JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Taranagar, District Churu by which he acquitted the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath for the offence under section 325/34, 326/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and convicted the accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath for the offence under section 324 and 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing him for the said offences, he gave benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 24.10.1987, PW3 Amarnath gave a Parchabayan Ex. P/5 before the Police Station Taranagar District Churu stating inter-alia that on that day at about 11.00 AM, he was in his field and at that time, near about 15 goats belonging to Kesharnath, Kubhnath and Sarayan, entered in his field and when he was dragging out these goats, accused respondents came there and at that time, accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath was having Barchhi, accused respondent no.4 was armed with kulhari and rest accused were armed with lathies. The accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath gave Barchhi blow on the head of PW3 Amarnath and rest accused also beat him with lathies. Near the incident, PW1 Dalai was ploughing the field of Brij lal and PW2 Om also came there and saved him from further beating and rescued from the clutches of the accused respondents. PW2 Om told the whole incident to his father PW4 Kalunath. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital and he was admitted in the hospital of Taranagar. On this Parchabayan Ex.P/5, the police registered the case and started investigation. During investigation, PW3 Amarnath was got medically examined by PW5 Dr. Sahdev Singh and his injury report is Ex.P/3, which shows that he received as many as 8 injuries and his X-ray report is Ex.P/8, which shows that fractures of the right frontal and parietal bones and right femur bone shaft in its lower ⅓rd region were detected. Thus, injuries no.1 and 7 of PW3 Amarnath were assessed by the doctor as grievous one. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court against the accused respondents.On 5.1.1989, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents in the following manner: 1. Chauthnath - For the offence under sections 326, 325/34, 324, 323/34 and 341 IPC. 2. Thus, injuries no.1 and 7 of PW3 Amarnath were assessed by the doctor as grievous one. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the Court against the accused respondents.On 5.1.1989, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents in the following manner: 1. Chauthnath - For the offence under sections 326, 325/34, 324, 323/34 and 341 IPC. 2. Madannath - For the offence under sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC. 3. Narainnath - For the offence under sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC. 4. Vednath - For the offence under sections 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323 and 341 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused respondents.After conclusion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar, District Churu vide his judgment and order dated 28th May, 1991 acquitted the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath of the charges for the offence under sections 325/34, 326/34, 324/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC and convicted the accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath for the offence under sections 324 and 323 IPC, but instead of sentencing him for the said offences he granted benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 28th May, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar, District Churu, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 3. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant: 1. That the learned Magistrate has not given any reason while acquitting the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath of the charges framed against them. 2. That the learned Magistrate has wrongly convicted the accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath for the offence under section 324 IPC and he should have been convicted for the offence under section 326 IPC, as injuries no. 1 and 7 of PW 3 Amarnath were found grievous in nature and injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the findings of the learned Magistrate are perverse and contrary to the facts and liable to be set aside. 4. 1 and 7 of PW 3 Amarnath were found grievous in nature and injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the findings of the learned Magistrate are perverse and contrary to the facts and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents supported the impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar, District Churu. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, injuries of PW3 Amarnath should be discussed. 7. For proving the injury report Ex.P/3 of PW3 Amarnath, the prosecution has produced Dr. Sahdev Singh, PW5. He states that on 24.10.1987 he medically examined PW 3 Amarnath and found as many as 8 injuries on his person, out of which, injuries no.1 and 2 were incised wound and injury no. 7 was swelling and tenderness on right thigh and except injuries no.1 and 2, rest injuries were caused by blunt object. PW5 Dr. Sahdev Singh has further stated that for injuries no.1 and 7, he advised X-ray and he has seen the X-ray plates Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 and after seeing them, he gave the report Ex.P/8 and found injuries no.1 and 7 as grievous one. He has further stated that injury no.1, which is found grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/3 and the X-ray report Ex.P/8. 8. From perusing the statement of Dr. Sahdev Singh, PW5, injury report Ex.P/3 and X-Ray Report Ex.P/8, it appears that PW3 Amarnath received as many as 8 injuries on his person, out of which, injury no.1 which was on his head, was found grievous in nature and was caused by sharp edged weapon and similarly, injury no.7 was also found to be grievous in nature, but was caused by blunt object. 9. PW3 Amarnath in his Parchabayan Ex.P/5 has clearly mentioned the names of some persons apart from the names of accused respondents. So far as the causing of injuries on his person is concerned, he has specifically mentioned that accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath gave Barchhi blow on his head and for rest injuries, he has not described which injury was caused by which accused. So far as the causing of injuries on his person is concerned, he has specifically mentioned that accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath gave Barchhi blow on his head and for rest injuries, he has not described which injury was caused by which accused. In his statement recorded as PW3, he has stated that head injury was caused by accused respondent Chauthnath and, thereafter, he fell down on the earth and he was also beaten by others and after that, PW1 Dalai Singh and PW2 Om came there and saved him. PW1 Dalai Singh and PW2 Om have been declared hostile. 10. From the statement of PW3 Amarnath, it is clear that injury on his head was caused by accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath. However, for other injuries, his statement is vague one. 11. There is no dispute on the point that learned Magistrate has accepted the case against accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath that he gave Barchhi blow on the head of PW3 Amarnath, but he has come to the conclusion that by this act, he only committed the offence under section 324 IPC. Since by medical evidence it has been proved that PW3 Amarnath received fracture on the head by sharp edged weapon, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not right in convicting the accused respondent no. 1 Chouthnath for the offence under section 324 IPC and accused respondent no. 1 Chouthnath should have been convicted under section 326 IPC. 12. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath for the offence under section 326 IPC and thus, accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath is liable to be convicted under section 326 IPC and the findings of the learned Magistrate that prosecution has only proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence under section 324 IPC against accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath being perverse, are liable to be set aside and the State appeal against respondent no.1 Chauthnath deserves to be allowed.However, since no injury was caused by blunt object by accused respondent No. 1 Chauthnath to PW3 Amarnath, therefore, his conviction under section 323 IPC cannot be maintained and the findings of the learned Magistrate in this respect are liable to be set aside and accused respondent No. 1 Chauthnath is entitled to acquittal of the charge under section 323 IPC. 13. 13. So far as the case against accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath is concerned, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against them and they were rightly acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class Taranagar, District Churu. The learned Magistrate, after appreciation of evidence on record and after assigning cogent reasons, acquitted the accused respondents Madannath, Narainnath and Vednath and his findings acquitting them of the charges framed against them are liable to be confirmed and State appeal against them deserves to be dismissed.On point of sentence 14. The accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath is convicted for the offence under section 326 IPC and looking to entire facts and circumstance of the case and the facts that incident took place on 24.10.1987 and accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath has already faced trial for so many years and now more than 13 years have elapsed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody both mentally and physically, I think it just and proper to take lenient view in awarding sentence and thus for the offence under section 326 IPC if accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath is sentenced to six months Respondents of justice would be met.In the result: 1. The State appeal against the accused respondents no.2 Madannath, No.3 Narainnath and No.4 Vednath is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 28.5.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar District Churu so far as they relate to them. 2. The State appeal against accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath is allowed to the extent that accused appellant No.1 Chauthnath is convicted under section 326 IPC instead of 324 IPC and the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar District Churu dated 28.5.1991 is altered accordingly. But, conviction of accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath under section 323 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under section 323 IPC. But, conviction of accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath under section 323 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under section 323 IPC. The order of sentence dated 28.5.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Taranagar District Churu by which accused respondent No.1 Chauthnath was granted benefit of probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for the offence under section 324 IPC, is set aside and for the offence under section 326 IPC, the accused respondent no.1 Chauthnath is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month imprisonment. On deposit of amount of fine by the accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath, Rs. 2000/- (Rs.two thousand only) shall be paid to PW3 Amarnath as compensation. As per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.RC., the period of detention, if any, undergone by accused respondent no. 1 Chauthnath during the investigation or trial shall be set off from the six months RI. Since he is on bail, he shall surrender before the trial court immediately and in case he does not surrender before the trial court, the trial court shall take necessary steps for arresting and sending him to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Appeal partly allowed. *******