JUDGMENT 1. - In these appeals strange finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota is under challenge whereby appellant Yogendra Kumar was sentenced under section 307 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life whereas the appellant Satya Narain under section 307/34 IPC had to undergo only ten years rigorous imprisonment. Two different yardsticks have been applied by the learned trial Judge in sentencing the appellants although Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 2. Yogendra Kumar @ Ganju and Satya Narain @ Sattu, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota, who vide judgment dated July 12, 2004 convicted and sentenced them as under: Yogendra Kumar @ Ganju : U/s. 307 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 324 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 4/25 Arms Act: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Satya Narain @ Sattu : U/s. 307/34 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 324 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 4/25 Arms Act: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 4/25 Arms Act: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. It is the prosecution case that on October 28, 2003 Parcha Bayan of informant Chintu @ Sagar (Pw.2) was recorded wherein the informant stated that in the preceding night around 10.30 PM while the informant and Harish were going from Gumanpura to their house the appellants met them at Subhash Circle. Sattu Doli struck knife blow on his right leg whereas Ganju inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Harish. On that parcha bayan case under sections 307, 323, 324 IPC read with 4/25 Arms was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota. Charges under sections 307, 307/34, 324, 323 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.RC., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in support of defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us and on scanning the injury reports of Chintu @ Sagar and Harish we find that charges under sections 307, 324 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act against Yogendra Kumar and under section 307/34, 324 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act against Satya Narain are established and they have been rightly convicted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants restricted their submissions only to the extent of sentence awarded to the appellants. 6. A look at the testimony of Sagar @ Chintu (Pw.2) demonstrates that while he and Harish reached to Shripura Motor Stand on Motor cycle, he saw the appellants consuming liquor. They had altercation with him, slapped him and then inflicted knife blows. 6. A look at the testimony of Sagar @ Chintu (Pw.2) demonstrates that while he and Harish reached to Shripura Motor Stand on Motor cycle, he saw the appellants consuming liquor. They had altercation with him, slapped him and then inflicted knife blows. In his cross examination he admitted that he too was involved in many criminal cases and proceedings under section 110 Cr.RC. were initiated against him. 7. Having regard to the young age of the appellants and looking to the circumstances in which offence was committed and nature of the injures and harm caused to the victims and employing the principles of victimology, we deem it a fit case in which sentence deserves to be modified. 8. For these reasons, we dispose of instant appeal in the following terms : (i) We partly allow the appeal of appellant Yogendra Kumar @ Ganju and while maintaining his conviction under section 307 IPC, we reduce his sentence from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. We however maintain his conviction and sentence under sections 324 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. We acquit him of the charge under section 323 IPC. (ii) We partly allow the appeal of appellant Satya Narain @ Sattu and while maintaining his conviction under section 307/34 IPC, we reduce his sentence from rigorous imprisonment for ten years to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. We however maintain his conviction and sentence under sections 324 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. We acquit him of the charge under section 323 IPC. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial court stands modified as indicated above. Appeal allowed to modification of sentence as above in view of young age of accused and nature of injuries and harm caused to victims. *******