JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:- Criminal Appeal No.771-SB of 1997 has been instituted by Gurnam Singh, his brother Jaspal Singh and nephew Paramjit Singh son of Jaspal Singh. 2. The appellants have assailed the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated 15.9.1997, whereby Gurnam Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. In default payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. Jaspal Singh and Paramjit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 4. Gurnam Singh, Jaspal Singh and Paramjit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 323 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. The appellants were named as accused along with acquitted accused Charanjit Singh and Satya Devi in case FIR No. 50 dated 24.4.1994 registered at Police Station Julkan, under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. 6. Harjit Singh son of Pritam Singh Kamboj, who was a student of Ist Year in Mahindra College, Patiala, was complainant who made a statement Ex.PM to Wassan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.13, at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 23.4.1994 at about 6.00 P.M. It was stated in Ex.PM by the complainant that his grandfather Ramji Dass was having two younger brothers Beant Singh and Parkash Chand. Both were unmarried. Beant Singh used to reside with his family and they were cultivating their land. Adjoining the land of the complainant, there was land of Jaspal Singh and Gurnam Singh sons of Charat Singh. The land of complainant and accused abut Ghaggar river. Due to change of course of Ghaggar river, sometimes land was available for cultivation. Regarding this land, altercations had taken place between the complainant party and Jaspal Singh, accused side, on many occasions. On 23.4.1994 in the evening Harjit Singh, his grandfather Ramji Dass and Beant Singh were cleaning the electric motor. At that time, Beant Singh started ploughing chilly sown by them. Regarding this land, altercations had taken place between the complainant party and Jaspal Singh, accused side, on many occasions. On 23.4.1994 in the evening Harjit Singh, his grandfather Ramji Dass and Beant Singh were cleaning the electric motor. At that time, Beant Singh started ploughing chilly sown by them. At that time Paramjit Singh son of Jaspal Singh, and Satya, mother of Jaspal, started hurling abuses, and made a grievance that complainant party had taken possession of the land left by Ghaggar river and had sown chilly. Bad names were given by Beant Singh due to which mother-son duo Satya-Paramjit Singh left towards village and after five-seven minutes, Jaspal Singh armed with gandasi, his son Paramjit Singh armed with gandasi, Charanjit Singh armed with soti, wife of Jaspal Singh namely Satya armed with soti and younger brother of Jaspal Singh namely Gurnam Singh came armed with takua. At that time, it was 6.00 P.M. Gurnam Singh gave a takua blow on the head of Beant Singh, grandfather of complainant, who fell down. Harjit Singh and Ramji Dass reached there and raised raula. Gurnam Singh gave two takua blows from reverse side on the back of Harjit Singh, complainant. Jaspal Singh gave a gandasi blow from reverse side on the head of Ramji Dass. Gurnam Singh gave takua blow from reverse side on the head of Ramji Dass. Gurnam Singh gave another takua blow from reverse side on the arm of Ramji Dass. When Harjit Singh came forward to rescue his grandfather, then Paramjit Singh gave a gandasi blow from reverse side on the right bicep of the complainant. Charanjit Singh gave soti blow on the left hand of the complainant. The complainant further stated that it was quite possible that the accused may have caused more injuries to Beant Singh. On the noise raised by the complainant side, accused decamped from the spot along with their weapons. Inder Devi, grandmother and Jaswinder Kaur, aunt of the complainant, were attracted at the spot. They took Beant Singh and Ramji Dass to the house of the complainant. Then he took both Beant Singh and Ramji Dass from bus stop Devigarh to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in a taxi. Beant Singh died when he reached at emergency ward. It was further stated that complainant party in self-defence had also caused injuries to Gurnam Singh. They took Beant Singh and Ramji Dass to the house of the complainant. Then he took both Beant Singh and Ramji Dass from bus stop Devigarh to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in a taxi. Beant Singh died when he reached at emergency ward. It was further stated that complainant party in self-defence had also caused injuries to Gurnam Singh. The fight had taken place regarding the possession over the land left by Ghaggar river. 7. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, appearing for the accused, has stated that it is not in dispute that all injuries suffered by Beant Singh were caused by Gurnam Singh alone and appellants Jaspal Singh and Paramjit Singh had caused no injury to the deceased. They have been convicted substantively for the offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW.9 Harjit Singh and PW.10 Ramji Dass. 8. Prosecution, in all, examined 13 witnesses. 9. PW.1 Dr. H.K.S. Chawla, Junior Resident, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, had declared Gurnam Singh, accused/injured, fit to make statement. According to this witness, Gurnam Singh, accused, was admitted on 23.4.1994 and was discharged on 28.4.1994. This witness also stated that Gurnam Singh had suffered fracture of shaft humerus left with multiple lacerated wounds. 0. PW.2 Dr. Manjit Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, found five multiple injuries on the person of Ramji Dass and five multiple injuries on the person of Harjit Singh. This witness also examined Gurnam Singh, appellant. He had suffered 11 injuries. These all injuries are on the arms and hands. Injury No. 8 suffered by Gurnam Singh was on the right leg and there was also abrasion on the left side of the neck. This witness stated that possibility of injuries suffered by Gurnam Singh, Harjit Singh and Ramji Dass in the same occurrence cannot be ruled out. 11. PW.4 Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Medical Officer, found two simple injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh, appellant. No injury was found on the person of Charanjit Singh, acquitted accused. 12. PW. 3 Rama Belas declared Harjit Singh and Ramji Dass, injured, fit to make statement on 24.4.1994 vide opinion Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PD/1, respectively. 13. PW.5 Dr. 11. PW.4 Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Medical Officer, found two simple injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh, appellant. No injury was found on the person of Charanjit Singh, acquitted accused. 12. PW. 3 Rama Belas declared Harjit Singh and Ramji Dass, injured, fit to make statement on 24.4.1994 vide opinion Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PD/1, respectively. 13. PW.5 Dr. Deepak Walia, Senior Lecturer, Department of Forensic Medicines, Government Medical College, Patiala, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Beant Singh on 24.4.1994 at 10.30 A.M. and he found only one injury on the person of Beant Singh. This injury was on the head. This witness also stated that injury was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. 14. PW.6 Prithi Singh, Constable, PW.7 Amrik Singh, Head Constable, and PW.8 Satnam Singh, Constable, tendered their affidavits Ex.PJ, Ex.PK and Ex.PL, respectively, to prove link evidence. These witnesses were not cross-examined. 15. PW.9 Harjit Singh, complainant, reiterated what was stated in the complaint. 16. Ramji Dass, injured, appeared as PW.10 and corroborated the testimony of PW.9 Harjit Singh. 17. Vinod Kumar, Patwari, Halqa Behru, prepared rough site plan Ex.PL. 18. PW.12 Balkar Singh, Head Constable, had taken into possession clothes of deceased. 19. Wassan Singh, Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.13 and deposed regarding various aspects of the investigation. 20. Thereafter, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded right of self-defence. 21. Jaspal Singh, accused, gave his version as under:- “I am innocent. On 23.4.94 at about evening time, my brother Gurnam Singh and nephew Paramjit Singh were working in our fields adjoining the fields of Ramji Dass. Ramji Dass armed with Gandasi, Harjit Singh armed with kirpan and Beant Singh armed with Dang attacked Gurnam Singh and my son Paramjit Singh while he was working in our fields and caused about 12 injuries on the person of Gurnam Singh and 3/4 injuries to Paramjit Singh. In their self defence, they wielded their Kahies and resultantly some injuries were caused to Harjit Singh and Ramji Dass. Gurnam Singh fell down there in a very serious condition. The injuries on the body of Gurnam Singh are of grievous nature and resultantly both the arms of Gurnam Singh are not working and became dead and he has become handicapped. Gurnam Singh fell down there in a very serious condition. The injuries on the body of Gurnam Singh are of grievous nature and resultantly both the arms of Gurnam Singh are not working and became dead and he has become handicapped. Either Ramji Dass and his grand-son Harjit Singh intentionally caused injuries to Beant Singh or to create defence in their favour. Gurnam Singh and Paramjit Singh alongwith myself, my son Charanjit Singh and wife Satya Devi have been falsely involved in the present case. I was not present at the spot”. 22. Paramjit Singh, and Gurnam Singh, appellants, also gave version which was given by Jaspal Singh. 23. In defence, accused examined DW.1 Dr. Harinder Singh Rekhi. This witness found three injuries on the person of Paramjit Singh. 24. The trial Court, after examining the evidence, returned the following findings:- “16. The second charge framed against the accused is under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Beant Singh. The facts, circumstances and evidence on the record show that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The fight took place between the parties on a spur of moment. The causing of the injury on the head of Beant Singh by Gurnam Singh is a clear indication of his intention to cause his death. If Gurnam Singh had no intention to kill Beant Singh, he would not have given the injury with a sharp edged weapon on the head of the deceased. Thus the case of the prosecution is clearly covered under Section 304 (Part I) of the I.P.C. and not under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as the accused had not planned the murder of deceased Beant Singh. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “In the instant case, the accused party was the aggressor and they caused the injuries in the first instance to Beant Singh and thereafter there was a free fight between the two rival groups”. 25. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “In the instant case, the accused party was the aggressor and they caused the injuries in the first instance to Beant Singh and thereafter there was a free fight between the two rival groups”. 25. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, appearing for the appellants, has stated that once the trial Court has given the finding that the occurrence was a result of without any pre-mediation on the spur of moment and there was a free fight between the parties, then the trial Court had committed a grave error by applying Section 34 IPC with Section 304 Part-I IPC. It is submitted that it is a settled legal position that in case of free fight every accused is individually liable for the injury caused by him. Therefore, appellants Paramjit Singh and Jaspal Singh could not be convicted and sentenced with aid of Section 34 IPC for offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 26. The State had filed an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. To assail the acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. That application was assigned Criminal Misc. No. 2-MA of 1998 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.2.1998. Therefore, acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC has attained finality, so far this Court is concerned. 27. I find considerable merit in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant. Thus, the finding of the trial Court that these two appellants shared common intention and knowledge with Gurnam Singh, who gave fatal blow to Beant Singh, is liable to be set aside. Common intention and knowledge are two different things. Intention can be shared but knowledge is personal. 28. It was held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Kanbi Nanji Virji and Others v. State of Gujarat AIR 1970 Supreme Court 219 that in case of free fight, each accused is responsible for his own act. Therefore, a mandate of law was laid that only those persons, who are proved to have caused injuries, can be held guilty for the injuries caused by them. This view was further reiterated in Kashi Raj and Others v. The State of Bihar 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 416. Therefore, a mandate of law was laid that only those persons, who are proved to have caused injuries, can be held guilty for the injuries caused by them. This view was further reiterated in Kashi Raj and Others v. The State of Bihar 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 416. It was concluded that in case of a free fight, it is not safe to convict all the accused applying Section 149 IPC for offence of murder. In Abdul Hamid and Others v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 339, this view was also reiterated. 29. Thus, conviction of appellants Paramjit Singh and Gurnam Singh under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC is set aside. They are held liable for their individual act which fall under Section 323 IPC. 30. At this stage, counsel for the appellants has stated that trial Court has acted harshly by awarding ten years rigorous imprisonment to Gurnam Singh, appellant, under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Counsel further stated that in the present case, occurrence took place on 23.4.1994 . Appellant has already suffered a protracted trial of about 16 years. Gurnam Singh had suffered 11 injuries, most of them were on his hand and he is suffering from disability on his hand. 31. Taking into consideration protracted trial and mitigating circumstance, sentence imposed upon Gurnam Singh is reduced from ten years to six years rigorous imprisonment. Sentence awarded to appellants Paramjit Singh and Jaspal Singh for offence under Section 323 IPC is maintained. In view of the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. --------------