ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab. 2. Leave granted. 3. Both the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal dated 1st December, 2015, passed in CRA-S-950-SB of 2004 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. By that judgment, the High Court has acquitted a co-accused, Sahib Ram, for the same very offences, but has affirmed the conviction of the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded by the trial court was modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively for each of the offences, along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. For default in payment of fine, further imprisonment of two months and one month respectively has been awarded for each of the offences. 4. The prosecution case rests upon testimony of injured complainant, Ajay Kumar, supported by his younger brother, Sandeep and his maternal uncle, Bharat Singh. The occurrence allegedly happened at about 12.30 a.m. in the night intervening between 22nd and 23rd April, 2002, when the complainant and the witnesses claimed to have gone to take a round of their fields. 5. Although nine persons were named as accused, six of them were acquitted by the trial court and, as noted above, one Sahib Ram has been acquitted by the High Court. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the case against the appellants should also have been disbelieved because it rests upon the same evidence, which was found insufficient and led to the acquittal of remaining accused persons. He highlighted on the basis of the materials on record that there was some delay in lodging the case and, admittedly, there was land dispute between the parties from before. It is also highlighted that the two supporting witnesses are close relations of the complainant and interested on account of land dispute between the parties. The presence of both the witnesses has been questioned on account of their having sustained no injuries. 7. It is also highlighted that the two supporting witnesses are close relations of the complainant and interested on account of land dispute between the parties. The presence of both the witnesses has been questioned on account of their having sustained no injuries. 7. Since two courts have already gone through the evidence of the witnesses, including the complainant and after proper scrutiny, have convicted the two appellants, we are not inclined to scan the evidence of the witnesses once again for examining the correctness of their conviction. 8. However, it appears that a minor occurrence has been blown out of proportion and an exaggerated version has been reported after deliberation of about ten hours, to level the allegations that the appellant No.1, Brij Lal, caused a sword injury on the right elbow of the complainant and the appellant No.2, Gulab Ram, gave a "gandasa" blow from the reverse side on the right palm of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the co-accused, Sahib Ram, had allegedly fired a shot from his pistol without causing injury to anyone. As noticed earlier, Sahib Ram, has been acquitted by the High Court. The other submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that they can at best be held guilty of simple assault punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is based upon the nature of injury found by the doctor, PW-4. The doctor found an incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm on the right forearm. He did not notice any depth in this injury, which had fresh clotted blood. It was declared as grievous. The other injury was tenderness on the right palm of the same right hand. In the cross-examination, the doctor has stated, as noted by the High Court, that possibility of the injuries as a result of fall from scooter cannot be ruled out. 9. A careful look at the injuries, particularly lack of any depth in the injury No.1 said to have been caused by a sword and mere tenderness on the palm, allegedly caused by a "gandasa", creates a serious doubt as to whether the injuries were caused by the weapons as alleged. The injuries appear more probably to be the result of a fall due to minor assault. 10. The injuries appear more probably to be the result of a fall due to minor assault. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of both the appellants is altered to one under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. For the said offence, both the appellants have already surrendered and are in jail custody since more than a month. In our considered view, ends of justice would be satisfied if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Hence, they are ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.