JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Gurumukh Singh and Dalip Singh accused persons against their convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, by his judgment dated 3rd June, 1975, in the following manner: Gurumukh Singh under section 326. IPC sentenced to three years R I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default three month R.I. Under section 324 I.P.C. sentenced to six months' R.I. under section 447 I.P.C. sentenced to one months R.I. Dalip Singh under Sections 326 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. Sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 220/- in default one months R.I. Under Section 323 I.P.C. sentenced to six months R.I. Under Section 447 I.P.C. sentenced to one months R.I. 2. All the substantive sentences awarded to both the accused appellants shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th June, 1971 at about 11a.m. the complainant Somnath PW 1 along with his father Hansraj PW 3, his mother Mayedevi PW 2 and his younger brother Ramesh PW 7 were sitting in their hut near their well in village Shonkar. The accused Sohan Singh along with his two sons Gurumukh Singh and Dalip Singh, the present appellants came armed with sword, daggers and lathis and inflicted several blows on the person of Someath, Mayadevi, Hansraj and Ramesh. On clinical examination by Dr. Bhagmal Verma he found the following injuries on the above named. 1. Lacerated wound 1,1/2" x 1/2"x 1/4" scalp on the right parietal area. 2. Scratch mark 2" vertically on the right arm upper half area, 3. Lacerated wound 1"x 1/2" x 1/4" left band on the outer side, 4. Contusion 1" x 1" on the right shoulder joint. Mayadevi: 1. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" transversely on the little finger left hand on the inner aspect. 2. Knocking out of the tooth first molar tooth of the left upper jaw. Hausraj: 1. Incised wound "1" x 1/4" x ⅛" on right forearm on the lateral aspect upper half area. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅛" right elbow joint medial side; 3. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x ⅛" palm of the right hand over the hypothenar thinner eminence. Dalip Singh under sections 326 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. under section 323 IPC under section 447 IPC. 4. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅛" right elbow joint medial side; 3. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x ⅛" palm of the right hand over the hypothenar thinner eminence. Dalip Singh under sections 326 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. under section 323 IPC under section 447 IPC. 4. Incised wound 1/2" x ⅛" palm of the right hand in the centre; 5. Incised wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅛" index finger of the right hand on the palmer aspect; 6. Incised wound 3/4" x ⅛" x ⅛" right finger of the right hand on the palmer aspect; 7. Lacerated wound 2,1/2" x 1/2" x ⅛" scalp on the right parietal area; 8. Contusion 1, 1/2" x 1/2" on the right side of face; 9. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" over the right cheek; 10. Incised wound 1, 1/4" x 1/2" x 1/4 below the left half of lower jaw. 11. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" left shoulder joint on the posterior aspect. 12. Contusion 12" x 1" left half of the chest on the posterior aspect. 13. Contusion 2" x 1" over the left sixth rib of the posterior aspect; 14. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" on the back of chest left half side over the 6th rib area. 15. Contusion 2" x 1" on the back of chest along the medial border of left scapula. 16. Contusion 5" x 1" left arm on the lateral aspect upper left area. 17. Contusion 4" x 2" left arm on the lateral aspect lower half area. 18. Incised wound 2,1/2" x 1,1/2" x bone deep semi-circular shape on the left arm on the lateral aspect. According to the statement of Dr. Bhagmal Verma Ex. P 14 recorded during committal proceedings all the injuries on Hans Raj were simple except injury No. 18 which, according to him, was grievous and injury No. 13 was also found to be grievous later on after x-ray examination. The Injuries Nos. 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17 were caused with blunt object whereas the remaining injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon. The first information report of the case was lodged by PW 1 Somnath at police station Kot Kasim District Alwar on 8th June, 1961 at 5.30 p.m. After usual investigation the police filed a challan against the two appellants Gurumukh Singh and Dalip Singh and their father Sohan Singh. 4. The first information report of the case was lodged by PW 1 Somnath at police station Kot Kasim District Alwar on 8th June, 1961 at 5.30 p.m. After usual investigation the police filed a challan against the two appellants Gurumukh Singh and Dalip Singh and their father Sohan Singh. 4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of their case out of which PW 1 Somnath, PW 2 Mayadevi, PW 3 Hansraj and PW 7 Ramesh are the injured one witnesses. PW 4 Bhambhal was declared hostile. PW 5 Deep Chand, and PW 6 Gyan Chand, PW 9 Shyan Lal and PW 10 Budhram are the witnesses who had reached after the incident. PW 8 Versun. PW 12 Ramji Lal and PW 13 Nathu Ram are formal witnesses after recovery. PW 14 Benimadhav is the investigating officer. The accused persons were read over and explained the charges under various offences punishable under various sections of I.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. The accused persons in defence examined only one witness DW 1 Dr. S.K. Sen, who has proved 7 injuries on accused Sohan Singh and 7 injuries on accused appellant Gurmukh Singh. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments acquitted all the accused persons of the charge punishable under section 307 I.P.C. He held that Gurumukh Singh appellant caused grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon to Hansraj and held him guilty under section 326 IPC Dalip Singh was also found guilty for the above injuries inflicted on Hans Raj under section 326 read with 34 IPC. As regards Sohan Singh it was held that the prosecution failed to prove that Sohan Singh took part in the fighting. Dalip Singh accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 325 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also held Gurumukh Singh accused appellant guilty for causing simple injuries with sharp edged weapon to Hans Raj and found him guilty under Section 324 and similarly he found Dalip Singh guilty for the above charge under section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Dalip Siagh was also found guilty of Section 323 IPC for having given a lathi blow on the head of Ramesh Chand. All the three accused persons were found guilty under section 447 IPC also. As regards the injuries inflicted on Mayadevi the prosecution story was not believed. Dalip Siagh was also found guilty of Section 323 IPC for having given a lathi blow on the head of Ramesh Chand. All the three accused persons were found guilty under section 447 IPC also. As regards the injuries inflicted on Mayadevi the prosecution story was not believed. In view of the above findings the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has not seriously challenged the convictions of the appellants for the various offences. I have also gone through the statements of PW 1 Somnath, PW 2 Mayadevi, PW 3 Hansraj, and PW 7 Ramesh from whose statements it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that Gurumukh Singh had inflicted the injuries by sharp and blunt object entire body of Hansraj. It is also proved by the evidence of above witnesses that Dalip Singh, who is the brother of Gurumukh Singh was having a common intention of causing the above injuries and was thus guilty of offences under sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. It is also proved from the evidence of Ramesh Chand PW 7 that a blow by a lathi was given by Dalip Singh and there is nothing to disbelieve his dement and as such Dalip Singh has been rightly convicted under section 323 IPC. The convictions of the accused appellants under section 447 IPC has also not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants and in my view the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly placed reliance in this regard on the statements of lire prosecution witnesses to hold that the accused committed trespass by entering into the field of injured Hansraj. 8. Next remains the question of sentences awarded to appellants. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that a period of 10 years has closed to the date of the alleged occurrence Sohan Singh father of the appellants and Gurumukh Singh one of the appellants had also sustained 7 injuries each at the time of alleged occurrence which has been proved by the evidence of DW 1 Or. S.K. Sen. The injured Somnath and Hansraj through their advocate Shri M M.Raojan filed an application in this Court on 2nd March, 1981, duly supported by an affidavit. The parties were residents of the same village and relatives. S.K. Sen. The injured Somnath and Hansraj through their advocate Shri M M.Raojan filed an application in this Court on 2nd March, 1981, duly supported by an affidavit. The parties were residents of the same village and relatives. There was no grievance to them now and the whole matter has been compromised. They have developed cordial relations between them and this factor may be taken into consideration while awarding sentences. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has also in the facts and circumstances of the case not opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the accused appellants to take lenient view in the matter of sentences. 10. The incident relates to a period of 1971 and a period of 10 years has elapsed. Out of injuries inflicted on Hansraj only two are of grievous nature. Out of these two grievous injury one is a contusion 2"x over the left 6th rib on the posterior aspect and the other is an incised wound 2, 1 /2"x 1, 1 /4" x bone deep semi-circular shape on the left arm on the lateral aspect The rest of the injuries are simple in nature On the other hand," injuries on the person of Sohansingh and 7 injuries on the person of Gurumukhsingh appellant at the time of occurrence have been proved by the evidence of Dr S.K. Sen DW.l.The motive of the incident, according to the prosecution case was a dispute over the measurement of field between Rampiari who was supported by the accused party and Gyan Chand, who was supported by the complainant party. The incident thus took place on a small and trivial matter and it cannot be said that the motive to commit the crime in this case was heinous or in any manner very grave. The parties are alleged to be relatives and residents of the same village and cordial relations have developed between the parties and there does not appear that any grievance has left to the injured partly. The accused appellant have also faced an agony of the trial of the case for the last 10 years The appellants have remained in jail for a period of 43 days from 20th June, 1971 to August, 1971. The accused appellant have also faced an agony of the trial of the case for the last 10 years The appellants have remained in jail for a period of 43 days from 20th June, 1971 to August, 1971. In the back ground of all these circumstances do not consider it fit in the interest of justice to sent the accused persons to jail and the ends of justice would be met if the appellants ore sentenced to imprisonment for a period already undergone by them which is 43 days. I also feel that a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each be also imposed on each of the appellants for their convictions under section 326 IPC. Out of the amount of fine Rs. 2,000/-be paid to the injured Hansraj and the rest shall remain with the State. The appellants are given two months time to deposit the amount of fine and in default of payment of fine each of the accused appellants shah have to undergo a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. As regards the convictions and sentences of the appellants under section 323 and 447 IPC the same is maintained. The sentences awarded under the above offences is one month and the same shall be deemed to have undergone by the appellants in the period of 43 days during which they have already remained in jail. 11. The appeal is partly allowed in the manner indicated above. The appellants need not surrender, the bail bonds and the surety bonds are discharged. In case the amount of fine is net paid within the period mentioned above the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar, shall take necessary steps for the execution of the sentence in default.Appeal partly allowed. *******