The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear evidence of specific roles and injuries attributed to the appellants in cases involving multiple defendants, influencing the court's decision in setting aside the conviction of two appellants and modifying the conviction of the third appellant under different sections of the Indian Penal Code.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Shri Nihal Singh, his two sons - Shri Ram Singh and Hari Singh - have filed the present criminal appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 8.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who convicted the appellants under Sections 307, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to various imprisonments as mentioned in the judgment. The highest sentence is of four years under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to Nihal Singh and under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to two others.

The brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.1986, Mohinder Singh PW, resident of village Khurana was preparing the fields known as Barotianwala for planting paddy. His daughter Bant Kaur had gone to that filed with his meals. It is further alleged that at about 10.00 a.m. Mohinder Singh started ploughing the fields after taking meals. In the meanwhile, Nihal Singh, Ram Singh and Hari Singh came there in a tractor. The tractor was parked at a distance of 1-1/2 killas. At that time Nihal Singh was armed with a Gandasi, Ram Singh was armed with a Takwa and Hari Singh was armed with Soti on which an iron nail on one end was fitted and they all came in the field where Mohinder Singh was ploughing. Nihal Singh raised a Lalkara that Mohinder Singh should be taught a lesson for ploughing the land. Nihal Singh appellant gave a Gandasi blow on the left side of the head of Mohinder Singh. After receiving the injury Mohinder Singh fell down. Nihal Singh also gave another Gandasi blow on the right side of the forehead of Mohinder Singh. Bant Kaur tried to fell on Mohinder Singh but Nihal Singh pushed her by catching her from her long hair. She raised alarm which attracted Chuhar Singh to the spot. The appellants continued giving blows with the reverse side of their respective weapons to Mohinder Singh and thereafter they ran away in the tractor. Bant Kaur and Chuhar Singh lifted Mohinder Singh and took him to Civil Hospital, Sangrur in a tractor-trolley where he was medically examined by Dr. Suresh Kumar. The appellants were arrested.

2. After completion of the investigation of the case, the appellants were challaned in the court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of documents to them and committed them to the Court of Session to face the trial.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the appellants and the charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

4. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including Bant Kaur complainant and Mohinder Singh, the injured witness. Independent eye witness Chuhar Singh was not examined.

5. On the closure of evidence of the prosecution, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. They denied those circumstances and it was pleaded by them that they have been falsely implicated.

6. The learned trial Court believed the story of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone thought the records of the case.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that Ram Singh and Hari Singh sons of Nihal Singh have been falsely implicated in this case as no specific injury has been attributed to them. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the FIR a specific role has been attributed to these two appellants and, therefore, they have been rightly convicted for he various offences. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. No doubt, in the FIR a specific role has been a