Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against acquittal of Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh, accused-respondent for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala vide his judgment dated 23.9.1992. However, they were convicted under Section 324 IPC and released on probation for a period of one year. Their co-accused Arjan Singh was convicted under Section 323 IPC only whereas the remaining three accused namely Baj Singh, Jirmal Singh and Puran Singh were acquitted. An appeal was filed against the acquittal of all the accused but vide order dated 26.5.1993, leave to appeal was granted qua the aforesaid two respondents with regard to the offence under Section 326 IPC only. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh, accused-respondents along with their companions had caused injuries to Iqbal Singh and Baljinder Singh on 5.10.1986 at about 8/9.00 A.M. with their respective weapons. Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh were armed with Gandasis. Iqbal Singh injured (PW-1) was medico-legally examined by Dr. Bikramjit Singh (PW-5) and nine injuries were found on his person. Out of these injuries, injury Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 were kept under observation for X-ray report. Injury No. 4 was declared as grievous. Injury Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 8 were declared to be simple in nature. Injury Nos. 4 and 6 were caused with sharp edged weapon while the remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. His medico-legally report was proved as Exhibit PW-5/A. 3. Baljinder Singh (PW-2) was also medico-legally examined by the same doctor i.e. Bikramjit Singh (PW-5). Two injuries were found on his person. Injury No. 1 was declared as grievous while the second injury was only pain. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon. His medico-legal report was proved as Exhibit PW-5/D. 4. The matter was reported to the police by Iqbal Singh injured when his statement was recorded on 6.10.1986 at about 8.00 P.M. 5. After investigation, challan was presented against Amrik Singh and Bhola Singh and four of their companions. 6. Along with their co-accused Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh were mainly charged under Section 326 IPC for causing grevious injury to Iqbal Singh and Baljinder Singh with edged weapons. 7. After investigation, challan was presented against Amrik Singh and Bhola Singh and four of their companions. 6. Along with their co-accused Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh were mainly charged under Section 326 IPC for causing grevious injury to Iqbal Singh and Baljinder Singh with edged weapons. 7. As stated above, both have been acquitted for the said charge and stand convicted under Section 324 IPC only. Hence this appeal. 8. The record has been perused by us minutely and submissions made by Mr. J.S. Bedi, Deputy Advocate General Punjab and by Mr. D.S. Pheruman Advocate have been considered. 9. Whether charge under Section 326 IPC qua both the respondents is made out or not is the real controversy in the instant appeal and as such we feel the necessity of repeating the relevant injuries on the persons of Iqbal Singh and Baljinder Singh. 10. Injury No. 4 found on the person of Iqbal Singh attributed to Amrik Singh as proved by Dr. Bikramjit Singh, PW-5 is reproduced below :- "An incised wound 4 x 1 cm bone deep on the front of right lower leg transversely placed. Margins clean cut. Underlying bone was cut 3 mm deep and bleeding was present." 11. Injury No. 1 found on the person of Baljinder Singh which is attributed to Bhola Singh, accused-respondent as proved by Dr. Bikramjit Singh, PW-5 is reproduced below :- "Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm. bone deep in front of right lower leg transversely placed. Margins clean cut. Bleeding was present. Bone cut. Depth was 3 mm." 12. Now, we may refer to the definition of "grievous hurt" as contained in Section 320 Clause Seventhly which reads as under :- "320. Grievous hurt. - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous." - Seventhly. - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth." 13. Now we may refer to the law on the subject. In Hori Lal and another v. The State of U.P., AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1969, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to consider the question whether bone cut is a grievous injury or not. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :- "It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :- "It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a break by cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture, within the meaning of clause 7 of Section 320. What we have to see is whether the cuts in the bones noticed in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in them." 14. Similar matter also came up for discussion before Honble Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Narinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 44 (P&H). It was held that partial cut of bone amounts to grievous injury. 15. As per statement of Dr. Bikramjit Singh, in case of injury No. 4 of Iqbal Singh injured, there was a bone cut which was 3 mm. deep. Regarding injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh, it was also a bone cut 3 mm. deep. Therefore, within the meaning of Section 320 IPC and in view of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Hori Lals case (supra), injury No. 4 on the person of Iqbal Singh and injury No. 1 found on the person of Baljinder Singh are certainly grievous in nature. 16. Dr. Bikramjit Singh PW-5 has also specifically deposed in the Court that injury No. 4 found on the person of Iqbal Singh was grievous in nature. It was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Similarly, he has also deposed on oath that injury No. 1 found on the person of Baljinder Singh was grievous in nature and it was caused by a sharp edged weapon. 17. In our considered view, the learned trial Court mis-interpreted the evidence. In para No. 15 of the judgment, it was observed by the trial Court that injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh was not got subjected to X-ray examination in order to know the depth of the injury or to know the bone cut. 17. In our considered view, the learned trial Court mis-interpreted the evidence. In para No. 15 of the judgment, it was observed by the trial Court that injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh was not got subjected to X-ray examination in order to know the depth of the injury or to know the bone cut. For the same reasons, in para No. 16 of the judgment it was held by the trial Court, that injury on the person of Iqbal Singh was not found to be grievous. 18. X-ray was advised by Dr. Bikramjit Singh (PW-5) only for those injuries found on the person of Iqbal Singh which were kept under observation. Since no X-ray examination was required to determine the nature of injury No. 4, therefore, no X-ray was advised by Doctor Bikramjit Singh, PW-5 for that injury. It was found to be bone cut and, therefore, it was declared as grievous at the time of medico-legal examination of Iqbal Singh. Similarly, injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh was even determinable at the time of medico-legal examination and it was declared to be grievous at that very time. No need was felt by Dr. Bikramjit Singh to get injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh subjected to X-ray examination before describing the nature of that injury. It is not necessary that the nature of injury can be determined only after X-ray report is obtained. The judgments relied upon by the learned trial Court are not applicable to the facts of this case. 19. In view of discussion held above, Bhola Singh accused was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC for having caused grievous injury to Baljinder Singh while Amrik Singh was guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC for having caused grievous injury with sharp edged weapon to Iqbal Singh. The learned trial Court had gone wrong in not recording the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC against both of them. They are now convicted accordingly. 20. Let us deal with the sentence part. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as State of Punjab v. Harnam Singh, 2002(2) Recent Criminal Reports page 507 has held as under :- "However, in the matter of their sentence this Court cannot ignore the delay in disposal of their case. They are now convicted accordingly. 20. Let us deal with the sentence part. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as State of Punjab v. Harnam Singh, 2002(2) Recent Criminal Reports page 507 has held as under :- "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 10.11.1987 while Sona Singh was released on 21.1.1988. After the submission of challan charges were framed against them on 2.12.1987. 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. 5,000/- under Section 326 IPC whereas Harnam Singh and Jagir Singh shall pay fine of Rs. 1,500/- each under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC within two months from today. Out of total amount, if so deposited, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to Maya Bai towards compensation." 21. In the present case also, the occurrence had taken place on 5.10.1986. Accused Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh were convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.9.1992 for having committed offences punishable under Section 324 IPC. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal against acquittal of Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC in the year 1993 and it is being decided today by us. The accused/respondents who are facing agony and trauma of this trial for a period of 18 years are to be shown compassion in the matter of sentence. Both the accused/respondents were arrested on 12.10.1986. Bhola Singh remained in custody upto 7.11.1986 while Amrik Singh remained in custody till 17.11.1986. Now, further incarceration of the accused/respondents after a lapse of more than 18 years will defeat the ends of justice and frustrate them. Both the accused/respondents were arrested on 12.10.1986. Bhola Singh remained in custody upto 7.11.1986 while Amrik Singh remained in custody till 17.11.1986. Now, further incarceration of the accused/respondents after a lapse of more than 18 years will defeat the ends of justice and frustrate them. Moreover, injury No. 4 on the person of Iqbal Singh was on the right lower leg which was not a vital part of his body. Similarly, injury No. 1 on the person of Baljinder Singh was also on the right lower leg which was not vital part. 22. Therefore, both the accused/respondents Bhola Singh and Amrik Singh are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each. Out of the amount of fine, Rs. 4,000/- each shall be given to each of the injured as compensation. However, if the abovesaid amount of Rs. 5,000/- each is not deposited by the accused- respondents within a period of two months from today, then they will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. The will also a pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof, they will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 23. Resultantly, this appeal stands allowed with the abovesaid modification.