JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.4.92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Om Prakash for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and other accused Magha Ram, Har Lal and Dashrath for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each to them to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 307, 307/34, 341 and 323 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.3.90 at about 4.30 p.m., when injured Bhagirath was coming back from Bhadra and left the jeep at the bus stand, Kunji, and as soon as he got down from the jeep, he saw the accused-persons standing there. Accused Om Prakash was armed with a 12-Bore gun while the remaining accused were armed with Lathis. Accused Om Prakash, on seeing Bhagirath, asked the other accused that enemy had come, give him beatings. Bhagirath tried to board the jeep but accused Har Lal caught-hold of his legs and pulled him down. Thereafter accused Magha Ram inflicted injury by a Lathi on his person. Thereafter accused Om Prakash inflicted injury with the butt of the gun and the other accused, also, inflicted injuries with Lathi on his person. Thereafter accused Om Prakash took- out a knife from his pocket and inflicted injury near the eyes and tried to move-out the eye halls but could succeed. The incident was witnesses by PW 1 Ramesh Gandhi and PW 8 Chandan Mai. The prosecution, in support of its case examined nine witnesses. PW. 1 Ramesh Gandhi and PW 8 Chandan Mai were the eye witnesses of the occurrence but they have not supported the prosecution case and have been turned hostile. PW 2 Ugmi Ram was a witness to the recovery of the knife, who has also, not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj and PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta are the two witnesses who examined the injured immediately after the occurrence. PW. 3 Dr. PW 2 Ugmi Ram was a witness to the recovery of the knife, who has also, not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj and PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta are the two witnesses who examined the injured immediately after the occurrence. PW. 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj found five injuries on the person of Bhagirath, out of which injuries No. 1 to 3 were caused by blunt weapons wile the injuries No. 4 and 5, which were near the eyes, were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injuries No. 1 to 3 were found simple in nature while injuries No. 4 and 5 were found grievous in nature and caused by some sharp weapon. PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta, who was the Eye Specialist in the Government Hospital, examined the injuries found near the eyes and the condition of the eyes. PW 5 Bhagirath is the injured witness who has stated that the accused persons were standing near the bus stand and when he got down from the jeep, all the accused caught-hold of him and inflicted injuries with Lathis and the butt of the gun. Accused Om Prakash thereafter put the gun on the earth and took out the knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries on the eyes of Bhagirath. PW 6 Roop Singh came at the scene of the occurrence and found Bhagirath lying unconscious, took him to the Government Hospital, Bhadra, got him medically treated there and, also, lodged the report of the incident. PW 7 Mani Ram is the cousin of Bhagirath, to whom Ramesh informed about the incident, whereupon he reached the place of the occurrence and took Bhagirath to the hospital. According to him, at that time Bhagirath was unconscious. PW 8 Chandan Mai was the eye witness of the occurrence but he has not supported the prosecution case during trial and has been declared hostile. PW 9 Jagat Singh is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and presented the challan. 3. The prosecution case rests mainly on the statements of PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj' PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta and PW 5 Bhagirath - the injured. It has also been proved from the statement of PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj and PW 4 Dr. 3. The prosecution case rests mainly on the statements of PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj' PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta and PW 5 Bhagirath - the injured. It has also been proved from the statement of PW 3 Dr. Prithvi Raj and PW 4 Dr. Anil Gupta that Bhagirath received one injury by sharp-edged weapon, which was grievous in nature and which was inflicted by accused Om Prakash. He, also, received three injuries simple in nature and caused by blunt weapons. PW 5 Bhagirath - the injured - has stated that act first of all, all the four accused inflicted injuries by the Lathis and the butt of the gun and thereafter when he fell-down, accused Om Prakash left the gun, took-out the knife and inflicted injury No. 5 on his eye, which was found to be grievous in nature. A lengthy cross- examination has been conducted on Bhagirath but nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove that these are the four accused persons who inflicted injuries on the person of Bhagirath. 4. The next question which requires consideration is : whether all the four accused shared the common intention of inflicting grievous injury to injured Bhagirath ? The accused were standing at the bus stand and PW 5 Bhagirath came on a jeep and all the accused caught-hold of him and inflicted injuries by Lathis and the butt of the gun. Thereafter accused-appellant Om Prakash took-out the knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries near the eyes of Bhagirath. The other accused were not knowing whether accused Om Prakash was carrying the knife with him. They only shared the common intention of giving beatings to Bhagirath and did not share the intention with accused Om Prakash to cause grievous injury to injured Bhagirath because at that time they were not knowing that accused Om Prakash had a knife in his pocket. Merely because all the accused persons inflicted injuries to Bhagirath, their common intention to cause grievous injuries cannot be gathered on account of their participation alone. Each accused is, therefore, liable for his own act. As per the statement of PW 5 Bhagirath, the injuries No. 4 and 5, which were found grievous in nature, were inflicted by accused Om Prakash with the knife while the other three accused inflicted simple injuries by Lathis. Each accused is, therefore, liable for his own act. As per the statement of PW 5 Bhagirath, the injuries No. 4 and 5, which were found grievous in nature, were inflicted by accused Om Prakash with the knife while the other three accused inflicted simple injuries by Lathis. Accused Om Prakash has, therefore, rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. But so far as the other three accused-appellants are concerned, they can be held liable for their individual act, i.e., for inflicting simple injuries by blunt weapons to Bhagirath. They are, therefore, acquitted of the offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C. and are convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the sentence awarded to accused Om Prakash is highly excessive and it should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. I have considered this aspect of the case, also. The accused is behind the bars since 23.5.90, and has, thus, undergone more than four years' imprisonment. I, therefore, think it proper to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to him from five years rigorous imprisonment to that of the period already undergone by him and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. I, also, sentence the remaining three accused-appellants to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. All the remaining three accused have already undergone the substantive sentence. Two months' time is allowed to all the four accused- appellants to deposit the amount of fine. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Om Prakash under Section 326 I.P.C. is maintained but his substantive sentence is reduced from five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, but the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of appellant Om Prakash under Section 326 I.P.C. is maintained but his substantive sentence is reduced from five years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, but the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The remaining three accused-appellants, viz., Magha Ram, Har Lal and Dashrath, are acquitted of the offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C. but they are convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and each of these three appellants are sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. These three accused-appellants have already undergone the sentence for more than three months and hence they are not required to be sent to jail. Two months' time is allowed to all the four accused-appellants to deposit the amount to fine. The amount of fine of Rs. 5,000/- or any portion thereof, so deposited, may be paid to the injured Bhagirath as compensation. *******