JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. On 08.06.2006 at around 09:00/10:00 P.M. one Mukesh (P.W.-9), along with Vinod @ Fauzi son of his maternal aunt, after taking meals left the house to take evening stroll. When they reached near the culvert of canal situated at Poonam Colony, four accused, namely (i) Naresh Gurjar (ii) Vinod @ Gappi, (iii) Laxmikant @ Gariba and (iv) Vikas @ Rinku, who were sitting there armed with swords, constituted unlawful assembly for causing murder of Vinod @ Fauzi. Resultantly occurrence had ensued. 2. In the occurrence, it is alleged that all four accused caused injuries with sword to deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi and injured - Mukesh (P.W.-9). As per admitted case of prosecution, Vinod @ Fauzi was caused injury by appellant - Vinod @ Gappi and Vikas @ Rinku. So far injured - Mukesh (P.W.-9) is concerned, he was caused injury by appellant - Naresh Gurjar and Laxmikant @ Gariba. 3. Instant appeal has been preferred by Naresh Gurjar and Vinod @ Gappi under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Co-accused - Laxmikant @ Gariba, who absconded, was apprehended later-on, and the trial against him has now proceeded. As per report received from the trial Court, out of thirty-two witnesses cited, only five-witnesses have been examined against co-accused - Laxmikant @ Gariba. 5. Co-accused - Vikas @ Rinku is still absconding and has not been apprehended. 6. Present appellant - Vinod @ Gappi has undergone about nine-years seven-months & twenty-two days. He had filed an application for suspension of sentence on the ground that he has undergone substantial portion of the sentence. The said prayer was declined by the Coordinate Bench. Aggrieved against the same, appellant - Vinod @ Gappi had filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2263/2015). In the said appeal, the Supreme Court desired that the appeal be heard at the earliest. 7. Hence, present appeal has been placed before us. 8. In view of directions issued by the Supreme Court, we are seized of the appeal in which Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has addressed the arguments. 9. It will be pertinent to note here that the ld. 7. Hence, present appeal has been placed before us. 8. In view of directions issued by the Supreme Court, we are seized of the appeal in which Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has addressed the arguments. 9. It will be pertinent to note here that the ld. trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 12.06.2013, held appellant - Vinod @ Gappi guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and Naresh Gurjar guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The ld. trial Court convicted Naresh Gurjar for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., whereas Vinod @ Gappi was convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. Both; Vinod @ Gappi and Naresh Gurjar were also convicted for offences punishable under Sections 326/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 10. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, ld. trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- Naresh Gurjar: "For offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo five months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 307 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 324/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one week's additional simple imprisonment. Vinod @ Gappi: "For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo five months additional simple imprisonment. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one week's additional simple imprisonment. Vinod @ Gappi: "For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo five months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 324/34 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one week's additional simple imprisonment. {All sentences were ordered to run concurrently}." 11. In the present case, Rakesh Kumar (P.W.-6) on 09.06.2006 at 12:35 A.M. i.e. on the intervening night of 08.06.2006 & 09.06.2006 submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/9) at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota to A.S.I. Babulal Meena (P.W.-17). 12. In the Court, A.S.I. Babulal Meena (P.W.-17) stated that on 08.06.2006 he was posted at Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota. On that day, at 10:30 P.M., he received a telephonic information from M.B.S. Hospital, Kota regarding admission of Vinod @ Fauzi and Mukesh (P.W.-9). He was deputed by Station House Officer to reach at the hospital. On his arrival at hospital, he found Vinod @ Fauzi and Mukesh admitted in the hospital for the treatment. Rakesh (P.W.-6) was also present there and he presented written-report (Exhibit-P/9), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report bearing No. 88/2006 (Exhibit-P/29) was registered at Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota City, Kota for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2) of the SC/St Act. 13. Rakesh (P.W.-6) was also present there and he presented written-report (Exhibit-P/9), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report bearing No. 88/2006 (Exhibit-P/29) was registered at Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota City, Kota for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2) of the SC/St Act. 13. The said written-report (Exhibit-P/9), when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The Station House Officer Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota Subject: Lodging of report regarding beating. Sir, It is submitted that on 08.06.2006 at about 10:00 P.M., I was present at my house. At that time, Raja @ Rajkumar came at my house and informed that Rinku Jat, Gariba, Gappu Mishra S/o. Jawaharnath Mishra and Naresh Gurjar near the canal are causing injuries with sword to Mukesh and Vinod. Upon which, I and Raja @ Rajkumar, both came running near the culvert of canal and saw that Rinku Jat, Gariba, Gappu Mishra and Naresh Gurjar armed with the swords in their hands, were causing injuries to Mukesh and Vinod. Gappu Mishra with the intention to cause murder, caused sword blow on the head of Vinod. Rinku Jat gave sword injury on the left foot. Gariba with the intention to cause murder, caused injuries on the head of Mukesh. Naresh also gave sword blow with the intention to cause murder on the head of Mukesh, but the said blow landed on the cheek of Mukesh. Gariba and Naresh with the sword caused four-five injuries on the foot of Mukesh. Both were badly injured. Blood was oozing out of the injuries. On hearing noise raised by Vinod and Mukesh, Sachin, Rajendra Sharma and Goppu S/o. Badriprasad Mehra, came running to the spot. They have seen the occurrence. When they raised noise, said persons, after giving beating, ran away from the spot. I and Raja brought Vinod and Mukesh for treatment to the hospital. Vinod, during treatment has died. Goppu used to work at our Meat shop. On 07.06.2006 since Rinku Jat had refused to work at meat shop, a quarrel had ensued. Goppu had lodged the report at Police Station. Keeping this grudge in mind, all four accused had made murderous assault upon Mukesh and Vinod. Vinod has died. Mukesh is under treatment. Report is submitted. Applicant Rakesh Kumar" 14. On 07.06.2006 since Rinku Jat had refused to work at meat shop, a quarrel had ensued. Goppu had lodged the report at Police Station. Keeping this grudge in mind, all four accused had made murderous assault upon Mukesh and Vinod. Vinod has died. Mukesh is under treatment. Report is submitted. Applicant Rakesh Kumar" 14. A perusal of above written-report (Exhibit-P/9) on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/29) was registered, reveals that in the occurrence, Mukesh (P.W.-9) had sustained injuries, whereas occurrence was witnessed by Rakesh (P.W.-6) and Raja @ Rajkumar (P.W.-7). It further reveals that after hearing noise, Sachin (P.W.-10), Goppu (P.W.-8) and Rajendra Sharma were attracted at the spot. 15. After registration of First Information Report (Exhibit-P/29), Investigation was carried. Prosecution submitted charge-sheet against four accused. To secure conviction of the appellants, prosecution, during trial had examined as many as twenty-eight witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellants and has further relied upon documents i.e. Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/39. Thereafter, statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence. In defence, accused had examined five witnesses and relied upon documents Exhibit-D/1 to D/22-A respectively. 16. To deal with the arguments raised by Mr. S.S. Hasan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, it will be necessary for us to notice the evidence of the present case. 17. First we shall note here the medical evidence. 18. Dr. Deepak Sharma (P.W.-15) on 09.06.2006 at about 08:00 A.M. at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota examined injured - Mukesh S/o. Mavsingh (P.W.-9) and as per Injury Report (Exhibit-P/18) found following injuries on his person:- "1. Incised wound 4 x 1/4 c.m. skin deep on right cheek. (stitched margin clear-cut) 2. Incised wound 15 x 1/2 c.m. on fronto skull & left parietal region. (stitched margin clear-cut, no swelling). 3. Incised wound (stitched) 6 x 1/4 x 14 c.m. on right fronto medial 1/3rd 4. Two scratch 15 c.m. on the chest and abdomen. 5. Incised wounds 8 x 2 c.m. on right foot. 6. Incised wound 4 x 1/4 c.m. on right thigh 7. Incised wound 7 x 1 c.m. on left leg M/3 anterior. 8. Two incised wound 4 x 1/4 on left let U/3 anteriorly 9. Incised wound 3 x 1/2 c.m. on left knee leg." 19. Injury Nos. 5. Incised wounds 8 x 2 c.m. on right foot. 6. Incised wound 4 x 1/4 c.m. on right thigh 7. Incised wound 7 x 1 c.m. on left leg M/3 anterior. 8. Two incised wound 4 x 1/4 on left let U/3 anteriorly 9. Incised wound 3 x 1/2 c.m. on left knee leg." 19. Injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7 were declared as grievous in nature. In cross-examination, this witness (P.W.-15) stated that Injury No. 1 was a fracture of mandible. As per ocular version, this injury is attributed to Naresh Gurjar. 20. Dr. Arun Sharma (P.W.-21), being posted as Medical Jurist on 09.06.2006 conducted an autopsy on the dead-body of Vinod @ Fauzi and as per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34) found following injuries on his person:- "1. Incised wound 3 x 1/2" x 1" x muscle deep on right side of face extending fronto in front of right ear to forehead obliquely placed. 2. Incised wound 5" x 1" bone cavity deep on right parito occipital area slightly obliquely placed. 3. Stab wound 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep on left leg M/3 medially." 21. In the examination-in-chief, Dr. Arun Sharma (P.W.-21) also stated that beneath the right fronto parietal and occipital region, there was presence of sub-dual haematoma. There was a fracture of right parieto occipital bone. There was laceration of parieto lobe and the brain matter was protruded out of fracture bone. As per opinion of Doctor, injury No. 2 had proved fatal. 22. Mukesh (P.W.-9), whose presence at the spot is stamped because of injuries suffered by him. This witness in the Court has deposed that on 08.06.2006 at about 09:30 or 10:00 P.M., he along with Vinod @ Fauzi son of his maternal aunt, had gone after taking meals for evening walk. When they reached near the culvert of canal situated at Poonam Colony, Gappu, Naresh, Rinku and Gariba were sitting there armed with swords. On their arrival, Rinku said that. This was objected to by Vinod. Upon which, Rinku and Goppu caused injuries to Vinod on the head. Rinku had also given injuries on the foot of Vinod. At that stage, Mukesh came forward and intervened, then Naresh and Gariba caused him injuries. Gariba caused injury on his head. Naresh caused injury on his left cheek, then Rakesh, Sachin, Goppu and Raja @ Rajkumar came running. Upon which, Rinku and Goppu caused injuries to Vinod on the head. Rinku had also given injuries on the foot of Vinod. At that stage, Mukesh came forward and intervened, then Naresh and Gariba caused him injuries. Gariba caused injury on his head. Naresh caused injury on his left cheek, then Rakesh, Sachin, Goppu and Raja @ Rajkumar came running. On their arrival, accused ran away from the spot. This witness further stated that Naresh caused five/seven injuries on his feet. In cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that . Lastly, this witness stated that the injuries on his feet were caused by four accused. The exact words stated by this witness are that . Further this witness denied that occurrence had taken place at two different places. This witness later stated that occurrence had taken place at two different places. He was caused injuries on the kachha road, whereas injuries were caused to Vinod near the kachha drain. 23. It will be apposite to reproduce here following portion of the cross-examination of this witness:- ^^ekjihV nks txg ij gq;h FkhA esjs lkFk jksM vkSj dPpk QqV ij gq;h FkhA fouksn ds lkFk ukys ds ikl dPph txg ij gq;h FkhA^^ 24. Raja (P.W.-7), who after seeing the initial occurrence had gone to the house of Rakesh (P.W.-6) to inform regarding the incident, in Court has deposed that he saw all four accused having altercation with Mukesh and Vinod. This witness in the Court deposed that ^^eSus ns[kk fd eqds'k vkSj fouksn ds lkFk rw&rw eS&EkS gks jgh FkhA xIiw] xjhck] ujs'k] fjadw tkV rw&rw] eS&eS dj jgs lkeus okys gkFkk tksM+h dj jgs FksA eSa eqds'k ds HkkbZ jkds'k dks cqykus buds ?kj dh rjQ Hkx x;kA^^ 25. Ravindra Singh (P.W.-26), Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, admitted that occurrence had taken place at three places. In the Court this witness stated that ^^esjh rQrh'k ds vuqlkj ?kVukLFky ij >xM+s rhu txg gq;s Fks tgka ij lw[kk jDr fxjk gqvk FkkA rhuksa LFkkuksa ij >xM+k lHkh O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk ,d lkFk gqvkA rQrh'k djus ls igys eS ,QvkbZvkj ns[k yh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd ,Q vkbZ vkj esa eqds'k ds lkFk vfHk- ujs'k }kjk ekjihV djuk crk;k Fkk] e`rd ds lkFk ekjihV djuk ugh crk;kA^^ 26. We have noted the broad features of the case. 27. We have noted the broad features of the case. 27. Since Mukesh (P.W.-9), being injured, is a stamped witness, we need not notice minutely details of ocular version, emerging in the evidence of Rakesh (P.W.-6), Raja (P.W.-7), Gopu (P.W.-8) and Sachin (P.W.-10), who had witnessed the occurrence. 28. We need not take note of remaining witnesses, who had participated in the investigation. As the present case, rests upon eye-witness account. As stated earlier, testimony of Mukesh (P.W.-9) because of his injury, assume importance. 29. We shall also note here that Vinod @ Gappi, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded alibi and stated that he has been falsely implicated. Vinod @ Gappi has stated that on 08.06.2006 he had gone to Surat to bring his bhabhi - Saraswati Mishra. Naresh Gurjar has also denied occurrence and stated that he was not present at the spot. 30. Akhalk (DW-1) stated that on 09.06.2006 when he had gone to the house of Vinod @ Gappi, his mother informed that Gappi had arrived, along with his bhabhi from Surat and he is sleeping. 31. Rakesh (DW-2) stated that Vinod @ Goppi is devar of his sister - Saraswati Mishra and he had arrived at Surat on 08.06.2006 at 03:30 A.M. from Jaipur Mumbai Superfast Express and he had left along with his sister in the night of 08.06.2006 at about 10:45 or 11:00 P.M. Saraswati, bhabhi of appellant - Vinod appeared as DW-4. 32. We have heard Mr. S.S. Hasan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, as well as, Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan and perused the impugned judgment and the entire record of the case. 33. Mr. S.S. Hasan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has vehemently contended that the appellant-Vinod @ Gappi was not present at the spot. Counsel has highlighted the plea of alibi and submitted that Vinod @ Gappi has been falsely implicated. It has been further contended by learned counsel that in the arrest memo of Naresh Gurjar (Exhibit-P/7), his injuries have been noticed, but no medical examination was carried. Counsel has pointed out various discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, but he is unable to assail the testimony of Mukesh (P.W.-9), who has suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence. 34. Counsel has pointed out various discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, but he is unable to assail the testimony of Mukesh (P.W.-9), who has suffered grievous injuries in the occurrence. 34. Having given our due consideration to the arguments advanced, we are of the view that Mr. S.S. Hasan, ld. counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has failed to impeach the testimony of Mukesh (P.W.-9). 35. It has come in the evidence that Mukesh (P.W.-9) and deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi had reached together at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota. It has also come in the evidence of A.S.I. Babulal Meena (P.W.-17) that he received a telephonic information that Vinod and Mukesh have been admitted in the hospital. Upon receipt of information, he had gone to the hospital and found that both of them were admitted in the emergency ward. Rakesh (P.W.-6) who was present at the hospital, had submitted written-report (Exhibit-P/9). 36. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 08.06.2006 at 10:00 P.M. and immediately thereafter, within two hours & thirty-five minutes, written-report (Exhibit-P/9) was submitted to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in the present case, First Information Report has been promptly lodged. 37. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants has further referred to the cross-examination of Mukesh (P.W.-9) and stated that Vinod @ Gappi had caused injuries on the back and neck of the deceased and he has not seen, whether Vinod had caused injuries on the head of deceased or not?. Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel that since the appellant has caused only one injury, therefore, offence, if any, will fall under Section 304-Part-I, I.P.C. 38. This argument is liable to be rejected at the outset. 39. Both Vinod @ Gappi and Vikas @ Rinku had caused sword injuries on the head of deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi. 40. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/9), it has been specifically stated that Vinod @ Gappi had caused injuries on the head of deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi and Rinku had caused injuries on the left foot of the deceased. Therefore, we are convinced that the ld. trial Court has rightly convicted Vinod @ Gappi substantively for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 41. Having said that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. substantively is made out against Vinod @ Gappi, we have to give due consideration to other aspect of the case. Therefore, we are convinced that the ld. trial Court has rightly convicted Vinod @ Gappi substantively for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 41. Having said that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. substantively is made out against Vinod @ Gappi, we have to give due consideration to other aspect of the case. The question posed before us is whether Section 34 of I.P.C. is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not? and whether Naresh Gurjar shared common intention with co-appellant Vinod @ Gappi to cause murder of Vinod @ Fauzi or not?. 42. We shall also note here that Raja (P.W.-7) saw the accused and deceased having altercation and immediately thereafter reached at the house of Rakesh (P.W.-7), brother of deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi. 43. We cannot become oblivious of the fact that there was no previous enmity between accused and complainant party. In the evening after taking their meals, Vinod @ Fauzi and Mukesh had gone for evening walk and when they met the accused, an altercation had taken place. 44. It is also an admitted fact that Naresh had not caused any injury to the deceased. Vinod @ Fauzi deceased was caused injuries by appellant - Vinod @ Gappi and Vikas @ Rinku, who is absconding. It is case of prosecution that when injuries were caused to deceased, Mukesh (P.W.-9) had intervened in the occurrence. It is a case of the prosecution that when Mukesh (P.W.-9) stepped forward to intervene, then only injuries were caused to him. So far as present appellant - Naresh Gurjar is concerned, he has caused injury on the cheek of deceased. Mukesh (P.W.-9) has also sustained injuries on the foot, attributed to Naresh Gurjar, appellant. 45. In the context of above portions of the evidence highlighted by us in the earlier part of the judgment at the instance of Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, regarding occurrence having taken place at different places, assume importance. 46. Mukesh (P.W.-9) has stated that occurrence had taken place at two different places, whereas Ravindra Singh (P.W.-26) Investigating Officer has stated that occurrence has taken place at three places. 47. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, regarding occurrence having taken place at different places, assume importance. 46. Mukesh (P.W.-9) has stated that occurrence had taken place at two different places, whereas Ravindra Singh (P.W.-26) Investigating Officer has stated that occurrence has taken place at three places. 47. To us, the very fact that when injuries were caused to deceased - Vinod @ Fauzi, Naresh Gurjar has caused no another injury to deceased is an important circumstance as he had caused injuries on the foot of Mukesh (P.W.-9), when occurrence, qua deceased was complete. Therefore, one injury on the cheek caused by appellant - Naresh Gujar is not sufficient to infer that he was having common intention with the other accused to commit murder. It is only after the injuries were caused by Vinod @ Gappi to deceased, Mukesh (P.W.-9), as per his own version had stepped forward, then only Naresh had caused injuries to him. Thus, in itself is sufficient to hold that Section 34 I.P.C., qua Naresh Gurjar appellant is not attracted. 48. Now we can examine the case from another angle. 49. We cannot rule out that once Raja (P.W.-7) had relayed information, then only Raja @ Rajkumar and Rakesh (P.W.-6) arrived at the spot. Thereafter, Sachin (P.W.-10), Goppu (P.W.-8) and one Rajendra Sharma were also attracted at the spot after hearing noise. It cannot be ruled out that Naresh Gurjar caused injuries to Mukesh (P.W.-9) after injuries had already been caused to deceased, hence, submission that occurrence took place at two different places is to be accepted by us. 50. In this context, arrest memo of Naresh Gurjar (Exhibit-P/7) assume importance, wherein it is noted that at the time of arrest on 09.06.2006 at 05:10 P.M., there were injuries on the head and elbow of Naresh Gurjar. Therefore, it is in the second part of the occurrence, Naresh has caused injuries to Mukesh (P.W.-9). In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not safe to rely upon Section 34 I.P.C., qua the present appellant - Naresh Gurjar, as it cannot be said in a categoric terms that he shared common intention with the other co-accused. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not safe to rely upon Section 34 I.P.C., qua the present appellant - Naresh Gurjar, as it cannot be said in a categoric terms that he shared common intention with the other co-accused. So far as appellant - Naresh is concerned, he is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, since Naresh had caused injuries to the deceased on the cheek and foot, therefore, he is liable to be convicted substantively for offences under Sections 307, 326 and 324 I.P.C. The ld. trial Court has awarded ten-years sentence to appellant - Naresh for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 51. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year, 2006, the appellant is also in the corridor of the Court from last ten-years, hence, we reduce the sentence awarded upon appellant Naresh Gurjar under Section 307 I.P.C. from ten-years to seven-years rigorous imprisonment. We also reduce seven years sentence awarded upon appellant under Section 326 I.P.C. to five years rigorous imprisonment. However, we maintain sentence of offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Arms Act, qua Naresh Gurjar, appellant. 52. As already held by the ld. trial Court that sentence awarded on different counts upon the appellants shall run concurrently and the appellants shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 53. As a result of above discussions, the present appeal, qua Vinod @ Gappi is, hereby, dismissed by affirming the conviction recorded and sentence pronounced by the trial Court. However, the appeal of Naresh Gurjar is partly accepted. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. However, he shall undergo reduced sentence for offences under Sections 307, 326, 324 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Arms Act in the above terms.