The applicability of Section 34 IPC is to be seen with reference to the offenses that are ultimately committed by the accused in the occurrence and not just the intention of causing grievous injury.

K.K.Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned District Attorney for the State of Haryana.

2. This Criminal Revision was pressed regarding the applicability of Section 34, Indian Penal Code (for short the Code) to the main offence and sentence passed by the courts below.

3. The revisionists along with co-accused Lal Singh were tried in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in case F.I.R. No. 118, dated 15.4.1984 relating to Police Station Kalayat in district Kaithal. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after the trial, believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused on all the counts and sentenced them to various terms and ordered the sentences, so awarded, to run concurrently. The maximum sentence was awarded under Sections 326/34 of the Code, which was of three years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was filed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, by judgment dated 2.12.1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the revisionists and the co-accused under Section 27 of the Arms Act and modified the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The revisionists were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 323/34 of the Code. They were further sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 of the Code. Co-accused Lal Singh, who is not a revisionist before this Court, was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 326/34 of the Code. The present revisionists were, however, sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment under Sections 326/34 of the Code. The sentence, so awarded, was ordered to run concurrently. It is against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, the present revision has been filed.

4. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 13.4.1984 at about 3 p.m. The revisionists and co-accused Lal Singh participated in the occurrence. The revisionists Ishwar was armed with a Gandasa and other revisionist Jai Singh was armed with brick-bats and co-accused Lal Singh (non-revisionist) was armed with a spear. Lal Singh is alleged to have given a Barcha blow which hit the injured Amru near his left shoulder. The brick- bats thrown by revisionist Jai Singh hit Sinder alias Surinder below his left hand. The revisionist Ishwar gave a gandasa blow on the person of Pritam Singh-complainant, which hit on the right side of his head near the ear. The accused persons, as aforesaid, took to their heels on seeing the witness reaching the place of occurrence. The injured of the occurrence were taken to the hospital where they were medically examined and injuries noted in the injury reports. The injury on the person of Amru caused fracture of left shaft humerus and was declared to be grievous in nature vide report Exhibit P.W. 6/A.

5. On the statement (Exhibit P.A) of complainant Pritam Singh, F.I.R. was registered under Sections 323/324/34 of the Code. Since the injury on the person of Amru was later on declared to be grievous in nature, the case was registered under Section 326 of the Code also.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the evidence on record showed categorically that there was no sharing of the common intention of the revisionists with the co-accused Lal Singh for causing grievous injury regarding which the offence under Section 326 of the Code was registered. In this connection, he has referred to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and particularly to paras 12 and 13 of the jud