SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10.09.2002 and the order on sentence dated 11.09.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in S.C. No.97/01 arising out of FIR No.213/99 registered at Police Station Kapashera, Delhi.

2. Since both these appeals have been arisen from the same FIR and the impugned judgment and involve the same incident, therefore, arguments were heard together in these appeals and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of these appeals, appellant Man Singh had expired on 14.02.2012, which fact has been recorded in the order dated 30.01.2015.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that in the morning of 30.10.1999, appellants Man Singh and Tej Pal etc. threw glass scraps of broken electric tubes opposite the house of the complainant Prem Chand (PW1), which was objected to. Resultantly, womenfolk of appellants started abusing and a petty quarrel had taken place. Both the parties allegedly went to the Police Station where the matter was settled. In the evening at about 7.30 PM, appellant Tejpal, working in Delhi Police, came to complainant’s house and threatened that he had belittled the complainant party and because of fear, they tendered apology and compromised the matter. Allegedly Jai Bhagwan asked them not to pick up quarrel. In the meantime, appellant Tej Pal alongwith appellants Bijender, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh dragged Jai Bhagwan (PW5) inside their house and started giving beatings to him. In the meantime, Parminder (PW2), Manit (PW7), Saheb Singh (PW3) and Anil (PW4) came there to save PW5, whereas other appellants, namely, Attar Singh, Lakhmi Chand and Surender Singh armed with lathi, DAV and knife respectively came from the side of appellants Man Singh (since deceased) and Tej Pal and attacked the complainant party as a result of which complainant Prem Chand sustained injuries on his left thumb whereas Jai Bhagwan sustained injuries on his head and feet, Parminder sustained injuries on his ribs, Manit sustained knife injuries in his stomach, Saheb Singh and Anil sustained injuries on their heads whereas Chandro (PW6) wife of complainant Prem Chand received injuries on her left arm. In medical examination, injury on the person of Chandro, Saheb Singh and Jai Bhagwan were opined to be grievous, whereas injuries on the person of Manit, Parminder, Prem Chand and Anil were opined to be simple. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police.

5. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 147/148/149/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was filed against the appellants. On 28.07.2001, after hearing the parties, charges under Sections 148/308/323/149 IPC were framed against all the appellants and additional charges under Section 342/34 IPC were framed against appellant Tejpal, Bijender Kumar, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the material brought on record held that the prosecution had been able to establish its case against appellants Bijender, Surender, Dinesh, Lakhmi Chand, deceased Man Singh, Attar Singh and Tej Pal for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 308/149 IPC. However, noted that since prosecution had failed to prove its case for the offence punishable under Section 342/34 IPC, therefore, acquitted the appellants Tej Pal, Bijender Kumar, Dinesh and deceased Man Singh of the aforesaid charge. While passing order on sentence dated 11.09.2002, the learned Trial Court released all the appellants on probation for a period of three years on their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount with condition that they shall maintain good behaviour and shall not commit similar offence during the above said period. Also directed, in case the terms and conditions of the bond are breach