Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 4/4/1987 passed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 28/86, by which he acquitted two accused of this case, namely, Menaram and Begaram for the offence under Section 307/34, IPC, but convicted the present accused appellants for the offence under section 307, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo five years. RI and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows: On 26/2/1986 at about 1:30 AM. PW 6 Noor Mohd, recorded the statement Ex. P/i of injured witness Phularam (PW 1), which was given by him in the hospital taking inter alia that on 26/2/ 1988 his younger brother PW 2 Balrams, brother-in-law went to the house of Gangaram and to whom his brother Balram brought him back. It was further stated by PW 1 Phularam that in the evening accused appellant Ramjas Sb Gangaram came to his house and invited him and his brother Balram, PW 2 and also requested that the incident, which took place, earlier, may be compromised and, thereafter, he and his brother PW 2 Balram both went to the house of accused appellant Ramjas on 25/2/1986 in the evening, where his brothers accused Begaram and Menaram were there and they were armed with lathi, his another brother accused appellant Rania was armed with Kasia and the accused appellant Ramjus was armed with Gandasi and they all said that enemies had come to their house and the, accused appellant Ramjas gave a Gandasi blow on the head of PW 2 Balram; as a result of which, he fell on the ground in the Chowk and, therefore, accused appellant Rania gave a Kasia blow on the head of PW 1 Phularam and second injury on his hand was caused by accused Begaram and they all beat them and after hearing cries, Jotrm, PW 4, Relaram, PW 3 and other people of the village came there. On this Parchabayan Ex. P/i, a case was registered and regular FIR Ex. On this Parchabayan Ex. P/i, a case was registered and regular FIR Ex. p 139 was chalked out at police station lalgarh, Sri Ganganagar and investigation was started and during investigation, PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram were got medically examined and injury report of PW 1 Phularam is Ex. P/24 and the injury report of PW 2 Balram is Ex. P/23. The X-ray reports of PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram are Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/8 respectively. The accused persons were arrested and the present accused appellants Ramjas and Rania were arrested on 12/3/1986 through arrest memos Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/28 respectively. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants and two other accused in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 17/7/1986, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence under sections 307 and alternatively 307/34, IPC against the accused appellants and for the offence under section 307/34, IPC against accused Begaram and Menaram. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter statements of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addi Sessions Judge No. I, Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order 4/4/1987 acquitted the two accused Begaram and Menaram of the charges framed against them, but convicted the present accused appellants. For the offence under section 307, IPC and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia: -1. That prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Begaram and Menaram caused any injury to the injured, nor it has been proved that they were sharing common intention and thus, learned trial Judge acquitted both of them of the charges framed against them. 2. That there is evidence against both the accused appellants Ramjas and Rania that they have attempted to murder injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 1 Balram and thus, the learned trial Judge convicted both accused appellants for the offence under section 307, IPC. 3. That there was no right of private defence available to the accused appellants. 2. That there is evidence against both the accused appellants Ramjas and Rania that they have attempted to murder injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 1 Balram and thus, the learned trial Judge convicted both accused appellants for the offence under section 307, IPC. 3. That there was no right of private defence available to the accused appellants. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 4/4/1987 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants has made the following submissions:1. That from the injury reports as well as from the statements of injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram, no case for the offence under section 307 IPC is made out against the accused appellants and. at the most case for the offence under section 326 IPC is made out as both the accused appellants have caused one-one injury to injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram separately. 2. That both accused appellants have remained in jail for more than 14 months and thus, for the offence under section 326 IPC, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. ( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further, medical evidence of this case has to be seen, which is found in the statement of PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta. ( 7 ) PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta states that on 25/2/1986 she examined PW 7 Balram and found in all four injuries on his person and out of six injuries, three injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest injuries were caused by blunt object. He has further stated that as per Xray report, his injuries no. 1, 4 and 6 were found grievous in nature. The injury no. 6 was caused by blunt object and the same was on head, injury no. 4 was also caused on head, but by blunt object and the injury no. 1 was caused on the thumb of right hand. 1, 4 and 6 were found grievous in nature. The injury no. 6 was caused by blunt object and the same was on head, injury no. 4 was also caused on head, but by blunt object and the injury no. 1 was caused on the thumb of right hand. Thus, there were fractures of right parietal and frontal bone and also fracture of distal phalanx of right thumb. He has also fourld that distal phalanx of right thumb was missing. He has proved the injury report Ex. P /23. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta also examined PW 1 Phularam and found in all six injuries and out of six injuries, four injuries were caused by blunt object and two were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no. 2 was found grievous one, which was on the left cheek. He has proved the injury report Ex. P124. ( 9 ) THE next question is how injuries were caused to injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram. ( 10 ) AS per the first version, which was given by PW 1 Phularam in hospital, he has clearly mentioned: (1) That accused appellant Ramjas gave Gandasi blow, on the head of PW 2 Balram. (2) That he was given Kasia blow on head by accused appellant Rania and injury on his hand was caused by accused Begaram. ( 11 ) IN Court statement, PW 2 Balram states that Gandasi blow on his head was given by accused appellant Ramjas and, thereafter, he became unconscious. He further states that he was not in a position to say who caused injuries to PW 1 Phularam. ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, PW 1 Phularam states in his court statement that Kasia blow on his head was given by accused appellant Rania and accused Begaram gave a lalhi blow on his hand. ( 13 ) THUS, from the statements of both injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram, it appears that accused appellant Ramjas gave one Gandasi blow to injured PW 2 Balram and accused appellant Rania also gave one blow to injured PW 1 Phularam and both the accused appellants made only one attempt, as per the statements of injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram and as per the Parchabayan Ex. P/i of PW 1 Phularam. P/i of PW 1 Phularam. ( 14 ) IN this case, there are allegation again those accused also who have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, that they also caused injuries to both injured PW 1 Phularam and Balram, but since they have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, therefore, nothing can be said. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, so far as the present accused appellants are concerned, they have not been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, but they have been convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC and from the evidence on record it appears that they gave one, one blow to both injured PW 1 - Phularam and PW 2 Balram and therefore, from the injuries, which have been caused by them to injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram, it cannot be inferred that they had intention to murder PW 1 Phularam or PW 2 Balram. In this respect, Ex. P/26a may also be referred to, where PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar has said that injuries of PW 1 Phularam were found only dangerous to life and this opinion was given by PW 7 Dr. Rajendra Kumar on a requisition made by PW 11 Kishanlal, SHO. Police Station Lalgarh asking him whether the injuries of PW 1 Phularam were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not and upon this he opined that injuries were dangerous to life. Thus, the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. From this point of view also, no case for the offence under section 307, IPC is made out and at the most case for the offence under section 326. IPC is made out against the accused appellants. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the offence under section, 307 IPC, but it has proved the case for the offence under section 326, IPC against both the accused appellants and thus the findings of the learned trial Judge convicting the accused appellants for the offence under section 307, IPC are liable to be altered in the manner that accused appellants are liable to be convicted for the offence under section 326, IPC instead of section 307, IPC. On point of sentence ( 17 ) THE accused appellants Ramjas and Rania were arrested on 12/3/1986 through arrest memos Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/28 respectively and they remained in jail from 12/3/1986 to 6/5/1987 meaning hereby they remained in jail for more than 13 months. The incident took place on 25/2/1986 and more than 15 years have elapsed since then. ( 18 ) THUS, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that incident took place on 25/2/1986 and since then more than 15 years have elapsed and the accused appellants have remained in jail for more than 13 months, for the offence under section 326, IPC; if the accused appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, it would meet the ends of justice, but compensation should also be awarded to both injured PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellants Ramjas and Rania is partly allowed in the following manner: (1) That the conviction of both the accused appellant for the offence under section 307, IPC recorded by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar vide his judgment dated 4/4/1987 is altered and instead of Section 307, IPC, they are convicted for the offence under section 326, IPC and the judgment of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1. Sri Ganganagar stands modified accordingly. (2) That for the offence under section 326, IPC, the accused appellants Ramjas and Rania are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The order of sentence dated 4/4/1987 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar also stands modified accordingly. It is further directed that the accused appellant Ramjas would pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) to the injured PW 2. Balram as compensation and similarly, the accused appellant Rania would pay Rs. 5,000/ - (Rs. five thousand only) to injured PW 1 Phularam and for depositing the said amount in the trial court, the accused appellants are granted three months time and on depositing the same amount by the accused appellant, the trial court shall pay the said amount to PW 1 Phularam and PW 2 Balram respectively. Appeals allowed partly. ` .