Judgment SHAM SUNDER, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 17.09.94, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Amritsar, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellant) for the offence, punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian penal Code, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.000.00 , in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on the night intervening 27/28.06.91, at about 2.15 A. M. , Kuldip Singh, complainant, along with his brother Gurdip Singh, went to their field, for irrigating the same. Their turn was after the turn of Gurbachan Singh, accused, and they took their turn, after about ten minutes of the expiry of the turn of Gurbachan singh. Gurbachan Singh, accused, armed with a kirpan came there, and asked them, as to why they had started irrigating their field. Kuldip Singh, and his brother Gurdip singh, told him, that it was their turn for irrigating their land. On hearing this, gurbachan Singh, started giving kirpan blows on the person of Gurdip Singh, which hit his right and left legs, left hand finger, left and right arms, wrist, head, nose, left ear and near left eye. Gurdip Singh fell down, on the ground, on receipt of the injuries. On hearing their alarm, Sardool Singh, resident of Purane Waryana, was attracted to the spot, and witnessed the occurrence. The accused thereafter ran away, from the place of occurrence, along with kirpan. Sardool singh, removed the injured to Civil Hospital, sarhali and then he was referred to Amritsar. 3. On 02.07.91, Assistant Sub-Inspector pritam Singh, received the medico-legal report of Gurdip Singh, and moved an application PE, before the doctor, to ascertain whether the injured was fit to make statement. The doctor opined vide his endorsement PE/1, that Gurdip Singh, injured, was unfit to make statement. Kuldip Singh, brother of injured Gurdip Singh, met Assistant Sub-Inspector pritam Singh, in the hospital. He made a statement PC, before assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh, which was read over to him, and after admitting the same to be correct, he thumb marked the same. The doctor opined vide his endorsement PE/1, that Gurdip Singh, injured, was unfit to make statement. Kuldip Singh, brother of injured Gurdip Singh, met Assistant Sub-Inspector pritam Singh, in the hospital. He made a statement PC, before assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh, which was read over to him, and after admitting the same to be correct, he thumb marked the same. Assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam singh, made endorsement PC/1 on the same, and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the first information report PC/2, was recorded. Assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh, went to the place of occurrence, where Kuldip Singh, produced before him, the clothes of Gurdip singh, which were stained with blood. The clothes were parna P1, shirt P2 and turban p3, which were taken into possession vide memo PD, attested by Kuldip Singh, and dihar Singh. He prepared the rough site plan pg. Assistant Sub-Inspector Pritam Singh, again went to the hospital and moved an application PH, before the doctor, who vide his endorsement PH/1, declared the injured unfit to make statement. 4. On 09.07.91, Assistant Sub-Inspector amarjit Singh, was holding a picket (naka)on the turning of village Patti, along with other Police officials. Gurdial Singh, brother of the accused produced him before Assistant Sub-Inspector Amarjit Singh. 5. The accused was arrested. The accused also produced before him kirpan P4. The same was taken into possession vide memo pk. The statement of Gurdip Singh, was recorded on 16.07.91, after seeking the opinion of the doctor exhibit PL on application pl/1. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 6. On his appearance, in the Court of the committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of session, charge under Sec.307 of the indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Satish Duggal (PW1), who medico-legally examined Gurdip Singh, injured, and found the following injuries, on his person:- (i) An incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm on inner side of right lower leg on inner side, 5 cms above the right ankle. Depth not probed. Clotted blood was present. Margins well defined. Injury kept under observation for operation notes. Satish Duggal (PW1), who medico-legally examined Gurdip Singh, injured, and found the following injuries, on his person:- (i) An incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm on inner side of right lower leg on inner side, 5 cms above the right ankle. Depth not probed. Clotted blood was present. Margins well defined. Injury kept under observation for operation notes. (ii) An incised wound 2 x 1 cm on outer side of left lower leg in middle. Clotted blood present around the wound. The injury was muscle deep. (iii) 1.5 cm x 1 cm skin area chopped off from the tip of index finger of left hand. Clotted blood present. Injury kept under X-ray, operation notes, progress note of Surgeon. (iv) An incised wound 3 x 1 cm on posterior aspect of left forearm, 4 cms below the left elbow. Depth not probed. Subject to X-ray, operation notes and progress note. (v) An incised wound 8 cms x 4 cms on the interior aspect of right forearm, 3 cms above the wrist. The margins were clear cut. The skin within the margins chopped off and underlying muscle was exposed. Injury was subject to operation notes: (vi) An incised wound 16 cms x 2 cms extending from 1 cm above the inner side of left eye-brow, to left side of scalp. The wound was obliquely placed. Depttt not probed. Injury was 9 cms above the right pinna. Injury placed under X-ray, Operation notes and progress report of Surgeon. (vii) Pinna of left ear was cut obliquely 3 cms x 5 cm. Margins were well defined. (viii) The cartilage of left ear cut through and through in the middle. (ix) On left side there was oedema of left upper eye-lid, 4 cms x 1 cm. Injury subject to progress report. Injury No.8 was declared grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury no.6, after receipt of X-ray report was declared to be dangerous to life caused by sharp edged weapon. The probable duration of the injuries was 24 hours. 8. Gurdip Singh (PW3), deposed in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above. His statement was duly corroborated by kuldeep Singh (PW2 ). 9. Dr. Vijay Bhalla, Medical Officer, Department of Radio Diagnosis, Medical College, Amritsar (PW4), conducted X-ray examination of Gurdip Singh, injured. The probable duration of the injuries was 24 hours. 8. Gurdip Singh (PW3), deposed in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above. His statement was duly corroborated by kuldeep Singh (PW2 ). 9. Dr. Vijay Bhalla, Medical Officer, Department of Radio Diagnosis, Medical College, Amritsar (PW4), conducted X-ray examination of Gurdip Singh, injured. According to him, X-ray of the skull of Gurdip singh, relatable to injury No. vi showed long linear fracture of the left parietal bone. 10. Pritam Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW5), is the Investigating Officer. 11. Assistant Sub-Inspector Amarjit singh (PW6), arrested accused Gurbachan singh. Thereafter, the Additional Public prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 12. The statement of the accused under sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that on the day of the alleged occurrence early in the morning, he and Davinder Singh, were present in the field. Gurdip Singh, armed with an iron pipe, and Kuldip Singh, armed with a dang came there. Gurdip Singh, raised exhortation to teach lesson to his son for cutting water. Kuldip Singh, gave a dang blow on the left leg of Davinder Singh. Gurdip Singh, gave an iron pipe blow on his left arm. He further stated that he was also given injuries by Gurdip Singh and Kuldip singh. It was further stated by him that he caused injuries, on the person of Gurdip singh, in self-defence with kassi. It was further stated by him that the Police arrested him, on the next day and detained him, for a number of days, without subjecting him to medico-legal examination. It was further stated by him, that the left arm of his son was totally incapacitated. 13. The accused also examined Dr. Amrik Singh (DW1), who conducted X-ray of left elbow joint of Davinder Singh. He found dislocation of the left elbow joint. He proved skiagram exhibit DA. 14. Dr. Ashwani Kumar Ahuja (DW2), on 28.06.91, medicolegally examined Davinder singh, and found the following injuries on his person:- (i) Swelling, deformity and restriction of movements with severe tenderness was present over the left elbow. Left elbow joint extending on to proximal 2/3rd of left forearm. (ii) Linear contusion 16 x 2 cms over the outer side of middle of left thigh. Left elbow joint extending on to proximal 2/3rd of left forearm. (ii) Linear contusion 16 x 2 cms over the outer side of middle of left thigh. Injury No.1, was declared grievous in nature. Injury No.2, was declared simple in nature. 15. Dr. Iqbal Singh, Medical Officer (DW3), stated that Davinder Singh son of gurbachan Singh, aged 14 years, was admitted in the hospital from 19.07.91 to 05.10.91. He proved discharge slip DC. 16. Dr. R. P. S. Boparai, medical Superintendent and Orthopedic Surgeon (DW4),stated that he found an extensive wound on left arm and elbow of Davinder Singh. He further stated that there was fracture of the left humerous of Davinder Singh. Thereafter, the accused, closed the defence evidence. 17. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant. 19. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 20. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the very genesis of the occurrence was suppressed by the complainant party, inasmuch as, the injuries on the person of Davinder Singh son of the accused, sustained in the same occurrence were not explained by the complainant party. He further submitted that the accused, in exercise of the right of private defence to save himself and his son Davinder singh, caused injuries, on the person of gurdip Singh. He further submitted that injuries on the person of Davinder Singh, as described by the doctors, could not be said to be self-suffered or fabricated. He further submitted that when the prosecution failed to explain the injuries, on the person of the accused, he was entitled to acquittal. He further submitted that the members of the complainant party were in fact the aggressors, and he was an aggressive. 21. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused came prepared to the fields, armed with a kirpan and caused a number of injuries on the person of Gurdip Singh. He further submitted that injuries on the person of Gurdip singh, were not given by Kassi, but were the result of kirpan. 21. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the accused came prepared to the fields, armed with a kirpan and caused a number of injuries on the person of Gurdip Singh. He further submitted that injuries on the person of Gurdip singh, were not given by Kassi, but were the result of kirpan. He further submitted that the injuries on the person of Davinder Singh son of the accused were fabricated to create self-defence. He further submitted that the evidence of Kuldip Singh, PW2, eye-witness, and Gurdip Singh, injured, was rightly found to be cogent, convincing and reliable by the court below. He further submitted that there was no suppression of material facts or genesis of the occurrence, by the prosecution. 22. In this case, the occurrence was admitted, by the appellant, but only the mode and manner thereof, was denied. In this view of the matter, it is to be determined as to which party was the aggressor and which party was the aggressive. For determining the factum, as to which party was the aggressor and which party was the aggressive, the Court is to ascertain the place of occurrence; the number and nature of injuries, received by the members of the complainant party and the members of the accused party; the motive for the occurrence; which party got registered the case, first in point of time; and the weapons being wielded by the members of both the parties. From the evidence of Gurdip Singh (PW3), it was proved that he and his brother Kuldip Singh, went to irrigate their fields. Their turn of water fell after the turn of Gurbachan Singh. At about 2.15 AM, they took the turn of water when already the turn of water of Gurbachan singh had come to an end. In the mean while, Gurbachan Singh, accused, had come there. He asked them as to why they had taken the turn, earlier to their time. Gurdip singh, and his brother, replied that they had taken the turn, on time. At that time, the accused was armed with a kirpan and he started causing injuries with the same, on the person of Gurdip Singh, which fell on various parts of his body. During the course of cross-examination of Kuldip Singh, PW2, it emerges that their land is at a distance of one killa from the water course. At that time, the accused was armed with a kirpan and he started causing injuries with the same, on the person of Gurdip Singh, which fell on various parts of his body. During the course of cross-examination of Kuldip Singh, PW2, it emerges that their land is at a distance of one killa from the water course. First of all, the water passed by the side of land of karnail Singh, and then it came to their field. It was further stated by him that their field is towards the eastern side, whereas, the land of the accused is towards the western side. It is also evident from the statement of kuldip Singh, that they had already turned the water from the water course, and the accused came there after 10 minutes of turning the water to their fields. It was also proved from the cross-examination of Kuldip singh, that while coming to the fields of the complainant party, at a distance of one killa, from the outlet of water course, the accused caused injuries with kirpan on various parts of the body of Gurdip Singh. Since it was the turn of water of the complainant party, they took the same, for irrigating their fields. The fields of the accused are at a distance of one killa. Since it was not the turn of water of the accused, he had come to the fields of the complainant party, just with a view to cause injuries, on the person of Gurdip singh. In the site plan PG point A was shown the field of Gurdip Singh, where the injuries were caused on his person by the accused. Since the accused, wanted to raise a dispute with the complainant party, without any rhyme or reason, regarding the turn of their water, saying as to how, they (complainant party) had taken the turn of water before his (accused) turn, the motive, thus, lay with the accused to cause injuries on the person of Gurdip Singh. The accused as stated above caused injuries on the person of Gurdip Singh, in his (Gurdip Singhs)field. As many as, nine injuries were caused on the person of Gurdip Singh. Injury No.6 from the linear side of the left eye-brow to left side of scalp was declared dangerous to life. After X-ray examination, injury No.6, depicted linear fracture of parietal bone. Injury No.8 was declared grievous in nature. As many as, nine injuries were caused on the person of Gurdip Singh. Injury No.6 from the linear side of the left eye-brow to left side of scalp was declared dangerous to life. After X-ray examination, injury No.6, depicted linear fracture of parietal bone. Injury No.8 was declared grievous in nature. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. On the other hand, only two injuries, on the person of Davinder Singh, were found on the left elbow and middle left thigh. If the members of the complainant party, allegedly armed with a dang and an iron pipe had come to the spot, they would not have been satisfied only by causing two injuries, on the person of Davinder Singh. In that event, they would have caused a large number of injuries, on the person of davinder Singh. In that event, Gurdip Singh, injured, would not have allowed the accused to cause a number of injuries on his person. Even Gurbachan Singh, accused, stated that, he received injuries, but did not get himself medico-legally examined. As such, it was not proved that he received any injury on his person. According to the accused, he caused injuries with Kassi, on the person of Gurdip Singh, in self-defence of his body and the body of his son. Kassi is a heavy weapon. Injuries No.7 and 8 on the person of Gurdip Singh, as described above, could only be caused with a sharp edged weapon like kirpan and not with a heavy weapon like kassi. If the cartilage had been cut with Kassi, then there must have been some injury on the neck or on the upper shoulder of the person, as Kassi, is a heavy weapon with small handle. This also falsifies the story of the accused. 23. In the instant case, the statement of kuldip Singh, complainant, was recorded on 02.07.91, and the Police proceedings were completed thereon, at 5.30 pm. In the first instance, the Police wanted to record the statement of Gurdip Singh, injured, but since he was found to be unconscious and was unable to make a statement, the same could not be recorded. There is nothing on the record, that the accused lodged any first information report, or if the Police refused to register the first information report, on his complaint, he filed any criminal complaint against Kuldip Singh, and Gurdip singh. There is nothing on the record, that the accused lodged any first information report, or if the Police refused to register the first information report, on his complaint, he filed any criminal complaint against Kuldip Singh, and Gurdip singh. The injuries, on the person of davinder Singh son of the accused, as described above, were on non-vital parts of his body. Under these circumstances, the possibility of these injuries being self-suffered or having been suffered by fall on hard surface, could not be ruled out, only with a view to create a defence. This fact is further strengthened from the statement of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Ahuja, DW2. When he examined Davinder Singh son of the accused, he did not refer him for X-ray examination. He was, on the other hand, radiologically examined on 17.07.91, by Dr. Amrik Singh, dw1, whereas, the occurrence took place on 28.06.91. Dr. Amrik Singh, DW1, neither produced the original register, nor his report. He stated that he gave the report to the patient. The statements of Dr. Iqbal singh, DW3, and Dr. R. P. S. Boparai, DW4, were also of no help to the case of the accused. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding that the injuries on the person of davinder Singh, were either self-suffered or were received by him somewhere else, in some other manner, and not in the instant occurrence. In these circumstances, non-explanation of the injuries, by the prosecution witnesses, on the person of Davinder singh did not at all cast any doubt, on the prosecution case. The aforesaid factors duly proved that it was the accused who was the aggressor. He being the aggressor, had no right of private defence. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding him guilty, for the commission of offence, punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian penal Code. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, is rejected. 24. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that at the time of conviction by the trial Court, the age of the appellant, was 60 years, as recorded in its judgment. He further submitted that now the appellant must have attained the age of about 75 years. He further submitted that a lenient view be taken, and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, which conies to two and a half months. He further submitted that now the appellant must have attained the age of about 75 years. He further submitted that a lenient view be taken, and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, which conies to two and a half months. He also placed reliance on Mohinder Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, 1987 (Supp) Supreme court Cases 65, in support of his contention. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. As stated above, as many as nine injuries, were caused, on the vital and non-vital parts of the body of Gurdip Singh, with kirpan, by the accused. One of the injuries, was declared dangerous to life. The sentence awarded by the trial Court, is commensurate with the proved guilt of the accused. It cannot be said to be incommensurate or excessive, in any manner. No lenient view, in the matter of award of sentence, in such like cases can be taken. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence, would do more harm to the justice system, to undermine the public confidence, in the efficacy of law, and the society could no longer endure, under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court, to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of offence, and the manner, in which, it was executed or committed. In case, in such like heinous offences, inadequate sentence is awarded or the sentence awarded by the trial court, is reduced, that would amount to the mockery of justice system. Mohinder Singh and anothers case (supra) was decided, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing therein. No help therefrom can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out, to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused, by the trial Court. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, is rejected. 25. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 26. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. The bail order and the bail bonds of gurbachan Singh, appellant, are cancelled. 27. 25. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 26. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. The bail order and the bail bonds of gurbachan Singh, appellant, are cancelled. 27. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to take necessary steps to ensure that gurbachan Singh, appellant, whose appeal has been dismissed, is got arrested immediately and sent to jail, to undergo the sentence awarded, to him by the trial Court, and affirmed by this Court, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Sec.428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within a period of two months. 28. The District and Sessions Judge, amritsar, is directed to ensure that the directions aforesaid, are complied with, by the chief Judicial Magistrate, and compliance report, is submitted within two months. 29. The Registry, is directed to keep track and submit the compliance report on receipt thereof. Even if the compliance report is not received, within the time stipulated, the papers shall be put up, after the expiry of 10 days thereof for further legal action in the matter. 30. The Registry, is further directed to send copies of the judgment to the quarters concerned for due compliance. Appeal dismissed.