Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S. T. No. 404/91 decided on 15. 2. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANT Gajraj Singh has been convicted under Section 326 of ipc on two counts for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Hariram and gangaram by farsa and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-on each count, while appellant Ram Singh has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC on two counts for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Himmat Singh and Mohan Singh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-on each count. Appellant ram Singh has been further convicted under Section 323 of IPC for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Hariram and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 15. 7. 93 at about 4 oclock in the evening at village Gambhiriya-Khurd, complainant Mohan Singh (P. W.-7) was informed by his son Anantram that appellant No. 2 Ram Singh was cutting babool tree in their field. Complainant Mohan Singh then came to the spot and objected, whereupon appellant no. 2 Ram Singh picked up a lathi and gave lathi blows to Mohan Singh. Upon hue and cry, Gangaram (P. W.-10), himmat (P. W.-2) and Hariram (P. W.-9) also reached there and tried to intervene. At that juncture appellant no. 1 Gajraj Singh also came there armed with farsa and gave farsa blow on the scalp of Gangaram (P. W.-10); hariram (P. W.-9) and Himmat (P. W.-2) tried to save him, then appellant no. 2 ram Singh struck them with lathi. As a result, complainant Mohan Singh, gangaram, Himmat and Hariram sustained grievous hurt. The FIR of the incident was lodged by complainant Mohan Singh at Police Station Khurai, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. A written report of the incident was also lodged by one Gambhir singh. Injured Mohan Singh, Gangaram, Himmat Singh and Hariram were sent for medical examination and treatment. They remained hospitalized for several days. After due investigation, appellant and ten others were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 325 and 326 of IPC. A written report of the incident was also lodged by one Gambhir singh. Injured Mohan Singh, Gangaram, Himmat Singh and Hariram were sent for medical examination and treatment. They remained hospitalized for several days. After due investigation, appellant and ten others were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 325 and 326 of IPC. However, looking to the injuries of Hariram, the case was committed to the Court of session for trial of appellants and ten others under Section 307/149, 148, 324, 325 of IPC. ( 4. ) CO-ACCUSED Kundan Singh died during the committal proceedings. Appellants and other co-accused were tried for the offences under section 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149 and 323, 323/149 of ipc before the Court of Session. ( 5. ) APPELLANTS and other co-accused persons denied the various charges framed against them and pleaded false implications due to political enmity. ( 6. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted all the co-accused persons under Section 148, 307/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 323/149 and also acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 307, 307/149 of IPC, but found them guilty for their individual acts under section 326 and 325, 323 of IPC respectively and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove by the impugned judgment. Hence, appellants Gajraj Singh and Ram Singh have preferred this appeal and challenged their conviction and sentence. ( 7. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in law and facts in convicting and sentencing the appellants. He submitted that the learned Trial Judge grossly erred in convicting appellant Gajraj for causing grievous hurt to Hariram by farsa on the basis of unreliable evidence despite the fact that no injury caused by sharp weapon was found on the person of Hariram. He also submitted that the learned trial judge erred in holding that Mohan Singh and Gangaram sustained grievous injury, while according to medical evidence they had sustained simple injuries and there was no such evidence on record that they were so badly injured that they were unable to follow their pursuit for more than twenty days so as to attract section 320 (8) of IPC on the basis of their hospitalization. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the sentences imposed on the appellants were also excessive. ( 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the sentences imposed on the appellants were also excessive. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported and justified the impugned judgment. ( 9. ) IMPUGNED judgment and the evidence on record perused. ( 10. ) FIRST coming to the case of appellant no. 1 Gajraj Singh, he has been found guilty under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to hariram and Gangaram by deadly weapon like farsa. However, the FIR (Ex. P-13) lodged by complainant Mohan Singh (PW-7) in the first instance and shortly after the incident did not indicate that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to Hariram. As per averments made in the FIR (Ex. P-13), appellant gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow only to Gangaram on his scalp and the other injured persons, namely, Hariram (P. W-9) and Mohan Singh (P. W-7) and himman Singh (P. W.-2) were given lathi blows by other appellant Ram Singh. Complainant Mohan Singh was also confronted with the contents of FIR (Ex. P-13) in this behalf that appellant Gajraj Singh never gave a farsa blow to hariram. ( 11. ) HARIRAM (P. W-9) was also contradicted with his police statement dated 21. 7. 83 with regard to omission in his police statement that appellant gajraj Singh gave him a farsa blow. P. W-3 Jamuna Prasad was also contradicted with his Police Statement in this behalf. The other injured witness Himmat Singh (P. W-2) nowhere stated in his evidence that appellant gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to Hariram. ( 12. ) DR. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), who medically examined injured hariram, found a lacerated wound of 3cm x 2cm size on his left parietal region surrounded with a contusion with a fracture in his left parietal bone and another contusion starting from his scapular region towards the right backside of his chest caused by hard and blunt object. No injury caused by any sharp cutting object was found by the doctor on the person of injured Hariram (P. W-9 ). The other witnesses like Gambhir Singh (P. W-1), Bhagwan Singh (P. W-4) and Gangaram (P. W-10), who deposed that appellant Gajraj Singh dealt a farsa blow to Hariram, nowhere stated that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow by its blunt side. The other witnesses like Gambhir Singh (P. W-1), Bhagwan Singh (P. W-4) and Gangaram (P. W-10), who deposed that appellant Gajraj Singh dealt a farsa blow to Hariram, nowhere stated that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow by its blunt side. Thus, their statement that appellant gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to Hariram in his scalp is not supported by medical evidence. Admittedly, there was political enmity between the appellant and the complainant party. ( 13. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and the admitted political enmity between the appellant and the complainant party, the omnibus statement of the partisan witnesses that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to hariram could not be relied upon and accepted beyond reasonable doubts, particularly when no injury caused by sharp cutting object was found on the person of injured Hariram (P. W-9) by the doctor. Therefore, the fracture found in the left parietal region of the injured Hariram and the other injuries caused by hard and blunt object found on his person could not be attributed to appellant Gajraj Singh. Thus, appellant Gajraj Singh could not be held guilty for causing grievous hurt to Hariram (P. W-9) by a deadly weapon like farsa on the basis of infirm and unreliable evidence. The conviction of appellant gajraj Singh under section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Hariram (P. W-9) is thus, not well founded and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant No. 1 Gajraj Singh under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Hariram and the sentence passed on him are set aside. ( 14. ) HOWEVER, there is consistent and positive evidence on record that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to Gangaram (P. W-10 ). It is clearly borne out from the FIR (Ex. P-13) as well as from the evidence of gangaram (P. W-10) and the other injured eyewitnesses like Mohan Singh (P. W-7), Himmat Singh (P. W-2) and other witness like Gambhir Singh (P. W-1), that appellant no. 1 Gajraj Singh gave farsa blow to Gangaram, which also stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), who examined Gangaram on 15. 7. 83, also found an incised wound of 4cm x 0. 5cm bone deep in size on his left parietal region caused by hard and sharp object. 1 Gajraj Singh gave farsa blow to Gangaram, which also stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), who examined Gangaram on 15. 7. 83, also found an incised wound of 4cm x 0. 5cm bone deep in size on his left parietal region caused by hard and sharp object. There were no reasons to disbelieve the bulk of oral evidence corroborated with medical evidence on record that appellant Gajraj Singh gave farsa blow to gangaram and thereby caused hurt in his scalp. The defence evidence was rightly disbelieved by the trial court for cogent reasons. ( 15. ) IN fact, it was clearly established from the ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence that appellant Gajraj Singh gave a farsa blow to gangaram and thereby voluntarily caused hurt in his scalp. However, learned senior Counsel for the appellants was right in his submission that injured gangaram did not sustain any grievous injury. The evidence of Dr. M. S. Kukrele indicates that no fracture was detected in X-ray examination of injured gangaram. Learned Trial Judge gave a finding of causing grievous hurt to injured Gangaram on the basis of his hospitalization from 15. 7. 83 to 3. 8. 83 holding that injured Gangaram was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for twenty days on account of injuries sustained by him. However, dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8) clearly admitted in cross-examination that injured gangaram had totally recovered when he was discharged on 3. 8. 83, while the incident occurred in the evening of 15. 7. 83. Thus, as per the evidence of dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), injured Gangaram was discharged on 3. 8. 83 i. e. 20th day after healing completely. Thus, merely on the basis of period of hospitalization, which fell short of actual twenty days, it could not be said that injured Gangaram was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for twenty days. There was also no such evidence that injury found on the scalp of injured gangaram had endangered his life or he remained in severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. Clause 8 of Section 320 was thus, not attracted here in absence of any fracture or any other grievous injury as enumerated under section 320 of IPC. There was also no such evidence that injury found on the scalp of injured gangaram had endangered his life or he remained in severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. Clause 8 of Section 320 was thus, not attracted here in absence of any fracture or any other grievous injury as enumerated under section 320 of IPC. It could not be said merely on the basis of hospitalization of Gangaram for less than actual twenty days that injured Gangaram had sustained grievous injury. Thus, learned trial judge erred in convicting appellant Gajraj Singh under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to gangaram. However, as it was duly established that appellant Gajraj Singh caused hurt to Gangaram (P. W-10) by sharp cutting weapon like farsa, his conviction under Section 326 of IPC deserves to be altered to one under section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Gajraj Singh under Section 326 of IPC for causing hurt to Gangaram is altered to one under section 324 of IPC. ( 16. ) NOW coming to the case of appellant No. 2 Ram Singh, he has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC on two counts for causing grievous hurt to Himmat Singh (P. W-2) and for causing hurt to Hariram (P. W. 9 ). Again there is bulk of oral evidence that appellant Ram Singh gave lathi blows to mohan Singh, Himmat Singh and Mohan Singh. In fact, it is quite evident from the testimony of complainant Mohan Singh (P. W-7) that it was appellant ram Singh, who had initiated the assault and when complainant Mohan Singh objected to cutting of Babool tree by appellant Ram Singh, he first of all gave lathi blows to complainant Mohan Singh. It is also evident from the testimony of injured witnesses Himmat Singh (P. W-2) and Hariram (P. W-9) that when hariram and Himmat Singh reached the spot upon hue and cry, appellant Ram singh gave them lathi blows, which was also corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), on examination of Himmat Singh, had found a contusion of 10cm x 2?cm size on the right side of his chest caused by hard and blunt object as well as a fracture in his 9th rib. He also found three contusions on the person of Mohan Singh vide his medical report (Ex. Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), on examination of Himmat Singh, had found a contusion of 10cm x 2?cm size on the right side of his chest caused by hard and blunt object as well as a fracture in his 9th rib. He also found three contusions on the person of Mohan Singh vide his medical report (Ex. P-19) besides the injuries found on the person of Hariram, as described earlier. According to Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8), injured Himmat Singh (P. W-2) remained hospitalized from 15. 7. 83 to 17. 8. 83 on account of his injuries, while injured Mohan Singh remained hospitalized from 15. 7. 83 to 11. 8. 83 vide his indoor ticket (Ex. P-21 ). There were no reasons to discard the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence available on record. ( 17. ) IT was thus, clearly evident from the ocular evidence coupled with medical evidence that appellant Ram Singh gave lathi blows to complainant mohan Singh (P. W-7) as well as to Himmat Singh (P. W-2) and Hariram (P. W9) and thereby caused hurt to them. It was quite evident from the testimony of Dr. M. S. Kukrele (P. W-8) that injured Himmat Singh had sustained fracture in his 9th rib and he also remained hospitalized for more than 20 days. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that appellant Ram Singh caused grievous to Himmat Singh does not suffer from any infirmity. His conviction under section 325 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Himmat Singh, therefore, deserves to be maintained. ( 18. ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that injured mohan Singh had sustained simple injuries as per medical evidence; therefore, the conviction of appellant Ram Singh under Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Mohan Singh could not be sustained. However, it is evident from the testimony of Dr. M. S. Kukrele that injured Mohan Singh also remained hospitalized for more than twenty days on account of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, it was obvious that he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for more than twenty days. Therefore, clause 8 to Section 320 of IPC was attracted here and the trial court did not err in finding appellant Ram Singh guilty for causing grievous hurt to Mohan Singh under section 325 of IPC. Therefore, it was obvious that he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for more than twenty days. Therefore, clause 8 to Section 320 of IPC was attracted here and the trial court did not err in finding appellant Ram Singh guilty for causing grievous hurt to Mohan Singh under section 325 of IPC. His conviction under section 325 of IPC on that count also deserves to be maintained. ( 19. ) THE finding of guilt against appellant no. 2 Ram Singh for causing hurt to Hariram under Section 323 of IPC was not assailed; it also did not suffer from any infirmity in view of the ocular and medical evidence available on record. The conviction of appellant Ram Singh under section 323 of IPC also deserves to be affirmed. ( 20. ) AS regards the sentence, it was earnestly submitted on behalf of appellant Gajraj Singh that appellant was nearly 70 years of age when the trial concluded and he has now attained the age of more than 80 years and he has already remained in custody for four days, his sentence of imprisonment be, therefore, reduced and modified to the period already undergone by him with some additional fine. Appellant Gajraj Singh has been found guilty only for causing hurt to Gangaram by sharp edged weapon and his conviction stands altered to one under Section 324 of IPC. Looking to the extreme old age of appellant no. 1 Gajraj Singh and the fact that a long period has elapsed since the date of occurrence, interest of justice would be subserved if appellant gajraj Singh is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) under Section 324 of IPC for causing hurt to Gangaram. ( 21. ) AS regards the sentence of appellant no. 2 Ram Singh, as submitted, considering the long passage of time since the date of occurrence as well as other facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant no. 2 Ram Singh under Section 325 of ipc on each of the two counts for causing hurt to Himmat Singh and to Mohan singh (P. W-7) deserves to be reduced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for seven months with an additional fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) on both counts. 2 Ram Singh under Section 325 of ipc on each of the two counts for causing hurt to Himmat Singh and to Mohan singh (P. W-7) deserves to be reduced to a term of rigorous imprisonment for seven months with an additional fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) on both counts. The sentence of imprisonment for six months under section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Hariram imposed on him, however, does not call for any interference. ( 22. ) IN the result, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Gajraj Singh under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to hariram and sentence passed on him are set aside. The conviction of appellant Gajraj Singh under Section 326 of IPC for causing hurt to Gangraram is altered to one under Section 324 of IPC and his sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand only) to be deposited within a period of three months from today, in default he will suffer simple imprisonment for four months. The amount of fine, if any already deposited by appellant gajraj Singh, shall be deducted and adjusted in the amount of fine of rs. 5,000/-imposed on him in appeal. Fine if realized, shall be paid in toto to injured Gangaram. ( 23. ) THE conviction of appellant no. 2 Ram Singh under Section 325 of ipc on two counts for causing grievous hurt to Himmat Singh and Mohan singh are affirmed. However, impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to him under Section 325 of IPC on each of the two counts is modified and reduced to the period of seven months with an additional fine of Rs. 2,000/-on each count to be paid within three months from today, in default simple imprisonment for two months. Fine, if realized, shall be paid in toto to injured himmat Singh and Mohan Singh respectively in equal proportion. The conviction of appellant Ram Singh under section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to hariram and the sentence of six months passed on him are affirmed. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of appellant no. 2 Ram Singh shall run concurrently. ( 24. ) APPELLANT No. 2 Ram Singh is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of appellant no. 2 Ram Singh shall run concurrently. ( 24. ) APPELLANT No. 2 Ram Singh is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.