Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS revision was admitted on the question of sentence. Learned counsel has also argued the revision only on the question of sentence and not on merits.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief was that one Tek Chand had illicit intimacy with one Smt. Kalawati. At about 9 p. m. on 6-7-1965, Tek Chand went to the house of Smt. Kalawati. One Ram Kishore protested. Tek Chand did not like the protest and went back. Soon after, he came back along with the other accused armed with deadly weapons. Tek Chand had a sword. Bheem Sen had a Ballam and other accused had lathis. THEy gave beating to Ram Kishore, Data Ram, Lalloo and Hori. All of them suffered injuries. THE injuries caused to them were large in number. Ram Kishore sustained seven injuries, Data Ram seven, Lalloo five and Hori one injury. Out of them Ram Kishore suffered four incised wounds and Data Ram two incised wounds. Lalloo got a punctured wound. Other injuries were either contusions or lacerated wounds. The trial court held that the prosecution had proved the case and accordingly convicted the applicants along with some others under section 148 IPC and sentenced them to six months' R. I. and further convicted them under section 325/149 IPC and sentenced them to 18 months' R. J. Tek Chand and Bheem Sen were additionally convicted under section 324 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for 18 months and one year respectively. Other accused were additionally convicted under section 324/149 IPC and sentenced to six months' R. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellate Court modified the convictions and sentences and passed the following operative order :- " The appeal of Tek Chand, Bheem Sen, Babu, Khem Karan and Arjun is dismissed but their conviction and sentences are altered as follows : Tek Chand and Bheem Sen are convicted u/S. 148/324 IPC and each sentenced to R. I. for six months and one year respectively on the two counts. Babu, Khem Karan and Arjun are convicted u/S. 147 and 323/34 IPC and each of them sentenced to R. I. for three months and six months respectively on the two counts of 147 and 324/34 IPC. A separate sentence need not be passed for the minor offence of) 323/34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. They are on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences according to law. Appeal of Pearey, Tika Ram and Lala Ram is allowed. Their conviction and sentences are set aside. They are on bail and need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled." Arjun accused filed Criminal Revision no. 387 of 1974. That was dismissed on 5-3-1974. The present revision has been; filed by Tek Chand, Khem Karan, Bheem Sen and Babu.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has contended that the sentences awarded to the applicants be reduced to the sentence already undergone as it would not be proper and in the interest of justice to send the applicants back to jail after a lapse of such a long time. The offence was committed on July 6, 1965. The Trial court recorded the conviction on 26-4-1973. The appeal was decided on 1st March 1974. The revision was admitted on 5-4-1974. The applicants have mostly remained on bail. The revision has been filed under section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court can interfere with the sentence if it is not satisfied about its correctness, legality or propriety. Nothing has been shown as to why the sentences awarded are illegal. The offences are punishable with higher sentences of imprisonment. Similarly, there is nothing to show that they are not correct. The circumstances in which the offence was committed do not justify the imposition of any sentence less than the sentence that have been awarded by the appellate court. The accused came prepared after they had enough time to compose themselves. Except Tek Chand none else had even a cause of grievance to assault the complainant and his associates. The assault was made on unarmed persons with deadly weapons. The action of the accused was a deliberate action. The nature of injuries caused though they are simple in nature was serious and the injuries were multiple in number. The attack which was deliberately made was made with weapons which are not normally carried for defence. The sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot as such be held to be either incorrect or improper.;