VISHNU SAHAI, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts, and a common impugned judgment, I am disposing them off together.

( 2 ) VIDE Judgment and order dated 30-7-1990, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mr. A. I. Cheema, in Sessions Case No. 282 of 1989, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter : (I)UNDER section 148, Indian Penal Code to undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI; (II) Under section 307 read with 34, Indian Penal Code to 5 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer RI for 2 years; (III) Under section 147, Indian penal Code (IV) Under section 352 read with No separate 149, Indian Penal Code sentence was awarded to them on said counts. (V) Under section 326 read with 149, Indian Penal Code Hence, this appeal.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant-victim Raju Choudhary, PW 1, has a shop near the Mhasoba square in Pune town, Pune. On 21-4-1989, at about 9. 30 a. m. the appellants co- accused Bittya, Shrikant and Rajendra Mankar, were near the shop. Some girls were passing and Bittya teased one of them. O