JUDGMENT :- The appellants/original accused in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2004, who stand convicted for an offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for one year and original accused no. 1 Udhav stands additionally convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basrnathnagar, by judgment dated 6th August, 2005, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. The appellants also question the correctness of the order of the Trial Court awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the complainant/respondent no.2. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can be summarized as under :- P.W.9 Hanumant Marakwad, a Head Constable who was attached to police station, Basmathnagar, was on MLC duty on 26-10-2003. He recorded the statement of P.W.2 Balu at Exh.42. On the basis of the said statement Head Constable, Putwal registered the offence vide Crime No.181/2003 for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Upon registration of the offence, the investigation thereof was entrusted to P.W.8 Trimbak Ban, an A.P.I. attached to Police Station, Basmath. On being entrusted with the investigation, P.W.8 A.P.I. Ban immediately arrested accused no.1 on 27-10-2003. On 27-10-2003 P.W.8 A.P.I. Ban drew the scene of the offence panchanama at Exh.59 and from the scene of the offence one shoe, iron bar, one pair of chappal, one palm which had been amputated from the wrist, one towel, plain earth and blood mixed earth came to be seized. Accused Maroti also came to be arrested. In the evening accused Narhari came to be arrested. During interrogation accused no. 1 Udhav expressed his willingness to point out the place where the Katti (sickle) had been hidden. The aforesaid memorandum therefore came to be recorded in the presence of P.W.5 Kalidas vide Exh.50. The memorandum of accused Maroti in regard to pointing out the place where the axe had been bidden was also recorded in the presence of the panchas at Exh.51. The aforesaid memorandum therefore came to be recorded in the presence of P.W.5 Kalidas vide Exh.50. The memorandum of accused Maroti in regard to pointing out the place where the axe had been bidden was also recorded in the presence of the panchas at Exh.51. The accused discovered the aforesaid weapons which came to be seized under panchanamas at Exhs.53 and 54. Accused Narhari expressed his willingness to point out the place where he had hidden an iron rod. The memorandum is at Exh.52. Accused Narhari took the police and the panch to his house and produced an iron rod which came to be seized under panchanama at Exh.55. The palm which had been amputated in the incident, was referred to the Medical Officer along with the requisition at Exh.64. The accused were referred to the Medical Officer for obtaining their sample for the examination of their blood. Clothes on the person of accused Udhav and Maroti came to be seized vide panchanama at Exhs.47 and 48. The seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyser along with the requisition. The report of the Chemical Analyser is at Exh.67. P.W.2 Balu had been examined by P.W.6 Dr. Satish Tak who noticed the following external injuries:- 1. Amputation of left wrist joint with active bleeding positive under mine bones exposed, by sharp weapon grievous in nature; 2. Incised wound on left side of stomach below left clavicle dimensions 6 cm. x 2 cm. x pleural deep sharp weapon and grievous in nature; 3. Abrasion 4 cm. x 1/4 cm. part of body left lateral aspect of arm; 4. Incised wound 10 cm. x 3 cm. x muscle deep side of injury over back over left scapula, age of all injuries were within 6 hours. He had issued the certificate at Exh.57. He has opined that injuries no.1, 3 and 4 were possible by Katti Art. C-1 while injury no.2 was possible by Axe Art.C-2. Further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be filed. 3. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, Trial Court framed a charge against the appellants for offence punishable under section 307 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. and additionally against accused no.1 Udhav for an offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C. All the accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, Trial Court framed a charge against the appellants for offence punishable under section 307 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. and additionally against accused no.1 Udhav for an offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C. All the accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced all the appellants for the offence punishable under section 307 read with sec.34 of I.P.C. and also convicted and sentenced accused no. 1 Udhav for offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C. The Trial Court also directed accused no.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to P.W.2 Balu under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Before I advert to the submissions advanced before me by Shri. Chatterji, learned Counsel for the appellants: Shri. K. S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for State and Shri. S. P. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.2 Balu whose evidence constitutes the substratum of the prosecution case against the present appellants. P.W.2 Balu states that he knows all the accused. In the morning when he had gone to his field at about 11.00 a.m. he had noticed that some animals had strayed in his field. About eight days earlier to the aforesaid incident, animals had also strayed in his field and he had requested the accused not to allow their animals to stray in his land. On the day of the incident the animals had strayed in his field and accordingly he had asked accused no. 1 as to why the cattle were allowed to stray in his field. On that accused no.1 had abused P.W.2 Balu and had driven his cattle out of the land ofP.W.2. Thereafter while P.W.2 Balu was fixing the joint of a pipe, accused no.3 Narhari gave a blow of an iron bar on the head of P.W.2. Accused no.2 Maroti dealt a blow of an axe over the chest of Balu. Accused no.1 Udhav dealt a blow of Katti (sickle) on the back and arm. Accused no.1 Udhav intended to deal a blow on the neck ofP.W.2 but P.W.2 Balu evaded the blow by raising his left hand. Accused no.2 Maroti dealt a blow of an axe over the chest of Balu. Accused no.1 Udhav dealt a blow of Katti (sickle) on the back and arm. Accused no.1 Udhav intended to deal a blow on the neck ofP.W.2 but P.W.2 Balu evaded the blow by raising his left hand. As a result of the evasive action, the blade of Katti struck the left hand just below the palm and the palm was thus severed from the wrist. P.W.2 therefore raised shouts and his shouts were heard by his brother who was present in the field. The accused on seeing P.W.3 Shankar coming to the aid of P.W.2, fled from the scene of the offence. P.W.2 Balu was brought to the village in a vehicle and was taken to Basmath and from Basmath was referred to Nanded Hospital. His report came to be scribed at Exh.42. He has described the axe to be an axe having undulating blade. He has identified all the weapons with which he was assaulted by the accused. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, he has admitted that prior to the two instances when the cattle had strayed in his land, no other incident had occurred between him and the accused. He has admitted that his relations with the accused were cordial. He has admitted that the cattle which had strayed in his field had damaged the sugarcane crop. He has admitted that the damage caused by the cattle, which had strayed in his field, to the crop in the area admeasuring 20 x 15 ft. He has admitted that he had not reported the incident to the police. He has admitted that he did not get angry when the animals had destroyed his sugarcane crop on the first occasion. He has admitted that on the day of the incident when he had gone to the field in the morning he had met accused no. 1 who was grazing his cattle. He has admitted that at that time excepting Udhav no other person was present. He has admitted that on the day of the incident the cattle of Udhav had strayed in his field and had caused damage to the Banana crop. He has admitted that he did not go and inform about the incident either to the inmates of his house or to his brother. He has admitted that on the day of the incident the cattle of Udhav had strayed in his field and had caused damage to the Banana crop. He has admitted that he did not go and inform about the incident either to the inmates of his house or to his brother. He has further admitted that he informed his brother about the incident when he had arrived in the field. He has admitted that neither he nor Shankar were angry at the accused. He has admitted that he had not seen the accused till the accused actually came near him. He has stated that the accused had come from the direction of the village. He has also admitted, that he realized that the accused were present only when he had sustained a blow of iron rod on his head. He has admitted that the blow by the iron rod was given from behind, on his head on the occipital part. He has admitted that it was a hard blow but the blow did not render him unconscious. There was no oozing of blood on account of the blow by the iron rod, however, there was swelling over his head and the swelling was present for a day. He has stated that the second blow was immediately given by an axe and thereafter the blows by Katti were dealt on his person. He has admitted that when he was assaulted he was alone in the field. He was asked the question whether he had narrated the incident to the villagers and he had answered by stating that villagers were aware about the incident. He has further admitted that he had given history of assault to the Doctor at Basmathnagar and has also disclosed the names of the appellants to the Medical Officer. He has admitted that the police had not come at the Basmath hospital. 5. P.W.3 Shankar, brother of complainant states that on the day of the incident i.e. on 26-10-2003 while he was carrying out agricultural operations, he heard the cry of help ofP.W.2. He accordingly rushed near the scene of the offence and sawall the three accused fleeing from the scene of the offence. Accused Maroti was holding an axe, accused Narhari was holding an iron bar and accused Udhav was holding a Katti (sickle). On reaching near P.W.2 he noticed injuries sustained by Balu. He accordingly rushed near the scene of the offence and sawall the three accused fleeing from the scene of the offence. Accused Maroti was holding an axe, accused Narhari was holding an iron bar and accused Udhav was holding a Katti (sickle). On reaching near P.W.2 he noticed injuries sustained by Balu. He states that he had seen an injury over the head of Balu. P.W.2 Balu informed P.W.3 that accused Narhari had dealt a blow of iron bar on his head while accused Maroti had dealt an axe blow near the neck and accused Udhav had assaulted him by a Katti on arm and had caused the severance of the palm at the wrist. P.W.3 Shankar carried Balu in a cart to village and from village Balu was taken to Basmath in a vehicle. Balu was thereafter referred to the hospital at Nanded. P.W.3 Shankar is searchingly cross-examined and in the cross-examination he has admitted that he does not know as to at what time the incident of assault on Balu commenced. He has further stated that he was at a distance of about 2 Acres from Balu when he had heard his shout. He has admitted that he had not raised any cry for help after hearing the cry of Balu. He has admitted that Balu was not visible from the place where he was standing. He has admitted that the injury on the head was not a bleeding injury. He has admitted to have stated in his statement about the injury on the head of Balu but could not ascribe any reason as to why the police have not recorded the same in his statement. He has admitted that he has not given history of the incident to the Medical Officer. 6. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged before me that the Medical Officer, particularly P.W.7 Dr. Mangesh Patil has admitted that the injuries were not fatal. P.W.7 Dr. Patil has admitted that none of the injuries was sufficient to cause death if the same were not treated. Relying on this admission it is urged by Mr. Chauerji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that an offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. is obviously not made out as none of the accused had intended to commit the murder of P.W.2 Balu. Relying on this admission it is urged by Mr. Chauerji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that an offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. is obviously not made out as none of the accused had intended to commit the murder of P.W.2 Balu. It is also urged before me that evidence of P.W.2 Balu is obviously that of an interested witness and no amount of corroboration by P.W.3 Shankar can strengthen the testimony of Balu for justifying the conviction of the appellants for offence under section 307 of I.P.C. 7. The admission of the Medical Officer i.e. P.W.7 Dr. Mangesh Patil, more or less states that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W.7 Dr. Patil has stated that the injury would have been fatal if medical aid had not been provided. Thus, in the opinion of the Medical Officer the injuries sustained by P.W.2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause ,death if timely medical intervention had not been made available for saving the life of P.W.2 Balu. In this regard a reference may usefully be made to the case of Vasudeo Balwant Gogte Vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 Bombay 279, in which the Court has observed thus:- "What S.307 really means is that the accused must do an act with such a guilty intention and knowledge and in such circumstances that but for some intervening fact the act would have amounted to murder in the normal course of events. If an act is done with a sufficiently guilty intention and knowledge and in circumstances which do not from their nature afford a defence to a charge of murder, and if the act is of such a nature as would have caused death in the usual course of events but for something beyond the accused's control which prevented that result, then the case falls within S.307." 8. In order to ascertain the intention of the accused, the nature of the weapon used by the accused, the place where the blow was intended to be given and the exhortations of the accused at the time of the commission of the act all become relevant. In the present case P.W.2 Balu is alleged to have been assaulted on the head by means of an iron bar. In the present case P.W.2 Balu is alleged to have been assaulted on the head by means of an iron bar. An iron bar is certainly a deadly weapon which is capable of causing death if a blow is forcefully dealt on the head. The other two weapons which are alleged to have been used by the accused are an axe and a Katti (sickle). The blow of axe was dealt on the chest ofP.W.2 Balu while a Katti blow was dealt on the back and a Katti blow was intended to be delivered on the neck but P.W.2 Balu had evaded the said blow by raising his 'left hand and as a result of that the palm was severed from the wrist. The severance of the palm indicates the force with which the said blow was given. All the accused had come at the scene of the offence variously armed and, therefore, would indicate that the accused had shared the common intention to commit murder of P.W.2 Balu. If that be the case, merely because the Medical Officer has not in so many words stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the accused are not entitled to claim that they had no intention to commit murder of Balu and, therefore, would be liable for an offence other than section 307 of I.P.C. 9. Relying on the testimony of P.W.6 Dr. Tak, Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged before me that the injury certificate at Exh.57 does not disclose that P.W.2 Balu had sustained any injury on the head by means of an iron rod. Injured Balu had sustained four injuries and all the injuries were by means of a sharp weapon and none of the injury is on the head. According to P.W.6 Dr. Tak, injuries no.1, 3 and 4 were possible by Katti while injury no.2 was possible by an axe. The Medical Officer does not opine that any of the injuries could be caused to P.W.2 Balu by means of iron rod which is a hard and blunt object. It is also urged before me that P.W.6 Dr. Tak has admitted that if a forceful blow was given on the head by means of the iron rod, there was a strong likelihood of fracture. It is also urged before me that P.W.6 Dr. Tak has admitted that if a forceful blow was given on the head by means of the iron rod, there was a strong likelihood of fracture. On the basis of this evidence, therefore, it is urged by Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the absence of any injury having been sustained by Balu because of an iron rod, the participation of accused no.3 Narhari itself becomes doubtful. 10. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Tak and P.W.7 Dr. Patil clearly indicates that P.W.2 had not sustained any injury on his head as a result of a blow of iron rod. Though Balu claims that the blow was dealt forcefully and because of the blow there was swelling on the head, the Medical Officer does not note any injury on the head at all. P.W.3 Shankar also admits that he had noticed an injury on the head of Balu but curiously again the Medical Officer makes no reference to any injury on the head. P.W.2 Balu is categorical in stating that it was accused no.3 Narhari who had dealt a blow of iron rod on his head. If that be the case, it was expected that the Medical Officers would noticed some injury on the head of Balu which could have been caused by the iron rod. Apparently it seems that there was no injury on the head caused by an iron rod. 11. There appears to be an apparent conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. P.W.2 Balu in emphatic terms states that a blow was given by accused Narhari on his head by an iron rod. The medical evidence to that extent falsifies any injury on the head of P.W.2 Balu caused by means of an iron rod. The medical evidence, therefore, completely rules out the use of an iron rod while causing any injuries to Balu. The medical evidence, therefore, rules out the participation of accused no.3 Narhari in the assault on P.W.2 Balu. P.W.2 Balu has thus introduced in his evidence an element of falsehood as he has attempted to rope in accused no.3 Narhari. The question, therefore, is whether this introduction of falsehood/exaggeration is enough to jettison the entire prosecution case or in other words whether because of the exaggeration the otherwise reliable evidence should be discarded. P.W.2 Balu has thus introduced in his evidence an element of falsehood as he has attempted to rope in accused no.3 Narhari. The question, therefore, is whether this introduction of falsehood/exaggeration is enough to jettison the entire prosecution case or in other words whether because of the exaggeration the otherwise reliable evidence should be discarded. In a criminal trial often truth and falsehood is intermingled and a court when faced with this situation while appreciating the evidence where truth and falsehood are intermingled should endeavour to separate the truth from falsehood. If this exercise of separation can be done without damaging the fabric of the prosecution case, the entire prosecution case need not be jettisoned. It is only when truth and falsehood is intertwined, that it was impossible to separate them from each other, that the court would be justified in discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, truth and falsehood can be easily separated. P.W.2 Balu ascribes three weapons to the three accused, use of one weapon by accused Narhari appears to be impossible and appears to have been falsely introduced by P.W.2 Balu. If that be the case, benefit can be extended to accused no.3 Narhari and the otherwise reliable evidence of P.W.2 Balu which stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 Shankar need not be discarded. Therefore, according to me, the submission of Mr. Chatterji that there is no evidence to indicate participation of accused no.3 Narhari in the said crime merits consideration. Accused no.3 Narhari, according to me could, therefore, be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 12. It was lastly urged by Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to P.W.2 Balu on account of severance of his palm from his wrist. It is urged before me that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is disproportionate to the crime and the injury which is caused and the Trial Court while awarding the compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not take into consideration if the accused had the means of paying the same. My attention has been invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 S.C. 2127 . The Supreme Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment has observed thus :- "10. My attention has been invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 S.C. 2127 . The Supreme Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment has observed thus :- "10. Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. In this case, we are not concerned with sub-section (1). We are concerned only with sub-section (3). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommended to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default." 13. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default." 13. Thus, this judgment of the Supreme Court lays down that the quantum of compensation which may be awarded by the Court has to be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of the claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay. This judgment further lays down that in appropriate cases the Court may grant facility to the accused of paying the amount of compensation by instalments. 14. The Trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to P.W.2 Balu on account of severance of his palm. The Trial Court while awarding or quantifying the amount has not taken into consideration if the accused had the ability or the means to pay compensation. Obviously, since the accused was not put to notice by the Court intending to award the compensation, the accused also could not produce the documents before the Court pointing out his inability to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Similarly, the complainant also could not quantify the amount of compensation to which he was entitled to. I have heard Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 on the amount of compensation to which P.W.2 Balu would be entitled to. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has urged before me that the medical expenses which P.W.2 Balu had to incur were to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has stated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be required for an artificial palm for P.W.2 Balu. In all fairness, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has stated that the total holding of the accused is 5 Acres and 26 Gunthas. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel has reiterated that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is excessively disproportionate to the ability of the accused to pay the same. 15. While considering the quantum, it is extremely difficult for the Court to balance on one hand the nature of the crime and the injury which the complainant had suffered and the means of the accused to pay the compensation which is intended to be awarded. 15. While considering the quantum, it is extremely difficult for the Court to balance on one hand the nature of the crime and the injury which the complainant had suffered and the means of the accused to pay the compensation which is intended to be awarded. Inevitably a balance has to be struck and the quantum has to be arrived at taking into consideration all three aspects of the case. In the present case, it is no doubt true that the palm of Balu was severed from his wrist. Of course, the accused did not intend to cause that injury. It is equally true that the accused intended to cause a much serious injury on the neck but in the process of evading the blow on the neck, the palm of P.W.2 Balu was severed. The accused cannot claim that the accused no.1 is not directly responsible for the severance of the palm of P.W.2. The blow was dealt with such a force that it resulted in the severance of the palm from the wrist. P.W.2 Balu has not placed on record the bills regarding the medical expenses of the estimate for purchasing an artificial palm. However, without going into the minute details regarding the medical expenses and the expenses required for purchasing an artificial palm, according to me, an amount of Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice as compensation under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been awarded by the Trial Court appears to be grossly disproportionate to the means of the accused for paying the same. The total holding of the accused in 5 Acres and 26 Gunthas and from this small holding it is difficult to imagine that the accused no.1 would alone be able to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to P.W.2. In the light of that therefore, according to me, an amount of Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice as compensation to P.W.2 Balu for severance of his palm. 16. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused no. 1 has urged before me that looking to the small family holding of the agricultural land, it would be impossible for appellant no.1 to pay entire amount of compensation in lump sum. 16. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused no. 1 has urged before me that looking to the small family holding of the agricultural land, it would be impossible for appellant no.1 to pay entire amount of compensation in lump sum. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 S.C. 2127 (supra), it is urged that facility of paying the amount of compensation by instalments may be granted to the accused no.1. I have heard Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for respective parties on the period which would be considered reasonable for payment of the amount of compensation by instalments. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that accused no. 1 or on his behalf would pay the first instalment of Rs.25,000/- within three months from today and the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- would be paid by accused no. 1 or on his behalf within three months of the payment of the first instalment. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and according to me, appellant no.3 Narhari is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the other two appellants beyond reasonable doubt and thus there is no merit in their appeal. Mr. Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants lastly urged that a sentence of imprisonment for ten years is extremely harsh looking to the facts of the present case. Looking to the facts of the present case, according to me, this is not a case where any leniency could be exercised in modifying the sentence of original accused nos. 1 and 2. 18. In the light of that Criminal Appeal No.642 of 2005 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused no.3 Narhari s/o Maroti Kadam is hereby quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine if paid by accused no.3 Narhari s/o Maroti Kadam be refunded to him. The appeal insofar as it challenges the conviction of original accused no. 1 Udhav s/o Maroti Kadam and original accused no.2 Maroti s/o Narayan Kadam, is dismissed confirming their conviction and sentence. Since accused no.3 Narhari s/o Maroti Kadam is in jail, he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal insofar as it challenges the conviction of original accused no. 1 Udhav s/o Maroti Kadam and original accused no.2 Maroti s/o Narayan Kadam, is dismissed confirming their conviction and sentence. Since accused no.3 Narhari s/o Maroti Kadam is in jail, he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the Trial Court to be paid by appellant no.1 Udhav to injured Balu s/o Digambar Dhawale is reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Appellant no.1 Udhav or on his behalf would pay the first instalment of Rs.25,000/- within three months from today and the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- would be paid by appellant no. 1 Udhav or on his behalf within three months of the payment of the first instalment to injured Balu s/o. Digambar Dhawale. Appeal partly allowed.