M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) OUT of the eight petitioners, six were armed with sharp -edged weapons and the remaining two (Jarnail Singh and Gurdev Singh) were armed with Dangs. The finding of the Courts below is that they caused six injuries to Santokh Singh P.W. nine injuries to Kartar Singh P.W. and eight injuries to Bohar Singh P.W. The dispute arose allegedly on account of passage being obstructed by the setting by of a thrasher, which was to the distaste of initially Gurbax Singh and Jarnail Singh petitioner, and resulting in the out -burst of the accused -petitioner on forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurts to the victims. For Act of the petitioners they have been convicted and sentenced variously as disclosed in the opening sheet of the petition.
(2.) TO challenge their convictions, learned counsel for the petitioner, has in the first instance, contended that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries found on the person of Gurbax Singh petitioner. It is true that the said injurious have not been explained. Rather the prosecution does not own them. It is noteworthy that Gurbax Singh petitioner was examined by the doctor about six hours after the occurrence and was then found to be having an incised wound, 2 cm x 1.1/4 cm on the outer side of right fore -arm with bleeding present. Now it is difficult to believe that the hot month of May i.e. on 21st May, 1975 an injury of this kind would have bleeding present at the time of examination. It would have dried up by that time. The second injury was a complaint of pain, which carries us no where. The third injury was an inside would 1.4 cm x 1.4/4 cm on the back of terminal knuckle of left little finger : the injury which could have easily been self -inflicted or even self -suffered. Thus to my mind these injuries which are patently superficial need not have been explained by the prosecution and its stance that they were not caused during the occurrence is well founded.
(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner obviously is of merit. It has been pointed out that out of total 23 injuries caused on the P.Ws. only one of them, on the person of Santokh Singh PW was an incised wound, which alone was the grievous injury attracting the applicability of section 325, Indian Penal Code. Now this injury was attributed to Gurbax Singh Petitioner and he was substantively convicted for the said offence. The other seven petitioners were convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, with the aid of section 149, Indian Penal Code. It is rather surprising that besides Gurbax Singh petitioner, there were five other petitioner who were armed with sharp -edged weapons and yet they choose to cause injuries to their victims with blunt portion of their respective weapons. This is a clear pointer that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to cause grievous hurts to the victims with shap -edged weapons. Thus the conviction of Gurbax Singh petitioner alone under section 326, Indian Penal Code has to be maintained, whereas that of the remaining petitioners under section 326/149, Indian Penal Code, has to be set aside. On the other hand, it is noticeable that there is only one grievous injury on the person of Bohar Singh caused with a blunt weapon. The author of that injury has not been identified. But all the same when the petitioner were such large in number and had indulged in causing indiscriminate injuries on the P.Ws. It is plain that common object was to cause grievous hurts with the aid of blunt weapons. Thus their conviction under section 325/149, Indian Penal Code is obviously sustainable. Sequelly, their conviction under section 148, Indian Penal Code, as well is sustainable. Now on the question of sentence, it has been brought to my notice that the occurrence took place in May 1975. The petitioner were convicted by the trial Magistrate on 5.3.1979 and thereafter they have been litigating this matter in the higher Courts, and on that account leniency towards sentence has been prayed for. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been agitating this matter in the Courts for nearly eight years, I would deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of Gurbax Singh petitioner under Section 326 IPC to six months' rigorous imprisonment, while sustaining that of fine. The sentence of all the petitioners under section 325/149, Indian Penal Code too, is reduced to a period of six months' rigorous imprisonment, while sustaining that of fine. The sentence under section 148, Indian Penal Code, too is sustained. In this manner, the total fine imposed comes to Rs. 4500/ -. And if recovered, I direct that out of the same a sum of Rs. 1500/ - be paid to Santokh Singh PW, another sum of Rs. 1500/ - to Bohar Singh PW and a sum of Rs. 1000/ - to Kartar Singh PW. The rest of Rs. 500/ - can go to the coffers of th State. This petition is partially allowed on the aforesaid terms. Petition partially allowed.;