JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th January, 1964 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shiwara convicting the accused appellants of offence under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced them to 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment to further undergo 2 months R.I. 2. The facts of the case are that one Shri Rajkurnar, Incharge, Police Station submitted a written report to the S.H.O. Sahapura on 22.9.82 stating that at about 5.30 p.m. when he was on routine patrolling in the city, he heard that a quarrel had taken place amongst Jets and condition of two Jats is critical and they have beer auli Fitted in the hospital. He rushed to the hospital and he found that both .he injured persons were in critical condition. They disclosed their name as Mishri and Heera. Mishri was conscious. He stated that they were being assaulted by Devi. Sukhdev, Mishri S/o Dhanna, Radhakishan & Madhu etc. He also stated that they were armed with Kulhari, Pharsi and gun. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Section 307, 148, 323, 324 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, Police laid a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The accused Devi and Sukhdev were tried of offence under Section 307/34, 324, 325 IPC. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution story. So far as the gun fire by Sukhdev is concerned, however, the court found that Devi caused injuries by Pharsi. The court also held that both the accused persons shared common intention in causing grievous injuries by sharp-edged weapon. In view of this finding, both the accused persons were convicted and sentenced of offence under Section 326/34 IPC. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have scanned the prosecution evidence. I find no reason to disbelieve the statements of the injured witnesses. Their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. In view of this. conviction of both the appellants of offence under Section 326/34 does not call for any interference by this court. It is submitted that the first appellant Devi has undergone sentence of four months. The second appellant Sukhdev has undergone the sentence of 11 months. The incident is of the year 1982. In view of this. conviction of both the appellants of offence under Section 326/34 does not call for any interference by this court. It is submitted that the first appellant Devi has undergone sentence of four months. The second appellant Sukhdev has undergone the sentence of 11 months. The incident is of the year 1982. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would met if the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While confirming the sentence of both the appellants of offence under Section 326/34 IPC the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.Appeal partly allowed. *******