JUDGMENT : 1. Both the criminal appeals arise out of the same incident therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2002 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bemetara, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 1998 and 379 of 1996, respectively, whereby the appellants in both the cases have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- In CRA No. 140 of 2002. Conviction Sentence U/s. 326 IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 year. In CRA No. 177 of 2002. Conviction Sentence U/s. 147 IPC RI for 3 months. U/s. 323/149 IPC RI for 3 months for injured Hotidas U/s. 323/149 IPC RI for 3 months for injured Panchram U/s. 323/149 IPC RI for 6 months in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. 3. During pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2002, appellant namely Dhruv Das died, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2002 with regard to appellant No. Dhruv Das is dismissed as abated. 4. In CRA No. 140 of 2002, case of the prosecution in brief are that on 07.03.96, Dhruv Das was injured by the bull and he was taken to Hospital Bemetara for treatment by Ramesh and Kartik. On 08.03.96 at about 2 O'clock, after treatment of Dhruv Das, they were returning to their village then at village Hathmundi, suddenly, the appellant in furtherance of common intention came there and assaulted them by tabbal and lathi. It is alleged that appellant Vedram caused injury on the left hand of Kartikram by tabbal as a result of which, his right hand got chopped off from the wrist and other accused assaulted him with lathi. Accused Kashi caused injury by tabbal on the head of Dhruv Das. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Ramesh in Police Station Bemetara and during investigation, blood stained & plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. Accused Kashi caused injury by tabbal on the head of Dhruv Das. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Ramesh in Police Station Bemetara and during investigation, blood stained & plain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. Cut left hand of Kartikram was sent for medical report vide Ex.P-4 and injured Dhruv Das and Kartikram were sent for medical treatment vide Ex.P5 and Ex.P-6 and received report. Cloths of accused Vedram, Panchu, Hoti, Panchram were seized under vide Ex.P-16. Clothes of injured Kartikram and Dhruv Das were also sent for medical and thereafter reports were received vide Ex.P-7. Thereafter, query was put to the doctor whether the injuries caused to the injured were dangerous to cause death (Ex.P-8). Bullet Motor Cycle was seized from Panchram under Ex.P-15, Map (Ex.P-18). X-ray of injured Dhruv Das was taken under (Ex.P-10) and report thereof was received vide Ex.P-9 and Xray of injured Kartikram was taken under Ex.P-12 and report therefrom was received under Ex.P-11 and the seized articles were sent for forensic examination and report thereof was received under Ex.P-4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 326 IPC was filed against the accused/appellant and accordingly the charges were framed by the trial Court against him. 5. In CRA No. 177 of 2002, case of the prosecution, in brief is that on the date of incident, cattle of the accused persons entered into the field of complainant and destroyed the standing crops, because of this complainant namely Vedram, Hoti, Panchu and Panchram were going to Kanji house at Bemetra for admitting the cattle. Thereafter the appellants in furtherance of common intention came at village Hathmundi assaulted them by tabbal and lathi causing injuries to the complainants. On the report of Panchram, FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by PW-3 in Police Station Bemetara. Tabbal and lathies were seized vide Ex.P-1. Injured Panchram, Panchuram, Vedram and Hotidas were sent to medical examination under Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6 thereafter reports were received. A query was put to the doctor whether injuries caused to the injured were dangerous for life or not vide (Ex.P-8). Map (Ex.P-10) and seized articles were sent for forensic examination and report was received under Ex.P-12. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 147, 148, 187, 306, 284 IPC was filed against the accused/appellants and accordingly the charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused persons. 6. Map (Ex.P-10) and seized articles were sent for forensic examination and report was received under Ex.P-12. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 147, 148, 187, 306, 284 IPC was filed against the accused/appellants and accordingly the charges were framed by the trial Court against the accused persons. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant in CRA No. 140 of 2002, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses Ramesh Kumar (PW-1), Rai Singh (PW-2), Kartik (PW-3), Dhruv (PW-4), Dr. M.M. Devdhar (PW-5), Dr. S.K. Mandave (PW-6), Dr. D.K. Thakur (PW-7) and H. C. Gotiya (PW-8). To substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant, the prosecution has exhibited the documents FIR (Ex.P-1), seizure memo (Ex.P-2), Seizure memo (Ex.P-3), Report of FSL (Ex.P-4), application for medical examination of Kartik (Ex.P-4A), Medial examination of Kartik (Ex.P-4), application for medical examination of Dhruv Das (Ex.P-5), Medical report of Dhruv Das (Ex.P-5), application for medical examination of Kartik and its report (Ex.P-6), application for examination of seized blood stained and soil (Ex.P-7A), report of seized blood stained and soil of accused persons (Ex.P-7), application for examination of seized of lathi and tabbal and its report (Ex.P-8 A and Ex.P-8), x-ray report of Dhruv Das (Ex.P-9) and x-ray film (Ex.P-10), x-ray report of Kartik (Ex.P-11), x-ray film of Kartik (Ex.P-12), Bed ticket of Kartik (Ex.P-13), Bed ticket of Dhruv Das (Ex.P-14), Seizure memo of motor cycle (Ex.P-15), Seizure Memo (Ex.P-16), Report of FSL (Ex.P-17) and Map (Ex.P-18). 7. The appellant in his support has examined Hotidas (DW-1), Dr. G. S. Thakur (DW-2), Vedram (DW-3) and exhibited documents statement of Ramesh, Kartik, Dhruv Das (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4), FIR (Ex.D-5), Final report (Ex.D-6), property seizure memo (Ex.D-7), application for medical examination of Panchram, Panchuram, Vedram, Hotidas and their report (Ex.D-6 to Ex.D-9), medical report of injured (Ex.D-10), register of Municipal Corporation (Ex.D-11), application of Hotidas (Ex.D-12), report of Vedram (Ex.P-13) and discharge ticket of Vedram (Ex. D-14). 8. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants in CRA No. 177 of 2002, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses Panna lal (PW-1), Hotidas (PW-2), Panchram (PW-3), Rama Verma (PW-4), Vedram (PW-5), Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-6), Dr. M. M. Devdhar (PW-7), H. C. Gotiya (PW-8). D-14). 8. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants in CRA No. 177 of 2002, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses Panna lal (PW-1), Hotidas (PW-2), Panchram (PW-3), Rama Verma (PW-4), Vedram (PW-5), Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-6), Dr. M. M. Devdhar (PW-7), H. C. Gotiya (PW-8). To substantiate the charge leveled against the appellants, the prosecution has exhibited the documents FIR (Ex.P-1), seizure memo (Ex.P-2), Medical examination of Pancharam (Ex.P-3), Medical examination of Panchuram and Tijau (Ex.P-4), Medical examination of Vedram (Ex.P-5), Medial examination of Hotidas (Ex.P-6), seizure memo of cloth (Ex.P-7), Medical examination of Vedram (Ex.P-8), application for medical examination and its report (Ex.P-8), seizure memo of Kamla Bai (Ex.P-9), Map (Ex.P-10), report of FSL (Ex.P-11), application for sending report of FSL (Ex.P-12). The appellants in their support have examined Bisahua (DW-1), T.R. Dewangan (DW-2), Sushil Kumar (DW-3),Bablu (DW-4), Dhaniram (DW-5), Kartik (DW-6), Judavas (DW-7), Dr. B.V. Tirkey (DW-8), Dr. Natthu Prasad Tiwari (DW-9), Dhruv Das (DW-10) and Pardeshi @ Badal (DW-11). 9. Statements of accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they have denied the allegation leveled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. 10. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has convicted the appellant Vedram in CRA 140 of 2002 and In CRA No. 177 of 2002 Dhruvdas, Mturam, Chandau and Deocharan vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2002 as mentioned above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction & order of sentence, instant criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 11. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant In CRA No. 140 of 2002 would submit that the trial Court has failed to consider the statement of Kartik Ram (PW-3) that the appellant amputated his right wrist, but in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrpC in police Station, he has not stated any thing about cutting of his wrist. She would further submit that the trial Court has overlooked statement of the witnesses. Learned Sr. counsel further submit that trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Ramesh (PW-1), who in his examination-in-chief has stated that one co-accused Dallu chopped off the wrist of his father but in the cross-examination, he has changed his version and said that the appellant amputated the right wrist of his father. Learned Sr. counsel further submit that trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Ramesh (PW-1), who in his examination-in-chief has stated that one co-accused Dallu chopped off the wrist of his father but in the cross-examination, he has changed his version and said that the appellant amputated the right wrist of his father. She would further submit that the trial Court overlooked that the appellant himself received grievous injuries in his parietal region and got fracture in right alna bone, hence he has right to private defence. Learned Sr. counsel would further submit that from scrutiny of the statement of complainant it is clear that he is not a trustworthy witness. She would submit that since the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant to substantiate her submission has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hatti Singh vs. State of Haryana 2007 (12) 471 and would pray for quashing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant In CRA No. 177 of 2002 would submit that the appellants are entitled to get right of private defence in view of the injuries sustained by them. He would further submit that the trial court has not given any finding whether cattle were seized on the basis of complaint made by the complainant and there is delay in lodging the FIR. She would further submit that prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, as such they may be given benefit of doubt or alternatively benefits of Probation of Offenders Act can be considered and would pray for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the arguments and submitted that occurrence of quarrel/dispute as complaint made by complainant Kartik Das and Dhruv Das are corroborated by evidence of Doctor who found corresponding injuries over the person of complainant, hence, judgment of conviction passed by Court below in both the cases are based on evidence available on record and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. In CRA No. 140 of 2002 15. From the above factual matrix of the case, the point to be determined by this Court is as follows:- (I) Whether accused Vedram caused any grievous hurt to Kartikram and Dhruv Das with the tabbal and lathi? 16. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant has examined Ramesh Kumar (PW-1), this witness has stated that when they reached near village Satruni there they stayed for drinking water then the appellant and co-accused came there with lathi, tabbal and farsha and surrounded and abused them by saying that they caught the gambling. Thereafter appellant and co-accused assaulted his uncle as well as his father with lathi and tabbal. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that appellant Vedram assaulted his father Kartik with the tabbal as a result of which his right hand was amputated from his body and panchram assaulted his uncle Dhruv with the lathi. This witness has further stated that to save his head Dhruv Das received the injury on his hand. This witness has further stated that the appellant and co-accused had first assaulted Kartik and tried to assault him then he ran away from there. 17. Complainant Kartik (PW-3) has stated that while he was returning from Bemetara after taking treatment and when they reached near Hathmundi for taking water then the appellant and other co-accused came there and stopped him on the way and abused him thereafter, Panchram and Hoti assaulted his brother with the back side of tabbal. He has stated that appellant Vedram has amputated his right hand by the tabbal. This witness has shown his right hand which was cut off from the wrist. This witness has stated after cut off his right hand Vedram tried to assault his son then he ran away from the place of incident. In the cross-examination, this witness has reiterated the same stand and nothing was rebutted from the witness to dislodge the incident. 18. Dhruv (PW-3) has stated that Panchram and Hoti have assaulted him with tabbal thereafter the other co-accused assaulted him with lathi then he fell down on the ground thereafter the co-accused assaulted him with lathi then he became unconscious. 18. Dhruv (PW-3) has stated that Panchram and Hoti have assaulted him with tabbal thereafter the other co-accused assaulted him with lathi then he fell down on the ground thereafter the co-accused assaulted him with lathi then he became unconscious. This witness stated that he was admitted in the hospital about 10-11 days and his leg was also broken on account of injuries caused by the appellants. During cross examination the testimony of this witness also remained unshaken. 19. Doctor M.M. Devdhar (PW-5) examined injured Dhruv Das and gave his report Ex.P-5 and noticed following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound in the size of 5 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at left frontal region. (ii) Lacerated wound in the size of 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at left parietal occipital region. (iii) Lacerated wound in the size of 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at right parietal occipital region. (iv) Lacerated wound in the size of 3 1/2 cm x 1/2 x 1cm at left parieto occipital region. (v) Lacerated wound in the size of 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm at left occipital region. 20. The Doctor has opined that injuries were grievous in nature caused by blunt and hard object and stated that the same to be caused within 3-6 hours from his examination. The doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the injured were not dangerous to life but the same could be fatal if proper treatment was not done. 21. Doctor M.M. Devdhar (PW-5) examined injured Kartikram and gave his report Ex.P-6 noticing following injuries:- (i) Incised wound in the size of 3 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm at panedotergeral region on right side. (ii) Incised wound in the size of 8 x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at right parieto occipital region. (iii) Lacerated wound in the size of 8cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm at left parieto occipital region. (iv) Amputation right hand. 22. PW-6 Dr. Anna Ji Mandve has taken X-ray of injured Dhruv Das and fracture was found on occipital bone and gave his report (Ex.P-9). In CRA No. 177 of 2002 23. Hotidas (PW-2) in his evidence before the trial Court has stated that Vedram, Panchuram and Panchram assaulted him therefore, he became unconscious. (iv) Amputation right hand. 22. PW-6 Dr. Anna Ji Mandve has taken X-ray of injured Dhruv Das and fracture was found on occipital bone and gave his report (Ex.P-9). In CRA No. 177 of 2002 23. Hotidas (PW-2) in his evidence before the trial Court has stated that Vedram, Panchuram and Panchram assaulted him therefore, he became unconscious. He further stated that as soon as he became conscious, it was revealed to him that Vedram, Panchram and Panchuram assaulted him with tabbal. This witness was extensively cross-examined but nothing was brought on record to question the credibility of the witnesses or to rebut the allegation of the assault. 24. Panchram (PW-3) has stated that Kartik assaulted him with tabble on his head and Vedram has assaulted Dhruv, Panchuram was assaulted by Kolu and Dinesh was assaulted by Hoti. 25. Dr. M. M. Devdhar has examined injured Panchram, Panchu, Hotidas and Vedram and has given his report as Ex.P-8 wherein it has been mentioned that the gravity of injuries can be given after examination of x-ray and he advised for x-ray. The injured was sent for radiological examination, Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-6) has given its report wherein he found that injury sustained by Vedram on his head is normal but found fracture in left ulna bone and given its report (Ex.P-2). 26. Findings in CRA No. 140 of 2002 27. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the evidence of the witnesses very carefully. Kartikram (PW-3) and Dhruv Das (PW-4) who were the injured persons and the eyewitness to the incident have categorically stated that accused Vedram caused injuries on the right hand of Kartkram with tabbal as a result of which his right hand got chopped off from the wrist the other accused have assaulted his brother Dhrruv Das and his son Ramesh Kumar. Evidence of these witnesses have been fully corroborated by the medical evidence where the Doctors (PW-5 and PW-6) have given the reports Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 stating that the injuries suffered by Kartikram and Dhruv Das were grievous in nature. 28. The prosecution has examined the injured persons, who have clearly deposed that they have been assaulted by the appellants as detailed in foregoing paragraphs. 28. The prosecution has examined the injured persons, who have clearly deposed that they have been assaulted by the appellants as detailed in foregoing paragraphs. Considering the facts that the statement of the injured persons is vital evidence wherein they have clearly explained the incident and there was no effective cross-examination to disbelieve the occurrence of incident and involvement of the appellant. 29. It is well settled position of law that the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated and due weightage has to be given as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde & another Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held at paragraphs 26, 27 & 28 as under:- “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. 28. Keeping the aforesaid principles of law in mind, this Court looked into the evidence of all the three important witnesses as stated hereinabove. The evidence of all the eyewitnesses is consistent and there is no good reason for us to disbelieve the ocular version as narrated by the three eyewitnesses. The Trial Court as well as the High Court looked into the oral evidence of all the eyewitnesses referred to above closely and have recorded a concurrent finding that they are reliable witnesses.” 30. Considering the evidence of injured witnesses and also considering the statement of Dr. M.M. Devdhar (PW-5) and Dr. S.K. Mandave (PW-6), it is clear that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned Court below was fully justified in convicting accused Vedram under Section 326 IPC. The finding recorded by the learned Court below is inconformity with the evidence collected by the prosecution, as such it does not call for any interference by this Court. 31. Conviction of appellant Vedram awarded by the trial Court in CRA No. 140 of 2002 is hereby affirmed. But looking to the period of incident which took place on 08.03.1996 and the appellant remained in jail from 5.4.96 to 20.0596 and after conviction this Court has granted bail to the appellant on 11.02.2002, thus the appellant remained in jail about 3 months, the appellant was aged about 32 years at the time of incident, now he is aged about 60 years. The record of the case would demonstrate that during trial the appellant was regularly appearing before the trial court and even after granting bail by this Court, he is regularly appearing, this Court and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murali v. State represented by Inspector of Police and Rajavelu vs. State State represented by Inspector of Police 2021 (1) SCC 726 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the principle of sentencing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 and 11 has held as under:- 10. The adore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [ (2008) 15 SCC 667 ], laying down that: “13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [ (2006) 9 SCC 255 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 561] Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar[ (2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1032] and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671 : JT (1988) 3 SC 36 (1)] this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Supp SCC 681 1991 SCC (Cri) 159 : AIR 1988 SC 2111 ] such offence was ordered to be compounded. 11. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind. 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Udham and others 2019 (10) SCC 300 has also examined how the quantum of sentence should be imposed upon the conviction and has held in paragraph 12, 13 as under:- 12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, antisocial or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on the touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, antisocial or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list). 13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach. 14. Coming to the appropriate sentence which is to be imposed on the respondents-accused in this case, the facts of this case need closer scrutiny. The respondents-accused entered the house of the complainant, attacked the others present with axes and with sticks. Four people, including the complainant, were injured. The injuries caused were incised wounds on the hands and backs of the victims, an incised wound next to the ear of one of the victims and bruising, etc. The respondents accused were convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or of imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and fine. They were also convicted under Section 452 of IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years along with fine. 33. Considering the law land down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also considering the facts of the case, age of the appellant at present and also considering that the appellant remained in jail during trial and appeal, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced and instead of RI for four years awarded six months jail sentence and since he was remained in jail during the trial and appeal about 3 months the same shall be set off as per Section 428 CrPC. However, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for sending Vedram to jail to serve remaining sentence imposed upon him. 34. As injured Kartikram has suffered grievous injuries including chopping of his right hand from the wrist, he is entitled to be adequately compensated by the accused under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court thus directs the accused to deposit Rs. 15,000/- in the Court below within a period of two months from today, after adjusting the find amount as awarded by the trial Court. 35. So far as CRA No. 177 of 2002 is concerned, it is quite vivid that the injuries suffered by injured eyewitnesses (PW-3 Hotidas, Vedram PW-5, Panchram P-3 and Panchuram) have duly been supported by the prosecution case, and they stated as to the manner in which the incident took place and they were subjected to assault by the accused persons. Their evidence finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. M.M. Devdhar (PW-7) who had medically treated them and noticed injuries on their persons, which were caused by hard and blunt object. Dr. G. S thakur (PW-6) is the doctor who conducted x-ray examination of injured Vedram and noticed fracture of ulna bone vide Ex.P-3. This apart, from the accused persons, lathies were seized vide seizure Memos Ex.P-1 and as per FSL report (Ex.P/12), blood was found on the lathis, but present being a case of eyewitness account where they have consistently about the act of the appellants. Thus, considering the overall evidence, ocular and medical, on record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the appellants guilty under Sections 147, 323/149, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC are based on proper appreciation of evidence and need to be affirmed. 36. Thus, considering the overall evidence, ocular and medical, on record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the appellants guilty under Sections 147, 323/149, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC are based on proper appreciation of evidence and need to be affirmed. 36. Considering the law laid down in the above stated judgments and also considering the fact that Dhruv Das was 26 years of age, Moturam was aged about 35 years, Chandu was aged about 35 years and Devcharan was also aged about 35 years and the incident took place in the year 1996 now 28 years have been passed and the appellants are facing the trial for the last 28 years and they are regularly appearing before the trial Court during trial and even after during pendency of the appeal and they did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, maximum sentence awarded under Sections 323/149 and 325/149 of IPC for three months and six months respectively which are reduced to period already undergone by them. However, fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- to each of the appellants. The enhanced fine amount is payable to the complainants or his legal heirs if the victim is not available. 37. Consequently, both the criminal appeals are allowed in part to the extent as indicated above.