Judgment Kundan Singh (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.7.1979 passed by Sri Ramji Lal, the then IVth Additional District and Session Judge, Bareilly, whereby all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323/149, I.P.C. each of them has been awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment in Session Trial No. 119 of 1978 with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. (2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was that Kamta Prasad, the informant, was resident of village Nagla Matoli within police station Fateh Ganj (West) district Bareilly. Jawahar Singh, Jamuna Prasad and others, who were residents of the same village, were on inimical terms with the informant due to old litigations. Proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. were also going on between the parties which had terminated a few days prior to the incident, giving rise to the present litigation. The informant, his brother Rajendra Singh, his son Atal Singh, Heera Lal and Balbir Singh had gone to the house of Chhail Behari and Bishambhar Singh for Holi Milan where they found Ranjit Singh, Ram Bharosey, Sapattar Singh, Omprakash, Anangpal, Durgpal and Shivraj Singh armed with lathis. They told that complete Holi Milan of the complainant party be celebrated today. The informant and his associates had smelt their ill intention and, therefore, they returned back to their houses and sat down on their Chabutra, Anangpal Singh, Ram Pal and Heera Lal also had come there for the purpose of Holi Milan. It was at about sunset when the 14 accused persons, namely Ranjit Singh, Shiv Raj Singh, Ram Prasad, Anangpal, Omprakash son of Khajan Singh, Gangaram, Ram Bharosey, Jawahar Singh, Bhagwan Das, Drigpal, Nankoo Singh, Sapattar Singh, Jamuna Prasad and Omprakash son of Jawahar Singh, came there with various arms in their hands. Jawahar Singh and Omprakash son of Khajan were carrying a Pistol and Revolver, respectively, Ram Prasad, Ranjit Singh, Shivraj Singh started beating the complainant and his accomplices. In the meantime some ladies had come there who were also assaulted. Omprakash son of Jawahar fired a shot on the cattle shed of the informant while his accomplices started demolishing the Chabutra and a wall of the complainant. Informant Kamta Prasad, his brothers Balbir Singh and Rajendra Singh, mother Smt. Chandrawati and a girl, namely Smt. Brahma Devi, sustained injuries. Omprakash son of Jawahar fired a shot on the cattle shed of the informant while his accomplices started demolishing the Chabutra and a wall of the complainant. Informant Kamta Prasad, his brothers Balbir Singh and Rajendra Singh, mother Smt. Chandrawati and a girl, namely Smt. Brahma Devi, sustained injuries. The accused persons thereafter lay siege of the house of the informant and kept on throwing brick-bats, spelling out that none of the inmates be spared. When the accused persons retreated to their houses, the informant and his family members came out of the house and next morning all the injured persons were taken to police station by Kamta Prasad which was at a distance of 7 miles from Nagla Matoli. There an F.I.R. was lodged on 7.3.77 at 12.10 p.m. by Kamta Prasad. After registration of the crime, blood stained shirt and a muffler were taken into custody at the police station itself and recovery memos in respect thereof were prepared. Relevant papers were handed over to Dharam Chand S.O. (P.M. 4) in Qasba Fatehganj, while he was about to leave to village Ballia. He returned back to police station the same day and recorded statements of the informant and other injured persons at the police station. He has also taken down the statements of the witnesses of recovery memos aforesaid and also of the Head Moharrir, who prepared the chick report. Thereafter all the injured persons were referred to Hospital for their medical examination and he himself left to the spot where he arrested Sapattar Singh, Ram Bharosey and Ranjit Singh in the village and interrogated some witnesses and also inspected spot and prepared its site plan. He found chabutra and the wall of the house of the informant demolished. Chappar of the complainant was also burnt and reduced to ashes. Remaining accused persons could not be found in the village and they surrendered in court. Dr. Deo Nath medically examined the injuries of the injured persons. He found one contusion and a lacerated wound besides multiple abrasions on the body of Kamta Prasad. On the person of Smt. Chandrawati one lacerated wound and an abraded contusion were found while one lacerated wound was found on the body of Smt. Brahma Devi. The Doctor also found one lacerated wound and an abraded contusion besides a traumatic swelling on the person of Balbir Singh. On the person of Smt. Chandrawati one lacerated wound and an abraded contusion were found while one lacerated wound was found on the body of Smt. Brahma Devi. The Doctor also found one lacerated wound and an abraded contusion besides a traumatic swelling on the person of Balbir Singh. However, on the body of Rajendra Singh he found only a traumatic swelling. (3.) AFTER completion of all the necessary formalities a charge-sheet was then submitted by the investigating officer against all the 14 accused persons. (4.) THE prosecution examined four witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of them Kamta Prasad (P.W.I), Balbir Singh (P.W.2) and Heera Lal (P.W.3) were eyewitnesses of the incident while Dharam Chand (P.W.4) was the Investigating Officer. The accused persons had disowned the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. The learned Trial Judge after analysing the entire evidence on record found the appellants alone guilty of the offences under Sections 147 and 323/149 and accordingly he convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. However, he held the other accused persons not guilty of any of the charges and accordingly awarded acquittal to them. Against that judgment and order of the learned trial Judge the convicts have now come up to this Court in the above appeal. (5.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment in appeal firstly on the ground that the learned Trial Judge on the same evidence has found participation of 11 persons to be false in the incident but he has held the appellants guilty and returned their conviction and secondly that the story of setting fire to cattle shed and dismantling of Chabutra and a wall of the house had been totally disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. In the back drop on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel contended that it will be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of partisan witnesses and sustain the conviction and sentences of the appellants solely on the testimony of interested persons which as already noticed above has been partly discarded regarding participation of 11 other co-accused and also about setting fire to the cattle shed and demolition of the Chabutra and wall. Further there was no independent evidence to corroborate the eye-witness account as given by the aforesaid three partisan witnesses. Further there was no independent evidence to corroborate the eye-witness account as given by the aforesaid three partisan witnesses. (6.) I have gone through the evidence on record and also given my anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel made at the bar. Kamta Prasad (P.W.I), Balbir Singh (P.W.2) and Heera Lal (P.W.3) have consistently deposed that the appellants alone wielded lathis and caused injuries to the injured persons whereas remaining accused were standing and were silent spectators only. They had not caused any injury to any of the injured persons. The learned Sessions Judge also while recording acquittal of 11 persons had recorded a categorical finding that except the appellants therein were not responsible for the injuries sustained on the complainant side. I fully share with this finding of the learned trial Judge that it were the appellants alone who caused injuries to the complainant party. Even the accused-appellants could not give out any explicit reason or circumstances in which the injuries were suffered by so many persons on the side of the complainant including two ladies especially when the prosecution case was that the incident took place at about sun set in the village abadi. The learned Trial Judge in my opinion was also justified in disbelieving the story of firing of shots by Jawahar Singh and Om Prakash son of Khajan Singh) inasmuch as nobody sustained any fire arm injury. Even no wads of pellet or pellet holes in the wall of the house were found. The finding of the learned Additional Session Judge that none of the witnesses saw the actual demolition of wall and Chabutra as they had entered the house and bolted it from inside when the alleged operation of demolition was started is fully borne out from the evidence on record and I fully subscribe to the view of the learned trial Judge on the point. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned Session Judge has acquitted 11 persons and in that eventuality the provisions of Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code were not attracted. The learned Sessions Judge assumed that the appellants in the company of some unknown persons committed the crime. I have carefully analysed the evidence in the light of that submission of the learned counsel. The learned Sessions Judge assumed that the appellants in the company of some unknown persons committed the crime. I have carefully analysed the evidence in the light of that submission of the learned counsel. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the appellants and some strangers participated in the incident in which injuries were caused to the injured persons, cattle shed was burnt and Chabutra and wall were demolished. The prosecution witnesses in their statements have categorically deposed that 14 persons had participated in the incident and participation of the three accused-appellants was proved to the hilt. From the evidence of the persons who have given eyewitness account of the incident it cannot be called out that there were some unknown persons also among the accused who too shared in the commission of the offence. In my opinion when participation of 11 co-accused had already been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge and no involvement of any stranger was proved the charge under Section 147, I.P.C. was not established at all. The appellants are therefore entitled to their acquittal of the offence punishable under Section 147, I.P.C. (7.) SO far as conviction of the appellants under Section 323/149, I.P.C. is concerned the witnesses have consistently deposed that the injuries were caused by the appellants alone. That being so the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/149 deserves to be altered into one under Section 323, I.P.C. simplicitor. Regarding sentence on that count the learned counsel submitted that the sentence of the appellants under Section 323, I.P.C. be reduced to the period already undergone. I have given my anxious thought to this submission of the learned counsel. The appellants have already suffered imprisonment of few days during trial. After lapse of 18 years I do not think it proper to relegate the appellants behind the bars again. Looking to the nature and number of injuries suffered by the injured persons I feel that in addition to the sentence of imprisonment already suffered if a fine of Rs. 500 is imposed on each of the appellants that would satisfy the ends of justice. (8.) ACCORDINGLY the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction and sentences of the appellants under Section 147, I.P.C. as passed by the learned Trial Judge is, hereby set aside and they are acquitted on that charge. 500 is imposed on each of the appellants that would satisfy the ends of justice. (8.) ACCORDINGLY the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction and sentences of the appellants under Section 147, I.P.C. as passed by the learned Trial Judge is, hereby set aside and they are acquitted on that charge. However, the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/149, I.P.C. is altered into one under Section 323, I.P.C. simplicitor and their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and in addition a fine of Rs. 500 is imposed on each of the appellants, which will be deposited by them in the court below within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter would undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appeal partly allowed.