Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 897 of 1988, Joginder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No. 944 of 1988, Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab. 2. On 24.10.1985 at 6.00 P.M., petitioners Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh, Gulzar Singh and Sajjan Singh are alleged to have caused injuries to Santokh Singh, Bhan Kaur, Dulha Singh and Gug, for which they have been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below, as under :- "All the accused are convicted under section 148 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Joginder Singh is convicted under section 326 IPC for causing injury to Santokh Singh and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Accused Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh, Gulzar Singh and Sajjan Singh are convicted under section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Accused Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh are convicted under section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to Santokh Singh and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas Sajjan Singh, Sardul Singh and Joginder Singh are convicted under section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Sajjan Singh is convicted under section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Bhan Kaur and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Accused Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh are convicted under section 325 read with section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Accused Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh are convicted under section 325 read with section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. Sajjan Singh accused is further convicted under section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to Gug and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas accused Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Sardul Singh and Darbara Singh are convicted under section 323 and with section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Santokh Singh is convicted under section 324 IPC for causing simple hurt to Dula Singh and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months, whereas accused Joginder Singh, Darbara Singh, Gulzar Singh and Sajjan Singh are convicted under section 324 read with section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently." 3. Shri Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh submitted that there are injuries on Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh, who are close relatives of the petitioners which have been caused in the same occurrence and which have not been explained by the prosecution and the prosecution story has been distorted to exclude these persons. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263. 4. Shri Hundal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sajjan Singh contended that the occurrence took place at a plot, which was allotted for a marriage hall; the occurrence took place outside the house of the petitioner at a common place where the complainant had no right to visit as the said area is not in possession of the complainant party. It is submitted that Sajjan Singh was un-armed as admitted by PW-2 Santokh Singh and he had no common intention; out of the persons said to have been injured by Sajjan Singh, Gug was not examined. It has been contended that since the offence has been compounded qua Sajjan Singh, he was entitled to be acquitted or was entitled to be released on probation. 5. It has been contended that since the offence has been compounded qua Sajjan Singh, he was entitled to be acquitted or was entitled to be released on probation. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there are no injuries on accused and the injuries caused on Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh could either be self suffered or my have been received in some other occurrence. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 7. The dispute between the parties took place on account of parcel of land given by the panchayat, which was being opposed by the complainant and which led to proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused were aggrieved by the said proceedings, which led to their attack on the complainant party with their respective weapons, namely, Joginder Singh with a takua; Santokh Singh with barchi; Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh with dangs and Sajjan Singh with brick. With the said weapons, the following injuries were caused :- A) Injury on Smt. Bhano : "A lacerated wound 2-1/2 cm x 3/4 cm x bone deep vertical on the left side of face at the left angle of mandible. The wound was bleeding. Swelling was present around. Clotted blood was also present on the shirt. The mastication movements were painful. Tenderness was present." B) Injury on Mr. Gug : "A lacerated wound 2 cm x 3/4 cm oblique on the upper and central part of forehead. The surrounding skin was abraded. The wound was bleeding. The wound was situated slightly on the left half. Clotted blood was present around. She was conscious. Shirt was strained with blood." C) Injuries on Santokh Singh : 1. An incised wound 2-1/2 cm x 2 cm in the left eye brow in the outer half. The skin was abraded. 2. An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm transverse in the right half of upper lip. The wound was bleeding. On palpation, the wound was through and through as the upper lip was uprooted. Wound in the gum was present which was bleeding. The blood was also coming from the socket of the tooth. Shirt was blood stained. 3. A contusion 5 cm x 4 cm on the right side of face at the right angle of mouth. Swelling was present. Wound in the gum was present which was bleeding. The blood was also coming from the socket of the tooth. Shirt was blood stained. 3. A contusion 5 cm x 4 cm on the right side of face at the right angle of mouth. Swelling was present. The skin was lacerated superficially in an area of 5 cm x 3/4 cm. Tenderness was present. 4. An abrasion 2 cm x 1-1/2 cm on the back of right elbow. 5. An irregular abrasion 5 cm x 2-1/2 cm on the left alic crest near the superior alic spine. 6. A contusion 5 cm x 2 cm in the calf of the right leg." D) Injury on Dula Singh : "An incised wound 2-1/2 cm x 3/4 cm bone deep vertical on the front and upper part of the right chest. The wound was situated on the lateral 1/3rd on right clavicle. The wound was bleeding. Clotted blood was present around." E) Injuries on Karaj Singh : 1. An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1-1/2 cm transverse on the outer aspect and lower 1/3rd on the right leg, 10 cm above the outer ankle. Clotted blood was present around. The movements of the leg were painful. Tenderness was present. 2. A contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the inner aspect and lower 1/4th of right thigh. 3. An abrasion 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the inner ankle left-leg. F) Injuries on Kashmir Kaur : 1. A lacerated wound 1-3/4 cm x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on the left half of head on the left periotal area oblique in direction, 10 cms above the left ear. Clotted blood was present around. She was conscious. 2. A contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back and upper 1/3rd of the left upper arm. G) Injury on Kartar Singh : "A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm half side deep on the right maxillary prominess, swelling was present all around. Tenderness was present. Movements of mendible were restricted. Clotted blood was present around." 8. The case of the prosecution is fully proved by the evidence of PW-2 Santokh Singh, PW-3 Dula Singh and PW-4 Bhan Kaur, who were injured witnesses and their versions are supported by medical evidence, viz PW-1 Dr. Sham Lal Gupta and PW-6 Dr. Tenderness was present. Movements of mendible were restricted. Clotted blood was present around." 8. The case of the prosecution is fully proved by the evidence of PW-2 Santokh Singh, PW-3 Dula Singh and PW-4 Bhan Kaur, who were injured witnesses and their versions are supported by medical evidence, viz PW-1 Dr. Sham Lal Gupta and PW-6 Dr. Gurdial Singh Gill and the investigating officer PW-5 ASI Ram Nath. 9. Question for consideration is whether failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain injuries on Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. The trial Court observed that injury No. 1 on the person of Karaj Singh was held to be grievous, but the same was on non-vital part i.e. right leg and injuries on Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh were simple. It was observed that the version of the prosecution could be accepted inspite of unexplained injuries on Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh. 11. In Lakshmi Singhs case (supra), it was held that the Court could draw an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has, thus, not presented the true version before the Court, where injuries on accused parties are not explained and the defence version which has explained injuries on the person of the accused will be rendered more probable. In Ram Sunder Yadav and others v. State of Bihar, 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 54 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 3117, wherein it was held that failure to explain injuries on the accused was not always fatal. Reiterating the view of the earlier three Judge Bench decision in Baba Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252 and another three Judge Bench decision in Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., 1990(2) RCR(Crl.) 304 (SC) : AIR 1990 SC 1459, explaining the view taken in Lakshmi Singhs case (supra), it was observed that where evidence is clear, cogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot be a ground to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. 12. 12. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is a question of fact to be examined whether the case of the prosecution will be liable to be rejected in absence of explanation of injuries by the complainant party. In view of categorical evidence of PW-2 Santokh Singh, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Dula Singh and PW-4 Bhan Kaur, prosecution case is fully proved. The defence version put forward by DW-1 Karaj Singh that complainant party attacked the accused party and Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh wielded dang blows in self defence leading to injuries on the witnesses could not be accepted. The injured had no intention to substitute the accused in place of Karaj Singh, Kashmir Kaur and Kartar Singh. Having regard to the injuries on their person, the case of the prosecution that accused party was aggressor is proved. 13. Conviction of Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh as recorded by the Courts below is upheld. 14. Coming to the case of Sajjan Singh accused, a case for giving benefit of doubt with regard to common intention is made out. Individual injury caused by Sajjan Singh makes out a case of 325 IPC, which is compoundable. In view of the compounding, Sajjan Singh is acquitted. 15. Coming to the question of sentence, I find that the occurrence has taken place about 15 years back. Having regard to all circumstances of the case, sentence of imprisonment awarded to Joginder Singh, Santokh Singh, Darbara Singh and Gulzar Singh is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. Sentence of fine is raised to Rs. 15,000/- each, which will cover all the offences. In default of payment of fine, the appellants will undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine will be paid to the injured or their heirs. Both the revisions are disposed of accordingly.