JUDGMENT 1. - The Criminal Appeal No. 205/1988 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence for the reasons that accused respondents were charge-sheeted and tried for offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. for murder of Smt. Laxmi but trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 302 and 302/149, I.P.C. convicted all the accused respondents for the lesser offence vide judgment dated 2.12.1987 and passed following sentence against all the accused-respondents: Name of accused Offences under Section 1 Dhokalaram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 324 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C. Two and half year R.I. 2 Shanker Lal 149 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 323/149 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 324/149 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 352/149 I.P.C. Two and half year R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 3 Deva Ram 149 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 325/149 I.P.C. Two and half year R.I. 324 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 4 Bhopala 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323/149 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 5 Purshotam 149 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 6 Joga 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323/149 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 7 Kewala Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 304 Part II-4 years R.I. and Fine of Rs. 500/- 8 Joga S/o Gisa Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 9 Mansha Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323/149 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 10 Nimba Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 11 Rugnath 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 12 Kheta Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 2. The other Criminal Appeal No. 487/1987 has been filed by the accused-respondents to challenge the same judgment, therefore, for convenience, we are deciding both the appeals together in this judgment. 3. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 12 Kheta Ram 148 I.P.C.-One year R.I. 325/149 I.P.C.-Two and half years R.I. and fine Rs. 200/- 323 I.P.C.-Six months R.I. 2. The other Criminal Appeal No. 487/1987 has been filed by the accused-respondents to challenge the same judgment, therefore, for convenience, we are deciding both the appeals together in this judgment. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor while arguing the appeal filed by the State vehemently submits that as per facts of the case an F.I.R. was registered against the accused-respondents on 21.7.1986 at 7.00 P.M. at Police Station Barmer upon complaint filed by Chatura Ram, PW-1, in which, it is alleged that an incident occurred in the agriculture field Khasra No. 1480 at the outskirts of Barmer city and as per allegations of the complainant 19 accused alongwith 10-15 unknown persons entered in the agricultural field situated in Khasra No. 1480 on tractor and inflicted injuries to Bharmal, Smt. Laxmi, Smt. Jani and Smt. Meeta. 4. After usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court of concerned Magistrate. Therefore, case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer framed charge against accused-appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302/149, 325/149 and 324 I.P.C. and commenced the trial. 5. In the trial, 24 prosecution witnesses were examined and 76 documents were exhibited to prove the case and five witnesses were examined in defence and 17 documents were exhibited from the side of defence. 6. Two witnesses namely Daulat Singh and Smt. Meeta were examined as Court witnesses as CW-1 and CW-2 and after conclusion of trial, the trial Court gave finding that no documentary evidence is produced to prove possession of complainant upon the disputed land because PW-4 Patwari stated that entry was made in Khasra Girdawari only on the basis of Khatedari without visiting the site for making entries in the revenue record. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that offence under Sections 147, 148 stands proved against 13 accused persons, namely Dhokala, Deva, Shankar Lal, Bhopala, Kalaram, Purshotam, Joga, Kewala, Joga S/o Ghisa, Manchha, Nimba, Rugnath and Kheta Ram but offence under Section 449 I.P.C. is not proved. Further trial Court gave finding that there is no evidence to prove the offence under Sections 302, 302/149 I.P.C. intention of the accused-respondents was not to kill smt. Further trial Court gave finding that there is no evidence to prove the offence under Sections 302, 302/149 I.P.C. intention of the accused-respondents was not to kill smt. Laxmi otherwise more injuries would have been inflicted. The trial Court gave finding that as per the prosecution evidence Dhokla inflicted injuries on the head of Mst. Laxmi by axe and Kewala inflicted injuries on the chest by lathi and as per statement of doctor (PW-15), the injury upon chest was cause of death of Smt. Laxmi, therefore, accused Kewala who inflicted chest injury has been held guilty for offence under Section 304 part II and Dhokala has not been held guilty for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. 7. Five persons whose names are not mentioned in the F.I.R. were not found guilty for any offence on the ground that explanation given by Chutra Ram for not mentioning the names of five persons in the F.I.R. is not found satisfactory, therefore, the trial Court acquitted them. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. because there is ample evidence on record against all the accused who were armed with lathi and inflicted injuries upon three persons including Smt. Laxmi who died on the spot due to the injury inflicted upon the chest, therefore, the intention of the accused-respondents to commit the murder of Smt. Laxmi has been established by the prosecution but the trial Court gave wrong finding while ignoring the material evidence is not holding accused respondents guilty for offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. In view of above facts, it is prayed that the finding given by the trial Court may be altered and accused-respondents may be punished for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that possession of the complainant over the land has been proved by leading evidence but trial Court recorded erroneous finding, therefore, it cannot be presumed that for any other intention the accused persons entered in the agricultural field with lathis and axe other than the offence under Section 302/149, I.P.C. who were in possession of the disputed land on the date of occurrence. The main object of the accused party was to oust the complainant party from agricultural field (Dhanni) and in order to achieve the common object, they committed offence under Sections 302 and 302/149, I.P.C. therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered entire evidence but trial Court committed grave error to acquit the accused-respondents from the charge under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. 10. As per prosecution case, a fatal injury upon chest was caused to Smt. Laxmi by Kewala Ram by lathi but trial Court gave erroneous finding to hold him guilty only for offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C., therefore, every member of unlawful assembly including Kewala Ram were guilty for murder of Smt. Laxmi because they were having common intention, therefore, all the accused persons were to be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. but trial Court erroneously acquitted all the accused persons from offences under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. Lastly it is argued that preparation to achieve common object is sufficient to hold that accused respondents were having intention to dispossess the complainant party and according to prosecution story, the accused party inflicted serious injury to the complainant party with intention to commit murder, therefore, Smt. Laxmi died due to the injuries inflicted upon her by the accused-respondents but trial Court gave wrong finding that no offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. is made out. In view of above, finding given by the trial Court is totally erroneous for the simple reasons that main purpose of accused party was to dispossess the complainant party from the land in question and to get possession they committed offence of murder, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and while holding accused respondents guilty for offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. sentence awarded to them may be enhanced suitably. 11. According to Public Prosecutor the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt but the trial Court punished the accused-respondents for lesser offences instead of offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C., therefore, prayed that while holding all the accused respondents guilty for offence of murder, sentences awarded to accused respondents may be enhanced to life imprisonment. 12. 11. According to Public Prosecutor the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt but the trial Court punished the accused-respondents for lesser offences instead of offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C., therefore, prayed that while holding all the accused respondents guilty for offence of murder, sentences awarded to accused respondents may be enhanced to life imprisonment. 12. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently argued that as per allegation of prosecution, the complainant party was in possession of land in question but, as per finding of the trial Court, no documentary evidence is produced on record to prove the fact that complainant party was in possession of the land in question from which the accused-respondents tried to dispossess them, therefore, it cannot be said that trial Court has committed any error in acquitting the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 447 and 449 I.P.C. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the complainant party was in possession of the land in question, as such there is no question of enhancement of punishment of altering the finding given by the trial Court to hold accused-respondents guilty of offence for murder. The trial Court has relied upon the entire evidence led by the prosecution in right perspective and gave finding of law that no offence under Sections 302, 302/149 I.P.C. is made out. In view of above, it is submitted that the appeal filed by the State to hold accused-respondents guilty for offence of murder and to enhance punishment may kindly be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents while arguing both appeals submits that incident is of year 1986 and matter is pending for last 27 years, therefore, while maintaining conviction for offence under Section 325/149, I.P.C. sentence awarded to the accused appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone. For accused appellant Kewala Ram, who has been punished for offence under Section 304 Part II, it is submitted that trial Court specifically gave finding that author of F.I.R. PW-1 Chutra Ram nowhere stated that accused-respondent Kewala Ram inflicted any injury to the deceased Smt. Laxmi. Only allegation is levelled against accused Dhokala that he has inflicted injury upon the body of Smt. Laxmi from back-side of the axe and tried to prove the allegation that Dhokala inflicted injury by axe to Bharmal and other persons were inflicting injuries by lathi. Only allegation is levelled against accused Dhokala that he has inflicted injury upon the body of Smt. Laxmi from back-side of the axe and tried to prove the allegation that Dhokala inflicted injury by axe to Bharmal and other persons were inflicting injuries by lathi. At that time, wife of Bharmal deceased Smt. Laxmi came there and made request not to beat her husband Bharmal but accused Dhokala Ram inflicted injury upon her head from the back side of axe and due to said injury she fell down. PW-10 Tej Singh stated in his statement that first injury was inflicted by Dhokala from back side of axe and due to that, injured Smt. Laxmi fell down and thereafter, Kewala Ram inflicted injury by lathi. Similarly PW-11 Balwant Singh and PW-12 Raju are also reiterating the above version and upon the body of deceased three injuries were found as per Ex.-54 which is injury report, out of which one injury is upon chest and second in upon head. Admittedly, Laxmi did not die on the spot, therefore, learned trial Court held that looking to the nature of injury, it cannot be said that there was no intention to cause death to injured. 14. On the basis of above finding, the trial Court held that no offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. is made out. But trial Court held accused Kewala Ram guilty for offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and passed sentence against the accused appellant Kewala Ram to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment alongwith Rs. 500/- fine. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding with regard to holding Kewala Ram liable for offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. is not sustainable in law because F.I.R. was filed by eye-witness Chutra Ram PW-1 soon after the occurrence and no allegation was levelled by him in the F.I.R. for inflicting injury by accused Kewala Ram upon the chest of Smt. Laxmi. Mores so, it is stated by him that Dhokala Ram inflicted injury from the back side of axe, due to that injury, she fell down. Mores so, it is stated by him that Dhokala Ram inflicted injury from the back side of axe, due to that injury, she fell down. As per counsel appearing for accused Kewala Ram, the finding given by the trial Court for holding Kewala Ram responsible for offence under Section 304 I.P.C. is not justified because there is major contradictions in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, therefore, accused-appellant Kewala Ram in not guilty of offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. 16. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that sword of litigation is hanging upon the head of the accused persons since 1986 and during pendency of this litigation accused Dhokala Ram, Nimba Ram and Deva died, therefore, while acquitting Kewala Ram from offence under Section 304 Part II. I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the accused persons may be reduced to the period already undergone because at this stage, after 27 years it will not be proper to send the accused-appellants behind the bars again, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays that appeal filed by the State Government for enhancement of the sentence may be dismissed and appeal filed by the accused appellants may kindly be allowed and while maintaining conviction for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 I.P.C. for all the appellants the conviction of accused appellant Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Part II. I.P.C., may be altered to Sections 323 and 325/149, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, we have examined the D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 205/1988 field by the State for enhancement of punishment and to punish the accused-respondents for which they were charge-sheeted.19. Admittedly, the trial Court held that although the occurrence took place in which three persons were injured, out of which, injured Smt. Laxmi died; but, there was no intention of the accused-respondents to kill, any persons because Smt. Laxmi died due to the injuries inflicted upon her by Dhokala Ram and accused Kewala Ram but the circumstances in which the injuries were inflicted it cannot be said that there was any intention to commit murder of Smt. Laxmi. The deceased Smt. Laxmi received three injuries as per injury report Ex.P-44 dated 21.7.1986 which are as follows: "1. Lacerated wound T shaped-its upper part is 3½ cm. The deceased Smt. Laxmi received three injuries as per injury report Ex.P-44 dated 21.7.1986 which are as follows: "1. Lacerated wound T shaped-its upper part is 3½ cm. Depth muscle deep. Fresh bleeding present. 2. Contusion 15 cm x 4 cm. Redish in colour placed across the upper part of chest at the level of 3rd costal cartilage. It is more on Lt. Chest. 3. Abrasion ½ cm x ½ cm on dorsum of Lt. Ring finger middle. It is redish." 19. In the written complaint Ex.P-1, the author of the F.I.R. PW-1 Chatara Ram said that, " /kk[kyk us y{eh iRrhuh Hkkjey dks <+k.kh lw f[kpdj ckgj uhdkyhA vkSj dqYgkM+h ls ml ij okj fd;s ftlls og ekSds ij fg ekj x;h gsA " It is very strange that author of the F.I.R. said that injury was inflicted with an axe but no incised wound found upon the body of deceased Smt, Laxmi, however, the story narrated by PW-1 Chatara Ram before the Court is altogether different, in which, he said that, " Hkkjey dh cgw ds /kksdyk us chp esa vkbZ rc mYVh dqYgkM+h ekjhA "20. Similarly, PW-9 Balaram who is said to be eye-witness turned hostile before the Court but stated that Dhokala inflicted injury with axe upon the head of Smt. Laxmi and Kewalaram also inflicted injury to the deceased Smt. Laxmi. Other witnesses have also said that Dhokala inflicted injury to the deceased Smt. Laxmi and Kewalaram inflicted injury with lathi. The trial Court while relying upon the statement of PW-13 Bharmal, husband of deceased Smt. Laxmi, convicted accused Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. and acquitted all other accused from the charge under Section 302, read with Section 149, I.P.C. because, as per the trial Court's judgment, the injury which caused death of Smt. Laxmi was inflicted by Kewala Ram with lathi but according to F.I.R. Ex.P-57, filed by the eye-witness soon after the occurrence, made allegation that accused Dhokala Ram was armed with kulhari (axe) and he inflicted injury upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi, no allegation is levelled by him against Kewala Ram.21. It is strange that out of 3 injuries upon the body of late Smt. Laxmi, who was examined soon after the occurrence, none of the injuries could be caused by axe because injury No. 1 was lacerated wound, injury No. 2 is contusion and injury No. 3 is abrasion. Therefore, although the trial Court exonerated accused Dhokala Ram (who died during the pendency of this appeal) but held him responsible for offence under Sections 325, 324 and 148 I.P.C. It is also worthwhile to observe that some of the witnesses said that Kewalaram inflicted one injury by lathi to deceased Smt. Laxmi. Therefore, he has been held guilty for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. because Smt. Laxmi died on 22.7.1986 during treatment.22. Upon appreciating the entire evidence, it emerges from the finding given by trial Court that there was no intention of the accused party to kill Smt. Laxmi but, in the quarrel, due to injury received by. her upon the chest she died. In our opinion also, the finding given by the trial Court with regard to acquitting the accused-appellants from the charge under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. does not require interference because in the incident occurred on 21.7.1986 at about 5.30 P.M. at Barmer injured Jani received two injuries, deceased Laxmi received three injuries and injured Bharmal received 11 injuries, out of which one injury was incised wound and one injury was a lacerated wound whereas all other injuries were contusions and abrasions. No fatal injury found upon the vital part of the body except one injury to Smt. Laxmi.23. We have perused the statement of Dr. Shanker Lai, PW-15, in which, he said that injury No. 2 found upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi was sufficient to cause death but the fact remains whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as to who was the author of the said injury. In the written complaint filed soon after the occurrence by PW-1 Chatara Ram, Ex.P-1, no allegation is levelled by him against accused Kewala Ram for inflicting any injury to the deceased. He has specifically stated that the injuries were caused to deceased by accused Dhokala Ram. In the written complaint filed soon after the occurrence by PW-1 Chatara Ram, Ex.P-1, no allegation is levelled by him against accused Kewala Ram for inflicting any injury to the deceased. He has specifically stated that the injuries were caused to deceased by accused Dhokala Ram. Before the Court also, no allegation is levelled by him for causing any injury by Kewala Ram to Smt. Laxmi, therefore, upon appreciation of totality of the circumstances we are of the opinion that the conclusion given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused-respondents for offence under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. does not require any interference and it is not a case, in which punishment is required to be enhanced. Therefore, there is no force in the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the accused-respondents. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is hereby dismissed.24. We have examined the appeal filed by the accused-appellants for quashing impugned judgment dated 2.12.1987.25. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants-accused, Mr. P.N. Mohnani submits that during pendency of this appeal, three appellants viz., Dhokala Ram, Deva Ram and Nimba Ram died, therefore, the appeal of deceased appellants Dhokala Ram, Deva Ram and Nimba Ram is dismissed as having abated.26. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that upon appreciation of evidence it will reveal that accused Kawala Ram is not guilty of offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. because the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Kewala Ram inflicted any injury to deceased Smt. Laxmi, We have examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses.27. Admittedly, as per PW-1 Chatara Ram, author of the F.I.R., there is no allegation levelled by him that Kewala Ram inflicted any injury to the deceased. In Ex.P-1, written complaint filed by him, and Ex.P-57 F.I.R., there is no allegation against appellant Kewala Ram to prove the fact that injury No. 2 found upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi, mentioned in injury report Ex.P-44, was inflicted by him. In Ex.P-1, written complaint filed by him, and Ex.P-57 F.I.R., there is no allegation against appellant Kewala Ram to prove the fact that injury No. 2 found upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi, mentioned in injury report Ex.P-44, was inflicted by him. It is true that two other witnesses narrated the incident before the Court but in two different versions and due to major contradictions in their statements it can be said that when the complaint was filed by the eye-witness no allegation was levelled by accused Kswste Ram for inflicting any injury upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi although injured eye-witness PW-13 Bharmal stated in his statement that, " /kksdyk us mlds flj esa dqYgkM+h ekjhA dsoyk us mldh Nkrh ij ykBh ekjhA " but, upon perusal of the injury report, it will reveal that no incised wound was found upon the body of deceased Smt. Laxmi. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court holding accused Kewala Ram responsible for injury upon the chest is not proved by the prosecution properly. Therefore, in our opinion, the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to accused Kewala Ram for commission of offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. is not sustainable in law because this accused cannot be picked up on the basis of the prosecution evidence, in which, major contradictions are there. Therefore, the conviction against accused Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. is deserves to be set aside while maintaining sentences for other offences.28. In our view, the finding given by the trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 325/149, I.P.C. and offences under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 does not require any interference. However, there is strength in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that sword of prosecution has been hanging upon the accused-appellants since the year 1986 and all the accused-appellants have been sentence to maximum 2 and a half years punishment along with fine. Therefore, it is not proper to send them behind bars after as many as 27 years of the date of occurrence.29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2009 SC 1535 , held that if the accused aimed all the blows on legs and arms to make sure that it will not lead to his death, then, alteration of conviction is justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2009 SC 1535 , held that if the accused aimed all the blows on legs and arms to make sure that it will not lead to his death, then, alteration of conviction is justified. In the said judgment, it is held that in certain circumstances the Court may not fell inclined to send the accused to jail the offence being old one, in that event, the substantive sentence may be substituted by heavy fine, something that should pinch the offender and make him feel to recall the offence committed by him. At the same time, that should appear to the victim of the offence that at least some punishment is awarded to the offender.30. In this case, initially allegation was levelled by the complainant party against 18 persons and, after investigation, challan was filed against 18 persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 325, 452, 447, 149, 109 and 114, I.P.C. but, in the trial, the trial Court acquitted accused Ridmi, Padmaram, Dwarkesh, Smt. Ratani, Tipu and Tagi and convicted Only 12 accused- appellants for inflicting 16 injuries upon the bodies of three persons. Therefore, upon the facts and circumstances of this case, in which, 18 persons were charge-sheeted upon the complaint field, out of whom, the trial Court gave finding that six persons named above were falsely implicated, therefore, the trial Court acquitted them and trial Court convicted 11 accused persons for offence under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 325/149, I.P.C. and convicted accused-appellant Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Tt. II, I.P.C. in not sustainable in law.31. Therfore, we feel that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to each of the accused-appellants is reduced to the period of imprisonment already un dergone by them.32. In the result, the appeal filed by the accused appellants Dhokala Ram, Nimba Ram and Deva Ram, who died during the pendency of appeal, is hereby dismissed as abated and appeal filed by the rest of the accused appellants is partly allowed. Conviction of accused appellant Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. is set aside and his conviction in respect of other offences is hereby maintained. Conviction of accused appellant Kewala Ram for offence under Section 304 Pt. II, I.P.C. is set aside and his conviction in respect of other offences is hereby maintained. Further, while maintaining conviction of the accused appellants for offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, and 325/149, I.P.C. sentence of each of the accused-appellants is altered to period of imprisonment already undergone by each of them and, further, each of the accused-appellants shall pay Rs. 2,500/- as fine which shall be payable to be injured. Accused-appellants are on bail, therfore, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Petition allowed. *******