JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicted the accused appellant under section 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former account the accused was sentenced to under go 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250, in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. Uader the latter count the accused has been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentence under both the counts have been made concurrent. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is this. On May 16, 1975 at 7.30 P.M., Yasin P.W. 3 along with Wali Mohammed P.W. 4 was returning from the fields to the house in village Panniwali Tehsil Tibi, district Ganganagar. It is alleged that when they were near the shop of Gopal the accused appellant Lal Singh and Ladhi ai d Sohan came there. The accused appellant was armed with a Gandasi. Ladhi was armed with a sword and Sohan was also armed with a Gandasi. It is alleged that accused appellant caused injuries to Yasin P.W. 3, Wali Mohd., P.W. 4 and when Samir P.W. 5 and Wali Mohd. P.W. 6 came hearing an alarm, they too were beaten. A report Ex.P 8 of the incident, which is the statement of Yasin, was lodged and a case was registered and the investigation was set in motion 3. The injuries of Yasin, P.W. 3, Samir, P W. 5, and Wali Mohd., P.W.4 were examined by Dr. Roop Singh PW.l. He found that Yasin had received as many as three injuries all incised wounds. First was on the proximal inter phalangeal joint with a cut mark on the born on the left index finger, the other was a fracture of the first phalanx of left middle finger dorsal aspect and the third was on the left ring finger dorsal aspect proximal phalanx. Injury no 1 and 2 were grievously sharp weapon and injury no 3 was simple Samir had three injuries. An incised wound on the left middle finger proximal nuckle, an incised wound on left index finder proximal nuckle and the third on left ring finger proximal nuckle. All the injuries were simple and were caused by sharp weapon On the person of Wali Mohd. An incised wound on the left middle finger proximal nuckle, an incised wound on left index finder proximal nuckle and the third on left ring finger proximal nuckle. All the injuries were simple and were caused by sharp weapon On the person of Wali Mohd. P.W. 4 doctor found that he had incised wound 4"x l"x l" with fracture parietal and frontal bone on the right parietal to the left frontal region, It was oblique. It was grievous by champ weapon. He was advised for X-Ray for this injury. Dr. S.S. Bhargava, P.W.2, the Radiologist, on taking and reading the X-Ray of Wali Mohd. found that there was a fissured fracture extending from the left frontal region to the right parietal region accumulated by a communities fracture at the top of the vault involving the parietals of both sides. Thus, injury on the person of Wali Mohd., P.W 4 was grievous. 4. The accused was arrested and after investigation a charge sheet was filed against him and two others. The accused appellant along with two others was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh for offence under section 307, 324 and 323 I.P.C He did not plead quality and claimed to be tried. 5. After the close of the prosecution evidence accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and plea of the accused appellant along with others was that it were Yasin and others who had entered the house and caused injuries to Ladhi and Lal Singh appellant. Dr. Roop Singh also examined injuries of accused appellant and Ladhi. On examining accused appellant Dr. found that there was a lacerated wound ⅓"x ⅛"x ⅛" on the left forearm lower ⅓rd region, outer aspect. It was simple caused by blunt weapon. Duration of this injury was within 12 hours Ladhi hid one lacerated wound 1" x 1/4 " x ⅛" on the right plam between thumb and index finger. It was simple and caused by blunt weapon. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted appellant of charges under section 307 and 323 but convicted him under section 326 I.P.C. 6. The contention of the learned Advocate for the accused appellant is that learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution for two of the accused persons. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted appellant of charges under section 307 and 323 but convicted him under section 326 I.P.C. 6. The contention of the learned Advocate for the accused appellant is that learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution for two of the accused persons. The occurrence took place near the shop of Gopal but he has not been examined. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that so far as the evidence of Ganpat P.W. 7 is concerned, no reliance can be placed on his statements. Injuries of the accused were not explained and therefore learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have convicted the accused appellant. 7. It appears that learned Sessions Judge was not clear in his mind. He has observed in para 19 of the judgment that case set up by prosecution about origin of the incident and its place cannot be relied upon and prosecution has concealed the true version of incident. He has also observed that the prosecution has not explained the injuries of Lal Singh accused and there is no reason as to why for no rhyme or reason accused person gave beating to Yasin and others In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge Yasin and Wali Mohd. P.W.4 must have misbehaved with the accused persons who being invoked might have caused injuries to them. This observation of learned Sessions Judge is not based on the material on record. 8. A look at the site plan Ex.P. 17 will show that the house of the accused persons are near the lane. The house of Wali Mohammed P. W 4 and Wali Mohammed P.W 6 who are real brothers are also near the place of occurrence in the lane at place market A. Merely because there was also blood at point A to point B it cannot be said that occurrence took place in the house of the accused persons. Therefore it can be said that occurrence started in the public lane where also the blood was lying. Injuries on the accused appellant and Ladhi have already been reproduced above. They are simple caused by blunt weapon but they are all superficial in nature and were not on vital part. Injury of the accused appellant on left arm was ⅛" thick. Injuries on the accused appellant and Ladhi have already been reproduced above. They are simple caused by blunt weapon but they are all superficial in nature and were not on vital part. Injury of the accused appellant on left arm was ⅛" thick. Therefore the failure of the prosecution to explain these injuries of the accused, and of Ladhi to my mind on facts is not a serious infirmity. It is a general tendency of people in this country to exaggerate acts of others and to conceal or minimise there own acts, but only on this ground statement of the witness cannot be disbelieved. 9. I have gone through the statements of Yasin, P.W.3. Wali M/hammed P.W 4 and Samir P.W.5 all injured and also of Wali Mohammed P.W.6. After having gone through them it can be said that so far as accused appellant is concerned he gave a blow of gandasi, a sharp edged weapon and caused grievous injury to Wali on his head. The learned Sessions Judge was not right when he held that accused caused injury to the Yasin P.W.3. Yasin, P.W.3 clearly says that it was Ladhi who gave a blow to him by sword. He had three injuries but they are all on left hand on fingers. The manner in which the blow is said to have been inflicted by accused Ladhi by sword to Yasin P.W.3 goes to show that all the three injuries could have been caused by a single blow. The learned Additional Session Judge could not have held that accused appellant is responsible for causing injury to Yasin including previous injury. But so fat as the injury on the head of Wali Mohmmed is concerned, it has been stated by Ladhi that the accused appellant gave blow on his head. Dr. Roop Singh found single injury on the head of Wali Mohammed, P.W.4. The accused appellant has been rightly held guilty of offence under section 326 I.P.C. So far as the injury of Samir is concerned, he stated it was accused appellant who gave blow by gandasi on his left hand fingers. 10. About the defence of the accused persons that occurrence took place inside their house the learned Sessions Judge has said nothing. 10. About the defence of the accused persons that occurrence took place inside their house the learned Sessions Judge has said nothing. I have said earlier that lane where the occurrence had taken place is near the house of the accused as well as near the house of Wali Mohammed and others. Therefore I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant under section 326 I.P.C. 11. The question still remains about sentence to the accused appellant who at the time of his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 4-9-76 was aged 60 years. Since then a period of 5 years has passed. The appellant is now 65 years, and can be said to be an old man. He has already undergone 17 months imprisonment. He is on bail since appeal was filed. Looking to the old age of the accused appellant I am of the opinion that a lenient view should be taken with regard to sentence. 12. So far as merits are concerned the appeal of the accused appellant is dismissed. But the ends of justice shall be met if the accused is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to payment of fine of Rs. 100/- under section 326 and to a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 324 I.P.C. The substantive sentence under both counts to be concurrent. In default of payment of fine accused shall further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment Two months time is allowed to the accused to pay the fine of Rs. 100/- in the trial court. If the accused fails to deposit the fine, the trial court shall take steps so that the appellant undergone the sentence in default of payment of fine.Appeal partly allowed. *******