Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28. 3. 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, sheopurkalan, in Sessions Trial No. 133/90, convicting appellant Mathura under Sections 302, 326, 324/34, 323/34 of IPC; Bheru under Sections 302, 324, 326/34, 323/34 of ipc; Bajranga under Sections 302/34, 326, 323, 324/34 of IPC; and Moti under Sections 324, 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and other sentence as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Banshi and Mangilal (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") along with their respective wives came to their field named as "nau Bighawala Khet" at 11. 00 in the morning of 2. 3. 1990. These persons started cutting the crop of mustard, as a result of which appellants Mathura, bajranga, Bheru and Moti carrying gandasa/dhariya and khuntiya arrived at the field and told the complainant party not to cut the crop. Complainant Banshi told that the possession of the land has been given to them and, therefore, they will cut the crop. Thereafter the deceased and the ladies of the complainant party started cutting the crop, as a result of which Bheru and Bajranga caught hold of the deceased and Mathura with full force dealt gandasi blow which landed on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, it is said that appellant bajranga dealt gandasi blow on the leg of the deceased and Bheru by dhariya also dealt the blow on the leg and on receiving injuries the left leg of deceased was cut. When the complainant Bansi tried to rescue the deceased, Mathura, Bajranga, bheru and Moti caught hold and dragged him nearby the field from the place of occurrence. It is said that Moti dealt khuntiya blow to complainant on his right cheek region and Mathura and Bajranga caused injuries by gandasa on his right leg. When the wife of the complainant came to intervene and rescue her husband, appellant moti by khuntiya and Mathura by gandasa dealt the blows on her. It is said that Moti dealt khuntiya blow to complainant on his right cheek region and Mathura and Bajranga caused injuries by gandasa on his right leg. When the wife of the complainant came to intervene and rescue her husband, appellant moti by khuntiya and Mathura by gandasa dealt the blows on her. Bheru also caused injury by dhariya on the head of the wife of the complainant, as a result of which blood started oozing from her head. Ultimately deceased Mangilal was also rescued by kishna Bai, but she was also beaten by the appellants. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the incident has been witnessed by Pappu and ramkaran. It is said that Ramkaran tried to intervene so that the quarrel may put to rest. ( 4. ) THE complainant Banshi thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged the first Information Report. On lodging of the fir, criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The investigating agency arrived at the spot; prepared the spot map; seized the ordinary and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence; sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem, recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the weapons on the basis of their memorandum of statement leading to recovery. ( 5. ) AFTER the investigating was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for its trial. ( 6. ) THE learned Trial Judge on going through the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under sections 302, 326, 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC against Mathura, Appellant Moti was charged under Sections 302/34, 324, 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34; Bheru was charged under Sections 302, 324, 326/34 and appellant bajranga was charged under Section 302/ 34, 326, 323 and 324/34 of IPC. ( 7. ) NEEDLESS to emphasize all the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. ( 8. ) IN order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Ex. P1 to Ex. P30 the documents on record. The plea of right of private defence of person as well as the property has been taken by the appellants. ( 8. ) IN order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Ex. P1 to Ex. P30 the documents on record. The plea of right of private defence of person as well as the property has been taken by the appellants. According to them, the field on which the incident had taken place, they are possessing it and complainant party tried to cut the crop forcibly and they also received injuries on their person in the same incident. In support of their defence, they examined Dr. A. M. Ali (DW1), who medically examined the accused persons on 8. 3. 1990 and found injuries on their body. They also examined the Radiologist Dr. Yogendra Singh (DW2 ). ( 9. ) THE learned Trial Judge after appreciating and Marshalling the evidence came to hold that the appellants have committed the offence, the description whereof has been mentioned in para 1 of the impugned judgment and eventually convicted them and passed the sentence which has been mentioned in the impugned judgment. ( 10. ) IN this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence. ( 11. ) THE contention of Shri Atul Gupta learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It has also been contended by him that prosecutions own witnesses Ramkaran (PW6) and Mansharam (PW7) have admitted that the field, on which the incident took place, is in the possession of the appellants. It has also been put forth by him that investigating Officer U. K. Dixit (PW9) has admitted in para 25 of his testimony that in the same incident, the accused persons have also received injuries and a case has been registered against the complainant party at crime No. 34/90 on the report being lodged by accused Moti and since the appellants have also received injuries in the same incident, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by them and, therefore, the appellants have been wrongly convicted by the learned Trial court. ( 12. ( 12. ) IN the alternative, it has also been put forth by the learned counsel that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that on account of inflicting injuries by the appellants, the deceased had died, looking to the totality of mitigating circumstances since the injuries were caused in exercise of fight of their private defence of person as well as property, the appellants be acquitted. ( 13. ) ON the other hand, Shri MPS bhadoriya learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that the injuries sustained to the accused persons are simple in nature and, therefore, the prosecution was not obliged to explain them. Further, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that looking to the overall incriminating and surrounding circumstances, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants, therefore, this appeal be dismissed. ( 14. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 15. ) IN the present case, the prosecution has examined complainant Banshi (PW2), sabo Bai (PW3), Kishna Bai (PW4), ramkaran (PW6) and Mansharam (PW7) as eye-witnesses. Out of these five witnesses, banshi, Sabo Bai and Kishna Bai are the injured witnesses while Ramkaran and mansharam have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. ( 16. ) COMPLAINANT Banshi (PW2) has categorically stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he along with the deceased, who was his brother, as well as his wife and sister-in-law (bhabhi) and one servant pappu went to cut the crop of mustard. The field is called as "nau Bighawala Khet". All of them came to the field at 11. 00 in the morning and they started to cut the crop. At 12. 00 in the afternoon, the appellants arrived there. Moti was having khuntiya, mathura and Bajranga were having gandasa and Bheru was having dhariya and told complainant as well as the deceased not to cut the crop because the field belongs to them. On this, the deceased told that the field is not of the appellants, but of his. Thereafter his sister-in-law Kishna started cutting the crop of mustard. Moti was having khuntiya, mathura and Bajranga were having gandasa and Bheru was having dhariya and told complainant as well as the deceased not to cut the crop because the field belongs to them. On this, the deceased told that the field is not of the appellants, but of his. Thereafter his sister-in-law Kishna started cutting the crop of mustard. Immediately thereafter, appellants Bajranga, Bheru and moti caught hold of the deceased and appellant Mathura dealt a gandasa blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which the blood started oozing. The deceased fell down and thereafter Bajranga dealt blow by gandasa on the calf region of the deceased and Bheru caused injury by dhariya on his right leg. When his sister-in-law (bhabhi), brothers wife, Kishna Bai rushed to rescue the deceased, appellant Bajranga dealt the blow of bamboo on her waist. ( 17. ) THIS witness (PW2) also tried to intervene and rescue the deceased, but bajranga, Bheru and Mathura caught hold of him and thereafter all the four appellants dragged him to the field of Balla Meena where appellant Moti dealt khuntiya blow to this witness on his right cheek. Appellant Mathura dealt gandasa blow on his right palm nearby the wrist as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, appellant Bajranga dealt gandasa blow on his right leg as a result of his right leg from ankle was completely chopped and amputated. Thereafter, Mathura dealt blunt side of gandasa on his left leg as a result of which he sustained injuries. Moti also dealt khuntiya blow from its blunt side nearby his shoulder. He has further stated that when he was brutally assaulted and beaten by the appellants, his wife Sabo came there and fell over him, but appellant Bheru dealt dhariya blow on his wifes waist and head. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. According to this witness, at that juncture, his servant Pappu was present there and ramkaran also saw the incident. After the appellants ran away, Kishna and Pappu went to Badodiya to bring the bullock cart and came back in a bullock cart. His brother deceased Mangilal by that time already died. ( 18. According to this witness, at that juncture, his servant Pappu was present there and ramkaran also saw the incident. After the appellants ran away, Kishna and Pappu went to Badodiya to bring the bullock cart and came back in a bullock cart. His brother deceased Mangilal by that time already died. ( 18. ) AFTER keeping the dead body of the deceased in the bullock cart, they proceeded to the Police Station, however, on the way, they found tractor and trolley of ramswaroop Badodiya and they shifted the dead body of the deceased in it and came to the police station. This witness has also proved the FIR Ex. P9 lodged by him. ( 19. ) THE factum of lodging the report by appellant Bajranga against this witness and other members of the complainant party has been admitted by him in para 1 of his cross-examination. This witness has stated that possession of the field was delivered to him and the registration of the sale deed also took place in his favour. A suggestion has also been put to this witness that the field, where the incident took place, was in possession of the appellants, but the same has been denied by him. ( 20. ) ON scanning of the evidence of this witness, it is gathered that the incident occurred on account of cutting the crop of mustard. According to the complainant side, they are in possession of the field while the defence of the appellants is that they are in possession. It has also been admitted by this witness that a report was also lodged by appellant Bajranga against the complainant party, but he denied the suggestion that this witness as well as the other members of the complainant party caused injuries to the appellants. In para 17 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that they carried darata with them when they went to cut the crop. The suggestion put to this witness that; they were armed with lathi and farsa has been emphatically denied by this witness. ( 21. ) ON close scrutiny of the testimony of complainant Banshi (PW2), we find that mathura dealt gandasa blow on the head of the deceased while other appellants caught hold of the deceased. The suggestion put to this witness that; they were armed with lathi and farsa has been emphatically denied by this witness. ( 21. ) ON close scrutiny of the testimony of complainant Banshi (PW2), we find that mathura dealt gandasa blow on the head of the deceased while other appellants caught hold of the deceased. Further, it has been proved from his testimony that appellant bajranga dealt gandasa blow on his right leg as a result of which it was completely chopped and amputated. The other accused persons also dealt injuries to him and to the ladies, namely Sabo and Kishna Bai. ( 22. ) THE evidence of complainant Banshi (PW2) has been corroborated by the evidence of Sabo (PW3) and Kishna (PW4 ). These two ladies have also assigned the role of the appellants causing injuries to them also. The evidence of eye-witness has also been found to be proved by the evidence of autopsy Surgeon Dr. A. M. Ali (PW1) and his post- mortem report (Ex. P8 ). The doctor has found following injuries on the person of the deceased: "1. Incised wound: about 5" x " x " x 1" with clean cut margin edges are smooth, even and regular, spindle shaped, on the left parietal region, oblique, which is 3" above from the left ear margin. Bloody find mixed with brain matter was coming out. 2. Incised wound: Two, about 2" x 1" x 1 " and 5" x 1" x 1" on the left leg in lower one third region posteriorly, which are about 7" and 5" above from the left ankle joint respectively. Margins are clean cut, edges are smooth, regular and spindle shaped, both bones fractured, muscles and big vessels cut and only skin was left attached interiorly, resulting severe hemorrhage. All the injuries were anti mortem. ( 23. ) ACCORDING to the doctor, the deceased had died on account of severe hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to the vital organ (Brain) and big vessels. All the injuries were anti mortem and were sufficient to cause death. According to the autopsy surgeon, the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Needless to say that gandasa is a sharp edged weapon and its blow was dealt by Mathura on the head of the deceased. ( 24. All the injuries were anti mortem and were sufficient to cause death. According to the autopsy surgeon, the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. Needless to say that gandasa is a sharp edged weapon and its blow was dealt by Mathura on the head of the deceased. ( 24. ) THUS, according to us, it has been emphatically proved from the testimony of complainant Banshi, Sabo and Kishna Bai that the deceased had died on account of gandasa blow given by appellant Mathura on his head. From the testimony of these witnesses, it is also proved that on account of giving blows by Bajranga, 1/3rd of lower right leg of Banshi has been completely chopped and amputated and this has been proved by Radiologist Dr. R. D. Bhargava (PW8), who has also proved his X-ray report (Ex. P13 ). Dr. A. M. Ali (PW1) when examined complainant Banshi also found that his. right leg was amputated. He has also proved his MLC report (Ex. P2), in which he found following injuries on the person of banshi; they are: "1. Incised wound: " x " with clean cut margins edges are regular, even, and smooth. Spindle shape on the right cheek about " above from the right angle of the mouth. 2. Contusion: about 1" x " red in colour on the anterio aspect of the right shoulder joint. 3. Incised wound: 2" x " with clean cut margin, edges are regular, even, smooth and spindle shaped on the dorsal aspect of the right palm radially near the proximal end of the right index finger. 4. Contusion: about 1" x " red in colour on the dorsal aspect of the left palm over the left index finger proximally. 5. Incised wound: about 9" x 2" x " inch with clean cut margin edges are regular, even, smooth, rounded on the lower 1/3rd of the right leg amputated, muscle vessels and bones cut and separated part from the right leg in right foot with ankle joint. 6. Abrasion: about 2" long pink in colour, on the posterior aspect of the right calf region, horizontally. " Dr. A. M. Ali (PW1) has also proved the injuries sustained by Sabo and Kishna Bai. ( 25. 6. Abrasion: about 2" long pink in colour, on the posterior aspect of the right calf region, horizontally. " Dr. A. M. Ali (PW1) has also proved the injuries sustained by Sabo and Kishna Bai. ( 25. ) THUS, according to us, the learned trial Court after scanning the evidence has rightly arrived at a conclusion that appellant Mathura dealt gandasa blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he died and other accused persons caused injuries to complainant Banshi as well as to sabo and Kishna Bai. ( 26. ) THE other witnesses Ramkaran (PW6)and Mansharam (PW7), though were cited as eye-witnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution of causing injuries by the appellants to the deceased as well as to the injured witnesses. According to these witnesses, the appellants are possessing the field on which the incident took place. Indeed, the defence of the appellants is also that they caused injuries in exercise of their right of private defence. Banshi (PW2) has admitted in cross-examination that Bajranga lodged the report against them in respect to the same field where the incident took place. Investigating Officer U. K. Dixit (PW9) in Para 25 has also admitted the fact that the incident of both the cases took place at one point of time. ( 27. ) THE injury report of Motilal is Ex. D4 (c), injury report of appellant Mathura is Ex. D5ac and the injury report of appellant Bheru is Ex. D6ac. The injuries sustained to these persons have been proved by Dr. A. M. Ali, who was also examined by defence as DW1. But. the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature except appellant Motilal sustained fracture on radius ulna bone of left forearm and there is a dislocation in the elbow joint of Bherulal. ( 28. ) DURING the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as in the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C, the defence of the appellants is that they are in possession of the agricultural field, where the incident took place. From the evidence of all the eye-witnesses, it is luminously clear as like a new day that the incident occurred in the field where crop of mustard was standing and the members of complainant party were cutting the said crop. From the evidence of all the eye-witnesses, it is luminously clear as like a new day that the incident occurred in the field where crop of mustard was standing and the members of complainant party were cutting the said crop. At that juncture, the appellants armed with lethal weapons arrived at the spot and scolded on the complainant party not to cut the crop since the field belongs to them. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in order to exercise of right of their private defence as the complainant party were forcibly cutting the crop of mustard, the incident had taken place and, therefore, in order to save the field from the hands of the complainant party if the injuries were caused by the appellants, it cannot be said that they have committed any offence. ( 29. ) IF a plea of right of private defence is taken, sufficient material and evidence in that regard should have been adduced by the appellants, because the same cannot be based on surmises and speculation and, therefore according to us, it was for the appellants to place the necessary material on record either by adducing the specific and positive evidence or by elucidating the evidence carved out from the witnesses examined for the prosecution to substantiate this plea. At this juncture, we may also put our emphasis on Section 105 of the Evidence act. Hence, we are of the view that the burden of proof to exercise right of self defence in respect to the person and property was on the appellants and, therefore, they were legally obliged to prove the same by placing cogent evidence or to demonstrate this plea from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. ( 30. ) TRUE, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it would be enough if appellants facts which on the test of preponderance of probabilities make his defence acceptable. It is also true that the appellants, who have taken the plea of right of private defence, are not required to call evidence on their side if they establish the plea raised by them from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses itself. It is also true that the appellants, who have taken the plea of right of private defence, are not required to call evidence on their side if they establish the plea raised by them from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses itself. The question in such a case of exercise of right of private defence would be a question of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. In considering whether one is entitled to exercise the right of private defence, one has to place himself in the arms chair of position of the accused in the midst of circumstances in which the accused stood and then form an opinion whether under the peculiar circumstances the accused had not the apprehension of such injuries to his body as would entitle him to exercise his right. In order to find whether a right of private defence is available to the accused, the entire incident must be examined with great care and viewed in its proper setting. The injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered on the plea of self-defence. (See, Law of Crimes by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal vol. 1, 26th Edition, Page 393 ). ( 31. ) IN the present case, there is no evidence placed on record that complainant party was aggressor or they were causing injuries in such a manner to the appellants as a result for which reasonable apprehension crept out in their mind that if they would not cause injuries, the complainant party may become overpower and may kill them. On the contrary, the evidence on record is otherwise. The complainant party came to cut the crop having crop cutting instruments with them, while appellants arrived at the spot with deadly weapons and after altercating in respect of cutting the crop, they showered the blows of sharp cutting object on the complainant party including the deceased and therefore, according to us, in absence of any even probable evidence, it cannot be said and inferred that appellants were having any right to exercise the right of their private defence. ( 32. ( 32. ) THE right of private defence of the property only comes into operation when certain specified offences against property are committed or attempted to be committed. It extends not only to ones own property but also to the property of any other person. Where a trespasser is in settled possession of the land, he is not entitled to be evicted except in due course of law and he is entitled to resist or defend his possession even against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. It must be such clear and effective possession of a person, who exercises right of private defence even if he is a trespasser under Criminal Law to defend his property against attack even by the true owner. One of the sure tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of cultivable land, is to find out whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown the crop. If the crop has been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession. If such forcible attempt is made, the trespasser will have a right of private defence even against the true owner. (See, Law of Crimes by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal vol. 1, 26th Edition, Page 386 ). In this context, we may also profitably place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court Puran singh v. State of Punjab. ( 33. ) IN order to establish the right of private defence of property, it is not necessary for the accused to prove his possession affirmatively; he can rely on the presumption of continuance of possession arising in his favour from the circumstances of the case. (See, Law of Crimes by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal vol. 1, 26th Edition, Page 386 ). ( 34. ) WE have already discussed hereinabove the evidence of eyewitnesses in detail. In order to establish the right of self-defence in respect to property, even on the basis of preponderance and probabilities, the appellants were required to establish prima facie their possession in such a manner that a prudent man may accept that they were possessing the field on which the incident took place. In order to establish the right of self-defence in respect to property, even on the basis of preponderance and probabilities, the appellants were required to establish prima facie their possession in such a manner that a prudent man may accept that they were possessing the field on which the incident took place. Since the field, where the: incident had taken place, is an agricultural land and the crop of mustard was standing on the date of incident in order to demonstrate prima facie that the appellants are in possession of the said field, the revenue record would have been the best evidence and the appellants ought to have filed it or they should have examined the Patwari of the village in order to prove their possession on the field, where the incident had taken place. The suggestions put to Banshi (PW2), Sabo (PW3) and Kishna Bai (PW4)in respect of their possession has been emphatically denied by them and they have categorically stated that the field where the incident had taken place is in the possession of complainant party. In these state of affairs, when the material witnesses have denied the factum of possession of the appellants, in order to substantiate the plea of right of private defence of self and the property, the revenue record or the evidence of the Patwari would have been the best evidence in order to establish the possession of appellants at the time of incident on the field, where the incident had taken place. ( 35. ) TRUE the hostile witness Ramkaran (PW6) and Mansharam (PW7) in their cross-examination have admitted the possession of the appellants, but according to us, they are the hostile witnesses and their evidence in respect of the possession would have been only a corroborative piece of evidence if the appellants would have submitted the revenue records or would have adduced the evidence of Patwari to prove their possession prima facie. In absence of the revenue record or the evidence of Patwari, the evidence of hostile witnesses saying the possession of the appellants would in itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were in possession off the field where the incident had taken place. Thus, merely on the basis of the evidence of the hostile witnesses, we find that prima facie possession of the appellants is not proved on the field where the incident took place. ( 36. Thus, merely on the basis of the evidence of the hostile witnesses, we find that prima facie possession of the appellants is not proved on the field where the incident took place. ( 36. ) IT has come in the testimony of all the eyewitnesses that when the complainant party were cutting the crop of mustard, at that juncture, all the appellants armed with deadly weapons arrived at the spot and asked the complainant party not to cut the crop sown by them and when it was told by the deceased as well as complainant Banshi that they are possessing, the field and they have also sown the crop of mustard, therefore, they will only cut the crop, at that juncture, appellant Mathura dealt severe blow of gandasa on the head of the deceased with full force as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter appellant Bheru dealt blow of gandasa on the calf region of the deceased. There are corresponding injuries on the person of the deceased as Dr. A. M. Ali (PW1)found the incised would on the head as well as on the calf region. The injury on the parietal region was so severe that the blood fluid mixed with brain matter was coming out. The deceased when fell down after receiving the said injury, Bajranga also dealt gandasa blow on his left leg on the calf region and Bheru also dealt blow of gandasa on calf of the right leg. The doctor found that both the bones of left leg were fractured and the muscles and major vessels were also chopped and only skin was left attached anteriorly meaning thereby the left leg of the deceased was completely chopped and it was only tagged with the skin. ( 37. ) WHEN injured Banshi (PW2) went to save the deceased, appellants Bajranga, bheru and Mathura caught hold of him and he was dragged from the place where the deceased was lying and in the field of Balla meena, appellant Mathura dealt gandasa blow on the right palm near the wrist as a result of which this witness fell down and thereafter appellant Bajranga dealt severe blow of gandasa on his right leg and the blow was so severe and forceful that his leg was amputated. We have already mentioned hereinabove the injuries which were sustained by complainant Banshi. ( 38. We have already mentioned hereinabove the injuries which were sustained by complainant Banshi. ( 38. ) THUS, according to us, appellant mathura has committed an offence under section 302 of IPC. Appellants Bajranga and bheru have committed the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. These appellants are hereby directed to suffer life imprisonment and fine as directed by learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Courts accordingly modified. ( 39. ) LOOKING to the evidence of Banshi (PW2) and the injuries he sustained as his right leg was amputated on account of giving blow of gandasa by Bajranga, we are of the view that. Bajranga has committed the offence under Section 326 of IPC and other appellants had committed offence under section 326/34 of IPC. The judgment of learned Trial Court is accordingly modified. We have already scanned the evidence of sabo (PW3) and Kishna Bai (PW 4) as well as their corresponding MLC report and. the evidence of Dr. A. M. Ali and we find that learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting Mathura under Section 324/34 and 323/34, IPC. Learned Trial Court also did not commit any error in convicting bajranga under Sections 324/34 and 323, ipc. According to us, appellant Bheru has also committed the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 323/34 of IPC. The sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against these appellants are adequate and no interference is required. The conviction of the appellants is accordingly modified. ( 40. ) BAJRANGA also lodged a report against the complainant party and a case has also been registered against the complainant party under Sections 324, 323 and 294 of ipc as it appears from the evidence of Investigating Officer U. K. Dixit (PW9), but the injuries received by the appellants are simple in nature except appellant Moti sustained fracture on radius ulna bone of his left forearm and there is dislocation of elbow joint of Bheru and, therefore, according to us the prosecution was not obliged to explain those injuries. ( 41. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are hereby directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. ( 41. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are hereby directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. The appellants shall surrender on 27th July, 2009, before the learned trial Court. In case they fail to surrender on the said date, the learned Trial Court shall issue perpetual arrest warrant against them and shall also issue show cause notice to their sureties that why bail bond amount may not be forfeited and may pass necessary orders against them in this regard. After the surrender of appellants before the learned Trial Court, they be sent to jail to serve out the sentence and the learned trial Court also send information in this regard to the Registry of this Court. Appeal dismissed.