JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar convicting the apellants as under: JEET SINGH u/s. 452 IPC 2 yrs. R.l. & a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months R.l. u/s. 326 IPC 5 years R.l. & a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment, to further undergo 9 months R.l. u/s. 324 IPC 1 year R.l. & fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment, to further undergo 3 months R.l. GURUCHARAN SINGH u/s. 452 IPC 2 years R.l. & a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment, to further undergo 3 months R I. u/s. 324 IPC 1 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment, to further undergo 3 months R.l. 2. The prosecution case is that on 22.4.1978 at about 12.15 a.m. Shri Gurdeo Singh PW 1 lodged a FIR at Police Station, Nohar stating inter alia that he purchased land in village Meghana since 15-20 years back and so as Gurucharan Singh had also purchased the land in the said village. It is alleged that the accused Jeet Singh had earned reputation of bad character. He also stated that on 21.4.1978 at about 8 p.m. while he was sitting with his relative Balbir Singh in the compound of the house and taking meal, both the accused persons alongwith their brother-in-laws namely Darshan Singh, Bant Singh and one Mukhtiar Singh arrived there. Jeet Singh inflicted blow with kripan on Balbir Singh. He warded of but his palm was chopped off and fell on the ground. It is further stated that Gurucharan Singh gave a Gandasi blow on Gurdeo Singh. The other accused persons alleged to have caused injuries to Balbir Singh. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Secs. 307, 326, 323, 148 & 149 IPC. After usual investigation, Police filed charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned trial Judge found the prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. Garg that injury report Ex.P 4 & Ex.R 5 cannot be read in evidence as its contents have not been proved. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced certain documents. The learned trial Judge found the prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 4. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. Garg that injury report Ex.P 4 & Ex.R 5 cannot be read in evidence as its contents have not been proved. It is also submitted that the entire prosecution case is concocted. It is submitted that there are injuries on the persons of the accused appellants, which have not been explained by the prosecution. The learned Addl. RR submits that the injuries were examined by Dr. A.R. Dass and he prepared the injury report Ex.D. 2 and Ex.D. 3 and as he died the injury reports were proved by PW 2 Dr. K.M. Taneja. It is further submitted that the fact that the hand of the Gurucharan Singh was chopped off is also otherwise proved by the ocular testimony. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. PW 1 Gurdeo Singh has stated that in the evening at about 8 p.m. while in the compound of house he was taking meal, the accused persons arrived there. The appellant Jeet Singh was armed with Kripan and the accused appellant Gurucharan Singh was armed with Gandasi. Jeet Singh with Kripan inflicted the blow on the head of Balbir Singh, on which, he tried to ward of but that cut of his hand. He also categorically stated that the palm of the hand fell on the ground. It is also stated that Gurucharan Singh attacked on him with gandasi and caused injuries on his head. This statement is corroborated by the statement of Balbir Singh PW 4. He has stated that the accused Jeet Singh tried to give blow from the sword on his head, he warded of, which laid to completely chopping off his hand. He also stated that Gurucharan Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of Gurdeo Singh. Thus, it is sufficient evidence to show with respect to the act of causing injury by the two accused appellants. PW 2 Dr. K.M. Taneja has stated that on 2.5.1978 he was posted as Radiologist in the General Hospital at Sri Ganganagar. Injuries of the persons of Gurdeo Singh and Balbir Singh were radiologically examined by him, he prepared injury report Ex. 4. PW 2 Dr. K.M. Taneja has stated that on 2.5.1978 he was posted as Radiologist in the General Hospital at Sri Ganganagar. Injuries of the persons of Gurdeo Singh and Balbir Singh were radiologically examined by him, he prepared injury report Ex. 4. He also stated that in the year 1978 Dr. A.R. Dass was posted at Nohar. It further stated that as he had worked with him during the period 1972, he knew his signatures very well. He also stated that the signatures at A to B on Ex.P 5 and the signatures at A to B on Ex.R 6 are of Dr. A.R Dass. Injury report Ex.P 5 indicates following injuries on the person of Balbir Singh : 1. Incised wound causing reperation of left hand including fingers from the rast of the body. Whole thickness of the part at the left wrist joint At the left wrist joint. 2. Incised wound with fracture of left frontal bone of head. The shape of wound is 4"x1/2x bone deep (Both the ends of wound directed downwards) and forward Posterix part of left frontal area of head. 3. Incised wound (transverse in direction) 11/4"x1/3"x bone deep. Left parital region of head. 4. Incised wound (Oblique in direction) 41/2"x1/6"x skin deep Left scapular region of back. 5. Incised wound 1/2"x1/8"x bone deep Dorrum of left foot over 1st matetarsal bone. 6. Bruise with swelling 1"x1/" Dorum of root of great joint. 7. Abrasion 1 1/2"x1/4" Front side of left knee joint. 8. Bruise with swelling 3"x2" Front side of left forearm. 9. Bruise with swelling 4 1/2"x3" Front and lateral side of left ankle joint. Injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and Nos. 2 to 9 are simple in nature. Injuries on the person of Gurdeo Singh vide Ex.P. 6 are as follows : 1. Incised wound with underlying out fracture of left irential bone of head. (vertical in direction) 4 1/4"x1/4"x bone deep. Left fronto-parital region of head from left supra-orbital ridge to backwards. The injury is grievous in nature. 6. So far as the injuries on the person of Balbir is concerned, Dr. noticed 9 injuries. Injury No. 1 is incised wound causing separation of left hand including finger from the rest of the body. The said injury is found to be grievous in nature. The injury is grievous in nature. 6. So far as the injuries on the person of Balbir is concerned, Dr. noticed 9 injuries. Injury No. 1 is incised wound causing separation of left hand including finger from the rest of the body. The said injury is found to be grievous in nature. So far as the Gurdeo Singh is concerned, doctor found incised wound underlying cut in fracture of left internal bone of head. Though, the doctor found injury No. 1 grievous in nature but he referred it to the Radiologist. The Radiologist found inertial bone injured and as such this injury has been taken as simple injury, caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the case of prosecution is amply proved. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. Garg that some leniency should be shown in the matter of awarding the sentence. It is pointed out that the first appellant Jeet Singh had undergone sentence of about 1 year and 5 months. Second appellant Gurucharan Singh has also undergone the sentence of about 3 months. 7. I find some substance in the contention of Mr. Garg on the point of sentence. The incident is of year 1978. In view of this, the end of justice would meet if the sentence of both the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with the modification on the point of sentence that the sentence of both the appellants awarded is reduced to the period already undergone, however, the appellant Jeet Singh will deposit a sum of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) before the Trial Court as compensation, payable to the injured PW 4 Balbir Singh. Four months' time is granted for depositing the said amount. In case the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the order reducing the sentence to the period already undergone shall stand vacated and the appeal shall stand dismissed. In case of first appellant Jeet Singh, in such event, the C.J.M., Sri Ganganagar will ensure the arrest of first appellant Jeet Singh to undergo the remaining part of sentence. *******