ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. It is against the judgment of conviction concurrently by the trial court and the First Appellate Court for the offences punishable under Section 324, 143, 147 IPC r/w 149 IPC, the accused Nos.1,5,6 and accused No.7 came up separately by these two revisions.

3. The main offence alleged is under Section

324 IPC, in which the accused No.1 attacked the defacto complainant with a chopper. Corresponding injuries were noted in the wound certificates drawn, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3, by the Doctor, who examined the victims, PW4. The allegation and the overt act specified against accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 is that they have pelted bricks and stones against the victims, for which also corresponding injuries were noted in the wound certificates by PW4, the Doctor, who attended the victim and had drawn Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. During the course of cross-examination, a suggestion was put up as to whether these injuries could be possible by a fall, and it was answered affirmatively. But that will not take away the very cause of the injuries by pelting a stone, which was also spoken to by PW4, the Doctor. The existence of a different hypothesis pertaining to the origin of the injuries hence is not fatal to the proescution. PW2 and PW3 are the other two witnesses who have given sufficient corroboration to the oral testimony of PW1, besides the medical evidence tendered through PW3 and Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. The crime was registered without any inordinate delay, and it is evident from the FIR, which also gives sufficient corroboration to the main substratum of the prosecution case as spoken to by PW1 and PW2. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the weapon used for the commission of the offence was not recovered, and it would substantially vitiate the prosecution case. What governs the area is the sufficiency of the evidence adduced through the witnesses, hence the non-production or recovery of the weapon used for the commission of offence, the chopper, may not vitiate or affect the evidence tendered, which was found to be reliable and acceptable by both the courts below.

4. At the fag end, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the main assailant is accused No.1 who used a chopper to inflict injuries on the victim. The other accused persons, accused Nos. 5,6 & 7, and their specific overt act is confined only to pelting stones against the victims. But, they have attacked the victim in furtherance of their common intention and participated in the crime, which facilitated the commission of offence. Necessarily, joint liability can be fastened against all the accused for the abovesaid offences. Necessarily, there is no reason not to concur with the concurrent findings of both the courts below and judgment of conviction for the abovesaid offences. The sentence awarded does not reflect a proper balance. The First Appellate Court has reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each, and another rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 147 IPC with a direction to run the substantive sentence concurrently. The injuries alleged to have inflicted is on the vital part, head of the victim, the left pinna of the ear was chopped off by the attack. There is injuries to the skull also.

The sentence awarded will stand modified for the offence under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC to single imprisonment for three months each and a fine amount of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and another simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 147 IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.