JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J:-The appellants, along with Rameshwar, Dharampal, Parkash and Indraj, were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Vide judgment dated 18.10.2003, the trial Court acquitted the four co­ accused of the appellants, whereas the appellants were convicted under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide order dated 20.10.2003, the said Court sentenced the appellants to undergo RI for a period one years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month for the offence under Section 607 IPC and RI for six months each under Section 323 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place on 4.5.2001 at about 5.00 P.M., wherein Bishamber PW8 received injuries on his person. At that time, Bishamber was going to his field for bringing wheat-husk. His brother Om Parkash PW9, along with his son Vijay and wife Kamla, was already there in the field. When the injured reached near the field of Rameshwar accused, he was accosted by Mange Ram accused, who was holding a Jailli in his hand. Said Mange Ram questioned the injured as to why he had reprimanded his children about 4 or 5 days earlier, when they were playing. He further told him that he would teach him a lesson for the same. Jailli blow was given by Mange Ram, hitting Bishamber on the right side of his abdomen. In the meantime, Mukhtiar Singh accused came there with a lathi, who wielded the same in inflicting an injury on the right shoulder of the injured. The other four accused also reached there and started giving slap and fist blows to Bishamber besides abusing him. The complainant rushed to the spot and rescued his brother from the accused. 3. The injured was brought home but as his condition deteriorated, he was removed to a private hospital at Kanina, where the complainant was told that the injured was having internal injury. Ultra-sound examination of the injured was advised and so also the removal of the injured to some Government Hospital. The injured was then removed to Community Health. Centre, Mahendergarh but the doctor further referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak. 4. Ultra-sound examination of the injured was advised and so also the removal of the injured to some Government Hospital. The injured was then removed to Community Health. Centre, Mahendergarh but the doctor further referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak. 4. After receiving an intimation, HC Ajesh Kumar reached PGIMS, Rohtak and sought an opinion regarding the condition of Bishamber as to whether he was fit to make a statement or not. On being told that the injured was unfit to make a statement, HC Ajesh Kumar recorded the statement of Om Parkash complainant, which was then sent to Police Station, Narnaul, where formal FIR was recorded by SI Rameshwar Dayal. 5. The police official visited the spot and prepared rough site plan of the same. The statement of the injured was recorded on 13.5.2001. The two appellants were arrested in the case. The Jailli was produced by Mange Ram accused. when he was re-arrested on 22.7.2001, as in the meantime offence under Section 307 IPC was added to the. FIR, which was initially registered for offences under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the appellants, whereas the other four accused were found innocent. The case against the appellants was then committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed against them under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. After the recording of some witnesses. the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the four co­ accused of the appellants, who had earlier been found innocent. The said application was allowed and after their summoning and appearance, they were also charged for offences under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, All the six accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Ashok Yadav PW1, who had medico-Iegally examined Bishamber injured. SI Rameshwar Dayal PW2 proved the recording of formal FIR. Hanuman Parshad Patwari appeared as PW3 and proved scaled site plan. SI Parbhati Lal PW4 deposed about the investigation of the case and preparation of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Subhash Chander PW5, who was posted as Medical Record Keeper in PGIMS, Rohtak produced medical record in respect of the injured. Dr. Rahul Gupta PW6 stated about the operation conducted by him on the injured at PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. SI Parbhati Lal PW4 deposed about the investigation of the case and preparation of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Subhash Chander PW5, who was posted as Medical Record Keeper in PGIMS, Rohtak produced medical record in respect of the injured. Dr. Rahul Gupta PW6 stated about the operation conducted by him on the injured at PGIMS, Rohtak. Dr. Ajay Gulati PW7, who had conducted radiological examination of the injured, stated that he found free air under the dome of diaphragm. Injured Bishamber appeared as PW8, while his brother Om Parkash complainant as PW9. The investigation part of the case was deposed to by HC Ajesh Kumar PW10. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations. Mange Ram stated that on 4.5.2001 at about 5.30 P.M. he was fencing his plants in his fields. At that time, Bishamber PW came there having a Jailli in his hands and caused injuries to him. Alarm raised by him attracted his uncle Mukhtiar Singh, who rescued him. Om Parkash and his sons came to the spot in the meanwhile and gave fist blows to him. He also stated that Bishamber and other persons were annoyed with him because he had snubbed their children. Identical plea was taken by Mukhtiar Singh accused, whereas the remaining four accused claimed themselves to be innocent and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. 9. In support of their plea, the accused examined Dr. Narvir Singh DW1, who had radiologically examined Mange Ram at CHC, Mahendergarh. HC Rajender Kumar DW2 proved copy of DDR No.4 entered at Police Station, Kanina on 5.5.2001, whereas Dr. Suresh Kumar DW3 deposed about the medico-legal examination of Mange Ram conducted by him on 5.5:2001. 10. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above, whereas the other four accused were acquitted. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence. 12. The occurrence in question had taken place at 5/5.30 P.M. on 4.5.2001. From the spot, the injured was removed to a private doctor at Kanina. The said doctor advised the injured to be taken to Government Hospital, Mahendergarh. At that time, the complainant had no money on his person and he left for his village on foot to arrange for the same. From the spot, the injured was removed to a private doctor at Kanina. The said doctor advised the injured to be taken to Government Hospital, Mahendergarh. At that time, the complainant had no money on his person and he left for his village on foot to arrange for the same. After he was successful in doing so, he reached the clinic of the private doctor at Kanina at 2.30/3.00 P.M. and then removed the injured to C.H.C., Mahendergarh. The doctor, after medico-legally examining the injured, further referred the injured to PGIMS, Rohtak. The injured was then shifted to the said place. All this while, Om Parkash complainant, who was none-else but real brother of the injured, was anxious to have his brother instead of reporting the matter to the police. In the meantime, an intimation had been received by the police. Consequently, HC Ajesh Kumar reached C.H.C. Mahendergarh in the evening of 5.5.2001 from where he learnt that the injured had been removed by his brother to PGIMS, Rohtak. The police official did -not find suitable means to start his journey for PGIMS, Rohtak immediately thereafter. It was only on 6.5.2001 that he managed to reach Rohtak and then came across the doctor, who, however, declared the injured not to be in a fit condition to make a statement. At that point of time, the statement of complainant Om Parkash was recorded. Though, there was a long delay in the reporting of the matter to the police, yet under the given circumstances, where the complainant was all the time interested in saving his brother instead of lodging the report with the police, whatever delay did occurr has been satisfactorily explained. 13. Even if we find that there was some delay in the lodging of the FIR, the benefit of the same has already been extended to the four co-accused of the appellants. The said accused had not been attributed causing of any injury except, giving of slaps and fist blows to the injured, besides abusing him. However, on the person of injured, Dr. Ashok Yadav PW1 had found only two injuries when he medico-legally examined him on 5.5.2001 at 7.45 P.M. Injury No.1, which was in the form of two contusions was opined by the doctor to have been caused by Jailli EX.P1, which injury was attributed to Mange Ram appellant. However, on the person of injured, Dr. Ashok Yadav PW1 had found only two injuries when he medico-legally examined him on 5.5.2001 at 7.45 P.M. Injury No.1, which was in the form of two contusions was opined by the doctor to have been caused by Jailli EX.P1, which injury was attributed to Mange Ram appellant. Injury No.2 was an abrasion on the upper surface of left shoulder and was shown to have been caused by Mukhtiar Singh appellant with a lathi. Apart from these two injuries, “there was no other injury on the person of the injured. 14. At this stage, plea of the appellants may also be considered. According to Mange Ram appellant he was attacked by Bishamber on 4.5.2001 at about 5.39 P.M. with a Jailli, causing injuries to him. Dr. Suresh Kumar DW3 stated that he had medico­ legally examined Mange Ram on 5.5.2001 at 10.20 A.M. and found three injuries. Injury No.1 was pinkish swelling of the size of 1 x 1 cm present on the back half of the head, whereas injury No.2 was pinkish bruising in an area of 4 x 2 cm on left shoulder, while injury No.3 was a huge swelling over the left arm. In his cross­examination Dr. Suresh Kumar DW3 stated that the injuries of Mange Ram noticed in the MLR could be suffered in a fall on a hard surface. Further that the time that passed between the receipt of injuries and examination could be six hours. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that Mange Ram had received injuries in the occurrence in which Bishamber had received injuries. 15. Dr. Narvir Singh DW1 stated that he radiologically examined Mange Ram on 7.5.2001 and found fracture of radius bone on xray of left fore-arm. The initial version of Mange Ram was recorded by the police in the shape of DDR Ex. DC. A perusal of the same would show that Mange Ram did not receive any injury on his left fore-arm. It was stated therein that he received injury on his right shoulder and head. In view of the above, the plea of the accused is found wanting and liable to be discarded. 16. The prosecution case has been fully corroborated by the testimony of Bishamber PW8 and Om Parkash PW9. Both of them withstood the test of cross-examination. It was stated therein that he received injury on his right shoulder and head. In view of the above, the plea of the accused is found wanting and liable to be discarded. 16. The prosecution case has been fully corroborated by the testimony of Bishamber PW8 and Om Parkash PW9. Both of them withstood the test of cross-examination. No material could be brought on record by the defence from which it could be made out that any of the two witnesses was deposing falsely. The ocular account is also corroborated by medical evidence. Injury No.1 on the person of Bishamber was declared by Dr. Ashok Yadav PW1 to be dangerous to life, who gave such an opinion EX.PD/1 on 20.6.2001 after examining the bed-head ticket and x-ray. Dr. Rahul Gupta PW6 operated upon the injured in PGIMS, Rohtak. On examining X-ray of the chest, which showed free air under the diaphragm, he conducted immediate exploratory laparotomy. He found single perforation present in ileum. He performed primary closure and peritoneal lavage. Dr. Ajay Gulati PW7, after radiologically examining the injured, found free air under the dome of diaphragm. In these circumstances the nature of the injury attributed to Mange Ram appellant fell within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, whereas Mukhtiar Singh appellant shared the common intention with him making him, liable for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, thus, does not call for any interference and is, accordingly, maintained. 17. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that Mukhtiar Singh appellant has served an actual period of 1½ years, in jail, whereas in the case of Mange Ram appellant, the said period is more than three years. The occurrence had taken place on 4.5.2001. Both the appellants were attributed causing of one injury each. It is another fact that the injury attributed to Mange Ram appellant was taken dangerous to life, while that attributed to Mukhtiar Singh was simple in nature. However, at the same time, both the appellants have undergone sufficient period in jail. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that ends of justice would be amply met if the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them for both the offences. However, at the same time, both the appellants have undergone sufficient period in jail. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that ends of justice would be amply met if the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them for both the offences. At the same time, the fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon Mange Ram appellant under Section 307 IPC requires to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- so that the same may be paid to the injured Bishamber as compensation. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. Their sentences of imprisonment for both the offences are reduced to that already undergone by them. Fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon Mange, Ram appellant is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergone further RI for one year. Fine of Rs. 500/­ imposed upon Mukhtiar Singh under Section 307 IPC is maintained along with its default clause. The amount affine be deposited within a period of six months from today. The entire amount of fine, on its realisation, be paid to injured Bishamber as compensation. Except for the modification in the sentence, as indicated above, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. -----------------------------