JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 25.1.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in sessions case No. 36/84 convicting the accused u/ss. 147, 326, 326/149, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC and sentenced them to suffer six months', thirty months' thirty months', one year's, three months', three months', one month's and one month's rigorous imprisonment respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the evidence on record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence is that; on 24.6.1984 in the evening, complainant Sona Ram, Chapa and Rupa Paliwal were working at their field, at that time, accused having axes and lathis, came there and threatening them that if they will not settle the dispute, then they were killed them, and started beating with the complainant with the aid of weapons which they brought. On their shouting, Deva Ram, Hemraj and Lumba came there and requested them to leave the complainant, thereupon, the accused went to the village. On the basis of this report, police registered a case u/ss. 307, 323, 324, 447, 147, 148 & 149 IPC and started usual investigation. The accused were challaned and case was committed to the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, from where, it was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, it is this order which is challenged in this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. The findings of the learned Judge in relation to the guilt of the accused are, therefore, based on evidence and are liable to be accepted. Even accepting those findings, it is however, clear that no conviction u/s. 326 could be recorded. 5. Hence, the appeal succeeds partly and is partly allowed. The conviction u/s. 326 IPC is set aside, instead the accused is convicted u/s. 323 IPC. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal is pending for last 16 years and the accused is on bail since then, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail. The sentence is reduced to already undergone.Appeal partly allowed. The conviction u/s. 326 IPC is set aside, instead the accused is convicted u/s. 323 IPC. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal is pending for last 16 years and the accused is on bail since then, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail. The sentence is reduced to already undergone.Appeal partly allowed. *******