JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No. 234/2005, whereby, the appellant - accused has been convicted for the offence under section 302, 34 and 323 of IPC and sentence has been imposed of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two years R/I and one month S/I with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under sec. 323 of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, Zinnatben PW-8, Exh. 21, mother of the deceased Mahmad Hanif, filed the complaint on 1.1.1996 with Sachin Police Station, stating that at about 4.00 hours in the evening, when she and her son Mahmad Hanif were sitting on the Otla, at that time, Irfan, Amin Gafur and Ilyas came on scooter near Otla and Irfan shouted that where is Baba and he asked him to come out. Therefore, Baba came to the scooter, at that time, Irfan told him that had Baba became "Dada", and then he gave abuses and they came out with the weapons. Irfan was having Gupti, Amin was having hockey and Ilyas was having sword with them and they started giving blows to her son Mahmad Hanif. Therefore, her son wanted to escape but he had fallen down and in order to save her son, the complainant ran and covered him, at that time, Irfan caught hold of hair (chotlo) of complainant and thrown her away and gave blow with gupti on the left side of the deceased. Ilyas gave a blow with sword on the leg below knee and Amin gave a blow of hockey on the head of the deceased. When they were giving other blows, the complainant stood up and came in between and she sustained injury on the right hand. Her son Mahmad Hanif had fallen down on the heap of clay and she started shouting. Other persons came there, and in the meantime, all the three accused ran away by leaving scooter at that place and as stated by her, she had thrown stones over the accused. Her son Mahmad Hanif had fallen down on the heap of clay and she started shouting. Other persons came there, and in the meantime, all the three accused ran away by leaving scooter at that place and as stated by her, she had thrown stones over the accused. The police investigated into the complaint, and as the appellant herein, was initially arrested, but thereafter he had absconded, the charge-sheet was filed against other two accused, namely Amin Gafur Saiyed and Mahmad Ilyas Abdulgani Shaikh, and ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions Case No. 147/1996. We may state that in the said case, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 30.4.1999 convicted both the accused for the offence under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 of IPC and imposed life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 1000/-, with a direction that remaining accused Irfan, who was reported absconding, be arrested and separate charge-sheet be filed. The appellant herein was subsequently arrested by the police and separate charge-sheet was filed against him and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, being Sessions Case No. 234 of 2005. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 19 witnesses, whose details are given at para-6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence of 16 documents, the details of which, are mentioned at para-7 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter, recorded the statement of the accused under sec. 313 of CrPC, wherein, the accused denied the evidence against him and in the further statement, he only stated that he is innocent and he has been wrongly involved in the case. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the prosecution and the defence and found the accused guilty for the offence under sections 302, 323 and 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the accused on the aspect of sentence and ultimately, by the impugned judgment and order, has imposed the sentences as referred to hereinabove, and acquitted the accused for the offence under section 504 of IPC. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the accused on the aspect of sentence and ultimately, by the impugned judgment and order, has imposed the sentences as referred to hereinabove, and acquitted the accused for the offence under section 504 of IPC. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. We may state that the other accused who were convicted pursuant to the other charge-sheet by the separate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 147/1996, have also preferred two separate appeals against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence being Criminal Appeal No. 547/1999 preferred by Amin Gafur Saiyed and Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 1999 preferred by Mohammed Alias Abdulgani Shaikh. We may also record that out of those two accused, Mahmad Alias Abdulgani Shaikh appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 648/1999 is absconding since 24.5.2001. 5. The evidence on record shows that Zinnatben PW-8 Exh. 21, who is complainant, is not only eye witness to the incident but also injured witness. In her testimony, she has fully supported the case of the prosecution for involvement of the accused - appellant herein, and also for giving the blows upon the victim. In her testimony, it has transpired that three persons, namely; Irfan, Ilyas and Amin had come at the residence of the deceased and the complainant Zinnatben with the weapons. There were three weapons, namely gupti, sword and one broad stick (Danda). In her testimony, she has deposed that the accused came and gave threat to her son that he became "dada", and thereafter, they chased the deceased with the weapons. She has stated that blow with stick was given by Irfan upon the head of the deceased and he had fallen down and when she came in between, her hair (chotlo) was caught hold of and she was thrown away. She has also deposed that Irfan had given blow to her with stick and she sustained injury on the right hand and also on the leg. She has deposed that Amin had given gupti blow to her son. She has deposed that at that time she had prayed with the folded hands and she also shouted. At that time, her another son Yasin came there and other people of the nearby area also came there and her son was taken to the hospital. She has deposed that Amin had given gupti blow to her son. She has deposed that at that time she had prayed with the folded hands and she also shouted. At that time, her another son Yasin came there and other people of the nearby area also came there and her son was taken to the hospital. There is contradiction for the use of the weapon, as stated in the complaint by the accused and as deposed before the Court in the testimony, but the said aspect shall be dealt with by us in detail when the matter shall be considered on the aspect of common intention and the applicability of section 34 of IPC, role played by the accused concerned and other incidental aspects. However, the testimony of complainant Zinnatben if considered with the cross-examination, it is proved that she is an eye witness to the incident and she has sustained injury in the incident when she intervened to save her son. Another aspect from her testimony appears to be that all the aforesaid three persons including the appellant-accused herein had come together on the scooter at her residence with the weapons and all have given blows to the deceased and further to the extent that when the mother of the deceased intervened, she was also thrown away and blows were also given to her. Further in her testimony, except as referred to hereinabove on the aspect of use of weapon, fully supports the complaint Exh. 23 given to the police on the aspect of eye witness to the incident and sustaining injury by her at the incident. 6. The medical evidence has come on record for the injury sustained by complainant Zinnatben through the testimony of Dr. Gaugang S.Solanki PW-1 Exh. 6, wherein, it has transpired that she had sustained injury of cut wound on the right hand of 5cm x 0.5cm. As per the said doctor, in the medical history, Zinnatben had stated to the doctor that she sustained injuries because of the blow given with gupti. The medical papers have also been come on record at Exh.7 for examination and the treatment given to the Zinnatben. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove that she had sustained injury and she was injured eye witness. 7. The aforesaid evidence of injured witness is supported by the evidence of other eye witness Yasin Hajibhai PW-9 Exh. The medical papers have also been come on record at Exh.7 for examination and the treatment given to the Zinnatben. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove that she had sustained injury and she was injured eye witness. 7. The aforesaid evidence of injured witness is supported by the evidence of other eye witness Yasin Hajibhai PW-9 Exh. 25, wherein, in his testimony, he has stated that when he reached to his residence, he had found that all accused, Irfan, Amin and Ilyas were giving blows to his brother. 8. The medical evidence of Dr. Sanjay K. Gupta, PW 13 Exh. 29 for performance of postmortem and for showing the injuries on the body of the deceased fully supports the case of the prosecution. As per the testimony of the said Dr. Sanjay K Gupta, one injury on the parital region of the head was found of 4 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep on the left side. The second injury was found on the left side of chest of 3cm x 1cm deep up to cavity and third injury was found on the left leg near knee of a cut wound having size of 9cm x 3cm deep up to the bone. As per the opinion of the said witness, the cause of death could be on account of the wounds and the injuries on the chest and he has further opined that injury could be caused with the sharp cutting weapon like knife and gupti. He was shown gupti which was discovered by the police and he has opined that such injury would be caused with the same. The aforesaid medical evidence of the witness together with the postmortem report shows that, in all, there were four external injuries on the body of the deceased and above referred three injuries matches with the use of the weapon, namely danda, gupti and sword. It also supports the say of the eye witness for causing injury upon the deceased with the aforesaid three weapons. 9. The panchnama for discovery of the weapon has come on record at Exh. 18 and as per the said discovery panchnama, at the instance of appellant, the clothes having blood stains and three weapons, namely gupti with the blood stains, sword with the blood stains and danda with the blood stains have been discovered. Panch witness Dilipsinh Himmatsinh Vansiya PW-6 Exh. 18 and as per the said discovery panchnama, at the instance of appellant, the clothes having blood stains and three weapons, namely gupti with the blood stains, sword with the blood stains and danda with the blood stains have been discovered. Panch witness Dilipsinh Himmatsinh Vansiya PW-6 Exh. 17, in his testimony has stated that he had signed the panchnama, and thereafter, has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, has been declared hostile. However, in the evidence of second I.O. Shri Hasmukhbhai PW 19 whose testimony has been recorded at Exh. 39, the contents of the panchnama for discovery of the clothes and weapons are proved. The clothes and weapons discovered by the I.O. at the instance of the appellant-accused, were sent to FSL for testing and examination and serological report of the FSL Exh. 43 read with forwarding of the different parcel sent to the FSL Exh. 42, show that the deceased was having blood group "A" and the very blood group matching with the blood group found from the clothes recovered and the very blood group is found from all the three weapons, namely gupti, sword and danda @ stick. In this manner, the FSL report fully supports the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it can be said that the weapons were used for giving blows to the deceased and the same is supported by the scientific evidence and such weapons being incriminating material, have been discovered at the instance of the appellant-accused. 10. The aforesaid goes to show that the prosecution has been able to prove the case of causing death of the deceased by the accused by giving blows upon the deceased by different accused persons with the use of separate weapon and the medical evidence fully supports the testimony of injured eye witness and the scientific evidence also fully supports the case of the use of weapon for giving blows to the deceased and such weapon being incriminating material, have been discovered at the instance of the appellant accused. Under these circumstances, the death of the deceased on account of blows given by all the accused and the injuries caused, is proved. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused raised the first contention that there is material contradiction in the complaint and the testimony of the injured eye witness Zinnatben PW-8 Exh. 21. It was submitted that in the complaint Exh. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused raised the first contention that there is material contradiction in the complaint and the testimony of the injured eye witness Zinnatben PW-8 Exh. 21. It was submitted that in the complaint Exh. 23, the said witness stated that Irfan was having gupti, whereas Amin was having hockey and Ilyas was having sword, but in the testimony, she stated that Irfan gave a blow of stick on the head of the deceased and gupti blow was given Amin Gafur Saiyed and blow of sword was given by Ilyas. Therefore, she submitted that in view of the material contradictions, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt about the blow given by whom to the deceased. The testimony of injured eye witness may not be relied upon by this Court and the accused should be entitled to the benefit thereof. She submitted that even if the testimony of injured eye witness Zinnatben is considered, then, in view of the aforesaid contradictions for the blow given with which weapon by a particular accused, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and therefore, the appellant-accused would be entitled to the benefits. 12. The examination of the said contention, if considered with the discussion made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, shows that the learned Sessions Judge has found that section 34 of IPC would be applicable and once there is common intention, the offence can be said as proved against the accused including the present appellant herein. Section 34 of IPC reads as under: "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 13. In the case of Hari Om & 2 Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in 1993(1) Crimes (SC) 294, it has been observed by the Apex Court in para-13, inter alia, as under: "In order to bring the case under sec. 34 of IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation. The common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. v. State of U.P., reported in 1993(1) Crimes (SC) 294, it has been observed by the Apex Court in para-13, inter alia, as under: "In order to bring the case under sec. 34 of IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation. The common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. The law is well settled in this regard." 14. In the case of Jai Bhagwan and others v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1083 , the Apex Court, while interpreting section 34 of IPC, has observed at para-10 as under: "To apply section 34 IPC, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two factors must be established: (i) common intention, and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of an offence. If common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, sec. 34 will be attracted as essentially it involves vicarious liability but if participation of the accused in the crime is proved and common intention is absent, sec. 34 cannot be invoked. In every case it is not possible to have direct evidence of common intention. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case." 15. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of aforesaid legal position, it does appear that as per the case proved by the prosecution, all the accused with the deadly weapons, namely of danda (stick), gupti and sword, had come on scooter at the residence of the deceased, where deceased was sitting on Otla of his residence. The appellant herein - Mohmad Irfan Nizamuddin Mansuri had taken the lead and he started with saying to the deceased that had the deceased became a "dada", and thereafter, all the accused chased the deceased and one after another blows have been given with the deadly weapons on the vital part of the body of the deceased. Such circumstance shows the common intention on the part of all the accused of causing death of the deceased. Therefore, it appears to us that as per the evidence on record, common intention can be said as proved by the prosecution of all the accused for causing death of the deceased. Such circumstance shows the common intention on the part of all the accused of causing death of the deceased. Therefore, it appears to us that as per the evidence on record, common intention can be said as proved by the prosecution of all the accused for causing death of the deceased. Further the said common intention appears from the fact that the blow with "danda" (stick) had been given on the head, the blow with the gupti has been given on the chest and blow with sword has been given on the leg. Not only that, but when the injured eye witness Zinnatben, mother of the deceased, intervened, she was pulled away by caught hold of her hair (chotlo) and the blows have also been given to her. These circumstances support the case of the prosecution for common intention of all the accused and such circumstances as having been proved, it can be said that common intention of all the accused for causing death of the deceased was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 16. If the contention on behalf of the appellant is thereafter examined in light of the individual role played by each accused for giving blows to the deceased whether with the weapon danda (stick) or with weapon gupti or with weapon sword, the said aspect would be in consequential, more particularly, when each one has actively participated in the commission of crime and the said aspect is proved by the prosecution with the medical evidence of the injury matching with the use of the weapons have been found on the body of the deceased with the further testimony of eye witness for use of the weapon by each accused and thereby giving blows to the deceased. Under these circumstances, we find that when the common intention was proved coupled with the circumstances of use of weapon and the injury found on the body of the deceased are also proved, such contradiction even if considered in the testimony of Zinnatben PW-8 Exh. 21, eye witness and the complaint, would not result into any benefit available to the accused for frustrating the case of the prosecution charged upon the accused for causing the death of the deceased with the common intention. Therefore, such contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, would be of no help to the appellant-accused. 17. 21, eye witness and the complaint, would not result into any benefit available to the accused for frustrating the case of the prosecution charged upon the accused for causing the death of the deceased with the common intention. Therefore, such contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, would be of no help to the appellant-accused. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the case of the prosecution for showing all the accused coming to the residence of the deceased and for causing injury with such weapon at the place near the residence of deceased, could be said as doubtful since no blood stain/marks are found at the place of scene of offence. It was submitted that if such a severe injury is caused, the place will have the blood stains or marks of blood stains. In the panchnama, no blood stains were found, and therefore, it was submitted that the site shown by the prosecution for the scene of offence is doubtful. 18. The examination of the said contention shows that the panchnama has come on record at Exh. 18 and as per the said panchnama, it is true that no marks of blood stains are found, but the pertinent aspect is that the time of offence was at about 4.00 O'clock on 1.1.1996, whereas, the panchnama was drawn on 2.1.1996 at about 9.15 O'clock in the morning. As stated in the panchnama, on the northern side of the house of the complainant, road is situated and over the said road, vehicles as well as pedestrian were passing when the panchnama was prepared. If the scene of offence is public place and located on the road, over which the people and vehicles may pass in the usual course and there was time gap between the commission of the offence and the preparation of the panchnama, in the present case was around 17.00 hours, it may be that the blood stains may not be available at that place. Therefore, it is not a matter where no circumstances have come on record leading to the situation of destroying of the blood stains, if any, at the scene of offence place, which is a public road. Therefore, it is not a matter where no circumstances have come on record leading to the situation of destroying of the blood stains, if any, at the scene of offence place, which is a public road. Under these circumstances, merely because blood stains were not found at the scene of offence place, it is not possible for us to accept the contention that site shown by the prosecution is doubtful, more particularly, when there is also other evidence of injured eye witness and another eye witness or chance witness Yasin Hajibhai PW-9 Exh.25, who in his testimony has deposed that when he came near his residence, three persons, namely Irfan, Amin and Ilyas were giving blows to his brother. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive on the part of the accused, and therefore, it was submitted that the witness for showing the motive have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. It was, therefore, submitted that in absence of any motive for causing death of the deceased, the prosecution case should fail, and therefore, the benefit should be made available to the accused. 20. It is true that witness Daudbhai Taiyabbhai Sanghvani PW-14 Exh. 33, maternal uncle of the deceased has turned hostile on the aspect of collection of the amount outstanding from Mehbubkhan and Mehbubkhan Abdullakhan Pathan PW-17 Exh. 37 has turned hostile but in the evidence of I.O. the aspect of motive for the dispute on account of collection of the amount outstanding has transpired. Under these circumstances, the said contention is of no help to the appellant-accused. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that it has come in evidence of Dr. Popat Rameshchandra Purshottamdas PW-2 Exh.8, that the accused had also sustained injuries and the injuries may of minor, were found on the body of the accused and in the evidence of I.O. also it has come on record that there was fight between the deceased and accused. Under these circumstances, she submitted that the case may be considered as falling under sudden provocation without any intention to kill, and therefore, punishment be altered to under section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC, as this Court may find it proper instead of life imprisonment, as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 22. Under these circumstances, she submitted that the case may be considered as falling under sudden provocation without any intention to kill, and therefore, punishment be altered to under section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC, as this Court may find it proper instead of life imprisonment, as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 22. This Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 894/2001 decided on 23.3.2009, had an occasioned to examine more or less similar contention in a case where the victim/deceased was surrounded by accused and when the accused received certain injury, the case was pleaded to be as under sec. 304 Part-II for imposition of maximum sentence of 10 years in place of life imprisonment and in the said decision, this Court had observed at para-32 and 33 as under: "32. It was lastly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants - accused that the conviction may be altered as that of under Section 304 Part II by imposition of maximum sentence of ten years, since in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants - accused, it has come on record that accused Nos.1 and 2 have received injuries, which remained unexplained by the prosecution. He submitted that it could be case of sudden provocation and premeditation would be missing for maintaining the conviction under Section 302 of IPC. It was, therefore, submitted that accused have remained in jail for about 11 years and, therefore, the imprisonment already undergone to be treated as sufficient, keeping in view the punishment under Section 302 Pat I or Part II of IPC. 33. If the evidence on record is examined to consider the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants - accused, it appears that nowhere it has come on record even by a remote suggestion to or by any of the witnesses or by the defence that there was any provocation or altercation of hot-words between the deceased and the accused. Further, the factum of formation of unlawful assembly and the factum of all accused and the juvenile coming with lethal weapons to the place at which the deceased was supposed to look after the construction work of causeway and the factum of giving indiscriminate blows to the accused rules out any possibility of absence of premeditation or any provocation by the deceased. Even if it is considered that the deceased made any resistance to the blows inflicted upon him, such right of private defence could be made available to the deceased, who was being surrounded by five members of unlawful assembly with lethal weapons and such, in any case, would not be available to any member of unlawful assembly. Such resistance, in any case, may be by way of self-defence by the deceased could not be termed as a provocation, which may attract the provisions of the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC." 23. Therefore, if the deceased, out of self defence has caused any injury to the accused, such would not give rise to the benefit available under sec. 304 Part-I or Part-II unless such sudden provocation or causing of injury was by the deceased of his own and not by way of self defence. Further, the facts of the present case if examined, it does appear that the accused with deadly weapon had come to the residence of the deceased and immediately after saying that he had become "dada" had started of giving blows one after another with deadly weapons on the vital parts of the body of deceased. Not only that, but when the injured eye witness, mother of the deceased intervened, she was thrown out and she had also been caused injury with the deadly weapons. At that stage, if the deceased by way of self defence may have caused any injury to the accused, but such injury would not give any benefit to the deceased as that of sudden provocation or would not dilute the common intention of causing death of the deceased by the accused with such deadly weapon. Therefore, we are not inclined to take the view that the case would fall either under sec.304 Part-I or Part-II as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the contention being devoid of merit, is rejected. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly contended that the fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge of Rs. 30,000/-, in addition to the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive and she submitted that even if section 34 IPC is believed read with sec. 302 IPC, the other accused who are appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 547/1999 and 648/1999 have been imposed fine of Rs. 1000/- with life imprisonment. 30,000/-, in addition to the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive and she submitted that even if section 34 IPC is believed read with sec. 302 IPC, the other accused who are appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 547/1999 and 648/1999 have been imposed fine of Rs. 1000/- with life imprisonment. Therefore, it was submitted that this Court may interfere with the amount of fine and also quantum of sentence in default of payment of fine. 25. We find that the contention is not without any substance. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, the amount of fine deserves to be imposed of Rs. 1000/- instead of Rs. 30,000/- as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. It is true that consequently, no compensation may be available to the complainant but we find that when offence under sec. 34 read with section 302 IPC is believed as proved, the parity is required to be maintained on the aspect of imposition of fine upon all the accused together with the sentence imposed for life imprisonment. 26. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the conviction made by the learned Sessions Judge upon the appellant - accused deserves to be interfered with and the same is hereby confirmed. However, on the aspect of sentence for the offence under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 IPC, it is observed and directed that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the accused does not deserve to be interfered with, but the additional amount of fine imposed of Rs. 30,000/- shall stand substituted with the fine of Rs. 1000/- and the punishment for default in payment of fine shall be six months R/I instead of 2 years R/I. The other conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under sec. 323 does not deserve to be interfered with. It is also observed that consequently the compensation may not be available of Rs. 25000/- from the amount of fine of Rs. 30000/-, as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, and therefore, the said part of the order would not survive. The fine of Rs. 1000/- as ordered by the present judgment shall be appropriated in accordance with law. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. 25000/- from the amount of fine of Rs. 30000/-, as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, and therefore, the said part of the order would not survive. The fine of Rs. 1000/- as ordered by the present judgment shall be appropriated in accordance with law. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat, for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed. However, so far as amount of fine and default sentence are concerned, it is reduced and modified to the extent of Rs. 1000/- and further six months R/I in default of payment of fine. The other conviction recorded and sentence imposed upon the appellant-accused for the offence under section 323 of IPC is not interfered with and is hereby confirmed. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.

Mohmad Irfan Nizammuddin Mansuri v. State of Gujarat