan came to rescue him, but he was also not spared and as many as seven injuries were inflicted on his person, out of which two were found to be grievous. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the statements of the two injured persons corroborated by the statements of Kalyan, Peeru and Kedar and Dr. Virendra as well as the injury reports convicted the three accused namely, Moti, Chatra and Amara under Sections 325 rendered with Section 34 and Section 323 IPC and sentenced each them to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each under section 325/34 IPC and to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. each under Section 323 IPC by his judgment dated May 23, 1977. The substantive sentences of imprisonment under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence all the three convicts went up in appeal, which came up for decision before the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Baran, who by his judgment dated October, 12, 1977 partly accepted the appeal. He acquitted accused Moti of all the charges framed against him. The conviction of accused Chatra and Amara under Section 325/34 IPC was maintained, but the sentence awarded to them was reduced from one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. which to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. As both the accused were convicted under Section 325 IPC the learned Sessions Judge did not award any sentence to them under section 323 IPC. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that accused Moti was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 500/-. As both the accused were convicted under Section 325 IPC the learned Sessions Judge did not award any sentence to them under section 323 IPC. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that accused Moti was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The evidence against accused and the petitioners being of the same persons cannot be termed to be sterling worth. The evidence of the injured witnesses is of interested persons and their statements cannot be held to be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section, 325/34 IPC. There is no evidence on record to hold that grievous hurt was caused by both the accused in furtherance of the common intention. Similar intentions are required to be distinguished with common intention and as such both the accused. petitioners can at the most be convicted under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 325/34 IPC. 4. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. There is evidence on record that the two accused-petitioners came together and both of them participated in causing injuries on the person of Prabhulal. Prabhulal sustained two grievous hurts and five simple injuries. Common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment. While using lathis on the person of Prabhulal both of them must have intended to cause grievous hurt. The very fact that both of them came together, participated in the assault and ran away together in the sane direction is sufficient to hold that the common intention of the accused was to cause grievous hurt to Gordhan or whosoever comes to rescue him. No doubt the injury sustained by Gordhan was not grievous, but that does not exonerate the two accused of the liability of causing grievous hurt to Prabhulal. The two courts below have placed reliance on the statements of the injured witnesses and the eye witnesses. The process of apprising the evidence led by the prosecution and the accused in a case can be equated almost to the process of holding the balance the time honoured symbol of justice. In the process of holding the balance what pieces of evidence of course excluding the inadmissible evidence should tilt the balance in favour of a party is to be judged by a Court of fact. In the process of holding the balance what pieces of evidence of course excluding the inadmissible evidence should tilt the balance in favour of a party is to be judged by a Court of fact. The two courts for good and sufficient reasons have placed reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses corroborated by other evidence and I find no reason to hold otherwise. 5. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused petitioners under Section 325/84 IPC is maintained. 6. Now remains the question of sentence. It has been urged that the incident was an off-shoot of a trifling affair. The occurrence is of the year 1973 and a period of more than four years has elapsed in between the commission of the offence and hearing of the revision. Continuance of criminal proceeding for so long a time must have ceased the accused petitioners considerable expense apart from their attendance in the Court. Hanging of a democlean sword does abstruct the continuity of life. 7. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured and the accused petitioners are residents of the same village and keeping of the accused-petitioners, who appear to be village rustics, for a long time in the company of hardened criminals is not likely to reform them, rather there is a danger of their adopting a life of crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to them is reduced. The sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners is reduced from six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150/- each. The amount of fine after recovery shall be paid to Prabhulal as ordered by the trial Court. In default of the payment of fine, each of them will further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 8. The accused, petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of section 428 Cr. P.C. and the period of detention undergone by them during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of sentence awarded by this Court. 9. With the above modification in the term of sentence the revision is dismissed.Revision partly allowed. *******