JUDGMENT:— Kuldip Singh and Bhajan Singh are the appellants. They along with one Balwant Singh were tried for offences punishable under S. 307 read with S. 34 and S. 323 read with S. 34, I.P.C. The learnd Sessions Judge acquitted Balwant Singh and convicted Kuldip Singh under S. 307, I.P.C. simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to further undergo four months R.I. Bhajan Singh, the second appellant, is convicted under S. 307 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to three yearsR.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 /-, in default of payment of which tofurther undergo four months R.I. Both of them preferred an appeal to the High Court and the High Court while confirming the convictions reduced the sentence in respect of Kuldip Singh to three years R.I. and in respect of Bhajan Singh to 1-1/2 years R.I. The sentence of fine was, however, confirmed. Hence the present appeal. The prosecution case is that on 5-9-1980, Surinder Kumar (P. W. 4) was present at his shop and his father was inside the shop. Another witness Pyare Lal came to purchase vegetables. It was about 8.30 p.m. when all the three accused came there from their house. Balwant Singh and Bhajan Singh were armed with lathis while Kuldip Singh was having a gandasa. Kuldip Singh, the appellant, abused Surinder Kumar saying that he belonged to the opposite faction and he gave a gandasa blow on the head of Surinder Kumar and Bhajan Singh gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. It is further stated that both of them repeated the blows. Pyare Lal raised alarm and the father Karam Chand picked up a takua and gave some blows to Kuldip Singh and Bhajan Singh in self-defence. The accused then left the place of occurrence. The injured were examined by the doctor. He found on Surinder Kumar one incised injury on the parietal regions and one swelling on the shoulder and two abrasions. The injury on the head proved to be grievous. Kuldip Singh and Bhajan Singh who had injuries were also treated by the doctor and an injury was also found on Bhajan Singh. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was laid. 2. The injury on the head proved to be grievous. Kuldip Singh and Bhajan Singh who had injuries were also treated by the doctor and an injury was also found on Bhajan Singh. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was laid. 2. Accused Kuldip Singh stated that on the day of occurrence he was going to sleep at his shop and when he reached near the shop of Surinder Kumar, he heard him singing cheap songs to which he objected and that Surinder Kumar (P. W. 4) gave a gandasa blow along with brother Faqir Chand and in his self-defence, he also inflicted injuries. Balwant Singh and Bhajan Singh (appellant) pleaded that they were not present at the place of occurrence. The two Courts have accepted the evidence of P. W. 4 along with the medical evidence and held that both the appellants ace guilty. Coming to the injuries on Kuldip Singh and Bhajan Singh, the Courts accepted the statement of Karam Chand that he inflicted the injuries on them when they were attacking P.W. 4. 3. The injury on the head of P. W. 4 was a serious one and proved to be grievous. Therefore, the offence under S. 307, I.P.C. is madeout against Kuldip Singh but so far as Bhajan Singh is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the lathi which had only a swelling. Therefore, it cannot be said that he shared the common intention along with Kuldip Singh in attempting to commit the murder. In this context, it must be borne in mind that Kuldip Singh received some injuries and Bhajan Singh also received some injuries. Therefore, it appears to be that they received injuries during the quarrel and the will be liable for their individual acts. In this view of the matter, Bhajan Singh can be convicted for an offence under S. 323, I.P.C. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction oi Kuldip Singh under S. 307, I.P.C. but reduce the sentence to 1-1/2 years R.I. The sentence awarded under S. 323 is confirmed. The sentence of fine with default clause is, however, confirmed. In this view of the matter, Bhajan Singh can be convicted for an offence under S. 323, I.P.C. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction oi Kuldip Singh under S. 307, I.P.C. but reduce the sentence to 1-1/2 years R.I. The sentence awarded under S. 323 is confirmed. The sentence of fine with default clause is, however, confirmed. So far as Bhajan Singh is concerned, we set aside his conviction under S. 307 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentence awarded thereunder, instead we convict him under S. 323, I.P.C. but having regard to the circumstances, namely, he dealt only one blow on the shoulder which is only simple injury and in view of the fact that he also received injury, we think that it is not a fit case where he should be awarded sentence. He appears to be the first offender and, therefore, we release him on probation as provided under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and direct him to execute a bond of Rs. 2,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. The sentences awarded in respect of Kuldip Singh shall run concurrently. Order accordingly. For Citation : 1994 Cri.L.J 2201