JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals from jail are directed against the judgement of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 31.5.84. As they arise of the same judgment, they are being disposed of a single order. The learned Amicus Curiae has not challenged the convictions of the appellants but has only prayed for reduction of the sentences and, therefore, the facts of the case need not be stated at length. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 24.7.83, the present two appellants and one Prakash had some quarrel with Daula PW. 11. They wanted Daula to serve them liquor but Daula refused and on this, the accused started beating him. It is alleged that accused Timia gave a kuife blow on his neck and the other two accused also gave lathi blows. Tima further gave him blows with knife in his hand back. When Daulas brother Kakua PW. 12 came to his rescue, Timia gave a knife blow on his abdomen. The report of this incident was then lodged to the police. The injured were medically examined and after investigations the accused were challenged. They were committed to the Court of Sessions. The matter was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and he after trial, convicted Timia u/s 307 IPC. for causing injuries to Daula and Kakua. For the injuries caused to Kakua, he sentenced him to five years R. I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and causing the injuries to Daula, he sentenced him two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1.000/-. He convicted the other two accused Prakash and Ralia u/s 307 read with 34 IPC. and sentenced them to seven month's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-each. He also directed that on the recovery of the fines, Rs. 1250/-& 750/-shall be paid to each injured Kakua and Daula respectively. 3. I have gone through the record and have also heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned P. P. 4. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the accused Rajia is concerned, I am clearly of the opinion that the sentence awarded to him is by no means excessive rather it errs on the side of the leniency and, therefore,; I do not find any reason to interfere with this sentence. 5. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the accused Rajia is concerned, I am clearly of the opinion that the sentence awarded to him is by no means excessive rather it errs on the side of the leniency and, therefore,; I do not find any reason to interfere with this sentence. 5. So far as Timia is concerned, although it appears that he caused injuries to two persons and the injury on the person of Kakua was on the abdomen and the omentum protruded, I am of the opinion that some leniency in the matter of sentence is called for on account of the fact that the incident took place on the spur of the moment without any premeditation, the knife used is also a very ordinary knife generally used in kitchens and the accused Timia is a young person. In these circumstances, I think that a sentence of four years R. I. so far as the injury to Kakua is concerned, would meet the ends of justice, the fine should be maintained, So as the other sentence is concerned, it does not call tor any interference specially when it has been made concurrent. 6. The result, therefore, is that Rajias appeal is dismissed. So far as Timia is concerned, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of five years awarded in respect of the knife injury caused to Kakua is reduced to four years, the rest of the sentence is maintained.Appeal partly allowed. *******