Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of Crl. Revision No. 280 of 1980 titled as Hakam Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9101-M of 1988 titled as Bagga Singh v. Hakam Singh and others, as the common question of law and facts are involved therein, and these petitions having been filed against the same orders of the learned lower Court. 2. In an incident dated 30.7.1984, wherein the dispute was with regard to the turn of water for irrigation of the fields, Mr. Bagga Singh complainant received 4 injuries mentioned below : 1. There was deformity of lower 1/3rd part of right leg with swelling pain tenderness and restriction of movements crepitus was felt underline bone was fractured. 2. There was abraded wound 3cm x 1/4 cm skin deep with swelling and tenderness around the middle of left leg. Fresh oozing was present X-Ray advised. 3. There was an incise wound 5cm x 1/2 cm on the right upper arm just above the elbow. Underline bone was cut. The wound was freshly bleeding. 4. There were multiple abrasions on the right shoulder area. Fresh oozing was present. Out of the above injuries, injuries No.1 and 3 were declared as grievous. Exhibit PA was the correct copy of Medico-Legal Report. The other PWs. also received simple injuries. The occurrence relates to the police station Jalalabad in district Ferozepur. 3. The petitioners in criminal revision No. 280 of 1988, were convicted and sentenced as under :- Name of accused Offence u/s Sentence Hakam Singh 326/34 IPC R.I. for 1 & 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 50/- in default further R.I. for 7 days. 325/34 IPC R.I. for three months. Ladha Singh 326/34 IPC R.I. for 1 & 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 50/- or in default## further R.I. for 7 days. 325 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 50/- or in default## further R.I. for seven days. 323/34 IPC R.I. for three months. Balbir Singh 326 IPC R.I. for 1 & 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 50/- in default further R.I. for 7 days. 325 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 50/- in default further R.I. for 7 days. 323/34 IPC R.I. for three months. 4. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Balbir Singh 326 IPC R.I. for 1 & 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 50/- in default further R.I. for 7 days. 325 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 50/- in default further R.I. for 7 days. 323/34 IPC R.I. for three months. 4. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Thus, the petitioners came in appeal against the conviction and sentence. The complainant also filed a criminal miscellaneous petition for enhancement of sentence. 5. Obviously, the occurrence took place around 16 years ago from today. If one gone through the evidence on record and the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate Court, it would be apparent that the conviction is purely based on conjectures. Even the depth of the important injuries was not measured. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous without any X-ray report. Even the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence was not lifted to pin down the place of occurrence. There are other infirmities in evidence. When both sides have concealed material facts, the litigation needs to be concluded by way of acquittal. 6. In the given situation, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1988 cannot be sustained and they are acquitted of charges. 7. Resultantly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9101-M of 1988 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Orders accordingly.