IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to consider the time already spent in incarceration and the overall circumstances of the case in deciding to reduce the sentence and modify fines for the convicted appellants.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the criminal appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 26.05.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Session Case No.06/2013 and therefore they are being decided by this common order.

2. By the judgment dated 26.05.2015, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC, but convicted and sentenced them for offence under Sections 341, 324, 324/34 IPC as under :

Both the Appellants : Offence U/s 341 IPC: One month’s S.I and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days’ additional imprisonment.

Appellant Ramesh : Offence U/s 324 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.

Appellant Bhanwar Lal : Offence U/s 324/34 IPC : Three years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment.

3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2013, complainant Nar Singh submitted a written report (Ex-P/1) before the Police Station Gulabpura to the effect that on 02.02.2013 in the evening at about 7 PM, accused Ramesh called his son Naresh telephonically at his house. When his son Naresh reached at the house of accused Ramesh, he started beating his son while using abusive language. Accused Ramesh having knife in his hand, stabbed the complainant’s son in the stomach and other accused persons also started beating the complainant’s son Naresh. On this report, Police registered a case against the accused persons for offences under Sections 341, 324, 323 IPC and started investigation.

5. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused persons including the appellants. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 307, 307/34, 341, 323 IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, no witness was examined, but statement of Dinesh was exhibited as Ex-D/1.

7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2015 acquitted the co-accused namely Sukhi Devi and Sita Devi and accused-appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note here that the State preferred a criminal leave to appeal being SB Cr. Leave to Appeal No.94/2016 before this Court against the acquittal of the accused persons including the present appellants for offence under Section 307 IPC, which was dismissed by this Court by way of a detailed order on 30.03.2017.

9. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2013 and the accused appellant Ramesh has so far suffered a sentence of about one and half years and appellant Bhanwar Lal has suffered a sentence of more than three months, out of total sentence of three years’ S.I. and further, no role whatsoever has been assigned to accused-appellant Bhanwarlal and Radiologist has also not been examined by the prosecution and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove x-ray report of the injured against the appellants, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to t