JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant stands convicted and sentenced by the judgment dated November 20, 1987, of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh (Camp at Surtgarh) for the offence under Section 307 IPC to four years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for 3 months and under Section 323 1PC to 3 months R.I. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case relates to an incident which took place on November 10, 1985 at 1 p m. in the fields of village 4-FDM Sardargarli resulting in injuries to Gurudayal Singh and Buta Singh. The prosecution case in brief, was that the cattle of the accused had entered into the field of Gurudayal Singh. who was taking them to the cattle-home. On this the accused Banwari Lal came rushing from his house and by taking hold of a Lathi from Pratap Singh and struck the same of Gurudayal Singh. When Buta Singh intervened he, too, was beaten The injured were removed to the Hospital. where their injuries were examined by Dr. Sahi Ram (PW-1). The Doctor found the following injuries on the body of Gurudayal Singh : 1. Lacerated wound (bleeding present) : 11/4" x 0.2" Bonedeep, over left eye brow area of face. 2. Lacerated wound (bleeding present) 1/2" X 0.2" X 0.2" Lateral Canthus of left eye. 3. Bruise with swelling : 21/2" X 1" Left side of the face obliquely directed. 4. Bruise : 2 ]/2" X 1" on the outer aspect of left upper arm. Buta Singh had the following injury in his person. 5. Bruise with swelling : 7" X 1" Lower 1/4 on the Anterolateral aspect of left chest. 3. All the injuries of Gurudayal Singh except the one on the forehead were simple and caused by blunt object. in X-Ray a fracture on the forehead of Gurudayal Singh was detected. The injury of Buta Singh was simple and caused by a blunt object. After investigation the police filed a chargesheet against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, who committed the case for trial before the Court of Sessions. The accused was charged for the offences under Section 447, 307 and 323 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. After investigation the police filed a chargesheet against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, who committed the case for trial before the Court of Sessions. The accused was charged for the offences under Section 447, 307 and 323 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp at Suratgarh), by the judgment dated November 20, 1987 acquitted the accused for the offence under section 447 IPC but convicted him for the offences under Section 3U7 IPC to four years R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of the fine to further R.I. for 3 months and under section 323 IPC to 3 months R.I. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of convictions and sentences, the accused has filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. I have heard Shri M.L. Garg learned counsel for the appellant & Shri B.C. Bhansali Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The fact that Gurudayal Singh and Buta Singh sustained injuries in the incident is no more in dispute. That they received these injuries at the hands of the accused cannot also be doubtful. Both Gurudayal Singh and Buta Singh being themselves injured are the best witnesses to depose as to by whom the said injuries were caused to them. Their evidence is that the cattle of Banwarilal had entered into the field of Gurudayal Singh, who was taking them to the cattle-home. On this the accused came from his house and inflicted injuries to Gurudayal Singh by a Lathi which he took from Pratap Singh. When Buta Singh intervened he, too, was beaten. The evidence of these witnesses finds full support from the medical testimony. Their evidence is also supported by other witnesses, namely Tara Den and Shyam Kaur. I therefore, upheld the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that the injuries on the body of Gurudayal Singh and Buta Singh were caused by the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the offence against the accused would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC. There is substance in the submissions made by the counsel. The origin of the occurrence was quite a petty matter. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the offence against the accused would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC. There is substance in the submissions made by the counsel. The origin of the occurrence was quite a petty matter. Gurudayal Singh was taking to the cattle house, the cattle which had entered into his field. Obviously, the intention of the accused was not to kill Gurudayal Singh. He merely wanted a release of his cattle. He was unarmed when he came from his house. That shows, the offence was not premeditated. He obtained the Lathi at the spot itself from Pratap Singh. His intention can at the most be held to cause grievous injury to Gurudayal Singh. Except the one on the fore-head, all the injuries caused to Gurudayal Singh were simple. The injury of Buta Singh was also simple in nature. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the accused can be held guilty only for the offence under section 325 IPC. The result, is that his conviction for the offence under Section 307 IPC requires to be altered to that under Section 325 IPC. His sentence also needs to be suitably reduced. Learned counsel has submitted that the accused was arrested on November 18, 1985 and was released on bail during trial on January 27, 1986. He was again taken into custody, after conviction, and is in jail since November 20, .1987. He has, thus, undergone a sentence of over 7 months. In the circumstances of the case the sentence already under-gone by him would meet the ends of justice. However, the amount of fire awarded to him deserves to be enhanced. It would be appropriate to impose a fine of Rs. 1.000/- and this amount when realised should be paid as compensation to the injured. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Banwarilal is partly allowed. His conviction for the offence under Section 307 IPC is altered to that under Section 325 IPC and the sentence awarded to him is reduced to one already under-gone by him plus a fine of Rs. 1000/., in default of payment of fine to order go further R.I. for 3 months. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 PC are maintained. The accused has already remained in jail for over 7 months and he has already served out the sentence under both the counts. 1000/., in default of payment of fine to order go further R.I. for 3 months. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 PC are maintained. The accused has already remained in jail for over 7 months and he has already served out the sentence under both the counts. The amount of fine of Rs. 1000/-, when realised, shall be paid to the injured and shall be apportioned amongst them thus Gurudayal Singh R3. 703/- and Buta Singh Rs. 31,0/-. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for one month's time to deposit the amount of fine. One month's time is allowed to the accused to deposit the amount of fine. 10. The appellant shall be released for with if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******