ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Out of the four accused-respondents, Kamal Haldhar, Roop Chand Haldhar and Sukh Chand Haldhar are brothers; whereas Kala Chand, the 4th respondent, is in a way connected with them. The prosecution case was that one Miniti @ Preeti, the wife of Kamal Haldhar, had established an illicit relationship with the victim of the crime ? Sushil Kumar, for almost 2 years prior to the occurrence. This fact was in the know of Kamal Haldhar and his brothers who took strong exception to the connection. Sushil Kumar, victim, used to frequent their house. On the fateful day, the victim was seen in the company of the accused persons going towards their house. Allegedly, the victim was taken to the house of the accused where they had a huller set up for pounding rice as some rice was due to be taken by the victim. The accused persons allegedly took the victim inside a room for the purpose and bolted it from inside. All the 4 accused fell on him and started belabouring the victim. Kamal Haldhar used an iron bar, Sukh Chand Haldhar a lathi, Roop Chand used stones and Kala Chand employed his fists. As if that was not enough, Kamal Haldhar arrogated to himself the task of committing the most gruesome act on the victim by pulling out both his eye balls from the sockets, thereby blinding him. Due to the excruciating pain, the victim fell unconscious. When his brother Sanatan Rai, PW 1, came to the house of the accused in search of his brother, for he was told that his brother had been last seen with the accused persons, that he found him in that condition. By that time, the victim had gained senses and had narrated to him the entire occurrence. The matter was then reported to the police, the investigative machinery was set into motion and the accused were finally put to trial. 3. During the trial, Dr V.K. Jadon, PW 3, explained the injuries on the person of the victim. These were 7 in number. Injuries 1, 2 and 6 were grievous in nature; the former two pertained to removal of the eyeballs from the sockets. The 3rd Injury 6 was grievous because there was a fracture in the left wrist joint. Remaining 4 injuries were simple in nature. These were 7 in number. Injuries 1, 2 and 6 were grievous in nature; the former two pertained to removal of the eyeballs from the sockets. The 3rd Injury 6 was grievous because there was a fracture in the left wrist joint. Remaining 4 injuries were simple in nature. There was evidence of the victim as PW 2 who gave out vivid details of the occurrence. Supportive thereof was the evidence of Sanatan Rai, PW 1. Despite such a clear-cut account presented by the prosecution, the Court of Session acquitted the accused other than Kamal Haldhar extending to them the benefit of doubt. Kamal Haldhar alone was convicted for offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of 1 year's RI covering the period of detention as an under trial and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 out of which Rs. 1200 were ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim Sushil Kumar. 4. The State preferred an appeal against acquittal of the 3 accused other than Kamal Haldhar. It also filed an appeal likewise against Kamal Haldhar, wanting in the alternative the sentence to be enhanced. It maintained that neither was the acquittal of Kamal Haldhar for offence under Section 307 proper nor was the clean acquittal of the remaining 3 accused respondents. The High Court rejected the appeal of the State relating to the clean acquittal of the other 3 respondents. The appeal for enhancement of sentence against Kamal Haldhar was allowed and he was awarded 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 5000. Against the aforesaid 2 appellate orders of the High Court, these appeals have been filed. 5. It has pained us to note that such a gruesome crime should have been met with such a casual treatment. There may have been good cause for Kamal Haldhar and his accomplices to give a thrashing to the victim, aggrieved as they were on account of the illicit liaison he had established with a female relative of theirs but to carry it to the extent of blinding him in that beastly fashion was horrendous, cruel and ghastly. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to challenge the conviction of the respondents, which indeed he was entitled to, because of the clear-cut evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to challenge the conviction of the respondents, which indeed he was entitled to, because of the clear-cut evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The guilt of the respondents was thus established in any event by their letting the verdict of the courts below go unchallenged as against Kamal Haldhar. We think that the courts below were in grave error in letting off Kamal Haldhar leniently and the remaining 3 accused absolutely, in face of the clear and natural version of the victim. Therefore, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below and record the following findings and convictions: 1. All the accused had in furtherance of their common intention, brought the victim to their house and belaboured the victim, inflicting on him 5 injuries conjointly for which all of them would stand convicted for offences under Sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 323/34 Indian Penal Code and shall suffer RI for a period of 1 year on the first count and 6 months under the second count. 2. Kamal Haldhar is found to have gone beyond the common intention and taken to have assumed himself to remove the eyeballs from the sockets and thereby to have blinded the victim, for which he individually would stand convicted for offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code as has been done by the courts below, but his sentence of imprisonment shall stand enhanced to 10 years' RI while sustaining the fine. 6. The sentences imposed on Kamal Haldhar would run concurrently. The directions as to the disbursement of the fine would remain as before. In this manner, the appeals stand allowed with the afore results.