JUDGMENT 1. - Ratan Lal and nine others have filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment dated December 22, 1975, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Sessions Case No. 105/1974. 2. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under : Nihal Singh & Dhan Singh Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 324 Indian Penal Code to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- each (in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Under Section 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code to 4 month's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code to 2 month's rigorous imprisonment. Rest all the accused appellants. Under Section 147 Indian Penal Code to 4 month's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code to 2 month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each (in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month). Under Section 325 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code to 4 months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code to 2 month's rigorous imprisonment. 3. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution narrated by the Additional Sessions Judge may now be reproduced in brief. 5. Briefly, the prosecution case is that Raghunath lodged a report Ex. P. 1 at the Police Station, Godhmora on 11-11-1973 at 10.00 A.M. that Khasra No. 5/1, 5/2, 134, 105 and 248 of village Badh Kemari is in the Khatedari of the complainant and his brother Radha Kishan and Kundan and that they were in possession of these fields and used to pay revenue (LAGAN). In field Khasra No. 134 he had sown what in an area of about 10 Biswas and in the rest he had sown `GOJARA'. On 9-11-1973, the complainant Bhimraj, Jaisingh and Kaju were making "KAYRIS" in the field When the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly and armed with lathis and Gandasia came there with their ploughs and were bent upon to plough the field Khasra No. 134. On 9-11-1973, the complainant Bhimraj, Jaisingh and Kaju were making "KAYRIS" in the field When the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly and armed with lathis and Gandasia came there with their ploughs and were bent upon to plough the field Khasra No. 134. When the complainant, Kaju and Bhimraj restrained them as to why they were destroying the crop of the complainant, Angad told his colleagues to kill the complainant party and not leave them alive. Accused Nihal Singh and Dhan Singh inflicted Gadasi blows on Bhimraj with the intention to kill him and the rest of the accused gave lathi blows. Kaju, Jaisingh, Mst. Sundari, wife of Prahlad and the complainant rescued Bhimraj. Whereupon accused persons beat Jai Singh, Sundari and Kaju with lathis and Gadasis. Complainant cried for help and then Mohar Singh, Jailal and Badan came on the scene of occurrence and intervened. Accused persons, however, beat Mohar Siugh also. It is also mentioned in Ex P, I that the accused party had already been bound down from a temporary injunction from the Court of S D.O , Gangapur City. Injured persons got themselves examined medically on 9-11-1973. The condition of injured Bhimraj and Kaju is grave. It is also mentioned in the report that as there was no bus arrangement for Godhmera the report has been lodged on 11-11-1973. On the basis of this report, F.I R. Ex.P. 16 was written. A case was registered and after completion of the investigation, challan against the accused persons was filed in the Court. 6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused, the following charges were framed against the accused persons: "That you on or about 9.11.1973 at about 8 A.M. at field No. 134 of village Badh Kemari, were a member of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely to kill Bhimraj, Jai Singh and Kaju etc. committed the offence of rioting and that you at that time were armed with deadly weapon of Gadasi/Lathi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. committed the offence of rioting and that you at that time were armed with deadly weapon of Gadasi/Lathi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. That you on the aforesaid date, time and place inflicted Gandasi/ Lathi blows to kill Bhimraj, Jaisingh, Kaju etc, with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of any one of them, you would have been guilty of murder and you caused grievous and simple hurt to Bhimraj, Jaisingh, Kaju, Moharsingh and Sundari and thereby committed an offence punishable' under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and within the congnizance of this Court. The charge under Section 323, Indian Penal Code was also levelled against accused Mithya, Guthlya, Ratan Lal and Angad. The above charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied the charges and wanted to face the trial. 7. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Mst. Sundari, PW 2 Raghunath, PW3 Jai Singh PW4 Nemi Chand, PW 5 Jai Lal. PW 6 Badan, PW 7 Mohar Singh, PW 8 Radha Kishan, PW 9 Bhimraj, PW 10 Kaju and PW 11 Dr. Ratan Chand Totuka and PW 12 Sardara Ram. The statement of Dr. Ratan Chand Totoka recorded before the Enquiring Magistrate, which bears an endorsement that the accused persons had full opportunity to cross-examine the witness taken on record and was marked as PW 11. 8. The following documents were exhibited by the prosecution. 1. Ex. P.l. Written report, 2. Ex. P.2. Copy of order dated 26 6-73 of S.D.O., Gangapur City. 3. Ex. P.3. Nakal Jamabandi, 4. Ex. P.4. Sita Plan. 5. Ex. P.5. MLR of Mst. Sundari, 6. Ex. P.6. MLR of Mohar Singh, 7. Ex. P.7. MLR of Bhimraj, 8. Ex. P.8. X-ray plate of Bhimraj, 9. Ex. P.9. X-ray report of Bhimraj, 10. Ex. P. 10. MLR of Kalu, 11. Ex. P. 11. X-ray plate of Kalu Ram, 12. Ex. P. 12. X-ray report of Kalu, 13. Ex. P.O. MLR of Jaisingh, 14. Ex. P.M. X-ray plate of Jai Singh, 15. Ex. P.15. X-ray report of Jai Singh, 16. Ex. P.16 FIR., 17. Ex. P. 17. Seizure memo of Articles, 18. Ex. P. 18. to Ex. P.27, Arrest Memo of the accused, 19. Ex. P.28. to Ex. Ex. P. 12. X-ray report of Kalu, 13. Ex. P.O. MLR of Jaisingh, 14. Ex. P.M. X-ray plate of Jai Singh, 15. Ex. P.15. X-ray report of Jai Singh, 16. Ex. P.16 FIR., 17. Ex. P. 17. Seizure memo of Articles, 18. Ex. P. 18. to Ex. P.27, Arrest Memo of the accused, 19. Ex. P.28. to Ex. P.37 Information memo of accused. 20. Ex. P.38. Seizure Memos of Gadasi and lathis to Ex. P. 47. 9. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused Ratan Lal denied the allegations contained in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has deposed that these witnesses deposed against him on account of enmity. He has further deposed that Panchayat had taken place twice with regard to the dispute of this field prior to this occurrence. Dharam Singh was its `ADHYAKACHCH'. He has filed two copies of the judgments of the Panchayat. Ratan Lal has also stated that Naib Tehsildar had also seen the fields in connection with possession of the parties and he found Radha Kishan, Chhange, Jai Ram and Mithiya in possession of this filed. Ratan Lal has further stated that `GODARA' was sown by Jairam, Guthlya and Midiya and Radha Kishan cultivated the wheat. The other accused persons have denied the allegations contained in the statement of prosecution witnesses and have stated that the prosecution witnesses deposed against them on account of enmity. Accused Angad has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, because he participated in the Panchayat that assembled for the dispute of this field. Meedya and Guthlya have also stated this field is in partnership (SAJHEDARI) of Midiya Jai Ram Poonya and Chhanga. Guthhal has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he had sown `GO JAR A' on this field. Poonya has also stated that he has beaten by Raghunath and Kundan and that Ramphool was beaten by the accused-per-sons, who died after some days on account of those injuries. In defence DW 1 Radhey Shyam, DW 2 Sualal, DW 3, Surgyan Singh, DW 4 Gujarmal DW 5 Mangya,DW 6 Mishri Lal and DW 7, Dr. Ratan Chand Totuka were examined. DW 8 Bhanwar Singh Incharge Tehsildar was examined. The following documents were got exhibited in defence:- 1. Ex. D.l, Police Statement of Mst. Sundari, 2. Ex. In defence DW 1 Radhey Shyam, DW 2 Sualal, DW 3, Surgyan Singh, DW 4 Gujarmal DW 5 Mangya,DW 6 Mishri Lal and DW 7, Dr. Ratan Chand Totuka were examined. DW 8 Bhanwar Singh Incharge Tehsildar was examined. The following documents were got exhibited in defence:- 1. Ex. D.l, Police Statement of Mst. Sundari, 2. Ex. D.2, Police Statement of Jai Singh, 3. Ex D.3, Police Statement of Jai Lal. 4. Ex. D.4, Police Statement of Badan, 5. Ex. D.5, Police Statement of Mohar Singh, 6. Ex. D.6, copy of Istagasa, 7. Ex. D.7, Likhapadi, 8. Ex. D.8, Ikaranama, 9. Ex. D.9, Stamp Ikararnama, 10. Ex. D.10, copy of MLR of Poonya, 11. Ex. D.l 1, Copy of MLR of Ramphool, 12. Ex. D.12, Copy of MLR of Gutthal, 13. Ex. D.13, Copy of report, 14. Ex. D.14, copy of site plant. 10. The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties acquitted the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them as mentioned above. 11. Mr. Tibriwal learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that the accused were not guilty and in any case they were entitled to the right of private defence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Tibriwal pointed that both the parties belong to one family and they were having dispute about the agricultural land and the accused party received 18 injuries as proved by DW 7 the same doctor who appeared as DW 11. The above submissions of Mr, Tibriwal were Contracted by Mr. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor. It would not be necessary to deal with the above contentions because Mr. Tibriwal at the conclusions of the argument, submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he would like to pass the appeal on the question of sentence only. It was pointed out that out of the ten accused persons, except accused Nihal Singh and Dhan Singh all others & were sentenced to short sentence of four months, rigorous imprisonment and the other sentences for other offences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of these four ones, they have already undergone about 2 months' sentenced and in some cases more than that. Regarding sentence of Nihal Singh and Dhan Singh, it was pointed out that they have under gone sentence of three months and sixteen days. 12. Mr. Out of these four ones, they have already undergone about 2 months' sentenced and in some cases more than that. Regarding sentence of Nihal Singh and Dhan Singh, it was pointed out that they have under gone sentence of three months and sixteen days. 12. Mr. Tibriwal argued that these accused persons are from the Agriculturist's Community of the villagers and they have already undergone substantial part of their sentence. In view of that Mr. Tibriwal said that it would be in the interest of justice that they are released on the sentence undergone and not sent jail again after a lapse of more than eight years as the offence is alleged to have been taken place on November 9, 1973. Mr. Tibriwal pointed out that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, in which the accused are neither previous convicts nor habitual offenders, it would be most inexpedient now to send them to jail. 13. Mr. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor after perusal of the record submitted that the accused have undergone sentence as under : Nihal Singh and Dan Raj Three months, sixteen days, Mohar Singh Two Months Angad, Ratna Lal One month, twenty four days Rati Ram      ) Girraj,           ) Two months, thirteen days. Midhya,        ) Punya,          ) &            ) Guthal         ) 14. Mr. Purohit was not in a question to controvert the submission, so far as the sentence is concerned, but he submitted that it is for this Court to decide whether the accused should be left on the sentence undergone. He pointed out that in case the Court is inclined to reduce the sentence already undergone, that the complaint Parties, (injured persons) should be compensated by compensation and for that purpose suitable fine should be imposed on the appellants.15. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. On the basis of the record I am inclined to think that so far as the conviction of accused is concerned, it is well founded and Mr. Tibriwal was right in not pressing the appeal on merits. In view of this, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence at length so far as the merits of the case are concerned.16. Tibriwal was right in not pressing the appeal on merits. In view of this, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence at length so far as the merits of the case are concerned.16. On the question of sentence it is true that both the parties have received injuries as is evident from the evidence of DW 7 and DW 11 Shri R.C. Totuka. He has testified that the accused party received about 18 injuries out of which one injury is grievous and was caused by sharp weapon. The complainant party has received 20 injuries, out of which one injury is grievous.17. It is also true that these parties are distantly related as per statement of DW 2 Sualal who has produced pedigree table. Undoubtedly the dispute relates to agricultural land in respect of which the accused party wanted to plough the land inspite of protested by the complainant party. In the not analysis, both the parties are agriculturists.18. It is also true that all the ten accused have remained in jail for different periods mentioned above, which is substantial period of sentence awarded to them.19. In view of the above facts of this case, I am inclined to accept the request of Mr. Tibriwal for reducing the sentence already undergone alongwith it the request of Shri Parohit is also accepted and each of the accused is fined in the following proportionate: (1) Accused Nihal Singh and Dhan Singh would pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) each for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, would undergo sentence of the two months'rigorous imprisonment. (2) Accused Ratan Lal, Angad, Rati Ram, Girraj, Mohar Singh, Midhya, Punya and Guthal would pay fine of Rs 200,/-(rupees two hundred) for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, would undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 20. The fine realised would be paid as compensation in the following proportionate.21. Half of the amount of total realisation would be paid to Bhim Ram 1/4 of the total realisation would be paid to Kaju and the balance of 1/4 would be paid in equal proportion to Jai Singh, Mohar Singh and Smt. Sundari, complainants.22. The prayer of Mr. Tibriwal to allow three months time to the accused persons to pay the fine is allowed.23. The prayer of Mr. Tibriwal to allow three months time to the accused persons to pay the fine is allowed.23. The appeal is partially accepted as indicated above. The conviction of the accused are upheld and confirmed. The sentences are reduced as mentioned above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******