The central legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of common intention under the Indian Penal Code and the individual culpability of the accused based on their actions and intentions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellants are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.244 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge at Pune. The Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 19/07/2017 in that case.

2. The Appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows;

(1) Both were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

(2) Both of them were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

(3) Both of them were convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 of the IPC, but no separate sentence was imposed under this section.

(4) Both of them were convicted for offence punishable u/s 341 r/w 34 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each.

3. The substantive sentences of both the accused were directed to run concurrently. Both of them were granted set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period which they were in jail as under trial prisoners.

4. Out of the fine amount deposited, 50% amount was directed to be given to the injured Ashok Kotwal.

5. Heard Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar, learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Megha A. Gowalani, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

6. The prosecution case is that the Appellants had an agricultural land adjoining the land of the first informant Sachin Dadasaheb Kotwal. There was some dispute regarding the boundary. In the night of 29/10/2010 Sachin had given water to his crop. According to Appellants that water had seeped in their land and had caused damage to their crop. On the next date i.e. on 30/10/2010 at about 07.30 a.m. Sachin was returning from his field, at that time, the Appellant No.1 confronted him in front of the Appellant’s house. A quarrel started. Sachin’s uncles Ashok and Chandrakant came to help him. The Appellant No.1 was joined by his son, the Appellant No.2. During the quarrel both the Appellants went inside the house. The Appellant No.1 brought an axe. The Appellant No.2 brought a Koyta. The Appellant No.1 gave blow of that axe on the head of Ashok. The Appellant No.2 assaulted the other two injured on their hands with Koyta. One Nitin Memane came there and took the injured to hospital. They were initially taken to Balaji Hospital. Ashok had suffered serious head injury and therefore he was referred to Ruby hospital. The FIR was lodged on the statement given by Sachin. The offence was registered vide C.R.No.191/2010 at Lonikand police station u/s 326 of IPC. The investigation started. The Appellants were arrested. Statements of witnesses including those of the injured witnesses were recorded. The Spot Panchanama and Seizure Panchanama of the injured’s clothes were made. During investigation weapons were recovered at the instance of the Appellant No.1 on 11/10/2010. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. It was their case that because of the land dispute, they were falsely implicated.

7. During trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the three injured witnesses, Pancha for recovery and seizure of Ashok’s clothes, two doctors who had treated the injured and the Investigating Officer. After recording the prosecution evidence, statements of the Appellants were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Judge after hearing the parties c