JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals arise from a common judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Cases No. 39/78, 40/78 and 41/78. Hence all these appeals are decided by a common judgment. 2. The prosecution case is that on 18-2-78 at about noon time, PW 4 Teema, S/o Tega, by easte Meena was grazing his goats in his field there. the aforesaid three appellants Sumer Singh, Sabuddin and Shanwaru Khan came along with Kheema Khan Dhoonkiya. The prosecutions case is that the appellants Sumer Singh and Dhoonkiya were having Dhariyas, the appellant Sabuddin had an axe, while Kheema Khan and Bhanwaru Khan had guns. It is alleged that seeing these persons coming towards him, PW 4. Teena ran from his field to the well of one Veniya. The co-accused Kheema Khan is said to have made a gun fire but it missed. Then he was chased by 5 accused persons and they also beat him Dhariya, axe and butts of the guns. The prosecution story further goes that the co-accused Kheema Khan then brought a knife from his pocket and cut off the right ear of Teema. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Veniya, Gena and Deviya. 3. The prosecution case further is that Teema's wife Smt. Dhanni, who was also in the said, came running to rescue her husband and she tried to intervene. Then the accused Dhoonkiya gave a dhariya blow on her right leg and forcely removed her gold nose ring and Kankan. It was further alleged that Smt. Dhanni was tied with a rope around her body and was thrown into well by the accused persons. The prosecution case is that Smt. Dhanni was brought out from the well by Veniya and other persons. As both the husband and wife were seriously injured, they were taken to' hospital at Ahore and a report was also lodged at Police Station Ahore on the same day at 4.45 p.m. The case was registered under sections 395 325 and 324, IPC. 4. At the outset it may be stated that PW 4 Teema has sustained 9 injuries in all, out of which 2 were on the head and one on the leg which were caused by sharp edged weapon. His right ear was cut off with a sharp edged weapon and the rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. 4. At the outset it may be stated that PW 4 Teema has sustained 9 injuries in all, out of which 2 were on the head and one on the leg which were caused by sharp edged weapon. His right ear was cut off with a sharp edged weapon and the rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Out of the aforesaid injuries, the amputation of the ear was the grievous injury. Smt. Dhanni had one bruise and one incised wound on her body. Both the injuries were simple in nature. 5. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the appellants and one Mehboob Khan. The principal offender Kheema Khan was not apprehended, as such a chargesheet under section 299 Cr.P.C. was submitted,against him. It is note worthy that separate charge-sheet were filed against the accused appellants and they were committed separately, as such separate sessions cases were registered. During their trial they faced a joint trial in the court of the learned Sessions Judge as all the three Sessions Cases were consolidated with Sessions Case No. 41/78. 6. The learned trial court examined as many as 21 witnesses during the trial of the case, out of which Chhoga, Ramesh and Veniya, who were also the eye witnesses of the incident, did not support the prosecution case as they turned hostile. The remaining eye witnesses were PW 4 Teema, PW 5 mevlya, PW 6 Smt. Dhanni. Out of which Teema and Smt. Dhanni were Injured eye witnesses. All the three witnesses fully testified the prosecution case. The learned trial court, after completion of the trial, held that there was on unlawful assembly and the object of the assembly was to cause simple and grievous hurts to Teema and Smt. Dhanni. However, the learned court did not believe the prosecution case about the commission of dacoity in respect of the ornaments of Smt. Dhanni. The learned trial court also held that Smt. Dhanni was thrown in the well, after being tied by a rope and it was done in pursuance of the common object to commit her murder. Consequently, the appellant Sumer Singh and Sabuddin were convicted and sentenced under sections 148,307/149, 326/149 and 324 IPC, while the appellant Bhanwar Khan was convicted under sections 148,307/149,326/149 IPC. However, he was acquitted from the charges under section 324 IPC. Consequently, the appellant Sumer Singh and Sabuddin were convicted and sentenced under sections 148,307/149, 326/149 and 324 IPC, while the appellant Bhanwar Khan was convicted under sections 148,307/149,326/149 IPC. However, he was acquitted from the charges under section 324 IPC. Co-accused Mehboob Khan was acquitted from all the charges. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, sentenced the appellants to two years R.I. under section 148 IPC, 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs 1,000/- under section 30 /149 IPC and three Years' R.I., and a fine of Rs 500 under section 326/149 IPC. The appellant Sumer Singh and Sabuddin were also sentenced to two years' R.I. under section 304 IPC. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentences as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present three appeals have been filed separate by the appellant. As they arise from a a common judgment of the trial court and as there was a common trial of all the three appellants, all the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the earned Public Prosecutor. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding of conviction recorded against the appellants under section 307/149 IPC about throwing Smt. Dhanni in the well is not sustainable and as such, all the three appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge under sections 307/149 IPC. 9. The learned counsel further argued that after having disbelieved the prosecution story regarding the theft of ornaments of Smt. Dhanni, it was not safe to convict the appellants under section 326/149 or 148 or 324 IPC for causing injuries to Teema or Smt. Dhanni. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that none of them is the author of the grievous injuries caused to Teema, as the only grievous injury caused to him was caused by co-accused Kheema Khan who was absconding. It was submitted, that the appellants have already faced a protracted trial and have suffered a lot of mental agony, torture and monetary loss in as much as they are facing trial for the last 11 years. It was submitted, that the appellants have already faced a protracted trial and have suffered a lot of mental agony, torture and monetary loss in as much as they are facing trial for the last 11 years. It was also contended that the appellant Sumer Singh has remained in Jail for about 17 months while the remaining two appellants have remained in jail for about 1 year and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that none of them is the author of the grievous injury, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by each of the appellant shall meet the ends of justice. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the findings of the learned trial court. 11. First of all, I like to examine whether conviction of the appellants under section 307/149 IPC can be sustained. The appellants have been convicted for these offences on the allegation that they had tied Smt. Dhanni with a rope and, thereafter, she was thrown in a well. To appreciate this fact, let us first examine the medical evidence. PW 11 Dr. Raman Verma had examined the injury as of Smt. Dhanni at 6.00 P.M. on 18-2-78. He found the following two injuries on her person:- "1. Bruise 1" x 1" over bridge of nose. 2. Incised wound (horizontal) 1" x ⅛" x bone-deep over anterior aspect of upper 1 /3rd of left leg," 12. The doctor opined that injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon while injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon. 13. From the above statement of the doctor, it is clear that he did not find any mark of any injury on the body of Smt. Dhanni which must have been caused on account of her being tied by a rope before being thrown in the well then she must have sustained a number of injuries and that too of serious nature. 14. The well is said to be with deep water and Smt. Dhanni did not know how to swim Absence of the injuries on the person of Dhanni about tieing with rope and the number of injuries sustained by her, go to show that the story of throwing her to the well does not stand corroborated by the medical report. 14. The well is said to be with deep water and Smt. Dhanni did not know how to swim Absence of the injuries on the person of Dhanni about tieing with rope and the number of injuries sustained by her, go to show that the story of throwing her to the well does not stand corroborated by the medical report. Then it is also improbable that Smt. Dhanni might have been thrown into the well without any serious cause and that too when she was only an intervener. So far as the ocular evidence is concerned, Chhoga Ramesh and Veniya have not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of Teema, Deviya and Dhahni so far as it relates to tying Smt. Dhanni with a rope and throwing her in the well is concerned, it is also contradictory and shaky. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the prosecution case and the finding of the trial court that Smt. Dhanni was tied with a rope and then she was thrown in the well and by that act the appellants committed the offence under section 307/149 IPC. In my view, the conviction of the appellants under section 307/149 IPC deserve to be set aside. 15. Now, the question remains with regard to causing injuries to Teema. It is no doubt true that none of the appellants is the author of the only grievous injury caused to Teema. But from the evidence of Teema. PW 4, PW 5 Deviya and PW 6 Dhanni it is established beyond reasonable doubt that all the three appellants participated in the incident they chased Teema and caused injuries with their respective weapons. The learned trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of these three witnesses and their testimony stands corroborated from the medical evidence also. The learned counsel for the appellants also, after arguing the case on merits, so far causing injuries to Teema is considered, rightly conceded subsequently that the participation of these three appellants in causing simple injuries to Teema is proved. I have also read the statements of PW 4 Teema, PW 5 Deviya and PW 6 Dhanni. I have also gone through the evidence regarding identification parads of the accused Sumer Singh and Bhanwaroo Khan. I have also read the statements of PW 4 Teema, PW 5 Deviya and PW 6 Dhanni. I have also gone through the evidence regarding identification parads of the accused Sumer Singh and Bhanwaroo Khan. After going through the entire evidence, I am fully satisfied that the finding recorded by the learned trial court about' beating to Teema by the appellants and the other co-accused, after chasing him, is fully established. The appellants were armed with Dhariya, axe and guns which it could be easily inferred that the common object of the assembly was to cause an grievous simple injury to him. The learned sessions Judge, therefore, did not commit any mistake in recording the finding of conviction against the appellants under section 148, 326/149 IPC and against the appellant Sumer Singh and Sabuddin under section 324 IPC. 16. Now the question of sentence remains to be decided Admittedly the incident had taken place in the year 1978, i.e. on 18-2-78 and 12 years have passed since then. It is also note worthy none of the appellants is the author of the only greivious injury caused to Teema, as the said injury was caused by co-accused Kheema Khan. Accused appellants are said to have caused simple injuries to Teema. No previous conviction has been brought on record against the accused persons. The accused-appellants are said to be cultivators by profession. 17. The appellant Sumer Singh has remained in jail for bout 17 months, while the other two accused appellants Sabuddin and Bhanwaru Khan have remained in jail for about a year during investigation enquiry and trial. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts circumstances narrated above, I think it proper that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to each of the appellants should be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction of all the appellant under sections 307/149, IPC is set aside. Their conviction under sections 148, 326/149, IPC and the conviction of the appellants Sumer Singh and Sabuddin under section 324, IPC are maintained. The sentence of imprisonment, however, is reduced the period already undergone by each of the appellants. 19. As Sumer Singh has remained in jail for about 17 months and the remaining two accused appellants have remained in jail for one year, the sentence of fine of Sumer Singh is increased to Rs. The sentence of imprisonment, however, is reduced the period already undergone by each of the appellants. 19. As Sumer Singh has remained in jail for about 17 months and the remaining two accused appellants have remained in jail for one year, the sentence of fine of Sumer Singh is increased to Rs. 750/- while the fine of the other two accused-appellants is increased to Rs. 1000/- from Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, Sumer Singh will undergo R.I. for six months, while the other two accused-appellants will undergo R.I. for nine months. 20. Three months time is granted to the appellants for depositing the fine. The appellants are on bail and they need not surrender.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******