JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by Urja Ram and eight others against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated May 132 1976 convicting all the accused appellants, under section 307 read with section 149 IPC and sentencing each one of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in respect of the aforesaid offence. They were also convicted under section 149 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for the said offence and were also convicted for an offence under section 447 I. P. C. and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story, briefly, is that on October 1, 1973, at about 10 a. m. the accused-appellants, armed with `dhariyaa', spears and sticks, trespassed into the field of Haringa Ram, who was working at that time in his field along with Dhanna Ram, Mangla Ram, Gumana Jakhad, Pema Bishnoi and Ganesha Jat, and attacked them. Urjaram inflicted a `dhariya' blow on the head of Haringa Ram Bhakar Ram dealt a blow with a`dhariya'on the neck and other persons assaulted them with `farsis'and `lathis'. Pema Ram, Ganesh and Gumana brought the injured Haringa Ram, Dhanna Rain and Mangla in a tractor to the Government Dispensary, Pipar City. Their injuries were examined by Dr. P. P. Gandhi, Medical Officer, posted at the aforesaid hospital, who prepared the injury reports. Thereafter Haringa Ram lodged a first information report with the Police Staiion, Pipar City. The injuries of Haringa Ram, Dhanna Ram and Mangla Ram were referred to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur as it was suspected that they had sustained fractures. However, on examination by Dr. P. Dayal. Medical Jurist at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and after X-ray examination no fractures were found and it was confirmed by Dr. P Dayal that none of the three Injured had any injury. Subsequently Dr. P. P. Gandhi got the injuries of Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram X-rayed privately by Dr. M. S. Punjal and X-ray films Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 were produced in the court, one of which showed a fracture of the left clevical bone. 3. P Dayal that none of the three Injured had any injury. Subsequently Dr. P. P. Gandhi got the injuries of Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram X-rayed privately by Dr. M. S. Punjal and X-ray films Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 were produced in the court, one of which showed a fracture of the left clevical bone. 3. After investigation was made by Samander Singh (P.W. 14), a challan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bilara on January 10, 1974 who committed all the accused persons to the Court of Session by his order dated May 31, 1974 to stand their trial for offences under sections 147, 148, 447 and 307 read with section 149 I. P. C. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in the court of Session and the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. The accused appellants examined three defence witnesses including Dr. P. Dayal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor held that it was established by the evidence of P.W. 1 Jawanta Ram, P. W. 2 Pema Ram, P. W. 3 Haringa Ram, P.W. 4 Dhanna Ram, P. W. 9 Mangla Ram and P. W. 10 Gumana Ram that the accused appellants formed an unlawful assembly and had trespassed into the field of Haringa Ram armed with deadly weapons with a view to commit an offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that Haringa Ram had suffered four injuries, including an incised wound 3,1/2" x ⅓" x 1" on the right parietal eminence while Dhanna Ram had suffered seven injuries including three incised wounds, one of which was in the region of the clevical bone. Mangla Ram had six injuries on his body incised wounds one of which was in the head region. As already mentioned above, the head injury suffered by Haringa Ram and the two injuries suffered by Dhanna Ram in the left clavicle area and the other on the left fore-arm were inflicted with sharp weapon and were considered by Dr. P. P. Gandhi to be grievious and he referred them to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for verification of fractures underneath the incised wounds. Dr. P. Dayal who was the Medical Jurist at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. P. P. Gandhi to be grievious and he referred them to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for verification of fractures underneath the incised wounds. Dr. P. Dayal who was the Medical Jurist at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. Jodhpur at that time, came to the conclusion, on the basis of X-ray examination, that there was no fracture suffered by any one of the two injured persons. The injuries suffered by Mangla Ram were all simple and were caused by blunt weapons. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the version given by Dr. P. P. Gandhi, on the ground that he had examined the injuries suffered by Haringa Ram and Mangla Ram at the earliest opportunity. It may, however, be observed that Dr, P. Dayal had given his opinion about the nature of injuries suffered by these three persons after getting the injuries X-rayed, and he expressed the opinion that there was no bony injury suffered by any one of the three injured persons. . 4. So far as two X-ray plates submitted by Dr. P.P. Gandhi, marked Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P.8. was concerned it was pointed cut that they did not bear the name of the person who was x-rayed and it was difficult to connect the two X-ray plates with the injured Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram. It is also on record that Dr. Punjal, who had prepared the x-ray plates Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 was called in evidence by the prosecution but he was not examined and was left over, though present in court on June 30, 1975. It may also by mentioned that Dr. P. P Gandhi appears to be overenthusiastic in the matter, as there is no reason why he should have taken extra interest and should have got the injuries of Haringaram and Dhannaram examined by a private x-ray specialist. The parties could have got their injuries examined by another specialist, if they were not satisfied with the opinion given by the doctor in the Government Hospital. But the conduct of Dr. P. P. Gandhi, who was the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at Pipar City, is another strange that he took so much interest in the matter and came down to Jodhpur and got the injuries of Haringaram and Dhannaram examined by a private specialist. 5. But the conduct of Dr. P. P. Gandhi, who was the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital at Pipar City, is another strange that he took so much interest in the matter and came down to Jodhpur and got the injuries of Haringaram and Dhannaram examined by a private specialist. 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find it safe to rely on the X-ray plates Ex P. 7 and Ex P. 8 and hold that the statement of Dr. P.P. Gandhi that Haringaram and Dhannaram suffered fractures on the right parietal and the left clavicle bones cannot be relied upon and appears to have been given on account of over enthusiasm on the part of Dr. P. P. Gandhi. There, although no grievious injuries were found to have been suffered by Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram, yet it cannot be denied that they were attacked and injuries were caused to them, both with sharp and blunt wcapens and as many as 17 injuries were caused to them and Mangla Ram. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has not contested the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the occurrence that the accused-appellants armed with 'farsi' and Taihis' has trespassed into the field of Haringa Ram and had caused injuries to him and others. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the statements of the eye-witnesses Haringaram. Pemaram, Mangla Ram and Dhanna Ram and has properly appreciated their evidence. Leerned counsel for the appellants, therefore, appears to be right in not contesting the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the statements of the eye-witnesses Haringaram. Pemaram, Mangla Ram and Dhanna Ram and has properly appreciated their evidence. Leerned counsel for the appellants, therefore, appears to be right in not contesting the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect. 7. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that as no grievous inqury was earned to any one of the injured persons, the accused appellants should not have been convicted for an offence punishable under section 307 reed with section 149, I.P.C. and further that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is excessive, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, had convicted the accused-appellants for committing an offence under section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. as he thought that the injuries suffered in the eight parietal region by Haringaram and in the left clavicle region by Dhanna Ram were grievous in nature and that there was a fracture of right parietal bone in the case of Haringa Ram and that of left clavicle bone in the case of Dhanna Ram. However, as have already observed above, the story about Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram having suffered fractures has not been proved and the statement of Dr. P. P. Gandhi appears to be merely a result of his over enthusiam and the report given by Dr. P. Dayal on the basis of X-Ray examination that there was no bony injury suffered by any one of the injured persons appears to be justified. Thus although Urja Ram and Bhakar Ram had caused injuries to Haringa Ram and Dhanna Ram with sharp weapons, yet none of the injuries was grievous and cannot be said to be of such a nature which could be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or may be said to be eminently dangerous to life. Therefore, it cannot he held that the injuries were inflicted by Urja Ram or Shankar Ram with the intention or knowledge of causing such injuries as would be eminently dangerous to life or would in the ordinary course of nature have caused death. Therefore, it cannot he held that the injuries were inflicted by Urja Ram or Shankar Ram with the intention or knowledge of causing such injuries as would be eminently dangerous to life or would in the ordinary course of nature have caused death. In these circumstances, the accused-appellants Urja Ram and Shankar Ram or any one of the other accused appellants B cannot be held to be guilty of an offence under section 307 read with section 149 , I.P.C. No. doubt, having caused injuries to Haringa Ram, Mangla Ram and Dhanna I Ram with sharp weapons, the accused appellants have committed an offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 I.P.C. As the main occurrence has not been contested and after going through the evidence on record, also find that the tame has been rightly held to be proved, the accused-appellants have properly been held guilty of committing offence under section 148 and 447 I. P. C. 8. On the question of sentence, it is apparent from the record that the occurrence had taken place on October 1, 1973 and more than seven years have elapsed since then. The fact that the accused-appellants have been contesting criminal litigation for a period extending over more than seven years, is a circumstance which requires to be considered in the matter of sentence. It also be mentioned that Urjaram and c Bhakar Ram have also received injuries, including incised wounds, though simple in nature. After taking into consideratian all the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than seven years ago. I think it would not be proper to send the accused-appellants to prison after such a long time. A lenient view deserves to be taken in such circumstances and in my opinion the ends of Justice would well be served if the accused appellants Urjaram and Bhakar Ram, who were the main authors of the injuries with sharp edged weapons, are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under section 324 I.P.C. read with section 142 I.P.C. The sentence under section 148 and 447 I.P.C. is also reduced to that already undergone by B Urjaram and Bhakar Ram. 2,000/- each under section 324 I.P.C. read with section 142 I.P.C. The sentence under section 148 and 447 I.P.C. is also reduced to that already undergone by B Urjaram and Bhakar Ram. Their conviction under section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. is converted into that under section 324 I.P C. read with section 149 I.P.C. The accused-appellants Urja Ram and Bhakar Ram are allowed two months' time to deposit the amount of fine. 9. As regards the remaining accused-appellants Moola Ram, Hariram, Hamira Ram, Bagaram, Lumba Ram, Soneram and Rooparam, it is apparent from I a consideration of the evidence that they had played a rather insignificant role in the occurrence and although, as members of the unlawful assembly, they are liable to be convicted under section 324 I.P.C. like Urjaram and Bhakar Ram and their conviction under sections 148 and 447 I.P.C. also deserves to be upheld, yet looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to allow them benefit of section 360 Cr. P. C. and release them on probation on each one of them entering into a bond with a surety for keeping peace and be of good behaviour. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur is modified to the extent that the conviction of all the accused appellants under section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. is converted into one under section 324 read with section 149 I.P.C. while their conviction under section 148 and 447 I. P. C. is maintained. The accused appellants, Urjaram and Bagaram are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under section 324, read with section 149 I. P C. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each in default of payment of fine they would undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence awarded to the aforesaid two accused-appellants under sections 148 and 447 I.P.C. is reduced to the already undergone by them. 11. The remaining seven accused appellants, Moolaram, Hariram, Hamira Ram, Bagaram, Lumba Ram, Soneram and Ruparam are given benefit of section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure, and each one of them is directed to enter into a bond before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur with one surety in the amount of Rs. 11. The remaining seven accused appellants, Moolaram, Hariram, Hamira Ram, Bagaram, Lumba Ram, Soneram and Ruparam are given benefit of section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure, and each one of them is directed to enter into a bond before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur with one surety in the amount of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only to keep peace and be of good behaviour and not to commit any offence for a period of two years. The bonds should be submitted within three weeks. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, J.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******