Judgment BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12-5-1983 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions Case No. 40/82 whereby accused-appellant Bachna alias Gacha was tried for the offence under Sections 455, 307, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34 and other accused appellants Amrik Ram and Desh Raj were tried for the offence under Sections 455, 307/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34, IPC. After trial, learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar convicted the accused appellant Bachna alias Gacha for the offence under Sections 326, 324/34, 323/34, IPC and other accused persons under Section 326/34, 324/34, 323/34, IPC. All the three accused persons were- acquitted of the other offences. The aforesaid appeal was preferred by all the three convicted accused persons. During pendency of appeal accused Desh Raj expired. In that view of the matter appeal of appellant No. 3 Desh Raj was ordered to be abated by this Court on 22-9-1999. ( 2 ) ARGUING the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction of the accused Bachna and Amrik Ram. According to the prosecution story, while Simaro and Gurdas injured persons were at their residence the accused came. The injured Simaro bolted their house but the accused were armed with lethal weapons, namely, Bachna had Gandasi, Amrik Ram had Kulhart and Deash Raj had Kassi. They broke open the window and entered in the house. They gave beating to the injured people. The injured Gurdas sustained as many as 26 injuries with fracture of frontal bone right and left perital bone right and left axillary bone and gugatic bone. Other injured Simaro sustained nine injuries. ( 3 ) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that accused Arnrik Ram. Bachna and Desh Raj had not trespassed any house. In fact, injured Simaro was living with them and it was their house where the incident has taken place. Learned counsel has also emphasised that accused person Amrik Ram has received seven injuries and Bachna has received seven injuries. No explanation of the injuries to these accused persons is coming forward. In fact, these accused persons were assaulted by the injured persons in their house and therefore, they were aggressors and by their aggression, they have picked up the fight. No explanation of the injuries to these accused persons is coming forward. In fact, these accused persons were assaulted by the injured persons in their house and therefore, they were aggressors and by their aggression, they have picked up the fight. If the prosecution decides picking up fight and then sustained more injuries, in such circumstance, it cannot be said that accused are liable for the offences alleged. Learned counsel has also stressed that accused-appellants belong to schedule caste and they are poor people and therefore, they should not be awarded stringent punishment. He also stressed that parties have compromised and are peacefully living together. ( 4 ) LEARNED P. P. on the contrary has urged that stand of the appellants is wrong. Injured Simaro stated in her cross-examination that she has purchased the house and a registry was executed. When she had asserted her right and has stated that registry was executed, the defence could have been brought on record regarding proprietory rights of the house. Since defence has brought nothing on record which suggests that house in question belongs to accused persons, it cannot be said that it was their house and therefore, they had right to assault the injured persons. In any case, Gurdas has received as many as 26 injuries and he sustained fracture of vital bones, namely, frontal, both the perital, apart from other fractures and therefore, in these circumstances. The accused cannot claim any leniency. The accused have (sic) done away with the injured persons and therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused have acted in exercise of right of private defence. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 6 ) AS regard proprietory right of the house is concerned the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard is that Simaro was living in the house of his parents and brothers, but the learned trial Court has held that there was no reason why the accused persons broke open the window and then entered in the house. The trial Court has found that accused got enraged by the presence of Gurdas and then caused injuries, Considering the findings of the trial-Court and facts of the case, it appears that house of Simaro was not her exclusive house. The trial Court has found that accused got enraged by the presence of Gurdas and then caused injuries, Considering the findings of the trial-Court and facts of the case, it appears that house of Simaro was not her exclusive house. The accused have entered into the house by breaking open the window. Entering into the house by breaking window and then assaulting Simaro cannot be defended on any hypothesis. This cannot be said that accused persons had any right to private defence. By the time accused appeared at the seen, both the injured were inside the house. From the narration of facts, it cannot be said that any offensive was taken by injured persons. If no offensive was taken by the injured persons, then at best, it can be said that Gurdas has come to meet Simaro. If any inmate invited him at his/her home, then it cannot be said that he has committed any offensive. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, Simaro has stated that, she has contacted married with Gurdas. If her brothers did not like it, then she was not. (Sic) of the matter, accused persons wanted to impose their own personal whims on Simaro. They wanted to separate her from Gurdas because they did not like the relationship established by Simaro herself with Gurdas, without their concurrence. Such a situation may well be a psychological shock to accused but such a shock cannot give any right of accused persons to make an assault. In this background, accused persons are not entitled to be given benefit of any exception under the Penal Code. They have clearly made attack and have caused multiple injuries and multiple fractures. In this view of the matter, there appears to be no illegality in the conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the accused persons. Consequently, conviction recorded by the trial Court is upheld. ( 8 ) THE accused persons have caused injuries of multiple gravity to the injured but incident has taken place in 1982. The appeal is being heard in 1999 almost 17 years after the incident. An alternative can be tried with the accused persons. Instead of sending them to jail again to undergo the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court the accused appellants can be asked to pay a sum of Rs. The appeal is being heard in 1999 almost 17 years after the incident. An alternative can be tried with the accused persons. Instead of sending them to jail again to undergo the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court the accused appellants can be asked to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the injured persons instead of serving out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants agrees on the preposition that this method can be evolved to avoid a peaceful fully settled family. In this view of the matter, it is deemed fit that if the accused persons pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the injured Gurdas and Simaro for which they will be entitled to half share then substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court may not be enforced against the accused persons. A period of two months is given to the accused persons to deposit the amount. In case aforesaid amount is not paid to the injured within two months the accused will be deemed to have sentenced for the offences as ordered by the learned trial Court and the learned trial court will see that accused in default of aforesaid payment, serve the sentences awarded by it. ( 9 ) WITH these observations, the appeal partly allowed, as indicated above. Appeal allowed partly.