Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.2000 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 41/99 confirming the judgment dated 19.8.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in G.R. case No. 2794/94, Trial No. 52/98. The revisionists were charged under Sections 323 and 324 as also 326/34, IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as reported through the written report of the informant was that on 22.12.1994 at 5 p.m. the informant Ganesh Mahto and his brother Raghunandan Mahto were irrigating their field, suddenly two accused-revisionists came there armed with lathi and garasa The informants brother Raghunandan Mahto was assaulted with lathi by accused Ravindra Yadav. When the informant Ganesh Mahto came to rescue of his brother, he was subjected to assault with garasa by Surendra Yadav. 3. The trial Court on the evidence adduced by the prosecution held the accused-revisionists guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326/34, IPC. Both the revisionists were sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 326, IPC and six months RI for the offence under Section 323, IPC. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 324, IPC. 4. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that the informants party were the aggressor because they had trespassed over the land of the accused and there is no land of the informant near the land of the accused and hence there was no question of irrigation. However, on perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the two courts below gave concurrent finding that assault upon the informant and his brother took place during the course of irrigation of their own field. So, I think that there is no reason to disagree with the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. As far as the conviction of the accusedrevisionists for the offence under Section 326, IPC read with Section 34, IPC is concerned, I think that the evidence in the lower Court was not so as to fix the responsibility on the part of both the revisionists to assault the informant Ganesh Mahto with garasa. This is so because it was Raghunandan Mahto who was assaulted by lathi, by Ravindra Yadav and there was no assault upon him by accused Surendra Yadav who was armed with garasa. This is so because it was Raghunandan Mahto who was assaulted by lathi, by Ravindra Yadav and there was no assault upon him by accused Surendra Yadav who was armed with garasa. If both of them had any common intention Raghunandan Mahto should also have been assaulted with garasa. When the informant came to rescue of his brother, he was subjected to assault by accused Surendra Yadav who was armed with garasa. So it is apparent that both the accused revisionists assaulted the two brothers with the weapons they had in their possession. The circumstances of the case and the manner and sequence of assault do not indicate that both of them had any common intention. So, the conviction of the two revisionists under Sections 323 and 324, read with Section 34, IPC was perhaps, vitiated by legal misapplication. In the same way, conviction of the two accusedrevisionists under Sections 326/34, IPC is also legally bad. 5. In the result, this revision is dismissed, but with the following modification in the order of conviction and sentence. The order regarding accused, Ravindra Yadav, who is convicted for the offence under Section 323, IPC and is sentenced to six months imprisonment shall remain intact. So far the accused Surender Yadav is concerned, he is convicted under Section 326, IPC only, and is sentenced to undergo RI for one year. His sentence of two years is thus reduced to one year because there was no repetition of assault by him and the injury upon the scalp was only bone- deep and it is not clear from the injury report whether his bone was cut also. The conviction of Ravindra Yadav under Section 326, IPC and sentence therein is set aside.