JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - This criminal appeal No. 2560 of 1979 Krishna Chandra Vashisht and Vinod Mishra Appellants v. State of U.P. is connected with Government Appeal No. 2 of 1990, State v. Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra. 2. The aforesaid two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 30. 8. 1979 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions trial convicting Krishna Chandra Vashisht and Vinod Misra under Sections 307 and 323 IPC sentencing each of them to 4 years and 6 moths R. I. respectively on, two counts and acquitting Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra of the aforesaid Charges. 3. The charges against the accused were that on 22. 10. 1976 at about 6.30 p. m. in village Lochanganj, P. S. Phulpur, Allahabad, they assaulted Hari Mohan with pharsa spear and lathis with intention to cause death of Hari Mohan and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and in that process assaulted Luxmi Narain, Shushila Devi and Smt. Kalawati and thereby committed offences punishable under section 323 IPC. 4. The prosecution case is that there was some enmity between the family of Hari Mohan and that of the accused Krishna Chandra Vashisht, It is said that both the families were living in village Lochanganj. Hari Mohan appellant Prem Chandra respondent and Krishna Chandra are real brothers, Vinod Mishra appellant is the son of Krishna Chandra Vashisht and Dinesh Chandra Mishra respondent is a son of Ram Chandra Mishra. Prior report under Section 325 IPC on 1.4.1967 by Luxmi Narain and another report by Smt. Kalawati on 19. 11. 1966 under Sections 504 and 550 IPC had been lodged. On 22.10.1976 at 6.30 p.m. when Hari Mohan had gone to put another lamps in the garden he found the cow of Krishna Chandra grazing there which was caught hold.of and was being taken to the cattle pond. Krishna Chandra objected and started beating Hari Mohan with lathis. At the hue and cry the accused Prem Chandra with spear, Dinesh Chandra with Pharsa and Vinod with lathi came there and started beating Hari Mohan, on his alarm his brother Luxmi Narain his wife Smt. Kalawati and his brothers wife Smt. Sushila Devi who came to intervene were also beaten with lathis, Pharsa and spears. At the hue and cry the accused Prem Chandra with spear, Dinesh Chandra with Pharsa and Vinod with lathi came there and started beating Hari Mohan, on his alarm his brother Luxmi Narain his wife Smt. Kalawati and his brothers wife Smt. Sushila Devi who came to intervene were also beaten with lathis, Pharsa and spears. All of them received several injuries and on the hue and cry persons from the neighbourhood namely Bhagwati, Bindeshwari, Punni Lal came and Prabhu Nath came and all the persons succeeded in catching Krishna Chandra and Vinod on the spot alongwith their lathis. The other two namely Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra succeeded in running away. 5. An F. I. R. was lodged at P. S. Phulpur at 7.45 p. m. by Luxmi Narain where from Hari Mohan, Luxmi Narain, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Sushila were sent to Phulpur hospital for medical examination. But due to non-availability of electric power the medical examination was done as under : 1. Hari Mohan on 23.10.76 at 10.15 a.m. 2 lacerations, 6 contusions, 7 abrasions, I cut, 1 pain, 4 slit wounds-Total -21. 2. Smt. Sushila Devi on 22.10.76 at 11.20 a. m. 2 swellings, 2 contusions and 1 abrasion. Total-5 3. Smt. Kalawati on 22.10.76 at 12.00 noon. 1 contusion, I pain Total-2 4. Luxmi Narain on 23.10.76 at 12.15 p. M. 1 contusion, 1 superficial abrasion, 11 swelling. Total-2 All the injuries were examined by P. W. 1, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha. 6. The F. I. R. was lodged by Head Moharrir Sri Azizullah Khan PW-7. Vide General Diary entry Ex. Ka. 10 he prepared the chik report and other documents. He also proved the arrest of two appellants namely Krishna Chandra and Vinod Mishra having been brought there. PW-8 P. P. Pandey was the S. I. who was present when the F. I. R. was lodged. He took up the investigation then and there after registration of the case. He has proved the General Diary under which the two arrested persons were put under the lockup. He had visited the spot, prepared the site plan after having recorded the statement of the victims. He took up the investigation then and there after registration of the case. He has proved the General Diary under which the two arrested persons were put under the lockup. He had visited the spot, prepared the site plan after having recorded the statement of the victims. He has said that he received copy of the X-ray report but during the trial neither the x-ray report has been produced nor evidence has been led by which it could be said that there was any grievous injury on the prosecution side. The said investigating officer was transferred and then ultimately PW-6 R. S. Singh, completed the formalities and submitted the charge sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet against the accused. 7. During the trial the prosecution examined three eye witnesses. Punni Lal PW-2 is the resident of the same village and has stated the precaution case as noted above. PW-3 Hari Mohan and PW-4 Luxmi Narain, the two brothers who received injuries, have also proved the entire prosecution story as has been noted above. There is no contradiction whatsoever in their statement and the whole deposition is natural and probable. No grievance can be made of the fact that the Trial Judge placed implicit reliance on the testimony of these eye witnesses in convicting appellants Krishna Chandra Vashisht and Vinod Mishra. 8. In support of Government Appeal Sri Shivaji Mishra argued vehemently that the Sessions Judge's reasoning in acquitting Prem Chandra Mishra and Dinesh Chandra are not sustainable being similar was the argument of Sri Dilip Kumar appearing on behalf of the informant. 9. Sri G. S. Chaturvedi learned counsel for the appellants in the criminal appeal and the respondents in the Government Appeal has vehemently argued that the matter having become old and at the most two views being possible of the evidence produced, no interference in the Government Appeal is called for. 10. After considering the entire material on the record and the injury reports of the various persons particularly that of Hari Mohan, as deposed to by PW-1, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha the conclusion is irresistible that the slit injuries noted by him against serial Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 20 in the injury report of Hari Mohan were caused by pharasa and Ballam (Spear) 11. Pradeep Kumar Sinha the conclusion is irresistible that the slit injuries noted by him against serial Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17 and 20 in the injury report of Hari Mohan were caused by pharasa and Ballam (Spear) 11. There is consistency in the prosecution story about the entire incident as well as two of the accused were arrested on the spot and were consequently taken to the Police Station. It is impossible to disbelieve those witnesses with regard to the participation of respondent-accused Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra while believing them with regard to the participation of appellant-accused Krishna Chandra Vashishta and Vinod Mishra. 12. The reasoning given by the trial court that mentioning of the aforesaid five injuries as slit injury by the Doctor in the injury report may make it inevitable that those were not caused by either Pharsa or spear is without any basis whatsoever. The Doctor is emphatic and quite clear in his statement that those injuries were caused by spear and pharsa. No other reason has been set out by the trial Judge for acquitting Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra. An argument was advanced that those two respondents in the Government Appeal being present could have also been arrested just as the other two were. It has to be noticed that while the arrested persons were having only lathis with them, the two respondents had sharp edged weapons and therefore there was more likelihood in the witnesses not trying to apprehend and thus they succeeded in running away. All the 4 accused were nominated in the F. I. R. which was lodged within about an hour of the incident and the testimony of the three eye witnesses being without any blemish and no material having been brought out in the cross examination, they are worthy of reliance. Consequently, the acquittal of the two respondents in the Government Appeal namely Prem Chandra Mishra and Dinesh Chandra has to be set aside. It was vehemently argued by Sri G. S. Chaturvedy that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted the offence would not go beyond Section 323 and Section 324 IPC. As noted above there is no fracture on any one of the victims. Though Hari Mohan has 21 injuries all of them except two are on non-vital parts. Similarly, the other three injured have.only simple injuries which are negligible. As noted above there is no fracture on any one of the victims. Though Hari Mohan has 21 injuries all of them except two are on non-vital parts. Similarly, the other three injured have.only simple injuries which are negligible. Under the circumstances mentioned above it was argued mightly that there was no intention on the part of any of the accused, either appellants or the respondents, to cause injuries with the intention to cause death of anyone of the victims. For these reasons, the prosecution evidence makes out a case punishable under Section 323 and 324 I. P. C. against all the accused. 13. The result therefore is that while conviction of Krishna Chandra and Vinod Mishra under Section 307 I. P. C. has to be set aside, instead they have to be convicted under Section 323 IPC alone as they were armed with lathis. As regards respondent Prem Chandra Mishra and Dinesh Chandra their acquittal under various charges has to be set aside and they have to be convicted only under Section 324 IPC. 14. Coming to the question of sentence the fact that the incident is as old as that of 22.10.1976 cannot be lost sight of. Moreover, all the appellants and the respondents belong to one family as noted above. From the record it appears that all of them have been in custody for a couple of days and no useful purpose will be served by asking any one of the accused to be sent to jail for receiving some more sentence of imprisonment. It was rightly argued by Sri G. S. Chaturvedi that in the mean time peace had dawned in the village and both the families are living in peace and, therefore, instead of sentencing any of the accused to jail by awarding rigorous imprisonment, some fine may be asked to be paid by each of them. Sri Shivaji Mishra and Dilip Kumar learned counsel for the State and Informant have said that since question of sentence has always been the jurisdiction of this court they would not like to make any opposition whatsoever. 15. On the facts and circumstances of this case fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on Krishna Chandra Vashisht, Vinod Mishra, Prem Chandra Mishra and Dinesh Chandra Mishra under Section 323 and 324 1. P. C. would meet the ends of justice 16. 15. On the facts and circumstances of this case fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on Krishna Chandra Vashisht, Vinod Mishra, Prem Chandra Mishra and Dinesh Chandra Mishra under Section 323 and 324 1. P. C. would meet the ends of justice 16. Sri G. S. Chaturvedi has prayed for some time to be granted to the accused to deposit the fine. Three months are allowed from today for all the accused to deposit the said fine amount in the court of C. J. M. Allahabad. 17. The C. J. M. Allahabad is further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each as compensation to Hari Mohan s/o Parmeshwar Dayal, Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Hari Mohan, Smt. Kalawati wife of Luxmi Narain and Luxmi Narain son of Sri Parmeshwar Dayal. 18. The result is that both the appeals succeed partly and are allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1979 is allowed to the extent that the conviction of Krishna Chandra Vashisht and Vinod Mishra under Section 307 I.P.C. and 4 years R. I. thereunder are set aside. Their conviction under section 323 I.P.C. is maintained but their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. 19. Government appeal No. 26 of 1990 is also partly allowed. The acquittal of respondent Prem Chandra and Dinesh Chandra of all the charges is set aside and they are convicted only under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to the period already undergone and a sum of Rs. 1,000 each. 20. The fine shall be deposited within three months from today as noted above. Compensation shall be paid within two months thereafter by the C. J. M. Allahabad who will report compliance within a month thereafter.