Judgment ( 1 ) ORDER :- Petitioners Dhanna Ram, Sohan Lal and Bhaga Ram preferred this revision petition as they were dissatisfied with the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 10-5-1991 by which their appeal was dismissed and judgment of conviction was upheld. The petitioners were convicted by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar and sentenced as follows :-All the petitioners u/s. 447, IPC to onemonth rigorous impr-isonment with a fineof Rs. 100/- each. All the petitioners u/s. 324, IPC to oneyear rigorous impri-sonment with a fineof Rs. 200/- each. Bhaga Ram u/s. 326, IPC to 3years rigorous impri-sonment with a fineof Rs. 200/ -. Sohan and Dhanna u/s. 326/34, IPC tothree years rigorousimprisonment with afine of Rs. 200/- andin default to undergotwo months simpleimprisonment. ( 2 ) ALL the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that statement of Ganga Ram was recorded at P. H. C. Nohar on 12-8-1982 by A. S. I. According to this statement, Gangaram had a brother named Bhura Ram who is elder to him. They were living separately. In the morning Ganga Ram went to his field where gwar was to be sowed. His son Ram Chandra was with him. His daughter Sundar brought his lunch. His brother Bhura Ram and his sons were also working in their field and were sowing gwar. The three petitioners came and started breaking a water course. Ganga Ram requested them not to do so. Then the petitioners came to him. Sohan Lal and Bhaga Ram were armed with kasia while Dhanna Ram was having a gandasi in his hand. Bhaga Ram inflicted a kasia blow on his leg. He fell down and then all the three accused petitioners gave him beatings. Ganga Ram made hue and cry. Thereupon his daughter and his son came and rescued him. His daughter and his son were also given beatings. It were Hari Ram and Balram who brought him in a jeep to hospital where he was admitted. The occurrence took place at about 11. 00 a. m. A case under Sections 447, 324, 323/34, IPC was registered and the case was investigated. After investigation challan was submitted under various sections of Indian Penal Code. The injury report of Ganga Ram showed that he had suffered a grievous injury by sharp weapon. The occurrence took place at about 11. 00 a. m. A case under Sections 447, 324, 323/34, IPC was registered and the case was investigated. After investigation challan was submitted under various sections of Indian Penal Code. The injury report of Ganga Ram showed that he had suffered a grievous injury by sharp weapon. On the whole there were as many as 10 injuries on his body. When charges were framed, petitioners denied their indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above. Appeal was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant at length. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that offence under Section 447, IPC is not proved at all and that offence under Section 326/34, IPC is not made out against any of the accused persons much so against those who have been convicted with the help of Section 34, IPC. He also submitted that there was a cross case decision of which rendered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar on 31-1-1990 and Ganga Ram has been acquitted from the charge of Section 324, IPC. He submitted that when a cross case was filed against Ganga Ram in which he has been acquitted, it means that the petitioners have not committed any offence. In the alternative learned counsel, for the petitioners submitted that even if the occurence is accepted to be correct it was in the right of private defence that the accused petitioners caused injuries to Sohan Lal and others. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgments of both the Courts below. Their contention on the basis of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 1 JT (SC) 456 : (1999 Cri LJ 1443), is that evidence once appreciated by trial Court and reappreciated by appellate Court cannot be further reappreciated by this Court as it is not functioning as an appellate Court. They submitted that if it is found that there are some glaring features which might have caused injustice then only this Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction. They submitted that if it is found that there are some glaring features which might have caused injustice then only this Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction. ( 7 ) FIRST of all the question is as to whether accused petitioners can get the benefit of cross case ? It was submitted that the defence of the accused persons was that they were also given beatings and it was Ganga Ram complainant who inflicted injury on the body of accused Sohan Lal with a kasia. One of the uncles of Sohan Lal also suffered injury. Ganga Ram was definitely prosecuted for causing injury to Sohan Lal but has been acquitted. This is not going to affect the present case because it cannot be stated as a universal rule that whenever the injuries are found on the body of an accused person, a presumption is to be necessarily raised that the accused persons had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The defence has to further establish that the injuries so caused on the members of the accused party porbablises the version of the right of private defence. This was so observed in Ram Swarup v. The State, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1972 Raj LW 325. Even otherwise in this case the right of private defence was not at all pleaded by the accused petitioners. Sohan Lal, who himself appeared as a witness in defence after taking permission from the Court, stated in clear terms that neither he nor Dhanna Ram or Bhaga Ram inflicted any injury on the person of Ganga Ram. He denied even his arrest and when he was specifically put the question that he along with his brothers caused as many as ten injuries to Ganga Ram he point blank refused. He also refused in the cross examination that any injury was caused to Raichand son of Ganga Ram. So there was no theory of private defence at all pleaded by accused petitioners. Hence it cannot be accepted that they caused injuries to the injured in right of private defence. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the offence under Section 447, IPC is proved at all? So there was no theory of private defence at all pleaded by accused petitioners. Hence it cannot be accepted that they caused injuries to the injured in right of private defence. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the offence under Section 447, IPC is proved at all? Learned counsel for the petitioners carried me through the evidence in order to show that the complainant party was not in exclusive possession of the place where offence of Section 447 , IPC is said to have been committed. He drew my attention to cross examination of PW-1 Ganga Ram who acceped in the very first lines that the field was a joint field and the revenue record showed it as such. PW-3 Raichand admitted that the field belonged to his father and his uncle Bhura Ram both and was of joint khatedari. He admitted that the accused perons were damaging the water course in kila No. 25. By taking help of this cross examination learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the field was of the joint possession, offence under Section 447, IPC cannot be said to have been proved as every inch of joint property belonged to both the brothers. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant was that in order to prove offence under Section 447, IPC it must be proved that there was physical possession and not merely constructive possession. Relying on AIR 1933 Sind 396, Lalchand Pitumal v. Emperor, he submitted that the prosecution was able to prove that it was the complainant party which was in physical possession and that the accused petitioners were unable to prove the joint possession. Of course, it is a relevant feature in this case, therefore, it was necessary to go through the evidence. ( 9 ) SITE plan Ex. P/3 has been proved on behalf of the prosecution which is attested by PW-3 Raichand and is proved by PW-8 Modiram, Investigating Officer. PW-8 Modi-ram Investigating Officer admitted that the partition of the field between Ganga Ram and Bhura Ram has not taken place and the land was joint and situated in one and composite murabba. He admitted that when he inspected the site, crop of gwar was growing in half of kila No. 25 while half of it was lying vacant. PW-8 Modi-ram Investigating Officer admitted that the partition of the field between Ganga Ram and Bhura Ram has not taken place and the land was joint and situated in one and composite murabba. He admitted that when he inspected the site, crop of gwar was growing in half of kila No. 25 while half of it was lying vacant. When it is so and admitted by the prosecution itself that this land belongs to both the parties and the revenue record also shows about it, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that offence under Section 447, IPC is not proved, is correct. The citation of Lalchand Pitumals case (AIR 1933 Sind 396) (supra) will not be applicable in the facts of the case when it is admitted by the prosecution that the land was joint and the complainant party was not in exclusive possession. Therefore, the conviction of the accused petitioners for offence under Section 447, IPC cannot be maintained. ( 10 ) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there could be no common intention of Dhanna Ram and Sohan Lal to cause a grievous injury to Ganga Ram. He submitted that of couse there might be intention to cause injury but it so happened that the injury caused by Bhaga Ram was such that it happened to be grievous and accused petitioners Dhanna Ram and Sohan Lal cannot be held liable with the aid of Section 34 or offence under Section 326, IPC. I find that Ganga Ram had as many as 10 injuries out of which injury No. 4 is grievous as per the X-Ray report. It is an incised wound caused by sharp weapon on lower 1/3rd of left thigh anteriorly horizontally directed. This injury is proved to have been caused by Bhaga Ram. Bhaga Ram also caused injuries which are simple in nature by sharp weapon. He has been rightly convicted for offence under Sections 326 and 324, IPC. But so far as petitioners Dhanna Ram and Sohan Lal are concerned, their conviction for offence under Section 326 with the help of Section 34, IPC is not proper and consequently they could be held liable only for offence under Section 324, IPC. He has been rightly convicted for offence under Sections 326 and 324, IPC. But so far as petitioners Dhanna Ram and Sohan Lal are concerned, their conviction for offence under Section 326 with the help of Section 34, IPC is not proper and consequently they could be held liable only for offence under Section 324, IPC. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the complainant submitted that premeditation is not necessary in order to fix liability under Section 34, IPC and the common intention can be developed even during the occurrence and the same can be gathered from attending circumstances. He relied on a latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cri LR (SC) 1 : (2000 Cri LJ 380 ). This citation does not apply to the facts of the present case. The case related to murder and common intention to murder could be gathered from attending circumstances and in those circumstances it was held that premeditation was not necessary. Learned counsel for the complainant then cited Hardev Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cri LR (Raj) 18, and submitted that conviction could be done for offence under section 326 read with Section 34, IPC. In this citation it was not canvassed as has been done before me. Then facts of the case do not apply to the present one before me. Here in the case in hand petitioners Sohan Lal and Dhanna Ram might be intending to cause injury but not the grievous one. They have definitely caused injuries which are not grievous in nature. So they are liable for their own acts. It is only Bhaga Ram who caused a grievous injury for which he will be liable under Section 326, IPC. ( 12 ) SO far as sentence is concerned, Bhaga Ram has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Two co-accused petitioners Sohan Lal and Dhanna Ram have been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment each with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 324, IPC. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Two co-accused petitioners Sohan Lal and Dhanna Ram have been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment each with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 324, IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sentences passed against the petitioners are excessive specially in the circumstances when there was a cross case and when the case is being finally decided after a very long time. Learned counsel for the complainant then citing Hardev Singhs case, (2000 Cri LR (Raj) 18) (supra) submitted that the sentence is not excessive. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the sentence passed against petitioner Bhaga Ram for offence under Section 326, IPC is excessive and it should be reduced to one year simple imprisonment but fine should be increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2000/- and in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. His sentence for offence under Section 324, IPC should be reduced only to six months. The sentences should run concurrently. Sentence of Sohan Lal and Dhanna Ram for offence under Section 324, IPC is reduced from one year to six months but fine is increased to Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Fine, if realised from the petitioners, shall be paid to injured Ganga Ram. All the accused petitioners be acquitted from the charge of Section 447, IPC. Ordered accordingly. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY the revision petition stands partly allowed as stated above. Bail bonds of the petitioners are cancelled. Accused petitioners are directed to surrender before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar and if they do not surrender then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar shall forthwith issue warrants of arrest and on their appearance shall send them to jail to undergo remaining part of sentence. Petition partly allowed