Judgment Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22.10.1987, at about 2 pm, in village Fatehgarh Tarobri, Sarwan Singh alongwith his mother Maya Bai were going on their tractor through a village street to bring bricks from the brick kiln. They were to take trolley from the farm house of Gurbachan Singh. When they reached near to the house of Kashmir Singh in the village, Harnam Singh, his brother Sona Singh and his son Jagir Singh emerged from the house of Harnam Singh armed with a gandasi each. Harnam Singh raised a lalkara that "Sarwan and his mother may not escape that day." On hearing the impending attack, both Sarwan Singh and his mother Maya Bai came down from the tractor but they were surrounded. Harnam Singh gave a gandasi blow from reverse side on the right knee of Sarwan Singh and Jagir Singh gave gandasi blow from reverse side on the right ankle of Sarwan Singh. Sona Singh gave gandasi blow from reverse side on the right arm of Sarwan Singh. Sona gave another gandasi blow from sharp side on the elbow of left arm of Maya Bai and Jagir Singh gave two injuries with a gandasi to her. Both the injured raised alarm which attracted Hoshiar Singh and other persons and the assailants fled away. The injured were admitted in the Civil Hospital, Fazilka where Dr. Ramesh Gupta, Medical Officer examined Maya Bai and found the following injuries on her person :- 1. An incised wound size 2.5 x .75 cms. present on posterior lateral aspect of left upper arm 2 cms. below the left elbow joint. Wound was bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. An abrasion 3x3 cms. present on lateral aspect of left upper arm. It was 4 cms. above the left elbow joint. Injury was kept under observation. 3. Patient complained of pain in the left lumber area posteriorly. Area was tender kept under observation. 4. Patent complained of pain in the left scapular area. Area was tender. X- ray was advised. ON receipt of X-ray report, injury No. 1 was declared grievous and rest simple in nature." 2 On the same day at 4 p.m., Dr. Ramesh Gupta also examined Sarwan Singh and found the following injuries :- "1. 4. Patent complained of pain in the left scapular area. Area was tender. X- ray was advised. ON receipt of X-ray report, injury No. 1 was declared grievous and rest simple in nature." 2 On the same day at 4 p.m., Dr. Ramesh Gupta also examined Sarwan Singh and found the following injuries :- "1. Swelling size about 5.3 cm was on lateral aspect of right forearm. It was 7 cms. above the right wrist joint. Swelling was tender on touch. X-ray was advised. 2. Swelling 4x2 cms. was on anterior medial aspect of right lower leg. It was 11 cms. above the right ankle joint. Swelling was tender on touch. X-ray was advised. 3. Swelling 3x2 cms. on anterior aspect of right lower leg. It was 5 cms above the ankle joint. X-ray was advised. 4. Patient complained of pain on medial aspect of right knee joint. Injury kept under observation. The injuries were caused with blunt weapon and after X-ray examination, the same were declared simple in nature." 3 The motive for causing injuries to Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai by Harnam Singh and others was that there was a dispute of Sarwan Singh and his father Fauja Singh with one Makhan Singh in the village and Harnam Singh was a witness in that case. The respondents did not like Sarwan Singh and others to pass in front of their house. Earlier police also started proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. in between them. 4. On receipt on information from the doctor, ASI Baldev Singh reached the hospital where he recorded statement Ex. PB of injured Sarwan on which he made his endorsement Ex. PB/2 and on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PB/3 was recorded in the police station. He also prepared site plan Ex. PC at the place of occurrence and arrested Harnam Singh, Jagir Singh and Sona Singh on 26.10.1987 in this case. 5. After the investigation, Harnam Singh, Jagir Singh and Sona Singh-accused were sent for trial. The Magistrate framed charge under Section 326 IPC against Sona Singh and under Section 326 read with 34 IPC against rest of the accused besides another charge under Section 323 IPC against all of them was framed. The respondent-accused, however, denied all the charges. 6. The prosecution examined Sarwan Singh as PW4, Maya Bai as PW.5, Hoshiar Singh as PW.7, medical evidence was furnished by Dr. The respondent-accused, however, denied all the charges. 6. The prosecution examined Sarwan Singh as PW4, Maya Bai as PW.5, Hoshiar Singh as PW.7, medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Ramesh Gupta-PW.6 and Dr. P.N. Makkar as PW.3 while the steps taken in the investigation of this case were deposed by ASI Baldev Singh as PW.1 and ASI Darbara Singh as PW.2. The accused, in their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their having attacked any of the two injured witnesses. They also produced Balwant Singh as DW.1 and Bishan Singh as DW.2 in their defence. The trial Court, however, did not find the case of the prosecution proved beyond any shadow of doubt against the respondent-accused and acquitted them of the charge, vide judgment dated 9.8.1991. The State has filed the present Appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.1991 passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties. 8. It has been urged before this Court by the counsel for the State that the trial Court failed to appreciate the cogent evidence of the injured-witnesses. The occurrence took place in the broad day light and there was no reason to dis-believe the injured witnesses. 9. The factual matrix of the case which has been narrated above, would show that both Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai had received injuries which have been duly supported by medico-legal report given by PW.6-Dr. Ramesh Gupta. Occurrence took place at about 2 p.m. in village Fatehgarh Tarobri which is at a distance of 10 km from the police station as is indicated in the FIR Ex.PB/3. Injured came to Civil Hospital, Fazilka and they were medically examined at 3.45 pm. Medico Legal Reports, after medical examination of the injured, were sent to the police station and on receipt of the same, ASI Baldev Singh-PW.1 came to the hospital and recorded statement of Sarwan Singh at 7.15 pm, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PB/3 was recorded at 7.30 pm. There is, thus, no apparent delay in lodging of First Information Report and since the time and place of receipt of injuries even are not denied by the respondent-accused, there is nothing to suggest any delay in lodging of FIR or result of any deliberation inter se between the complainant party before making statement to the police. There is, thus, no apparent delay in lodging of First Information Report and since the time and place of receipt of injuries even are not denied by the respondent-accused, there is nothing to suggest any delay in lodging of FIR or result of any deliberation inter se between the complainant party before making statement to the police. Moreover, there is no suggestion to any of the PWs if any of the accused-respondents was not present at the time and place of occurrence in their house. It is the case of the respondents that in fact Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai who were coming on their tractor fell down from the tractor when it hit against the wall of their house and both received injuries. Their sister escaped unhurt luckily as she was plastering the house wall at the time when the tractor had hit their wall. The Magistrate laid much stress in his judgment to say that the respondent-accused had no motive to cause any injury to the injured PWs and even injured witnesses were nursing grudge against them because Harnam Singh-respondent was a witness in a case between Fauja Singh father of Sarwan Singh and Makhan Singh. However, there is no denial if earlier to the present occurrence, there were inter se security proceedings between the complainant party and the accused-respondents. Besides, the very fact that the accused claimed that Sarwan Singh had hit his tractor against the outer wall of their house and their sister escaped unhurt just by a chance, by itself, was sufficient motive to these persons to attack and claim negligence on the part of Sarwan Singh in driving the tractor and hitting against the wall of their house where their sister was plastering the outer wall. Be that as it may, the motive pales into insignificance, if the genuineness of the occurrence or the fight is not absecure. 10. The trial Court also did not believe the prosecution case, since it observed that there was no independent witness to the occurrence. Be that as it may, the motive pales into insignificance, if the genuineness of the occurrence or the fight is not absecure. 10. The trial Court also did not believe the prosecution case, since it observed that there was no independent witness to the occurrence. However, statement of Hoshiar Singh-PW.7 is available who reached the scene of occurrence immediately thereafter and he gave the detail of assailants as well as the injuries received by Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai and he deposed in the same fashion before the Court that, in fact, he was walking in the same street where the occurrence took place when Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai on their tractor reached near the house of Harnam Singh and they had received injuries from the hands of respondent and thereafter he raised a lalkara. It will be noticed that Hoshiar Singh, PW, is, in no manner, inimical to the accused- respondents. Neither any such enmity is suggested to them. He is an independent witness and had supported the case of the prosecution so far as the participation of these accused-respondents in causing the injuries to both the prosecution witnesses is concerned. The respondents, no doubt, produced two witnesses from the village i.e. DW.1-Balwant Singh and DW.2-Bishan Singh who claimed that no such occurrence had taken place. However, they admitted that Sarwan Singh was driving a tractor and Maya Bai was sitting on the tractor by his side and their tractor had collided with the wall of Harnam Singh and they fell down and sustained injuries. They stated that none of the accused persons are present there and no quarrel had taken place. However, in their cross-examination, they admitted that the police had arrived there for investigation. They never approached the police nor made any such statement to the police nor they moved any application to any authority. DW.1 even stated that he never talked with the village Sarpanch regarding innocence of the respondents. Their statements do not in any manner falsify the occurrence or causing of injuries to Sarwan Singh and his mother Maya Bai. Even otherwise, there was no suggestion as to why Maya Bai would self-suffer grievous injury on her arm in order to lay a false charge on the respondents-accused. In these circumstances, the prosecution case was duly proved on record and the trial Court fell in error in holding it otherwise. 11. Even otherwise, there was no suggestion as to why Maya Bai would self-suffer grievous injury on her arm in order to lay a false charge on the respondents-accused. In these circumstances, the prosecution case was duly proved on record and the trial Court fell in error in holding it otherwise. 11. The respondents-accused attacked Sarwan Singh and Maya Bai PWs and caused injuries to them. They jointly emerged from their house duly armed with weapons and every one of them participated in the occurrence. In the circumstances, they caused injuries in furtherance of their common intention. 12. The case against the respondents from the evidence, referred to above, is duly made out for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 323 IPC. Accordingly, accused-Sona Singh voluntarily caused grievous hurt with gandasi on the person of Maya Bai and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC while Jagir Singh and Harnam Singh accused thereby committed offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. They also voluntarily caused simple hurt from blunt side of their gandasi to Sarwan Singh and thereby committed offence under Section 323 IPC each and they are held guilty of these offences. The appeal against their acquittal is allowed. 13. However, in the matter of their sentence, this Court cannot ignore the delay in disposal of their case. The occurrence in this case took place on 22.10.1987. The accused were arrested on 27.10.1987. Harnam Singh and Jagir Singh-accused were released on bail on 10.11.1987 while Sona Singh was released on 21.1.1988. After the submission of challan, charges were framed against them on 23.12.1987. They went through the protracted trial for about 4 years till the order of acquittal was passed on 9.8.1991. Appeal against their acquittal was admitted on 13.12.1991 on which date the respondents were issued notice and the same is being disposed of finally today. In the circumstances, instead of sentencing these respondents to any term of imprisonment, it would be appropriate if they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone for both the offences. However, Sona Singh in addition shall pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 326 IPC whereas Harnam Singh and Jagir Singh shall pay fine Rs. 1500/- each under 326 read with Section 34 IPC within two months from today. However, Sona Singh in addition shall pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 326 IPC whereas Harnam Singh and Jagir Singh shall pay fine Rs. 1500/- each under 326 read with Section 34 IPC within two months from today. Out of total amount, if so deposited, a sum of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid to Maya Bai towards compensation. However, in case the respondent-accused do not deposit the amount, as aforesaid, within given time, they shall undergo the sentence as under :- 14. Accused-Sona Singh is sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. Accused-Harnam Singh and Jagir Singh are sentenced under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo RI for four months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each. All the three accused-respondents are further sentenced under Section 326 IPC each to the period already spent in detention by them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur shall also in that case issue warrants of arrest of the respondent-accused and they shall be sent to jail forthwith to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid.