JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicting the appellants as under : 1. Appellant Gopal : 1. One year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/- in default two months S.I. under section 325 2. Three moths' S.I. under section 323 2. Appellants Jaswnat Singh & Pyara : 1. One year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/- in default two months' S.I. under section 325/34 IPC 2. Three months' Si under section 323/34 IPC. The Court also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 300/- to injured Balu from the amount of fine. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.5.1981 Mod Singh lodged a written FIR at Police Station. Bijolia stating inter alia that in village Satpuria there is 3 big has of land in his name. Rest of 3 bighas land is in the name of his brother Shankar. He further stated that he had called Kuka, Balu, Mangi Lal, Lal Chand for the construction of the boundary walls. They were collecting stones. At Jut 2.30 p.m. the accused persons Pyara Singh, Gopal and Jaswant Singh arrived at the field with a common intention to cause them hurt. He also stated that Gopal was armed with Kulhadi and the other two accused persons Jaswant Singh and Pyara were armed with lathis. Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow on the head. On this information, the Police registered a case of offence under sections 147, 148, 307 & 323 IPC and proceeded with an investigation. 3. The police submitted a charge-sheet against the three accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial Court found that Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow on the head of Balu from the opposite side of the Kulhadi and other accused persons shared common intention with Gopal for causing grievous hurt to the complainant party. In view of this the appellants have been convicted as stated above. I have heard Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Addl. Public Prosecutor. It is contended by Mr. Upadhayay that there is a discrepancy with respect to the weapon carried by accused Gopal. He further submits that there is no sharp edged injury on the body of injured Balu and as such it cannot be said that Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow. Ramesh Purohit, Addl. Public Prosecutor. It is contended by Mr. Upadhayay that there is a discrepancy with respect to the weapon carried by accused Gopal. He further submits that there is no sharp edged injury on the body of injured Balu and as such it cannot be said that Gopal gave a Kulhadi blow. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Purohit that Gopal had given blow from the opposite side of the Kulhadi causing hamaton on the head of the injured and as such there is no discrepancy in the prosecution case. The evidence is read before me and it is shown that two other appellants came along with Gopal and left with him and, therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show that both the accused persons shared common intention causing hurt to Balu. 4. I have read the statement of Mod Singh PW 2 & PW 3 Balu. They have stated that both the accused persons also participated in the attack on Balu and Mod Singh. But there is no evidence on basis of which it can be said that Pyara and Jaswant also shared common intention with Gopal of causing hurt. In this view, the conviction of Pyara and Jaswant cannot sustain for offence under section 325 r/w 34 IPC but as they shared common intention of causing simple hurt, the conviction deserves to be converted for offence under section 323/34 IPC. 5. As far as accused-Gopal is concern there is consistent evidence that he gave Kulhari blow from the opposite side, causing hemotomen on the head of Balu. The injury is grievous in nature. This is proved by the Medical evidence. In view of this, conviction of appellant Gopal deserves to be maintained under section 325 IPC. 6. I have also heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of sentence. The' ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to Pyara and Jaswant is reduced the period already undergone. As far as Gopal is concern, as the maximum sentence prescribed under section 325 IPC is not beyond 7 years, the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is attracted. I do not find special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 7. As far as Gopal is concern, as the maximum sentence prescribed under section 325 IPC is not beyond 7 years, the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is attracted. I do not find special reasons for not extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the aforesaid the appeal is partly allowed, and the conviction of appellants-Pyara and Jaswant is converted to offence under section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone. Conviction of the appellant under section 325 IPC is maintained but, he is given benefit of probation. It is thus directed that the appellant-Gopal shall be released on probation on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- an two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to receive the sentence as and when call upon to do so and to keep peace and good behaviour during the period of one year. He will pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the inured Balu. Four months' time is granted for paying the said amount. In case, the order of compensation is not complied with, the order of granting probation shall stand vacated and he will serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court of offence under section 325 IPC.Appeal partly allowed. *******