JUDGMENT 1. - Shanker Singh and Charan Singh, the appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of the trial court whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under: Shanker Singh Under Section 325 , IPC 8 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50/- in default , 1 month's RI; Charan Singh Under Section 326 , IPC 1 year' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50/- in default 2. A complaint (Ex.P 2) was filed by Chakar Singh before the Munsif Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas on 23-8-69 alleging therein that on 24-7-69 he alongwith his son Indersingh was ploughing his field at about 7 in the morning. The appellants Shanker Singh his son Pritam Singh, his son-in-law Charansingh and his wife Mst. Gango Bai came to their field to over turn the same. Upon objecting to it, Shankersingh gave a hunter blow on the face of Chakar Singh. Charan Singh aimed a sword blow on the neck of Charan Singh which was warded off by him by his hand as a result of which his left little finger's phalanx was cut. Mst. Gango Bai gave a lathi blow on his neck. 3. It was further alleged that on 25-7-69 the complainant came to his senses and he was arrested by the police when he went to make a report of the aforesaid incident. When he was released on bail after 16 to 17 days he again tried to make a report to the police station but no body cared to take his report with the result that he filed the complaint before the Munsif Magistrate. 4. The Munsif Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered a case against Shanker Singh, Pritam Singh, Jagar Singh Charan Singh Under Section 307, 326, 324 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused were committed to the court of Sessions Judge Alwar, and were ultimately tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar Pritam Singh was tried for the offence Under Section 307, IPC, Charan Singh, Under Section 307 and 326 IPC and Shanker Singh Under Section s 325 and 323 IPC. 5. The learned trial Court after trial acquitted Pritam Singh and convicted and sentenced the present appellants as aforesaid. 6. 5. The learned trial Court after trial acquitted Pritam Singh and convicted and sentenced the present appellants as aforesaid. 6. Shri J.P. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that most of the witnesses have turned hostile and all those who have not been mentioned in the complaint, have been believed for causing injuries to the complainant party. Shri Goyal submitted that the accused party also received the injuries and the FIR was lodged by the accused party which resulted in conviction of the complainant party, Indersingh, Harnam Singh and Chakar Singh by the trial court but they were acquitted in appeal before High Court. 7. Shri S.B. Mathur has opposed the appeal and according to him, the prosecution has very well established the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. The prosecution has examined 6 witnesses, out of which, Dr. P S. Vissan (PW 1) who was in hospital on 24-7-69 examined the injuries of Chakar Singh. Chakar Singh (PW 2) is injured in this incident; Inder Singh (PW 3) is the son of Chakar Singh and is eye witness of the incident; PW 4 is Dr. S.K. Sen who examined the witness Inder Singh for his injuries; PW 5 is Chand Singh and PW 6 is Jagar Singh, both of whom are eye witnesses. 9. The accused in their statements alleged that the agricultural land belongs to them and was in their possession. According to accused Shanker Singh, at the instance of Chakar Singh, Inder Singh fired at him, on account of which he remained in hospital for 4 months and he had filed a complaint against Chakar Singh, Inder Singh and Harnam Singh. Accused examined Ishar Singh (DW 1) and Saiya Singh (DW 2). 10. It would be pertinent to notice here that the injuries caused to Chakar Singh (PW 2) which were found by Dr. P.S. Vissan (PW 1) are as under: (1) Left little finger was fractured and amputed at the level of lower end of middle of phalanx, which was missing below that level; (2) Right upper central incisor tooth was fractured and dislocated from its socket and had fresh blood clots. Adjoining gums were lacerated and missing tooth was available; (3) Left lower central incisor and lateral incisor teeth also found dislocated from their sockets. Adjoining gums were lacerated and missing tooth was available; (3) Left lower central incisor and lateral incisor teeth also found dislocated from their sockets. Gums were lacerated and bleeding Three teeth were missing; (4) Swelling 2" outside left side of neck; (5) A lacerated wound 1/2" on the liner side of left half of lower lip; (6) A linear redish abrasion 4" x 1/4" x 1/4" long on the right of side of back; (7) A superficial incised wound 1" x ⅕" /5" across the back of left ring about its middle. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 are grievous hurt and Injury No. 1 and 7 have been caused by sharp weapon and others by blunt weapon. 11. Inder Singh who was examined by Dr. S.K. Sen (PW 4) received the following injuries: (1) An incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. along the left iliac crest directed from below upward, 6 cm. lateral to the anterior superior iliac spine; (2) Liner incised wound 9 cms. in length on the anterior aspect of right thigh; (3) Incised wound 1 x 1/2 c.m. on the anterior aspect of left thigh, 5 c.m. above knee joint; (4) Healed up wound half x 1/4 cm. on the dorsal aspect of the inetacarpel phalangeal joint of the left middle finger; 12. Regarding possession of the land in dispute, the trial court was of the view that the land was allotted in proportion of fifty-fifty share and four parties wanted to take possession of the full land and none of them was in complete possession of this land in dispute at the time of occurrence. 13. Inder Singh (PW 3) who is son of Chakar Singh received the injuries and is therefore, eye witness so far as his presence of the scene of occurrence is concerned. The mere fact that he has not been able to mention the place where the injuries were caused and by whom, is not very important because in an incident of this type, nobody can be clear observer because he himself had become unconscious. Chakar Singh (PW 2) stated that Shanker gave 'Danda' blow on his face which resulted in breaking of the teeth which is corroborated by the medical evidence. Charan Singh accused wanted to give sword blow on his hand, which resulted in cutting of one of the fingers. This again is corroborated by Dr. Chakar Singh (PW 2) stated that Shanker gave 'Danda' blow on his face which resulted in breaking of the teeth which is corroborated by the medical evidence. Charan Singh accused wanted to give sword blow on his hand, which resulted in cutting of one of the fingers. This again is corroborated by Dr. P.S. Vissan (PW I). 14. The trial court has rightly held that so far as allegation of firing gun by Chakar Singh is concerned, it has not been proved and it is doubtful. In the cross case, the present complainant party has been acquitted as per the judgment of the trial court. 15. On a thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions and evidence relevant extraction of which has been given above, I am of the opinion that it has been proved that Shanker Singh gave hunter blow on the face of Chakar Singh resulting in breaking of his three teeth. Charan Singh accused attacked Chakar Singh with sword but it resulted in causing sharp injuries on the fingers and portion was cut as per the evidence of Dr. P.S. Vissan (PW 1) which, has been treated as offence Under Section 326, IPC. 16. The sentence imposed under the offence is not excessive so far as the conviction Under Section 326, IPC is concerned and I am not inclined to reduce it. 17. However, so far as Shankar Singh is concerned his sentence Under Section , IPC of 8 months' rigorous imprisonment already undergone with imposition fine of Rs. 2000/- which should be paid to the complaint Chakar Singh as compensation. The fine would be deposited by Shanker Singh within 6 months from the date of receipt of record by the trial court failing which he would undergo 3 months' rigorous Singh is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. 18. It the result, this appeal so far as Shankar Singh is concerned is partly allowed to the extent as mentioned in the aforesaid para of this judgment and so far as Chakar Singh is concerned, it is dismissed. Charan Singh is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are forfeited. The trial court would take steps to arrest the appellant Charan Singh to serve out the sentence recorded by the trial court and upheld by this Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******