- (1.) J. C. Mishra. J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-3-83 passed by III Additional Ses sions Judge, Saharanpur partly dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 324/34 and 325/34 I. P. C. while setting aside the conviction under Sections 323/34,504 and 506 I. P. C. The revisionists were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Sections 324/34 I. P. C. and six months for offence punish able under Section 325/34 I. P. C.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the conviction of the revisionists under Section 325/34 I. P. C. is bad. According to the prosecution the revisionist Raj Singh had knife while the revisionist Satya Pal and accused Sukh Pal (since dead) were carrying lathies. THEy had conjointly attacked and caused injuries to Smt. Chinta Devi and Kumari Munni. On medical examination Kumari Munni was found to contain fracture of lower end of ulna near wrist while Smt. Chinta Devi had received an incised wound. From the manner of assault there is no doubt that accused had common in tention to cause injuries by means of knife and lathi. However, it cannot be inferred that they had common intention to cause grievous injury. We are not aware who was architect of the previous injury. In view of these facts the Courts below committed illegality in convicting the revisionists for offences punishable under Section 325/34 I. P. C. as they had intention to cause simple injuries. THEy should have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323/34 I. P. C, therefore, the conviction under Sections 325/34 I. P. C. deserves to be altered under Section 323/34 I. P. C. The learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the incident had taken place more than twenty years before on 3-10-78 and this revision has remained pending since the year 1983. He contended that the revisionists were detained in jail for few days. He contended that under these circumstances the sen tence awarded is severe. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionists and Government Advocate I find that sentence of fine in lieu of sen tence of imprisonment will meet ends of justice. The revisions is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionists under Sec tion 325/34 I. P. C. is set aside. They are instead convicted for offence under Sec tion 323/34 I. P. C. Their conviction under Section 324/34 I. P. C. is maintained. The sentence awarded is modified to sentence of imprisonment already undergone and to fine of Rs. 1500/- under Section 324/34 I. P. C. and Rs. WOO/- under Section 323/34 I. P. C. In default of payment of fine the revisionists shall each undergo simple im prisonment for two months under Section 324/34 I. P. C. and one month under Section 323/341. P. C. Revision partly allowed. .;