JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. None for the appellants. Previously also counsel for the appellants did not appear. 2. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 177/1991 (P) arising out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate appeared on behalf of the co-appellants namely, Kumar Singh (since deceased) and Tarni Singh. therefore, we direct Mr. Deo to appear in the instant appeal on behalf of the appellants for rendering assistance to the Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for both sides and also perused the evidence available on trial Court records minutely. 4. In all, five accused namely, Rajendra Singh, Kumar Singh, Sana Singh, Mohar Singh and Tarni Singh faced the trial for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC for allegedly committing murder of Jorabar Singh. On 28th July, 1984 at 8.00 a.m., when the deceased along with others were working in the field belonging to his sister's husband, he was assaulted by all the five accused and subsequently Jorabar Singh died during the course of treatment. Accused Mohar Singh was acquitted of the said charge framed against him. Among the remaining four accused, Kumar Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC substantively whereas, the other three accused have been convicted under Section 325, IPC. However, all the accused have been acquitted of the charge of Section 149, IPC, vide impugned judgment dated 15th April, 1991 of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka. Accused Kumar Singh and Tarni Singh filed their separate appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 177/1991 (P) and remaining accused namely Sona Singh and Rajendra Prasad Singh filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 194 of 1991(P). 5. It needs to be mentioned here that Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 177/1991(P) filed by Kumar Singh and Tarni Singh was heard separately by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13th June, 2006. During the pendency of the main appeal, appellant Kumar Singh died, the said appeal stood abated qua him. The Co-ordinate Bench, while upholding the conviction of the other accused Tarni Singh for the charge under Section 325, IPC modified the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) to be paid within four weeks. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench, while upholding the conviction of the other accused Tarni Singh for the charge under Section 325, IPC modified the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) to be paid within four weeks. 6. Accused Kumar Singh happens to be the main accused who had caused one farsa blow on the head of the deceased Jorabar Singh. The allegations are that then all the remaining accused assaulted the deceased with lathi and the wooden portion of farsa. The part attributed to accused Tarni Singh was that he caused grievous hurt by the backside of farsa, causing fracture of both tibia and fibula at the junction of the upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd portion of both the bones of the leg. Mr. Deo appearing for the appellants states that the case of the present two appellants is on a better footing than that of the accused Tarni Singh whose conviction has been upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13th June, 2006. According to Mr. Deo, the part attributed to both the appellants was that they were armed with lathi and caused injury to the deceased whereas, in the post-mortem report injuries caused by lathi (blunt substance) was substantially missing. 7. After appreciating the prosecution evidence minutely, we find that injury No. 3 has resulted fracture of both tibia and fibula at the junction of the upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd portion of both the bones. Both the injuries are attributed to accused Tarni Singh, who has since been convicted under Section 325, IPC by the trial Court and his conviction has also been affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Injury No. 2 is swelling over the whole of the left side of the face with echymosis of both the eye lids and on dissection there was fracture of left maxila and left angle of the mandible. The part attributed to the present two appellants is that they were armed with lathi and caused injury to the deceased along with other accused. The injuries, which are attributed to them, have resulted into fracture. Therefore, their conviction under Section 325, IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, appears to be justified. The part attributed to the present two appellants is that they were armed with lathi and caused injury to the deceased along with other accused. The injuries, which are attributed to them, have resulted into fracture. Therefore, their conviction under Section 325, IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, appears to be justified. We, thus, confirm the conviction of both the appellant, in the same manner as the conviction of co-appellant Tarni Singh has been confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, we, taking into consideration the relief already given to co-appellant Tarni Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 177/1991 (P) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, hereby modify the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) each, to be paid within a period of four weeks. Since both the appellants are on bail, they are discharged of their bail bonds. We, however, make it clear that if the appellants do not deposit the said amount of fine within the stipulated period, both the appellants will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 9. The net result now surfaces is that the appeal on hand, on merits, stand partly allowed with the aforesaid modification vis-a-vis quantum of sentence. Appeal party allowed.