S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur vide his judgment dated 12. 12. 79 passed in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 79 convicted accused Gendlal under section 307, accused Kodulal under section 324 and accused Durgabai under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accused-appellants Gendlal and Kodulal to (I) rigorous imprisonment for four years and (2) imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months respectively and accused-appellant Durgabai was released after due admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is being aggrieved by their above said convictions and sentences that the three accused-appellants have filed the present appeal in this Court. ( 2 ) THE incident took place in village Bandol of district Narsinghpur on 14. 7. 1979 at about 7. 30 in the morning. According to the case of the prosecution, a day prior to the incident accused- appellant Gendlal has got a calf belonging to P. W. 2 Chhadamilal admitted in the cattle-pound. On the date of the incident, in the morning, the said accused-appellant made certain cattle to enter into the field of P. W. 2 Chhadamilal and graze there. When P. W. Chhidamilal protested against the said act of accused-appellant Gendlal, all the members of his family including him and accused- appellants Kodulal and Durgabai came to the house of P. W. 2 Chhidamilal and started quarrelling with him in front of the said house. Accused-appellant Gendlal hurled abuses at P. W. 2 Chhidamilal and when his son P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar asked him not to do so, accused-appellants Gendlal and Kodulal pushed P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar and took him upto the Neem tree standing nearby. There, accused appellant Gendlal gave fists blows to P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar and fell him to the ground. At this stage, P. W. 1 Amarsingh. P. W. 3 Motilal and P. W. 6 Kadori reached there and tried to intervene in the matter. P. W. 1 Amarsingh admonished accused-appellant Gendlal for quarrelling in this manner. On this intervention accused-appellants Gendlal, Kodulal and Durgabai went back to their house, but soon thereafter they returned to the said place armed with a ballam, a kholia and a lathi respectively. P. W. 1 Amarsingh admonished accused-appellant Gendlal for quarrelling in this manner. On this intervention accused-appellants Gendlal, Kodulal and Durgabai went back to their house, but soon thereafter they returned to the said place armed with a ballam, a kholia and a lathi respectively. P. W. 1 Amarsingh who had intervened in the matter earlier again asked accused appellant Gendlal not to act rashly. On this, accused - appellant Gendlal hit him with the ballam on his chest. Accused-appellant Kodulal also hit him with the kholia (parena ). As a result of the injuries received by him, P. W. 1 Amarsingh fell to the ground. P. W. 2 Chhidamilal was also hit with the kholia by accused-appellant Kodula. As P. W. 2 Chhidamilal tried to avoid the said hit, the kholia fell on his right cheek and caused an injury there. P. W. 3 Motilal tried to snatch the ballam from the hands of accused appellant Gendlal and in the process received an injury on his left index finger. Accused-appellant Durgabai also participated in the incident hi blow to P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar which struck him near left ear. ( 3 ) THE above said case of the prosecution stood simply established from the evidence of P. W. 1 Amarsingh. P. W. 2 Chhidamilal, P. W. 3 Motital, P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar and P. W. 6 Kadori as also by the medical evidence produced in the case as regards the nature of the injuries received by all those who were said to have been injured during the course of the incident. It was P. W. 2 Chhidamilal who lodged the first information report about the incident at police station Gotegaon, which was situated at its distance of about 9 Kms. from the village. The said report was lodged at 11 in the morning and as such there was no delay in making the same. The substance of the evidence of the eyewitnesses referred to above was consistent with the version of the incident contained in the first information report and the said fact also lent assurance to the truthfulness of what was deposed to by the said witnesses. ( 4 ) IT was stated by accused-appellant Gendlal in his defence that the incident in question did not occur in the manner alleged by the prosecution. ( 4 ) IT was stated by accused-appellant Gendlal in his defence that the incident in question did not occur in the manner alleged by the prosecution. According to him, when he and accused- appellant Durgabai were going to another village that P. W. 2 Chhidamilal, P. W. 1 Amarsingh, P. W. 4 Vijay Kumar, P. W. 6 Kadori and P. W. 3 Motilal who were armed with lathis and ballams surrounded them and started beating him with lathis. When accused-appellant Durgabai tried to defend him, she too was beaten by them. On hearing shouts, his father accused-appellant Kodulal leached there and he too tried to defend him. On this, the above said persons assaulted accused- appellant Kodulal also. He, then, snatched the ballam from the hands of P. W. 6 Kadori and used the same in exercise of right of private defence of his person and also that of his father. ( 5 ) IT is true that as per the medical evidence produced in the case there were found certain injuries present on the persons of accused-appellants, Gendlal, Kodulal and Durgabai also. But, then, apart from two lacerated wounds received by accused-appellant Gendlal, the rest of the injuries received by him and other accused-appellants were of insignificant nature. The Additional Sessions Judge gave detailed reasons for discarding the defence put forth by the accused-appellant Gendlal and this Court finds no reason to disagree with him on the said point. It was impossible that had so many persons armed with lathis and ballams opened an assault on accused-appellants Gendlal and Durgabai the nature of the injuries suffered by two of them would have been such as was disclosed by the medical evidence produced in the case. There was no incised injury present on the person of any of the accused appellants. The lacerated wounds suffered by accused- appellant Gendlal were also simple in nature. It is true that there was no satisfactory explanation of the said two wounds in the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution in the case. But, it was not unnatural for the said accused-appellant to have received the said injuries during the period he and others were making an assault on their victims. It is true that there was no satisfactory explanation of the said two wounds in the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution in the case. But, it was not unnatural for the said accused-appellant to have received the said injuries during the period he and others were making an assault on their victims. In the circumstances of the case, the said injuries were not sufficient to controvert the fact that the accused-appellants were not the aggressors of that the incident in question did not occur in the manner alleged by the prosecution. ( 6 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the Additional Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that in the manner in which the incident took place it was not possible to infer that the accused appellants while causing the particular injuries to their victims had acted in furtherance of the common intention of them all and that it was but proper that each of them was held liable only for his or her individual act or acts. There was no room for doubt on the point that the incised injury on the left side of the chest of P. W. 1 Amarsingh was caused by accused appellant Gendlal with the ballam which he had been carrying. It was clear from the medical evidence that the said injury was 2r long between 8th and 9th rib on anterior auxiliary line from which omentum was protruding and that the wound had entered the abdominal cavity cutting the ribs and muscles. In the opinion of the Doctor, the said injury was of a grievous nature and might have resulted in death. But, then, it was also clear from the other evidence produced in the case that accusedappellant Gendlal had no direct enmity with P. W. 1 Amarsingh and the assault on him was made only for the reason that he had tried to intervene in the matter. In the circumstances, it was difficult to infer from the above said grievous hurt caused by the said accused-appellant to P. W. 1 Amarsingh that he had attempted to commit his murder. He was liable to be convicted only under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a cultivator and it did not appear from the material on the record of the case that he was a habitual offender. He was liable to be convicted only under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was a cultivator and it did not appear from the material on the record of the case that he was a habitual offender. The incident had happened over a petty quarrel between the two parties. In the circumstances, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years would meet the ends of justice. As far as the other accused-appellants were concerned, the Additional Sessions Judge already took a lenient view of the matter by convicting them under section 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and sentencing accused- appellant Kodulal to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 200/- and by releasing accused-appellant Durgabai after due admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The convictions and sentences awarded to the said two accused-appellants do not call for any interference. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of accusedappellant Gendlal under section 307 altered to that under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and for the altered conviction he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The convictions and sentences of accused-appellants Kodulal and Durgbai are maintained. Appeal partly allowed. .