JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated May 2, 1978 whereby the learned lower court has held accused Amra Ram guilty of the offence under section 326 read with section 34 I.P.C. and has sentenced him to 4 years rigorous imprisonment together, with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment Accused Udai Ram has been held guilty of the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 323 I.P.C. On the first count he has been sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment On the second count he has been sentenced with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Champalal too was convicted of the offence under section 323 I.P.C. but he has not preferred any appeal. 2. The facts necessary to the noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that some enmity regarding the agricultural land was existing between Lehru injured and the accused. It was alleged that on September 11, 1977 when Lehru accompanied by 2-3 more persons was returning to his house after grazing the she buffalows and reached near the house of Amra and Udai Ram he was availed by both of them along with Champalal and others. It is alleged that Udairam caught hold of him and Amra give a lathi blow on his leg. Thereafter he was dragged inside this pole and there also Udairam and Amra Ram gave beating to him. On hearing his cries Lehrus son Dev Kishan, his brother Narain and Lehru's wife Ghisi reached there. Dev Kishan was also given a beating by Udai ram and Champalal It is alleged that Badri, one of the sons of Lehru was sent by Narain to report the matter to the police, but because it was night time he remained in the way and in the morning accused Amraram himself reached Police Station, Gangapur and there he lodged a verbal report mentioning therein that some verbal exchange took place between his brother Udai ram, and Lehru Jat and in this some beating also took place and Lehru was lying in their pole. The report was vague and, therefore, P.W, 11 Kalyan Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Gangapur immediately proceeded to the village of the accused persons i. e. Kala-ka-khera where the occurrence had taken place. There at Kala-ka-khera Dev Kishan delivered a written report Ex P. 15 to the S.H.O., on the basis of which the investigations was undertake. Lehru's and Dev Kishan's injuries were got medically examined. Lehru received as many as 10 injuries on different parts of his body, out of 5 injuries were grievous and rest of 5 injuries were sample. On account of these injuries his left humerous bone, right ulna bone, 5th metacarpal bone and right little linger as also left tibia fibula bones got fractured. Dev Kishan & Kishan son of Lehru received 4 simple injuries on his person by blunt weapon. Alter the usual investigation a case against 7 accused persons was challenged in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur under Sections 147, 307, 325, 342 and 149 I.P.C. All the seven accused persons were sent up for trial to the court of learned Session Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge charged the accused persons with the offence under Section 147, 307/149, 325/149, 342/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial, whereupon the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused persons examined five witnesses in their defence. After hearing the parties the learned Sessions Judge decided the case as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment these two accused persons Amra Ram and Udai Ram have preferred this appeal. 3. The learned lower court held that the participation of the accused Mst. Chunni wife of Amraram, Mst. Aji wife of Bhura and mother of Amra Ram and Kuka @ Kaniram, and Devilal is doubtful and therefore, it extended benefit of doubt to them and consequently acquitted them. It is held that on a closure scrutiny of the prosecution evidence it transpires that only Amra Ram and Udai Ram have given beating to Lahru. When Devkishan arrived on the spot, he was beaten by Udairam and Champalal alone and therefore, it has convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. All the grievous injuries and simple injuries caused to Lehru were inflicted by Amra Ram and Udairam alone. 4. I have heard Mr. When Devkishan arrived on the spot, he was beaten by Udairam and Champalal alone and therefore, it has convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. All the grievous injuries and simple injuries caused to Lehru were inflicted by Amra Ram and Udairam alone. 4. I have heard Mr. B. Advani for the accused-appellant and Mr. B. C. Bansali, Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also gone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. Advani, appearing for the accused appellants has not challenged the conviction of the accused persons. I have also looked into the judgment of the learned lower court and have also gone through evidence in this case. It amply brought out from the evidence of P.W. 2 Lehru as also P. W. 1 Dev Kishan and P. W. 3 Badri that these two accused persons gave beating to Lehru along with Live others. However, P.W 4 Ghisi, P.W. 5 Hazari and P.W. 7 Ganeshlal have stated that when they enquired from Lehru as to who gave beating to him, Lehru named Amra and Udairam along with two persons who gave beating to them. Learned lower court, therefore, rightly held that on the strength B and the evidence of P. W. 4, 5 & 7 other five persons cannot be held guilty for theft injuries received by Lehru. Although these three witnesses is P. W. 1, P. W 2 and P.W. 3 tried to implead the other family members of Udairam and Amraram but in the light of the testimony of these three independent witnesses is P.W. 4, 5 & 7 the learned lower court came to the conclusion that to that extent they have indulged in exaggeration and actually Amra Ram and Udairam along belaboured Lehru. On the strength of the testimony of Devkishan and others it has further held that Udairam and Champalal have inflicted injuries to Devkishan. These findings of the learned lower court are clearly sustainable on the basis on the basis of the evidence on record. The ocular testimony has been fully corroborated by the testimony of P. W. 8 Dr. P. J. Shah. I, therefore, entirely agree with the finding of conviction against these two appellants recorded by the learned lower court. The next point confessed before me, by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, relates to sentence. The ocular testimony has been fully corroborated by the testimony of P. W. 8 Dr. P. J. Shah. I, therefore, entirely agree with the finding of conviction against these two appellants recorded by the learned lower court. The next point confessed before me, by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, relates to sentence. He has submitted that the accused persons have remained in custody during investigation, enquiry and trial for 19 days. The judgment was delivered on May 2, 1978 and the accused persons were taken in custody on that very day. They were released on bail under the order this Court dated June 2, 1978 on June 5, 1978. In this way they have remained in custody for 54 days. The occurrence took place on September 11, 1977 and since then more than 8 years have elapsed. The accused persons have not inflicted grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body of the injured Lehru. So he has submitted that it would be unjust to send the accused persons back to custody after the expiry of period of more than 8 years. He has, therefore, submitted that lenient view may be taken so far as sentence is concerned. Mr Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons have caused five fractures to Lehru and, therefore, even if they are not sent back to custody heavy fine should be imposed on them so that it may act as deterrent against the accused persons not to commit such crimes in future. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties made at the Bar. It is true that the accused persons have caused as many as 5 fractures to the person of the injured Lelru, but looking to the fact that the occurrence is more than 8 years old and further looking to the fact that this is the first offence of the offenders, it will not be just and proper to send back these accused persons to custody. In the facts and circumstances of this case the ends of justice will be served if the accused persons are sentenced to the period already undergone by them along with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each. In default of payment of this amount of the they will further undergo 11 years rigorous imprisonment each. If the amount of fine is deposited Rs. 2,500/- each. In default of payment of this amount of the they will further undergo 11 years rigorous imprisonment each. If the amount of fine is deposited Rs. 3000/- may be paid as compensation to the injured Lehru. 6. In the result, this appeal is partially allowed, the conviction of accused Amraram under Section 325 read with Section 34 Cr. P. C. and conviction of accused appellant Udairam under Section 325/34 and 323 I.P.C. is maintained. However, they are sentenced to the period of their custody along with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each for the aforesaid offence instead of the sentence recorded against them by the learned lower court. In default of payment of this amounts of fine they shall further undergo 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment each. If the amount of fine imposed against these accused persons is deposited by them, Rs. 3000/- out of this amount may be paid to injured Lehru as compensation. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants prays for two months time to deposit this amount of fine. Time prayed for is allowed. However, if the amounts of fine imposed against these two appellants are not deposited within the aforesaid period, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara is directed to effect the arrest of the accused persons after the expiry of this period of two months to undergo the sentence imposed against them in default of the payment of this amount of fine. In that event, their bail-bonds shall stand cancelled.Appeal partly allowed. *******