JUDGMENT There are four appellants, namely, Amrik Singh (A-1), Ajaib Singh (A-2), Jit Singh (A-4) and Kewal Singh (A-6). They along with four others were tried for offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 325, 324, 323 read with S. 149 I.P.C. The trial Court convicted all of them. The trial Court acquitted them of the murder charge but convicted Amrik Singh (A-1) under S. 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Ajaib Singh (A-2) is convicted under S. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. Jit Singh A-4 is convicted under S. 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Kewal Singh (A-6) is convicted under S. 326, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 2-6-1979 at about 8.00 p.m. in Village Kotla in Fartidkot District. The accused, the material witnesses and the deceased Amarjeet Singh, belonged to the same village. According to the prosecution. There was enemity between the prosecution party and the accused party. On the day of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. Mukhtiar Singh (PW 11) and his brother Pritam Singh (PW 12) were present in their house situated on the circular path of village Kotla. Kewal Singh, Ajaib Singh and Amrik Singh accused came there armed with gandasas and dang and started abusing PW 11 and PW 12. Pritam Singh armed with a sela and Mukhtiar Singh armed with a dang came out and protested as to why the accused were abusing them. Then a quarrel ensued adn it is stated that in the meantime the other accused also joined there armed with various weapons adn Ajaib Singh exhorted his companions to attach the deceased. So saying, he opened the attack and dealt a gandasas blow from the sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh (PW 12). Jit Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh and Kewal Singh struck a gandasa blow from its sharp side on the head of Amrjit Singh, deceased. So saying, he opened the attack and dealt a gandasas blow from the sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh (PW 12). Jit Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh and Kewal Singh struck a gandasa blow from its sharp side on the head of Amrjit Singh, deceased. During the same occurrence, it is alleged that Madan Singh (A-5) dealt a blow on PW 13 and Kewal Singh (A-6) gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his head. Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh gave one gandasa blow each to Sadhu Singh (PW 15) and the accused are alleged to have dealt some more blows on these witnesses. The further case is that during the course of the same occurrence, PW 11 and PW 12, by way of self defence caused injuries to Ajaib Singh, Darshan Singh adn Amrik Singh. The accused after causing the injuries left the place with their weapons. PW 11 and PW 12 along with other injured persons including deceased Amarjit Singh were shifted to Civil Dispensary, Bhaghapurana. They were examined by the doctor. As the condition of the deceased adn others was serious, they were referred to C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. The deceased Amarjit Singh was examined by PW 18 and was treated but he died on 5-6-1979 at 10.30 p.m. The other injured persons were also treated and x-rayed. The injured accused were also examined by the doctor and on Amrik Singh (A-1) there were 12 injuries including some incised wounds. Ajaib Singh had 7 injuries including incised wounds adn Darshan Singh accused also had 7 injuries. Inquest was held on the dead body of Amarjit Singh and the same was sent for post-mortem. PW 19, Dr. Parmodh Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem found a lacerated wound on the scalp and incised wounds on the front area of the head. He also found that the blood was clotted. He opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. PW 19, Dr. Parmodh Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem found a lacerated wound on the scalp and incised wounds on the front area of the head. He also found that the blood was clotted. He opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The plea of the accused has been that the deceased and his compliance were aggressors and infilcted injuries on the accused persons and they in exercise of their right of self defence infilcted injuries on the accused persons and they in exercise of their right of self defence infilcted injuries on the deceased as well as the PWs. The trial Court after due consideration of the evidence held that the time and place of the occurrence and the participation of both sides in the occurrence is not in dispute and that the circumstances would indicate that it was a case of free fight and therefore each of the appellants would be liable for his individual acts. 2. So far as the attack on the deceased is concerned, the trial court held that the doctor could not give a satisfactory answer whether the two injuries on head individually was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death adn, when the lacerated injury which provided to be fatal was not attributed to any one of the appellants and, therefore, the other injury which were attributed to Kewal Singh cannot by itself be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in that view of the matter convicted Kewal Singh under S. 326, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 3. So far as the other three appellants are concerned, they are convicted for their individual acts for causing injuries to Pritam Singh adn Sadhu Singh. The remaining four accused were also convicted under S. 323, I.P.C., but they were released on probation of good conduct. The High Court, however, confirmed the convictions and sentences. 4. In this appeal Mr. 3. So far as the other three appellants are concerned, they are convicted for their individual acts for causing injuries to Pritam Singh adn Sadhu Singh. The remaining four accused were also convicted under S. 323, I.P.C., but they were released on probation of good conduct. The High Court, however, confirmed the convictions and sentences. 4. In this appeal Mr. U. R. Lalit, learned senior counsel, submits that is a clear case where the accused were entitled to right of self defence and the evidence sufficiently indicates that the prosecution party was the aggressor and at any rate the version put forward by the defence looks more probable and in these circumstances of the case, all the accused should have been given benefit of doubt. He also submits that Kewal Singh (A-6) is alleged to have inflicted only one incised injury whereas the evidence is that apart from him Amrik Singh (A-1) is said to have inflicted an incised injury but the medical evidence says that there is only one incised injury and in such a situation Kewal Singh alone cannot be held responsible for the said incised injury and consequently he cannot be convicted for inflicting that injury. We see no force in this submission. The evidence of Mukhtiar Singh (PW 11) is corroborated by the first information report given by him in which he categorically mentioned that it is only Kewal Singh who inflicted the incised injury and there is no mention of participation by Amrik Singh. It is only during the trial that the witness has improved but that by itself is not a ground to hold that Kewal Singh had not inflicted the incised injury. The other submission is that Jit Singh (A-4) was not in the company of other accused but he only joined them later, therefore, he cannot be held to have participated in the free fight and it could be that in exercise of right of private defence, namely, to save the co-accused from being attacked by the deceased party, he inflicted injuries. So far as his case is concerned that he must be given the benefit of right of self-defence, we are unable to accept this contention. The whole occurrence started at the spur of moment and all the accused joined and there was a verbal quarrel which resulted into fighting and all of them participated. So far as his case is concerned that he must be given the benefit of right of self-defence, we are unable to accept this contention. The whole occurrence started at the spur of moment and all the accused joined and there was a verbal quarrel which resulted into fighting and all of them participated. Therefore, the case of Jit Singh cannot be separated. 5. Both the courts have rightly held that the time and place of occurrence and the presence of all the accused as well as the PWs and the deceased are not in dispute. It was contended before both the courts below that the accused were entitled to right of self defence. This submission was examined by the courts below and having regard to the facts and circumstances particularly, that the occurrence took place near the house of the accused, the plea has been rejected and we see no ground to come to a different conclusion. The High Court, further held that this is a case of free fight. In coming to such a conclusion, the High Court has taken into consideration the fact that the accused as well as the deceased and PWs appeared at the place of occurrence armed with weapons and the quarrel took place immediately. This is a question of fact which does not warrant any interference. The question as to who commenced the first may not be such relevant and it has also been held in an number of cases that the participants should be liable for their individual acts. In this view of matter, we have to examine the plea of each of the accused. We may, however, mentioned that in a case of free fight, the question of unlawful assembly is not ruled out. But in arriving at the common object of the unlawful assembly in a free fight it cannot be held with certainty that if one of the individual inflicts a serious injury then it would be a common object of all members of the unlawful assembly. Mere formation of an assembly with a view to fight will be unlawful assembly but in the instant case having regard is the convictions that have been awarded to do not want to express any opinion whether there was an unlawful assembly in such. Mere formation of an assembly with a view to fight will be unlawful assembly but in the instant case having regard is the convictions that have been awarded to do not want to express any opinion whether there was an unlawful assembly in such. We also do not have any material as to what happened to the case which was filed by the accused by way of complaint. In this view of the matter, we would examine only the individual acts in respect of which conviction are recorded. Kewal Singh (A-6) attacked the deceased adn inflicted an injury with a sharp edged weapon. The High Court has held that he could not be held responsible for the other injury which was inflicted by a blunt weapon and which proved to be fatal. In this view of the matter, Kewal Singh was convicted under S. 326, I.P.C. Having regard to the circumstances under which free fight is said to have taken place, we think the sentence of seven years R.I. is rather adverse. Coming to the other appellants, namely, Amrik Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh, they are convicted under sections 325 adn 324, I.P.C. Amrik Singh and Ajaib Singh accused also received number of injuries. Accordingly, their sentences are to be reduced. In the result, we confirm the conviction of Amrik Singh (A-1) under S. 325, I.P.C., but reduced the sentence to one year R.I. but the sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. Ajaib Singh (A-2) is convicted under S. 324, I.P.C. which is confirmed but sentence is reduced to six months R.I. but the sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. The conviction of Jit Singh (A-4) under S. 325, I.P.C. is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to one year R.I. but the sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. Now coming to the case of Kewal Singh (A-6) his conviction under S. 326, I.P.C is confirmed but he is sentence of seven years R.I. is reduced to three years R.I. but the fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause is confirmed. Subject to above modifications, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. For Citation: 1993 Cri. L.J. 2857