Judgment SOBHAGMAL JAM, J. ( 1 ) BY the judgment dated Sept. 28, 1978 the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: - All the appellants have further been convicted under sections 323/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the incident which took place in village Sabjipura on September 28, 1975 at about 12. 30 p. m. in which Bhag Singh, Dan Singh and Jeet Singh received injuries on the side of the prosecution and Nidhan Singh and Jagga Singh on the side of the accused. The injuries to Bhag singh were as under: - 1. Incised wound 2 x x on the left frontal part of the scalp vertically. 2. Swelling (black eye) sub conjuctival haemorrhage present in left eye. 1 x 1 above the left upper eye lid and 1 x over the left lower eye lid. Injury No. 2 was the result of injury No. 1. ( 3 ) ABRASION 1 x 5/8 on the proximal and middle phalanx ventral surface of the right index finger. ( 4 ) SWELLING 11/2 in length all around the proximal inter phalangeal joint of right sided middle finger. ( 5 ) SWELLING 2 3/8 x 1 on the right elbow lateral surface. Injuries Nos. 3 to 5 were caused by a blunt object and injury No. 1 by a sharp edged weapon. 1. Jagga Singh U/s 326 to IPC 11/2 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of find to 5 days further R. I. 2. Birju Singh U/s 326/ to 34 IPC 11/2 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to 5 days further R. I. 3. Nidhan Singh Injury No. 1 was grievous. Dan Singh received two injuries a swelling on his shoulder and a bruise on the scapular region. Both the injuries were simple. Jeet Singh had two injuries a bruise and a swelling and both were found to be simple in nature caused by a blunt object. On the side of the accused Nidhan Singh had two injuries; 1. Incised wound 11/2 x x 1/8 on the right part of posterior part of the scalp. 2. Abrasion itt x 1/8 on the left shoulder. Both the injuries were simple. On the side of the accused Nidhan Singh had two injuries; 1. Incised wound 11/2 x x 1/8 on the right part of posterior part of the scalp. 2. Abrasion itt x 1/8 on the left shoulder. Both the injuries were simple. Injury No. 1 was by a sharp weapon and injury No. 2 by a blunt weapon. Jagga Singh received two injuries; 1. Swelling 11/2 x itt on the right thigh 11/2tt above knee line on anterior surface. 2. Bruise 1 x 1/2 on the right thigh 3 above the right knee joint line on anterior surface. Both the injuries were simple and were caused by a blunt weapon. 3. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of some land which was bequeathed by Amar Singh in favour of Bagh Singh and Jeet Singh. On the date of the incident i. e. on September 28, 1975, at about 12. 30 p. m. , when Bagh Singh, Jeet Singh and Devi Singh were in their house accused Jagga Singh armed with a Barcha and accused Birju Singh and Nidhan Singh armed with lathis came there and started inflicting blows on Bagh Singh and others. Jagga Singh gave a Barcha blow on Bagh Singh which hit him on the head. Birju Singh and Nidhan Singh used lathis and caused injuries to Bhag Singh, Dan Singh and Jeet Singh. On hearing the cries of the complainant party Mal Singh and other villagers came there and the accused then left the place and went away. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Jeet Singh the same day at 2. 30 p. m. at Police Station, Hanumangarh. A case under sections 307, 452 and 323 was registered. 4. After investigation a charge-sheet against the accused was filed in the court of Magistrate, I Class, Hanumangarh who committed them for trial to the court of Sessions. Jagga Singh was tried for the offence under sections 307, 326 and 323 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and other accused Birju Singh and Nidhan Singh were tried for the offences under sections 307, 326 read with sections 34 and 323 I. P. C. When their plea was recorded the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In their statement under section 313 Cr. In their statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated. 5. After trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by placing reliance on the testimony of P. W. 1 Bhag Singh, P. W. 2 Jeet Singh and P. W. 3 Dan Singh came to the conclusion that the injuries on Bhag Singh, Jeet Singh and Dan Singh were caused by the accused in furtherance of a common intention to cause injuries to Bhag Singh and others. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused have filed the present appeal in this Court. ( 6 ) I have heard Shri B. R. Arora, counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the evidence of the witnesses Bhag Singh, Jeet Singh and Dan Singh is not reliable and conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on their testimony. I have been taken through the statements of these witnesses. I do not find anything in their evidence to discredit their testimony. All the three witnesses have received injuries and their presence at the spot cannot, therefore, be doubted. The witnesses have deposed that all the three accused came there armed with weapons and inflicted injuries to them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed reliance on their evidence and I agree with his appraisal of their testimony which establishes that the various injuries on the bodies of Bhag Singh, Jeet Singh and Dan Singh were caused by the accused Jagga Singh, Nidhan Singh and Birju Singh. The incised wound on the head of Bhag Singh was the result of a blow given by Jagga Singh with a sharp edged weapon. This injury according to the doctor was grievous. The offence under section 326 I. P. C. is clearly made out against him. The incised wound on the head of Bhag Singh was the result of a blow given by Jagga Singh with a sharp edged weapon. This injury according to the doctor was grievous. The offence under section 326 I. P. C. is clearly made out against him. Learned counsel for the appellant, has however, urged that the provisions of Section 34 I. P. C. were not attracted and therefore, the other accused, namely, Birju Singh and Nidhan singh could not therefore, be held Liable with the aid of Section 34 I. P. C. On the side of the accused Jagga Singh and Nidhan Singh have, received injuries, Nidhan Singh had an incised wound on his scalp 11/2 x x 1/8. Jagga Singh also received injuries. The prosecution has given no explanation for these injuries. Only one incised wound was caused to Bhag Singh and the rest of the injuries on the complainant side were by blunt object and simple in nature. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also to the effect that the common intention of the accused was to cause Injuries. In these circumstances all the accused except Bhag Singh cannot be held liable for the grievous injury of Bhag Singh. This is attributed to Jagga Singh and he alone would be liable for the same. The conviction of the appellants Nidhan Singh and Birju Singh for offence under sections 326/34 I. P. C. cannot, therefore, be maintained. On the question of sentence, learned counsel has urged that the occurrence is 12 years old. Both Nidhan Singh and Birju Singh remained in custody for 14 days and this should be deemed sufficient in the circumstances of the present case. In the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the age of Nidhan Singh is mentioned as 80 years. Birju Singh was 21 years of age when the occurrence took place. As I have held that the conviction of these appellants for the offence under sections 326/34 I. P. C. cannot be sustained by invoking the aid of section 34 I. P. C. , the period of 14 days during which these accused have remained in custody should be deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As I have held that the conviction of these appellants for the offence under sections 326/34 I. P. C. cannot be sustained by invoking the aid of section 34 I. P. C. , the period of 14 days during which these accused have remained in custody should be deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice. ( 7 ) AS regards the case of Jugga Singh counsel for the appellants urges that In similar circumstances the Supreme Court, in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab1, where the injured had received a grievous injury on his head by a Gandasa and the accused was convicted under section 326, the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ was held sufficient by the Supreme Court as the incident in that case occurred 13 years back. In Naib Singhs case (1) the Supreme Court dealing with the question of sentence has observed as under: The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- or on default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Muktsar within a period of one month from, today. The amount if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. In the instant case the occurrence took place as back as September 28, 1975. It is about 12 years now. The accused has already remained in custody for 10 days. The circumstance of the accused themselves having received injuries has not been explained by the prosecution. Nidhan Singh had received an incised wound on his scalp. In the instant case the occurrence took place as back as September 28, 1975. It is about 12 years now. The accused has already remained in custody for 10 days. The circumstance of the accused themselves having received injuries has not been explained by the prosecution. Nidhan Singh had received an incised wound on his scalp. Learned counsel for the appellant has suggested that instead of sending the accused to jail, the amount of fine may be suitably increased, and in this respect he suggested that a sum of Rs. 2000/- would be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand has urged that following the Supreme Court case the amount of fine should be enhanced to Rs. 5. 000/ if it is not considered desirable to send the accused back to jail again. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case particularly, the fact that the occurrence took place as back as September 28, 1975 and a period of about 12 years has already elapsed and by following the precedent of Naib Singh I consider that the period during which this accused has already remained in custody should be deemed sufficient with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, to be paid to the injured as compensation. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the appellant Jagga Singh for the offences under sections 326 and 324/34 I. P. C. is maintained, but his sentence is reduced to the period during which he already remained in custody and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 6 months. Learned counsel pays for three months time to deposit the fine. Three months time is, therefore, granted to the appellant to deposit the same in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. The amount, when recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Bhag Singh by way of compensation. The conviction of the appellants Nidhan Singh and Birju Singh for the offence under section 326/34 I. P. C. is set aside, but their conviction for the offence under sections 323/34 I. P. C. is maintained and their sentence is reduced to the period of custody during which they have already remained in jail.