Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - Impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.1999, appellants-Mohinder Singh, Chhota Singh sons of Natha Singh, Ran Singh @ Billu and Nahar Singh sons of Chhota Singh, have directed the present appeal vide which they were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the following manner:-

“a) Convict Mohinder Singh for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC -- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

b) For the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year

Convicts Chhota Singh, Ran Singh @ Billu and Nahar Singh

a) For the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.

b) For the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC -- Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year”. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. As per brief but relevant facts, essential for disposal of the present appeal, unfolded during the trial and emanating from the record, that on 26.03.1995 at about 3.00 P.M., PW3-complainant Hamir Singh, his brother Bhura Singh (PW4) and their father Teja Singh (PW5) were proceeding from village to their fields in the revenue estate of village Phumanwal. As soon as, they reached at the pahi between their fields and the fields of Amrik Singh son of Bhan Singh (place of occurrence), in the meantime, appellant-Mohinder Singh armed with ‘gandasa’, Ran Singh @ Billu armed with ‘tangli’, Chhota Singh armed with ‘neza’ and Nahar Singh armed with ‘dang’ came there. Karnail Singh son of Gurmukh Singh armed with a double barrel gun was standing about two kilas away in the fields. According to the prosecution, appellant-Chhota Singh gave a ‘lalkara’ to PW3 to stop and have the taste for purchasing pahi from Chand Singh.

3. Thereafter, appellant-Nahar Singh gave a ‘dang’ blow on the right wrist of PW3 Hamir Singh. Appellant-Mohinder Singh gave a ‘gandasa’ blow from its correct side on the left arm of PW4-Bhura Singh. Appellant Ran Singh @ Billu gave a ‘tangli’ blow on the left lower leg of PW4-Bhura Singh. Appellant-Chotta Singh gave a ‘neza’ blow on the left arm of Bhura Singh.

4. The story of the prosecution further proceeds that thereafter, Mohinder Singh gave a ‘gandasa’ blow on the left hand fingers of PW4-­Bhura Singh. When PW3 Hamir Singh advanced to rescue PW4-Bhura Singh from the clutches of the appellants, in the meantime, Mohinder Singh gave a ‘gandasa’ blow from its correct side which hit on the forehead of Hamir Singh. Then, Nahar Singh gave a ‘dang’ blow on the fingers of right hand of PW4-Bhura Singh. In the wake of alarm raised by PW3 Hamir Singh and PW5 Teja Singh, the appellants decamped from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons to the village. The motive alleged was that the appellants had a grievance against the complainant party, who had purchased a piece of land from Chand Singh for approach to their own land. The said piece of land (pahi) was the subject matter of litigation between the complainant party and accused party. After the occurrence, injured were removed to the Primary Health Centre, Bhawanigarh, by Kaka Singh, Member Panchayat, where they were examined and treated.

5. Levelling a variety of allegations in all, according to the prosecution that the appellants caused injuries to PW3-Hamir Singh, PW4­-Bhura Singh, in the manner suggested here-in-above. On the strength of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PN) of Hamir Singh, the present case was registered against the appellants vide FIR No.34 dated 28.03.1995 (Ex.PN/1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable