Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Accused-appellants Man Singh, Gian Singh and Kalawati (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were tried under Sections 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) for causing injuries to Satish, Dilbhari and Mehar Singh. Consequently, they were convicted under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as under :- Man Singh U/s 326 to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 6 months; Gian Singh & Kalawati U/s 326 read with Section 34 to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 3 months; Man Singh, Gian Singh and Kalawati U/s 324 read with Section 34 to undergo RI for 2 years; U/s 323 read with Section 34 to undergo RI for one year. 2. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Mehar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) in his statement recorded on 19.9.1992 by Kundan Lal Sub-Inspector, Police Station City Jagadhri, disclosed that on 19.9.1992 at about 8 p.m. after attending his duty he was coming on a cycle to his house. When he was passing through the street, 3 or 4 feet wide, in front of the house of the accused, he saw a cot (charpai) spread in front of the house of Man Singh and his sister Saroj Bala was cooking food on the hearth placed in the street. While feeling difficulty in passing, complainant asked Saroj Bala to remove the cot, but she refrained the complainant from talking non-sense. Consequently, complainant himself lifted the cot and tried to pass. At this, Man Singh, armed with Gandasi, Gian Singh, armed with Sickle and Kalawati, armed with mussal (wooden log) attacked the complainant and caused injuries to him. On hearing hue and cry, Satish and Dilbhari - injured were attracted to the spot, but they were also inflicted injuries by the accused persons. Bhagat Ram and Ishwar Singh, who had arrived at the spot, also witnessed the occurrence. Jai Singh took injured Satish in a three-wheeler, while Dilbhari and Mehar Singh were taken by Surinder Kumar in his tractor-trolly to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. 4. Bhagat Ram and Ishwar Singh, who had arrived at the spot, also witnessed the occurrence. Jai Singh took injured Satish in a three-wheeler, while Dilbhari and Mehar Singh were taken by Surinder Kumar in his tractor-trolly to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. 4. On the aforesaid statement made by complainant, the formal First Information Report was registered. Law was set in motion. Kundan Lal Sub- Inspector inspected the spot, arrested the accused and got recovered the weapons of offence. He also collected the medico-legal reports and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Completion of investigation was followed by presentation of challan against the accused in the court. 5. Charge against all the accused under Sections 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Dr. Kuldip Singh PW-1, Dr. R.K. Jain, PW-2, Sudesh Kumar draftsman, PW-3, Jile Singh Sub-Inspector PW-4, Surinder Singh Constable PW-5, Hans Raj PW-6, Ashwani Kumar, PW-7, Amrit Pal PW-8, Mehar Singh-complainant PW-9, Satish Kumar PW-10, Dilbhari-injured PW-11, Ishwar Singh PW-12, Ram Pal Constable PW-13 and Kundan Lal Investigating Officer PW-14. After giving up some witnesses as unnecessary and tendering affidavits of some constables, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. In their statements under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded that their false implication was due to enmity. Man Singh- accused further explained as under :- "I am innocent. On 19.9.1992, at about 9 p.m., my sister Saroj Bala was preparing meal on Angithi, while I, my brother Gian Singh and my mother Kalawati were sitting on the cot which was spread in our own room and were taking meals. Mehar Singh and Satish, etc. belonged to one family. They have old grudge since the time of my father and wanted to oust us from our house in order to usurp the same. On that day, they had assembled in the house of Mehar Singh, but we were not aware of their intention. Mehar Singh, Satish, Dilbhari and 2/3 other unknown persons all of a sudden came in our house. First of all, they assaulted Saroj Bala with their respective weapons which they were holding in their hands i.e. gandasies. On that day, they had assembled in the house of Mehar Singh, but we were not aware of their intention. Mehar Singh, Satish, Dilbhari and 2/3 other unknown persons all of a sudden came in our house. First of all, they assaulted Saroj Bala with their respective weapons which they were holding in their hands i.e. gandasies. When myself, my brother and my mother tried to intervene they also caused injuries to us. In order to save our lives, in our self-defence, I and my brother also caused 2/3 blows with lathi and sickle. In the meantime, the lamp which was burning in our room fell down and it became totally dark. There was no light in the street. Taking advantage of darkness we all entered our room and bolted the same from inside. Mehar Singh, etc. also received injuries from their own men in the darkness. We were arrested late in the night on 19.9.1992. Saroj Bala was got medically examined by the police on 20.9.1992, whereas, myself, my brother and mother were got medically examined by the police on 22.9.1992." The other accused also made identical statements. 8 In defence, the accused examined Dr. Rajbir Singh DW-1, who medico-legally examined Saroj Bala on 20.9.1992 i.e. the same day when the accused were examined. Saroj Bala also appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and who stated that she was preparing meals on hearth at her own place and her brothers and mother were sitting in the room on a cot. All of a sudden, Mehar Singh, Satish and Dilbhari along with few other persons came and threw away the hearth. Mehar Singh caused injuries with a gandasi, while Satish caused injuries with a sickle. They dragged her brother and caused him and his mother injuries. Her brother caused injuries to the accused in self-defence. 9. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court while acquitting the accused under Section 307 IPC observed that the accused caused simple as well as grievous injuries to all the three injured. Therefore, they were guilty of the offence under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and consequently, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. 10. I have heard Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Therefore, they were guilty of the offence under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and consequently, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. 10. I have heard Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Shalini Attri, Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State of Haryana and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. 11. Parties are living in the same street and are related to each other. There is no denying a fact that Anant Ram had three sons, namely : Gainda Ram, Dalel Singh and Tarloki. Mehar Singh-injured is the son of Gainda Ram, while Satish-injured is his nephew. The accused Man Singh and Gian Singh are the sons of Dalel Singh. From the perusal of the evidence coming from the mouth of Mehar Singh (PW-9) as well as the First Information Report Ex. PN-2, it transpires that Gian Singh inflicted a sickle blow on the head of Mehar Singh, Kalawati inflicted a mussal blow on the person of Dilbhari, Man Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Satish. Dr. Rajbir Singh PW-1 has testified that all the accused were also injured during the incident. He has proved the medico-legal reports Ex. DA, DB and DC, in this regard. DW-2 Saroj Bala has also categorically stated about the injuries caused by the complainant party on the person of the accused. The occurrence took place in the street. When the complainant tried to remove the cot and objected to the construction of hearth in the street, then both the parties grappled with each other and caused injuries to each other. Therefore, under these circumstances, since the occurrence was a result of sudden fight between the parties, Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked and inevitable conclusion would be that the accused could be convicted only for the individual injuries caused by them, respectively. 12. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused including Man Singh of the charge under Section 307 IPC and the State has not challenged their acquittal, by way of any appeal. 13. Since the grevious injury caused on the vital part of Satish Kumar was attributed to Man Singh, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court against Man Singh under Section 326 IPC is upheld. 13. Since the grevious injury caused on the vital part of Satish Kumar was attributed to Man Singh, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court against Man Singh under Section 326 IPC is upheld. Since Man Singh after causing injury to Satish did not cause any other injury to Mehar Singh or Dilbhari and also Gian Singh or Kalawati did not cause any injury to Satish, therefore, their common intention cannot be gathered. Therefore, the conviction of appellants Gian Singh and Kalawati under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC is not justified. The injuries attributed to accused Gian Singh and Kalawati have been declared simple in nature by Dr. Kuldip Singh PW-1. Therefore, appellants Gian Singh and Kalawati caused simple injuries to Mehar Singh and Dilbhari with blunt weapon. Therefore, they are acquitted of the charge under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. 14. Counsel for the appellants has not agitated the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. However, he has urged for mercy by pleading that the appellants have already suffered much agony of trial. 15. Having given my thoughtful consideration, I observe that the mere longevity of trial as well as a pendency of appeal, in this court for 11 years may not be sufficient to heal the wounds, especially of Satish, who suffered fracture on parietal occipital region of his skull, but keeping in view the solitary injury caused to him and simple injuries to his companions by other two accused, it will be expedient if some modification in the sentence is made. 16. Consequently, while dismissing the appeal, sentence passed against accused Man Singh under Section 326 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, without any alteration in the fine clause or other sentences. Sentence passed against accused Gian Singh and Kalawati is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety, each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, they will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for.