JUDGMENT 1. - Appellants Roop Singh, Ukiya and Jasiya were tried for the offence under section 307 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated May 29, 1976, acquitted the appellants for the aforesaid charge and instead convicted them for the offence under section 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. 2. The allegations against the appellants leading to their trial were that on January 17, 1976 they caused injuries to Shiv Shanker (PW 1). A complaint was lodged in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalore on the same day by Suraj Mai and was forwarded to the Police Station, Jalore for investigation. Shiv Shanker was admitted in the Jalore hospital where Dr. B.M. Bohra (PW 7) examined his injuries. Police investigated into the matter and put up the charge sheet against the three appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalore. The learned Magistrate finding a primafacie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the appellants to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore to stand their trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, charge sheeted the appellants for the offence under section 307 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and recorded their pleas. They denied the indictments and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all to substantiate their case. All the three appellants in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure totally denied the allegations levelled against them. One defence witness Dr. Mangal Sharma (DW 1) was examined from the defence side. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the prosecution evidence passed the judgement of conviction and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier. 3. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentences the appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. V.S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case. 5. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. Dave that prosecution has failed to prove any motive against the appellants. 4. I have heard Mr. V.S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case. 5. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. Dave that prosecution has failed to prove any motive against the appellants. It has also been urged by him that the statement of Suraj Mai complainant is in utter contradiction So the contents of the complaint lodged by him in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaore. Mr. Dave has vehemently attacked the findings of the trial Court regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by Shiv Shanker (PW 1). According to him whereas Dr. B.M. Bohra (PW 7) has not succeeded in establishing that injury No. 8 was grievous, the statement of Dr. Mangal Sharma (DW 1) is trustworthy as he has given the date for his conclusion that injury No. 8 does not appear to have caused fracture. Mr. Dave drew my attention to the statement of Shiv Shanker injured and the other eye witnesses and emphatically stressed that they have not given a consistent story and therefore, it does not appear that the incident, even if any, had taken place in the way and at the place the prosecution has alleged. 6. Controverting these arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the eye witness Ranchod and Sawalji who have supported the injured in all material particulars. He has also referred to the statement of Dr. B.M. Bohra (PW 7) and submitted that he has proved by x-ray plates that one of the injuries sustained by Shiv Shanker (PW 1) was grievous. 7. Injured Shiv Shanker (PW 1) has narrated to details of the incident stating how he had sustained injuries at the hands of the three appellants, lie of course could not attribute the grievous injury to any particular assent and that is the reason for the learned trial Judge to convict the appellants under section 325 Indian Penal Code by pressing into service section 34 Indian Penal Code. 8. So far as the alleged contradictions in the statement of Suraj Mai Informant from the contents of the complaint are concerned, relevant it is to note that his attention was not drawn to those contradictions. Apart from it he has not professed to be there at the site since the beating had started. 8. So far as the alleged contradictions in the statement of Suraj Mai Informant from the contents of the complaint are concerned, relevant it is to note that his attention was not drawn to those contradictions. Apart from it he has not professed to be there at the site since the beating had started. Sanwal Ram (PW 3) and Ranchod (PW 4) were at their respective workshops at the time of the incident and are witnesses of locality. They are suthars by caste while Shiv Shanker isbrahmin and so there is no question of any relationship. These two eye witnesses have corroborated Shiv Shanker (PW 1) in all material particulars. Mr. Daves attack on this testimony on the ground that they could not say which of the accused had caused injury at which particular part of the body of the victim has no force for the reason that when three persons were inflicting blows in quick succession it could not have been possible for any body either to count the blows or to narrate which particular part of the body was hit by the blow or which particular assailant. Prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the incident at the place and time it has alleged. Regarding the nature of injury No. 8 which according to Dr. B.M. Bohra was grievous in nature, suffice it to say that Dr. Bohra has categorically slated that he has himself taken the x-ray of injury No. 8 and detected a fracture in the forearm. 9. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Bohra (PW 7) as per his statement was looking-after the work of Radiologist at Civil Hospital, Jalore. The statement of Dr. Mangal Sharma (DW 1) is of no help to the defence because he had not himself examined the injured Shiv Shanker, rather has based his opinion only on the x-ray plates. Dr. Mangal Sharma has fairly agreed that simply on seeing the x-ray plates he could not say the exact state of injury No. 8. 10. Mr. Daves emphasis is that as callus formation had started on the fracture, duration of the injury must have been more than that given by Dr. Bohra and that in view of the statement of Dr. Mangal Sharma (DW 1) injury No. 8 must have been sustained prior to the date of the incident. This Contention is also devoid of force because Dr. Bohra and that in view of the statement of Dr. Mangal Sharma (DW 1) injury No. 8 must have been sustained prior to the date of the incident. This Contention is also devoid of force because Dr. Sharma has stated that the callus formation on a fracture starts after 30 to 36 hours. He has further clarified that there may be the difference of about six hours in this calculation. The injuries were sustained on January 17, 1976. The x-ray was taken on January 18. 1976. The duration of the injury given by Dr. B.M. Purohit (PW 7) on January 17, 1976 at 5.00 p.m. was between 4 to 12 hours. 11. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has rightly relied upon the medical evidence of Dr. B.M. Bohra to conclude that one of the injuries sustained by Shiv Shanker was grievous in nature. 12. The prosecution has thus duly established that Shiv Shanker has sustained injuries at the hands of three appellants and one of those injuries being a fracture in the forearm was grievous in nature. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants thus could not convince that it is a case of acquittal. He has inter alia argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. there being no previous conviction at the credit of the appellants and the trial having taken a long time, a lenient view may be taken and they may not be sent behind the bars now. 14. The appellants had remained in custody only for a period of four days. Ordinarily in offences under section 325 Indian Penal Code such a period cannot be considered to be adequate substantial sentence but in the peculiar circumstances of the case that except injury No. 8 all injuries are of very minor nature and the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code with the help of section 34 Indian Penal Code, it would be just to reduce their substantive sentence to the period they had remained in custody. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of each appellant is reduced to the period he had remained in custody. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment is however, maintained. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of each appellant is reduced to the period he had remained in custody. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment is however, maintained. Out of the amount of fine Rs. 500/- shall be awarded to the injured Shiv Shanker by way of compensation. 16. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants prays for one months time to intimate the appellants to deposit the amount of fine. Mr. Lodha, learned Public Prosecutor has no objection for the time being granted. Hence the time prayed for is allowed.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******