Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Second additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S. T. No. 173/94, decided on 31. 08. 1999. ( 2. ) APPELLANT Jugal Kishore @ Jugga has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt to parwatibai, Gyani and Rambalak and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. Appellant ramkaran has been convicted under Section 324 of I. P. C. for causing hurt to Rambalak by an axe and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, as also under Section 323 of I. P. C. for causing simple hurt to Shivbalak and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgment. All the sentences imposed on the appellants were directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 24. 12. 93, about 8 Oclock in the morning at village Urdana, District Satna, when complainant Raghunath Sahay and his wife Parwatibai were staying in a hut built in the field of Raddi for watching their fields, appellants Jugga Lodhi and other co-accused persons came there and tried to dismantle their hut. When objected, appellant jugga gave a lathi blow to Parwati and the other appellant chitrakooti (since deceased) gave a lathi blow to complainant raghunath causing injuries. Co-accused Chitrakooti also tried to give an axe blow to complainant Raghunath. When he shouted for help, Rambalak, Shivbalak, Gyani etc. came to their rescue and tried to intervene, they were assaulted by appellant ramkaran and other co-accused persons by lathi and axe causing hurt to Gyani, Rambalak, and Shivbalak. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Raghunath at P. S. Singpur, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. Injured Raghunath, Parwati, Gyani, Rambalak and Shivbalak were sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 323, 324/34 of I. P. C. before JMFC, Nagod. Their case was, however, committed to the court of Sessions for trial alongwith counter sessions case arising out of the same incident. Appellants were, therefore, tried before the sessions court. ( 4. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 323, 324/34 of I. P. C. before JMFC, Nagod. Their case was, however, committed to the court of Sessions for trial alongwith counter sessions case arising out of the same incident. Appellants were, therefore, tried before the sessions court. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS alongwith three other co-accused persons were tried under Section 325, 324 of I. P. C. for causing hurt to raghunath, Gyani, Parwati, Rambalak and Shivbalak in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly formed by them. ( 5. ) APPELLANTS abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to appellants, the complainant party had attacked and killed Ratanlal, uncle of appellant Jugga and caused hurt to others and lodged a false report in order to save and shield themselves from the offence of murder. ( 7. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, came to hold that there was no formation of unlawful assembly and the offence was not committed in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly and each person was liable for his individual act; accordingly, the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants and the other co-accused persons of the charge under Section 325 of I. P. C. and also acquitted appellants Jugga, Maddhu, rambahadur @ Chhota and Chitrakooti of the offence under section 324 of I. P. C. but found appellant Jugal kishore @ Jugga guilty under Section 323 of I. P. C. on three counts, and appellant ramkaran under Section 324 of I. P. C. for causing hurt to rambalak and under Section 323 of I. P. C. for causing simple hurt to Shivbalak, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. ( 8. ) APPELLANT Chitrakooti (since deceased) was also found guilty under Section 323 of I. P. C. for causing hurt to raghunath, Rambalak and Shivbalak and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months on three counts by the impugned judgment. Appellant Chiktrakooti having died during the pendency of the appeal his appeal having abated, his name deleted from the array of appellants. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Jugga and Ramkaran submitted that the trial Court erroneously convicted them without there being any cogent and reliable evidence and without considering the contradictions and omissions in their evidence. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Jugga and Ramkaran submitted that the trial Court erroneously convicted them without there being any cogent and reliable evidence and without considering the contradictions and omissions in their evidence. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction and sentence of the appellants. ( 11. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Raghunath Sahay (P. W.-1), his wife Parwatibai (P. W.-2) and the other injured persons, namely Gyani (P. W.-4) Rambalak (P. W.-7) and shivbalak (P. W.-8) as well as Dr. L. L. Tamrakar (P. W.-3), who medically examined the injured persons and Head Constable munnaprasad Ahirwar (P. W.-5), who recorded the FIR (Ex. P-1)lodged by complainant Raghunath. ( 12. ) IT is clearly borne out from the evidence of Dr. L. L. Tamrakar (P. W.-3), which virtually remained uncontroverted, that complainant Raghunath (P. W.-1), Parwati (P. W.-2), Gyani (P. W.-4), Rambalak (P. W.-7) and Shivbalak (P. W.-8) sustained various injuries in the incident that occurred on 24. 12. 1993 at village Urdana. The FIR of the incident was also lodged by complainant Raghunath on the same day, which was recorded by head Constable Munna Prasad Ahirwar (P. W.-5 ). The evidence of Dr. L. L. Tamrakar (P. W.-3) also indicates that injured rambalak (P. W.-7) sustained an incised wound 1" x "x " of size on his right occipital region caused by hard and sharp object, besides other injuries on his person, while the other injured persons sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object. ( 13. ) RAMBALAK (P. W.-7) also deposed that he reached the place of occurrence upon hue and cry and tried to intervene, appellant Ramkaran gave him an axe blow and appellant Jugga also gave him lathi blows causing injuries on his scalp. Although rambalak (P. W.-7) was cross-examined at length and was also confronted with his police statement on certain points but there are no reasons to disbelieve his basic version, in view of the medical evidence and the other corroborative evidence on record, that appellant Ramkaran gave him an axe blow and appellant Jugga also gave him a lathi blow causing injuries. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that appellant ramkaran caused hurt to Rambalak (P. W.-7) by an axe and appellant Jagga caused him hurt by lathi does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 14. ) THE evidence of complainant Raghunath (P. W.-1)and his wife Parwati (P. W.-2) as well as the evidence of Gyani lodhi (P. W.-4) and Shivbalak (P. W.-8) also indicate that appellant Jugga gave lathi blows to Parwati (P. W.-2), he also assaulted Gyani (P. W.-4) by lathi causing them hurt. The evidence of Shivbalak (P. W.-8) is also categorical in this behalf that appellant Ramkaran had given him a lathi blow causing injuries. All these witnesses were cross-examined in extenso but there are no reason to discard their evidence that both appellants jugga and Ramkaran were present and caused various injuries to them. There is also corroborative medical evidence on record that Parwati (P. W.-2) sustained lacerated wound on her scalp and right hand and a contusion on her right forearm as per her medical report (Ex. P-6 ). Similarly, there is a corroborative medical evidence to the effect that Gyani (P. W.-4) also sustained abrasion and contusion on his left forearm and left thigh respectively and Shivbalak (P. W.-8) also sustained a contusion on his left hand. ( 15. ) IN view of the evidence as available on record, the conviction of appellant Jugga under Section 323 of I. P. C. on three counts for causing hurt to Parwati (P. W.-2), Gyani (P. W.-4)and Rambalak (P. W.-7) and also the conviction of appellant ramkaran under Section 324 of I. P. C. for causing hurt to rambalak by axe and under Section 323 of I. P. C. for causing simple hurt to Shivbalak (P. W.-8) do not suffer from any such infirmity, so as to warrant interference in appeal and deserve to be affirmed. ( 16. ) AS regards the sentence, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the incident of the case occurred in the year 1993 and appellant Ramkaran is presently more than 65 years of age and both the appellants after cancellation of their bail by this court have already undergone sentence nearly for three months. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants on each count be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. ( 17. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants on each count be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. ( 17. ) CONSIDERING the submissions as advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that incident of the case is as old as 24. 12. 1993 and admittedly appellant Ramkaran is presently of more than 65 years of age, the appellants have already undergone the sentence nearly for three months, considering the nature of injuries caused to the injured persons, in my opinion, interest of justice would be subserved, if the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants for each of the offence is modified and reduced to a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. ( 18. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Jugal Kishore @ Jugga under Section 323 of I. P. C. on three counts as also the conviction of appellant ramkaran under Sections 324 and 323 of I. P. C. are affirmed. However, the impugned sentence of imprisonment imposed on appellant Jugal Kishore @ Jugga under Section 323 of I. P. C. on each count is modified and reduced to a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. His all the three sentences are directed to run concurrently. The impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant Ramkaran under Sections 324 as well as under Section 323 of I. P. C. are also modified and reduced to a period of three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences of appellant Ramkaran shall run concurrently. ( 19. ) NEEDLESS to add that the period of imprisonment already undergone by each of the appellant shall be set off against their modified term of imprisonment. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.