A person can be held liable for an offence under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code if he instigates or encourages others to commit the offence and if there is a common intention to cause injuries.

( 1 ) OM Parkash who was convicted by Shri P. C. Bhatnagar, Magistrate 1st Class Delhi on 31st August, 1967 under sections 326/34 Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and whose appeal from his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27th November, 1967, has preferred this revision through Shri M. S. Gandhi, his learned Advocate.

( 2 ) THE circumstances giving rise to this revision are that on the evening of 14th November, 1965, at about 7 P. M. Ved Parkash P. W, 2 and Vishwa Nath were having tea at a tea stall in Ram Nagar. After finishing with their tea, Vishwa Nath went out of the shop and Ved Parkash soon thereafter heard some noise indicative of some alteration. Coming out of the shop, he saw that Kulwant Singh. Chander. Om Parkash and Lachhman were quarrelling with Vishwa Nath. Vishwa Nath picked up a brickbat and hurled it on his opponents, but they evaded the brickbat and did not sustain an injury. They, however, again tried to catch hold of Vishwa Nath, Ved Parkash shouted on them and asked them to go away, otherwise, they would be thrashed. Om Parkash instigated his companions to catch hold of Ved Parkash as well because he was Vishwa Nath s companion. Kulwant Singh alias Tillu thereupon caught hold of Ved Parkash from one side and Lachhman from behind. Both of them had open knives in their hands and they inflicted injuries therewith on Ved Parkash.

( 3 ) THREE prosecution witnesses of course turned hostile and deposed in favour of the accused persons, but Ved Parkash. the injured person, was believed by the learned Magistrate, as also bv the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Upholding the prosecution version, the learned Magistrate held, Om Parkash also guilty under sections 326/34, Indian Penal code, and sentenced him along with the other accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, affirmed both the conviction and sentence of Om Parkash.

( 5 ) ON revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly concentrated on the submission that P. W. 7 could not prove the medi- cal report and, therefor", there is no evidence showing the nature of injuries sustained by Ved Parkash. I am unable to uphold this contention. The doctor, whose report was sought to be proved, had left the service of Irwin Hospital and his whereabouts were not known. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the statement of P. W. 7 Gurbaksh Singh, Head Clerk of Irwin Hospital, proving the report Exhibit P. W. 7/a made by Dr. Amarjit Singh is fully in accord with law and no fault can be found with it. The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the injuries were not grievous, with the result that section 326. Indian Penal code, is inapplicable. reliance in this connection has been placed on a Judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Kutch in Bawa Salemamad Gulmamad v. The State of Kutch, and Coral Indra Gonsalves v. Joseph. According to the petitioner s learned counsel, the case falls within section 323, Indian Penal code, and the maximum sentence under that section is imprisonment for one year of either description. It is argued that the present is not a case of maximum imprisonment on Om Parkash, who was held liable only by virtue of section 34. Indian Penal code

( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent, however, it has been argued that, in any event, section 324 is clearly applicable and that section authorises imprisonment of either description to the extent of three years and that keeping in view the fact that about four persons quarrelled with Ved Parkash and two of them cought hold of him and gave him stab-wounds with knives whereas the accused petitioner Om Parkash encouraged and incited them. the sentence of imprisonment for one year, cannot be considered to be excessive.

( 7 ) AFTER considering the arguments of tlie counsel and going through the record, I have g