JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1976, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- 1. Bhag Chand, ) u/s 326 I.P.C. 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Arjun, ) u/s 148 I.P.C. 2 years' rigorous imprisonment 3. Ram Prasad u/s 326/149 I.P.C. 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. u/s 148 I.P.C. 2 years' rigorous imprisonment 4. Ram Singh ) u/s 326/149 I.P.C. 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. ) 5. Babu, ) 6. Ramjilal, ) u/s 147 I.P.C. 1 year's rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The other four accused namely, Badri, Bansi, Parsadi and Mishrilal were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 2. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that the relations between the accused and the members of the complainant party were far from being happy. On February 4, 1975 at 10 a. m. Jagdish Prasad was going towards the railway station. When he reached near the hotel of Badri accused (acquitted by the trial court), Ram Singh caught hold of him and the other accused surrounded him and inflicted blows. Bhag Chand and Ram Prasad accused caused grievous hurt on the hand of Jagdish and Arjun chopped off a portion of his nose and ears and rest of the accused inflicted injuries with lathis. It has also come in the evidence that the occurrence was witnessed by Laxman Nai; Jagan Meena, Ganpat Mahajan, Ram Singh Meena, Kanhaiya Jat and the Station Master of Rampura. Injured Jagdish was taken to dispensary at Raini, where first aid was provided to him and thereafter he was removed to the hospital at Alwar, Meanwhile a written report was lodged at the Police Station, Rajgarh. Jagdish was clinically examined by PW 2 Dr. D. R. Sharma and his injury report is Ex. P/7. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against ten accused. On commitment all the ten accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses, out of whom PW. 1 Jagdish Prasad, is the injured person and PW 4 Lachhman, PW 5 Ram Singh, PW 12 Jegana and PW 14 Kanhaiya Lal were examine as eyewitness of the occurrence. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses, out of whom PW. 1 Jagdish Prasad, is the injured person and PW 4 Lachhman, PW 5 Ram Singh, PW 12 Jegana and PW 14 Kanhaiya Lal were examine as eyewitness of the occurrence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after keeping in view the infirmities in the prosecution case that some of the independent eye witnesses, whose presence at the time of the occurrence was proved on the record, were not examined and that there were certain variations in the statements of the eye witnesses made in the trial court and the statements recorded by the police as well as in the first information report, acquitted four accused, but he found the case against the remaining accused proved beyond reasonable doubt as such convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 4. It is not necessary for me to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused, as the learned counsel for the appellants has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds made out for challenging the fact that the accused had caused injuries with sharp and blunt weapons in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. However, I have looked into the relevant portion of the evidence and am satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence that the incident did take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the six convicted accused participated in the assault as a result of which PW 1 Jagdish Prasad sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex. P/7. 5. The only question canvassed before me on behalf of the .appellants is that the occurrence did take place but the cause of the occurrence was something else then which was disclosed at the trial. The learned counsel urged that DW I Mst. Sukhli stated on oath that the accused misbehaved with her and in such circumstances the sentence awarded by the court below must be held to be excessive. It has also been urged that the accused-appellants are agriculturists by profession. Ram Prasad and Ram Singh are aged 24 and 23 years respectively. It has been further urged that all the accused-appellants are in jail for the last more than two and a half years. It has also been urged that the accused-appellants are agriculturists by profession. Ram Prasad and Ram Singh are aged 24 and 23 years respectively. It has been further urged that all the accused-appellants are in jail for the last more than two and a half years. None of them is a habitual criminal or is a previous convict. Their prolonged continuance in jail in the company of habitual criminals, who may happen to be the inmates of the jail, is not likely to have any reformative effect upon them, rather there are chances of some of them adopting a life of crime, which will be to an extent prejudicial to the largest interest of the society as a whole. They had enough time to repent over what they had done and as such the sentences may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 6. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the reformatory trend of modern penalogy, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentences awarded to the appellants are reduced in lieu of the reduction of substantive sentence of imprisonment the sentence of fine is also imposed on the main accused responsible for causing grievous hurt by sharp edged weapon. 7. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the accused appellants Bhagchand and Arjun under section 326 I.P.C. is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to each of them under section 326 I.P.C. is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to 40 months' rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 750/- each. In default of the payment of fine, each one of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The conviction and sentence awarded to them under Section 148 I.P.C. are upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently. 8. The conviction of accused-appellants Ram Prasad, Ramjilal, Ramsingh and Babulal under section 326 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is maintained, but the sentence awarded to them by the trial court is reduced from five years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment each. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellants Ramprasad. Ramjilal, Ramsingh and Babulal under the other counts by the trial court are upheld. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellants Ramprasad. Ramjilal, Ramsingh and Babulal under the other counts by the trial court are upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded under both the counts to each of the accused-appellants are ordered to run concurrently. 9. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellants 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 imprisonment awarded to them by this court.Out of the fine recovered in amount of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to Jagdish injured. *******