JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 18.07.1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.47/89, whereby all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under : Appellant Conviction Sentence Pappu 307, 149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment 148 One-year simple imprisonment 447 One-month rigorous imprisonment 323 Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days Jugli Ram 307, 149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment 148 One-year simple imprisonment 447 IPC One-month rigorous imprisonment 323, 149 IPC Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days. Shera Ram 307, 149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment 148 One-year simple imprisonment 447 IPC One-month rigorous imprisonment 323, 149 IPC Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days. Prem Chand 307, 149 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment 148 One-year simple imprisonment 447 IPC One-month rigorous imprisonment 323 Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days Birbalram 307, 149 IPC Three-years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment 147 IPC Six-months simple imprisonment 3. Hence, the present appeal qua accused appellant No.5 – Birbal Ram stands abated. 4. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the present case are that around 4:30 pm on 01.10.1989, Hanuman Prasad, his younger brother Jagdish and their father Likhmaram (hereinafter ‘the injured persons’) were working in their field. Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash (appellant No.2 and 4) entered in their field to collect mouse-melons (kachariya). 4. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the present case are that around 4:30 pm on 01.10.1989, Hanuman Prasad, his younger brother Jagdish and their father Likhmaram (hereinafter ‘the injured persons’) were working in their field. Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash (appellant No.2 and 4) entered in their field to collect mouse-melons (kachariya). When they were told by the injured persons to not collect the melons, they called their brothers Shera Ram and Pappu (appellant No.3 and 1) and their father – Birbal Ram (appellant No.5). Appellant No.1, 3 and 5 accordingly came to the field and appellant No.1 to 4 attacked the injured persons. The injured persons lodged an FIR against the present appellants, bearing FIR No.87/1989 at police station Chunavadh District Sriganganagar for offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 147 of IPC. 5. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused appellants under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 147 of IPC before the court of competent criminal jurisdiction. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused appellants as under : 1. Jugli Ram and Sher Singh – u/s 307, 148, 447, 323 read with Section 149 IPC; 2. Prem Singh and Pappu – u/s 148, 307, 323, 447 IPC; and 3. Birbal Ram – u/s 147, 447, 307 read with Section 149, 323 read with 149 IPC. 7. The charges were explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and resultantly were committed to trial. 8. During the trial Hanuman Prasad; Likhma Ram and Jagdish (PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 respectively), who were injured persons, appeared in the witness box and stated more and less in same words that when they were harvesting ‘moong’ in their field, Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash came and started plucking mouse-melon (‘kachariya’) from their field. When they were stopped from plucking the melons and were asked to leave their field, Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash started hurling abusive words towards them. Meanwhile, Sher Singh and Pappu – brother of Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash having various weapons in their hands came along with their father – Birbal Ram (though Birbal Ram kept standing around one bigha away). Meanwhile, Sher Singh and Pappu – brother of Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash having various weapons in their hands came along with their father – Birbal Ram (though Birbal Ram kept standing around one bigha away). It was testified that Jugli Ram was armed with a spade (kassi), Pappu was armed with a halberd (gandasa), Sher Singh was armed with a spade (kassi) while Prem Singh was having a ‘lathi’ in his hands. It was stated that Jugli Ram hit Likhma Ram (PW/1) on his head with the spade (kassi) due to which he fell down on the spot and the handle of spade broke. Then, Pappu hit halberd (gandasa) and Prem Singh gave ‘lathi’ blows to Likhma Ram, which Sher Singh caught hold of him. 9. Likhma Ram sustained multiple injuries on his head, leg, arms and back. Jagdish was beaten by Pappu with halberd (gandasa) but he escaped and got injuries on his shoulder. 10. It was stated that finding the injured/the complainant party screaming, Hira Ram s/o Likhma Ram, who was working in a nearby field rushed to the spot and then all the accused ran away. 11. Mani Ram, Station House Officer (PW/6) stated that he went to the scene of crime and prepared a site plan (Ex.P/2), which shows that scuffle took place in Murabba No.22 Kila No.5, which was owned and possessed by the complainant party, he also deposed that some sand, which was soaked with blood was collected and sealed. It was also stated that on 02.10.1989, Likhma Ram was not in a position to give his statement and when Medical Jurist, Sriganganagar confirmed that he was not in a position to give statement, he did not insist Likhma Ram to give statement. While stating about the arrest of Sher Singh, Prem Chand and Birbal Ram, he deposed that during their interrogation, Prem Chand informed him where ‘lathi’ was kept while Jugli Ram informed him about the place where the spade (kassi) was kept and on the basis of such information given by Prem Chand and Jugli Ram, ‘lathi’ and spade (kassi) were recovered. 12. Similarly, during his custodial investigation, Sher Singh informed the place where the spade (kassi) was kept while Pappu informed about the halberd (gandasa) and accordingly these weapons were recovered. 13. Dr. 12. Similarly, during his custodial investigation, Sher Singh informed the place where the spade (kassi) was kept while Pappu informed about the halberd (gandasa) and accordingly these weapons were recovered. 13. Dr. K.N. Markandey (PW/7) appeared in the witness box and stated that on 01.10.1989, he was working as Medical Jurist in the State Hospital, Sriganganagar and on the request being made by the Police, he examined injured – Likhma Ram and found the following injuries on his body :- (i) Incised wound with bleeding 21/2 x 1/2” x bone deep on left occipital region & neck. (ii) Incised wound with bleeding 31/4” x 1/6” x bone deep on left parital region. (iii) Contusion 1” x 1/2” on right arm. (iv) Contusion 3” x 1/2” on left arm. (v) Swelling all over right forearm. (vi) Swelling diffused left leg lower arm. (vii) Swelling diffused on right leg. (viii) Swelling 3” x 2” on right shoulder. (ix) Abrasion 3” x linear right side face. (x) Complaining of pain left arm upper arm. 14. Dr. Shankar Dev (PW/8) testified that on 03.10.1989, he was working as Junior Specialist (Radiology) in State Hospital, Sriganganagar and on the request of Dr. K.N. Markandey, he conducted x-ray of Likhma Ram. Accordingly, on 05.10.1989, he conducted two x-ray of Likhma Ram. On the basis of such x-ray, he opined that there is fracture of occipital bone on the left side of the head of Likhma Ram. 15. Another witness Ravi Kant Singhal appeared in the witness box on behalf of the prosecution and deposed that he was working as Assistant Nazir in District Court, Sriganganagar on 09.07.1990. He stated that on 18.08.1989, a warrant was issued to him by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in relation to Civil File No.12/1986 titled as ‘Birbal vs. Likhmaram’. Pursuant to this warrant on 22.08.1989 around 7:30 in the morning he took the decree holder Birbal on the land and as provided by the order of warrant, possession over Murabba No.22 Kila No.1, 2, 9, 10 and Murabba No.28, Kila No.7, 10, 11, 2, 13, 14, 15 was given to Birbal Ram. 16. The trial Court concluded that based on the testimonies of PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3, it has been sufficiently proven that all the accused were present together while attacking the injured persons. 16. The trial Court concluded that based on the testimonies of PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3, it has been sufficiently proven that all the accused were present together while attacking the injured persons. Therefore, offence under section 148 IPC in relation to all the accused except Birbal Ram is made out whereas offence under section 147 IPC is made out against Birbal Ram. From the said testimonies, it was concluded that accused Birbal Ram was shouting and inciting from a distance to inflict injuries upon the complainant party and under Section 147 of IPC, even if the acts are not criminal in nature at first they can become criminal at a later stage in the series of events. Because all the accused gathered together and accused Birbal Ram yelled to hurt the injured persons and the injured persons were assaulted, shows that all of them had gathered for an illegal object/motive i.e. to hurt the injured persons. From the said testimonies, it was found that all the accused except Birbal Ram were having dangerous weapons with them. 17. In order to assail the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the accused-appellants made the following arguments : (i) that the appellants have been falsely roped in by the prosecution; (ii) that Sher Singh, Prem Prakash and Birbal Ram were not present at the scene of crime; (iii) that the proceedings against the accused are being conducted simply at the instance of one Sh. Pilania, who was Director General of Police; (iv) that the appellants had also suffered injuries and the injuries caused by them were in self defence; and (v) it was emphatically argued that PW/7 Dr. K.N. Markandey has testified that the injury to Likhma Ram was made from a sharp object whereas PW/8 Dr. Shankar Dev has testified that the said injury was a linear fracture which was not through and through, therefore, the same must have happened due to blunt force. Hence, in light of the testimony of PW/8 Dr. Shankar Dev, it cannot be conclusively held that the injury was inflicted with a sharp object and hence, the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out and their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. deserves to be set aside. 18. Hence, in light of the testimony of PW/8 Dr. Shankar Dev, it cannot be conclusively held that the injury was inflicted with a sharp object and hence, the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out and their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. deserves to be set aside. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor made the following arguments : (i) that during investigation the police discovered blood all over the land of said kila No.5 and the police had collected the blood stained sand from this land during investigation; (ii) that the appellants had forcibly entered the field of the injured (kila No.5) and thus, they were the aggressors; (iii) that all the accused had come with weapons to kila No.5 with premeditated object and common intention to murder; (iv) that Ex.P/24, P/25 and P/27 prove that the injured had serious injuries all over their body. The injuries of Likhma Ram were noted as life threatening by the Medical Jurist and all the appellants including Birbal Ram have rightly been convicted; and (v) that in light of these facts, it can be safely concluded that the accused had every intention to kill Likhma Ram, with whom the appellant No.5 had prior enmity. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. A perusal of the testimony of victims (PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3) leaves no room for doubt that the accused had come to field of Likhma Ram and had caused injuries with sharp weapons such as ‘gandasa’ and ‘kassi’. The injuries sustained by Likhma Ram on his head was from a sharp edged weapon and grievous in nature. The injury report and statements of doctors clearly support the statements given by the injured persons and that the injury suffered by Likhma Ram was of grievous in nature. 21. That apart, from the testimony of PW/6, it is clear that the halberd (gandasa) was recovered from Pappu (Ex.P/20); spade (kassi) was recovered as per information given by Jugli Ram and another spade (kassi) was recovered from possession of Sher Singh and Prem Prakash informed where the wooden staff (lathi) was hid and accordingly recovery memos (Ex.P/16, P/19 and P/15 respectively) were prepared. 22. This Court does not find any substance and merit in the submissions made by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the appellants were not presented at the scene. 23. 22. This Court does not find any substance and merit in the submissions made by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the appellants were not presented at the scene. 23. That apart, neither there is any apparent contradiction in the statements and testimonies of PW-7 Dr. K.N. Markandey and PW-8 Dr. Shankerdev, nor is appellants' plea of self defence sustainable, because, admittedly accused-appellants themselves had approached the victims and the complainant in their field/farm and hence, plea of self defence in the present factual backdrop is not sustainable. 24. Therefore, it is proven that all the accused except Birbal Ram were armed with dangerous weapons. The fact that all the accused gathered at the scene of crime armed with dangerous weapons coupled with the fact that the injured persons had suffered injuries shows that they all had gathered with the common objective to carry out an illegal act and they are hence liable under Section 148 I.P.C. 25. Even accused – Birbal Ram was present at the scene of crime and was part of the unlawful assembly and therefore, offence under section 147 I.P.C. is sufficiently proved against him. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that accused – Birbal Ram was not present at the scene of crime as he was in Lalgarh – Jaatan is not substantiated by him as he has not produced any witness to substantiate that Birbal Ram was present in Lalgarh at the time of crime. 26. Mr. Verma alternatively prayed that since the incident was of the year 1989 and the appeal is pending since 30 years, the appellants be ordered to be released on the sentence already undergone by them. 27. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, the present appeal is dismissed on merit. The conviction of accused-appellants No.1 to 4 is upheld. 28. Adverting to the sentence part, it is to be noted that the incident is of 1989 and the instant appeal has been pending since 1990; one of the appellants has passed away and others are between 50 to 60 years of age. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that imprisonment of one year (instead of three years) for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. will subserve the ends of justice. Other sentence(s) also deserve to be suitably reduced. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that imprisonment of one year (instead of three years) for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. will subserve the ends of justice. Other sentence(s) also deserve to be suitably reduced. Hence, the sentences awarded to the accused-appellants No.1 to 4 are reduced/modified as under : S. No. Name of accused Conviction under Section Reduced/Modified Sentence 1. To all accused-appellants (except Birbal Ram) under Sections 307/149 IPC 1 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/-by each. 2. To accused - appellants No.1 to 4 under Section 148 IPC 6 month's S.I. or the sentence suffered which ever is higher 3. To accused - appellants No.1 to 4 under Section 447 IPC 1 month's R.I. or the sentence suffered which ever is higher. 4. To accused - appellant No.1 to 4 under Section 323 IPC 2 months' S.I. with a fine of Rs.2000/-. 30. Accused-appellants No.1 to 4 are on bail. They shall be arrested and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part of their sentences. The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. 31. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.