JUDGMENT K. Nath, J. - Revisionists Ram Kripal, Ram Sewak, Rampher, Alakh Ram, Nabbu Lal and Bidh Ram have been convicted under Section 325, 323 both read with Section 149, I.P.C. and Section 147. I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with 18 months rigorous imprisonment each under the first count; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under the second count, and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each under the third count. 2. Revisionist No. I Ram Kripal has also been convicted for an offence under Section 435, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. 3. The prosecution case is that on December 22, 1981 at about 5.30 p.m. when Ram Baran was digging his field to prepare for cultivation. adjacent to the field of Ram Kripal respondent No. 1, in village Lachho-jot. Police Station Kotwali (Dehat), District Gonda, Ram Kripal protested that Ram Baran was damaging the dividing Mend and merging it in his own field. There was an exchange of abuses. Ram Baran raised an alarm his grand-father Tianwari Lal brother most Rani, letter's son Amirka prasad, Sr rived and tried to intervene. It is said that revisionists Ram Sewak, Rampher, Alakh Ram and Nabbu Lal armed with Lathis, climbed over the roof of the adjoining houses of Jhagru and Khilawan and hurled brickbats at Ram Baran and his relations aforesaid, causing injuries to them. The accused are said to have set fire to the cattle-house of Banwari Lal causing damage of about Rs. 600/-. 4. A report of this incident was lodged the same day at 8. 15 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali (Dehat) in which the accused and witnesses were named. 5. Medical examination of the injured was done on the next day. Mast Ram was found to have received two abraded contusions on his legs and one swelling on the left side of clavicle without any external mark of injury; on X-ray examination the clavicle was found fractured. Banwari Lal had one contusion with a swelling on the right leg. Amrika had one abraded contusion on right forearm and one abrasion on the left leg. Ram Baran had one abrasion on his left foot. 6. The accused denied their complicity and alleged false implication due to enmity. 7. After considering the evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gonda. Banwari Lal had one contusion with a swelling on the right leg. Amrika had one abraded contusion on right forearm and one abrasion on the left leg. Ram Baran had one abrasion on his left foot. 6. The accused denied their complicity and alleged false implication due to enmity. 7. After considering the evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gonda. accepted the prosecution case, but found involvement of Ram Kripal alone in the offence under Section 435, I.P.C. he convicted and sentenced all the appellant revisionists as mentioned above. The appeal was dismissed by dismissed by the learned judge, Gonda who further directed that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- be paid as compensation to Ram Baran for himself and members of his family who sustained injuries. 8. In this revision, learned counsel for the revisionists questioned the validity of the conviction of the revisionists tinder Section 325/149, I.P.C. He says that Ram Baran admitted that the accused, although carmine Lathis did not strike with Lathis. The only mode of causing injuries was hurling of brick-bats from the roofs of the houses of Jhagru and Khilawan. It is urged that in view of this fact there could be no common object of the so-called members of the unlawful assembly. In cause any grievous hurt. It it noticeable that at the time of medical examination, the doctor did not find any external injury on the clavicle which was found fractured on X-ray examination. The doctor deposed that this injury could also be caused by a fall. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the attack was launched with an intention to cause any grievous hurt. The fact that although they accused are said to have carried Lathis, only they claimed climbed over the roofs and hurled brick-bats on the victims indicated that they could not have an object of causing grievous hurt. If grievous hurt was caused on account of some brick striking Mast Ram, which itself might be doubtful in view of medical opinion it would have been an individual act of the particular person who threw that particular brick-bat. An offence, under S. 325, I.P.C., therefore, could not be said to have been made out and consequently the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C. must be set aside. 9. An offence, under S. 325, I.P.C., therefore, could not be said to have been made out and consequently the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149, I.P.C. must be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionists next urged that the sentence awarded is excessive. The sentence of Rs 100/- as fine for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. is by no means excessive and does not call for interference. The sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the manner in which they were caused, appears to be excessive. Learned counsel for the revisionists points out that the revisionists have already been in jail for atleast a fortnight because tee appellate judgment had been delivered on February 27, 1985. The appeal was filed in this Court on March 11, 1985 when the order to release them on bail was passed. I think the contention is reasonable and the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 323/149, I.P.C. may justly be reduced to the period already undergone. 10. In respect of the sentence awarded to Ram Kripal important feature, pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionists, is that Ram Baran himself admitted that inside the Charni, whose Chhapar was burnt, six heads of cattle were tethered at their troughs, but none of the cattle received any burns. The upshot is that there has not been any substantial damage to the structure. It think that in his case, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine may be reduced to Rs. 500/. 11. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the, revisionists for the offence under Section 325/149, I.P.C. are set aside they are acquitted of the charge. 12. The conviction of the revisionists for the offences under Section 323/149 and Section 147, I.P.C. is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment, awarded for the former, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, the sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. is confirmed. 13. The conviction of Ram Kripal, under Section 435. 100/- each for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. is confirmed. 13. The conviction of Ram Kripal, under Section 435. I.P.C. is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the sentence of fine is reduced to a sum of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred). 14. The revisionists are allowed two months time to deposit the fine or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. and. in the case of Ram Kripal, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one month. 15. Out of the fine realised, a sum of Rs. 500/- will be paid to Ram Baran as compensation. 16. C.J.M. concerned to report compliance Within 4 months.