JUDGMENT Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Bharuch dated 29.4.2006 recording the conviction of the Appellants - Accused persons for the offences under Sections 143, 146, 148, 149, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them as stated in detail in the impugned judgment. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows. 3. As it transpires from the material and evidence on record, the accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the complainant party while they were working in the field on an issue with regard to the land dispute. The accused persons are said to have assaulted the complainant party including the complainant victim - PW-14 and therefore the complainant and two other persons Fakirbhai, Complainant Sureshbhai and Ghanshyambhai were taken to the hospital (Primary Health Center) at village Jambusar and thereafter were referred to the SSG Hospital, Baroda. Therefore the complaint being CR No. 22 of 2002 came to be filed at Jambusar Police Station for the offence under Sections 143, 146, 148, 149, 325 and 307of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After the investigation was over, the charge sheet was filed and as the offences are triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offences as stated above and proceeded with the trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges leveled against the Accused persons, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also the Doctors who have treated the victim, including the complainant victim and other witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence including the medical evidence which shall be referred to hereinafter. 6. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the further statement of the Accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. After hearing the learned PP as well as learned Advocate for the defence, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the Accused persons and sentenced them as stated in detail in the impugned judgment. 8. 7. After hearing the learned PP as well as learned Advocate for the defence, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the Accused persons and sentenced them as stated in detail in the impugned judgment. 8. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present Appeal on the grounds stated in detail in the memo of Appeal inter alia that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error while appreciating the evidence. 9. Heard learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bukhari for the Appellants and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent State. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari referred to the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of panch witness for the panchnama of the scene of offence PW-1 at Exh. 23 and also referred to the testimony of Sureshbhai - complainant victim PW-9 at Exh. 38 and his complaint at Exh. 39. Similarly, learned Advocate Shri Bukhari referred to the testimony of other injured victim Fakibhai PW-10 at Exh. 41 and the testimony of Ghanshyambhai PW-11 (who is the brother of the complainant) at Exh. 42. 11. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari tried to referred to the incident and the manner in which it has occurred with regard to some land dispute and submitted that as it was occurred in a spur of moment, the conviction could not have been recorded for the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari also submitted that the ingredients for the offence are not established. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari also submitted that the medical evidence also suggests that there were simple injuries and therefore the conviction for the offence under Section 307 IPC ought not to have been recorded. 12. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari also submitted that now with the passage of time the parties have moved forward and they were entered into a settlement/compromise for which he placed on record the papers and submitted that considering this compromise or settlement the sentence may be reduced while maintaining the conviction. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari submitted that it is a small village and when the things have settled and persons are residing peacefully, the reduction in the sentence would put an end to the whole issue and therefore it would be in the interest of the parties if the sentence is modified while maintaining the conviction. 13. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari submitted that it is a small village and when the things have settled and persons are residing peacefully, the reduction in the sentence would put an end to the whole issue and therefore it would be in the interest of the parties if the sentence is modified while maintaining the conviction. 13. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani however referred to the testimony of the complainant victim PW-9 at Exh. 38 and his complaint at Exh. 39. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani emphasized about the manner in which the incident took place and submitted that it is evident from the complaint at Exh. 39 and the testimony of the complainant at Exh. 38 that the accused persons had come prepared, which reflect about their motive and the intention. He submitted that as stated in detail, considering the previous incident, they had made up the mind for the assault, and therefore, armed with the weapons, they had assaulted the complainant party with indiscriminate blows. Learned APP Shri Jani therefore submitted that it suggests the manner in which the offence is committed. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that the indiscriminate assault with the weapons on vital part of the body has been made which is corroborated by the medical evidence. He submitted that Exh. 49 and Exh. 36 are the medical certificates/injury certificates of Fakirbhai. Exh. 48 and Exh. 65 are the medical certificates of the brother Ghanshyam and Exh. 47 and Exh. 64 are the injury certificates of the complainant. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that the testimony of the Doctor PW-14 at Exh. 46 require close look and he pointedly referred to Exh. 63 as well as Exh. 65 and submitted that it mentions about the grievous hurt. Learned APP Shri Jani therefore submitted that as the charge for the offence under Section 149 of the IPC has been established, the submissions about the role attributed to some of the accused may not be relevant. He submitted that it is not necessary to attribute any overt act or role to each of the accused when the charges are for the offence of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of IPC. 14. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bukhari again referred to the injury certificate as stated above and tried to submit that there were few injuries and all were general injuries and not the serious injuries. 14. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bukhari again referred to the injury certificate as stated above and tried to submit that there were few injuries and all were general injuries and not the serious injuries. He referred to the Exh. 47, Exh. 48, Exh. 49, and Exh. 63 to Exh. 65 and also referred to the medical evidence in the form of testimony of Doctor PW-14 at Exh. 46. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari also submitted that some of the accused are not attributed with the active role which can be considered. He also submitted that while maintaining the conviction as it is the sentence may be modified. It is submitted that the Appellants - Accused Nos. 2, 5 and 6 have expired. Learned Advocate Shri Bukhari has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gulab Das and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 10 SCC 765 and emphasized the observations made in paragraphs 8, 9, 12 and 13. 15. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Appeal deserves consideration. It is also required to be considered whether the alternate submission with regard to modification of sentence while maintaining the conviction can also be considered. 16. As it transpires from the material and evidence on record, which has been referred to at length by both the sides and the manner in which the incident had occurred reflect the indiscriminate blows by the accused persons without giving anytime to the complainant party to escape or do anything. As rightly emphasized, the complaint refers to the fact that the accused persons had come prepared armed with the weapons and started with indiscriminate blows resulting in serious injuries to the complainant and two other persons i.e. his brother PW-11 and one Fakirbhai PW-10. There is no quarrel or dispute as regards the incident which has taken place in background of some quarrel as a result of which the accused persons had come on the field armed with weapons and started the assault. Therefore, the genesis of the offence as a quarrel has led to this incident and at the same time it is not in dispute that the accused persons are prepared and armed with weapons and started assaulting indiscriminately to the complainant party. Therefore, the genesis of the offence as a quarrel has led to this incident and at the same time it is not in dispute that the accused persons are prepared and armed with weapons and started assaulting indiscriminately to the complainant party. This also suggest the motive or the intention when it is also uttered that they will not allow the complainant and others to escape. 17. The manner in which the violent blows or assault has been made could be evident from the medical certificates produced at Exh. 49 and 63 for one Fakirbhai, at Exh. 47 and 64 for the complainant victim Sureshbhai and at Exh. 48 and 65 for his brother Ghanshyam. Though learned Advocate Shri Bukhari submitted that the injuries cannot be said to be serious or on the vital part, the same cannot be accepted in view of this medical evidence which clearly suggest about the injury on the scalp with a weapon, and the certificates like Exh. 65 and Exh. 48 also mentions it as a grievous injuries. Therefore in light of the testimony of the Doctor PW-14 at Exh. 46 who treated them corroborating the injuries, it can hardly be said that the injuries were not serious as sought to be canvassed. 18. Therefore, on over all appreciation of the material and evidence, the reasons recorded for the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the court below are justified and does not call for any interference. The submissions that the conviction for the offence under Section 307 could not have been recorded is also misconceived. However, the alternate submission made by learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bukhari emphasizing that much time has passed and they are residing in a small village and therefore in view of the settlement/compromise, at least the sentence may be modified or reduced, require consideration. The emphasis given by the learned Advocate Shri Bukhari to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gulab Das and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) also require consideration. The emphasis given by the learned Advocate Shri Bukhari to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gulab Das and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) also require consideration. However, at the same time it is required to be considered that the charges are established and the conviction is recorded for the offence under Section 307 and 149 IPC and the court below while awarding the sentence has also exercised the discretion and has awarded the sentence of 5 years only which itself suggest about the reasonableness in the sentence consistent with the doctrine of proportionality. Therefore it would not be justified to modify and reduce the sentence any further when the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC is established. As discussed herein above, in fact the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed the word of caution that normally when the trial court has awarded the sentence, the same may not be disturbed unless it could be said to be unreasonable or harsh. In the facts of the case as stated above, the court below has exercised the discretion in a balanced way and any further modification would not be in the interest of justice. In fact the sanctity of the law and the system of criminal justice system also require a imposition of the sentence in public interest so as to maintain the faith on the public. Too much of the leniency while awarding the sentence may be counter productive as it may affect the very basis of the criminal justice system. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing in a judgment in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it has been observed: "Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by any one and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view on a serious offence like the present, will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society at large." Therefore the observations which have been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on the doctrine of proportionality of sentence including the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 2314 in case of Siriya alias Shri Lal v. State of M.P. are required to be considered. It has been observed referring to the doctrine of proportionality: "8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991(3) SCC 471 . The reference is also made to the consideration of the facts and circumstances and the factors which are required to be considered for awarding the appropriate sentence in a balanced manner. 19. Therefore, the present Appeal cannot be entertained and the alternate prayer with regard to the modification of the sentence while maintaining the conviction also cannot be accepted. The present Appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Time to surrender is granted up to 4 weeks as requested by learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bukhari for the Appellants.