JUDGMENT : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.S. Anand, J. 1. Eighteen persons, including the two appellants in the above two appeals, who had been arrayed as A-1 and A-3, were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 392, 450, 395, 324, 326 and 427 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge convicted four of the accused persons : A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-10 and acquitted the others. Two criminal appeals were filed in the High Court, one by A-3 and the other by A-1, A-2 and A-10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court acquitted A-2 and A-10 by partly allowing the criminal appeal filed by them, but maintained the conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-3 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. A-1 and A-3 have filed two separate criminal appeals on special leave being granted by this Court against their conviction and sentence. 2. On 28-4-1981, PW 1 was present at the Manjira Bar and Restaurant, where he was working as a cashier, along with PW 2, the bill writer and a regular customer, PW 3 who had come there and was present in the Bar. Besides, PW 1 to PW 3, PWs 4 and 5 were also present near the restaurant. At about 9.30 p.m. a group of 10 to 20 persons came variously armed with knives, swords and sticks in three Ambassador cars and after alighting from the cars, they collected some soda water bottles from Vijay Dairy Parlour and entered the Manjira Bar and Restaurant to create a galata. A-1 was armed with a sword while A-3 was armed with a stick. On entering the Bar, they started causing damage to the crockery, furniture and the lights. A-1 aimed a blow at PW 2 with a sword, which blow fell on the head of PW 2. When PW 1, who was sitting at the cash-counter, turned towards that side, A-1 also struck a blow on him with the sword which PW 1 tried to ward off by raising his hand and in the process received the blow on his hand. A-1 again aimed another blow at PW 1 but it hit the counter and the sword got broken. A-1 again aimed another blow at PW 1 but it hit the counter and the sword got broken. PW 3, the customer, who was present at the Bar, questioned the accused persons as to why they were acting in that manner, whereupon A-3 took the sword from A-2 and caused an injury on the nose of PW 3. After causing damage and injuries to PW 1 to PW 3, the accused party while retreating carried away the weapons with them and A-2 and A-3 also snatched the wrist-watch from PW 1. On information being sent to the Police Station, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kachiguda, PW 25 came to the scene of occurrence in his jeep followed by PW 26. PW 4, who was present on the first floor of the restaurant at the time of the occurrence had noted down the number of the Ambassador cars in which the accused had come and after the occurrence had sped away. 3. PW 1 lodged a report Ex. P-1 before the Police Inspector, PW 25 at 9.45 p.m. mentioning the names of A-1 to A-4 as members of the accused party and also describing the nature and manner of assault made by them. The injured prosecution witnesses were later examined by the Doctor who issued the wounds certificates Exs. P-23 to P-25. The record of injury statements was produced by PW 20, who identified the signatures and handwriting of the examining Doctor by acquaintance since that Doctor had gone to Iran and was not available. 4. The prosecution besides examining PW 1 to PW 3 examined a number of other witnesses also including the witnesses before whom recoveries etc. had been effected. In all the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses. The appellants when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded not guilty and alleged false implication. After the trial, the appellants were convicted in the manner as noticed in the opening part of this judgment. It would be relevant at this stage to also note that both the appellants are admittedly registered as rowdies at different police stations. 5. We have, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record including the evidence of the three injured witnesses PW 1 to PW 3. It would be relevant at this stage to also note that both the appellants are admittedly registered as rowdies at different police stations. 5. We have, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record including the evidence of the three injured witnesses PW 1 to PW 3. Both the trial court as well as the High Court found the evidence of these three witnesses, who are stamped witnesses, being injured, to be truthful and trustworthy. Nothing has been brought to our notice from the record either from which any doubt can be created about the veracity or truthfulness of these three witnesses. We, therefore, agree with the findings recorded by the courts below as regards the manner of assault and the injuries received by PW 1 to PW 3 and find their testimony to be reliable. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below is sound and the findings recorded by them are borne out from the evidence. The courts below have critically examined the evidence of various witnesses and circumstances of the case and have given the benefit of doubt to the accused, other than the two appellants before us. We find that the case against the two appellants, A-1 and A-3 has been established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the offences under Section 392, 395 or 397 Indian Penal Code were not made out against the appellants on the ground that with the acquittal of the accused, other than these two appellants, and without any finding having been recorded by either the trial court or the High Court that the two appellants were along with some other known or unknown persons present while committing the offence, it could not be said that A-1 and A-3 were members of any unlawful assembly. Learned counsel further submitted that since the prime object of the accused persons from the established prosecution case was neither to commit robbery nor theft, the mere fact that after causing injury to PWs. 1-3, they had also snatched away the wrist-watch of PW 1 would not bring their case under Section 392, 395 or 397 Indian Penal Code. We find force in this submission. 1-3, they had also snatched away the wrist-watch of PW 1 would not bring their case under Section 392, 395 or 397 Indian Penal Code. We find force in this submission. The evidence on the record shows that the intention of the appellants was to create a galata, damage the property and to cause grievous or simple injury to the witnesses. The primary object of the appellants was not to commit theft or extortion. The appellants could not, therefore, be held liable for offences under Section 392, 395 or 397 Indian Penal Code. The High Court did not pay attention to this aspect of the case. The appellants could be said to have shared the common intention to commit mischief and cause injuries to the witnesses. Looking at the nature of the injuries caused to PW 3 and the weapons used by the two appellants, their offence would squarely fall under Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and finding both of them guilty of the same, we sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each. For causing simple injuries to PW 1 and PW 2, both the appellants are also found guilty and convicted for offences under Sections 324/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each. We also find both the appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 427/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 450 Indian Penal Code is also maintained but the sentence is reduced to a period of two years' rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences shall, however, run concurrently. 7. To the extent noticed above, the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall be taken into custody to serve the period of sentence imposed upon them. Appeals partly allowed.