P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE three petitioners have been convicted under Section 307 /34. Indian Penal- Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo R. I. for five days such. The said order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the Appellate Court the present revision has been filed. ( 2 ) THE informant (PW 5), is the owner of a. Dhaba within Soro Police station. At about 11. 45 p. m. of 7-5-1988, the three petitioners came to the - IDhaba for taking food. They asked PW 4. the brother-in-law of PW 5 to collect three plates of meat curry. When PW 4 asked for money the accused persons abused and threatened him. PW 5 came to pacify but he was assaulted: While PW 4 was running away towards police station, petitioner No. 2 caught hold of him as q, result of which PW 4 fell on the ground. Petitioner No. 1. who in the meantime had brought an iron rod assaulted PW 4 by the said rod. PW 4 sustained a fracture on his right hand and sustained two other injuries. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of denial. ( 4 ) RELYING upon the evidence of PW 4 the injured as well other eye witnesses including PW 5 as corroborated by the medical evidence relating to injuries sustained by PW 4 the Courts below have found the petitioners guilty under Section 307/34. Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) IN this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners first contended that there are serious contradictions in the statements of various eye - witnesses. Besides two of the accused persons were injured as evident from exits. A and B. On the basis of the various contradictions and the fact that the prosecution witnesses have not spoken about the injuries sustained by two of the accused persons the learned counsel contended that the prosecution story should be disbelieved and the accused petitioners should be acquitted. I have perused the evidence on record as well as the judgments of both the courts below. Though there are some minor contradictions here and there, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I have perused the evidence on record as well as the judgments of both the courts below. Though there are some minor contradictions here and there, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter and I concur with the finding of the courts below that the occurrence had taken place in course of which PW 4 had been assaulted. ( 6 ) IT is next contended that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out. As evident from the prosecution case, the incident took place on the spur of the moment due to some controversy regarding supply of food. The iron rod with which PW4 was assaulted had not been brought by the accused persons before hand but was picked up near the spot. PW 4 sustained three injuries including a fracture. The injuries were not on vital parts of the body. Keeping in view of the nature of the injuries contained, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 307 had been made out. ( 7 ) THE length of the iron rod was about 1 fit. 10 inches as revealed from the seizure list and the circumference was about 3 inches. Though a fracture has been sustained which is a grievous injury keeping in view the size of the iron rod it cannot be said that the weapon of offence was one which was, likely to cause death. As such it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubts that an offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code had been committed. However, since grievous hurt was caused it must be held that an offence under petitioner Ramesh Chandra Bank who had given the blow with the iron rod. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the other two petitioners are also liable under Section 325/34. Indian Penal Code, or they an; liable under any other sections already indicated, the three petitioners had come to the Dhaba for the purpose of taking food and not for the purpose of assaulting any person. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the other two petitioners are also liable under Section 325/34. Indian Penal Code, or they an; liable under any other sections already indicated, the three petitioners had come to the Dhaba for the purpose of taking food and not for the purpose of assaulting any person. Petitioner No. 2 caught hold of PW 4 and there was shouting for assaulting but from the said action it cannot be held that all the three persons had common intention of causing grievous hurt specially when the iron rod itself had not been carried by petitioner No. 1 prior to the occurrence but was suddenly picked up by him near the spot. Though it is evident that there was common intention to assault it cannot be said that the common intention was to cause grievous hurt. In such view of the matter petitioners 2 and 3 are liable under Section 323/ 34, whereas petitioner No. 1 is liable under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) COMING to the question of sentence, it appears that the occurrence took place about nine years back in the year 1988. All the three petitioners were young men, aged between 24 and 26 years at the time of occurrence. From the record it appears that they had undergone some period inside jail (about 17 days ). It would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioners to jail at this distant point of time and instead it would be appropriate to impose sentence of fine in addition to the period already undergone by the petitioners. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, I direct that the, sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. He is further required to pay a fine of Rs. 4. 000/- in default to undergo R. I. for one year So far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned the sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and each of them is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1. 000/- in default to undergo R. I for three months. A sum of Rs. 5. 000/- is to be paid to the injured (PW 4) from out of the fine amount if realised. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part. 1. 000/- in default to undergo R. I for three months. A sum of Rs. 5. 000/- is to be paid to the injured (PW 4) from out of the fine amount if realised. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part. The conviction of petitioner No. 1 is altered to one under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and that of petitioners 2 and 3 is altered to one under Section 323/34 Indian Penal Code and the sentences are modified to the extent indicated above. Revision allowed in part.