S.N. Deedwania, J.
1. Appellants Ra Ratan and Ramnarain have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated April 15, 1975 of learned Additional Session? Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the en as under:
(1) Ram Ratan Under Section 324, IPC 3 months R.I. and afine of Rs. 200/-,in default ofpayment of finefurther 15 days RI(2) Ram Narain Under Section 323, IPC Released onprobations
2. Facts according to the prosecution were these. The two appellants and two co-accused Hetram and kishanaram were coming with a camel cart on 25.5.73 in the morning at about 7 a m, Ramkumar and Ramlal were grazing zing their she camels in their field. Appellant Ram Ratan and Hetram (who died during the pendency of the trial) were aimed with Barchhis, Ramnarain had a lathi and Kishanaram had a gun with him Hetram resorted to attack and Ram Ratan inflicted a Barchhi blow on the fore head of Ramkumar. Ramlal raised an alarm and his brothers Hansraj and Banshilal came there. The accused ran away and concealed themselves behind a fog-tree. Kishanaram fired his gun but none was hit Soon after Banwari also arrived and stated that Ramnarain appellant inflicted two lathi blows on him. There was previous enmity between the parties. Hansraj went to the police station and reported the incident at 11 a.m. A case under Sections 324 and 323, IPC was registered and the usual investigation was conducted and completed including the medical examination of the injured, Appellant Ramnarain was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 323, 30(sic) and 324 read with 34, IPC and Ram Ratan charged under Sections 307 and 307 323 read with 34, IPC However, the appellants were only convicted in the manner stated above At the out set, it may be stated that the following injuries were found on the person of Ramkumar and Banwari:
Incised wound 3 1/2' X 3/4' deep to the bone on the right forehead extending from right eye brow upper side.2. Banwari:
1. Painful swelling 1' X 1/2' on the root left thumb dorsally.
2. Abrasion and swelling 1/4' X 1/4' and 1' X 1' area on the upper half of the right forearm interiorly.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and thus observed:
The prosecution in this case relies on the testimony of the four brother corroborated by the medical evidence & further corroborated by the FIR lodged by Hansraj, Ram Kumar is the injured himself and he is aged about 11-12 years. Ramlal is the brother of Ramkumar who is about 15 years old. Hansraj is said to have appeared at the scene of occurrence when Ramlal gave a call after Ramkumar was hit by Ramratan. Banwari himself is not a witness to the occurrence. Banwari is said to have been hit by Ram Narain with 'lathi' on the way when the accused persons were returning If the evidence of these four witnesses is read as a whole, the evidence to this extent does inspire confidence that Ram Ratan gave a 'Barchhi' blow on the head of Ramkumar and Ramnarain gave two 'lathi' blows on Banwari. As regards the injury f Banwari, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that Ramlal admits in cross-examination that Banwari had come in the presence of Hansraj, and Banwari having been assaulted by Ram Narain does not find mention in the report lodged by Hansraj. So, this should rot be believed that Ramnarain gave two lathi blows on Banwari Looking to the nature of the injuries on the persons of Banwari, this possibility cannot be ruled out that injuries could foe self inflicted. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. It is true that Randal has admitted the presence of Hansraj This may be due to lapse of memory on his part. He is only a boy of 15 years, Hansraj and Banwari both have stated that Hansraj had already left when Banwari arrived Banwari has stated that when he came, he was informed that Hansraj has already left for lodging the report at the police station. He clearly stated that it was so revealed by his mother and Hansraj was not at the piao when he reached there. Hansraj in cross examination stated that Banwari had not reached the piao when he left for lodging the repot t leaving Ramkumar at the piao. The statements of Banwari and Hansraj appear to be truthful. It is on account of this fact that Hansraj already left the piao before the arrival of Banwari which accounts for omission of Banwari having been assaulted by Ramnarain in the FIR. It is true that so far as causing hurt to Banwari is concerned, there is the sole testimony of Banwari but his sole testimony gets corroboration from the statement of Ramlal and further gets corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. Motilal, who has examined Banwari on 25-5 73 at 5.30 pm.
4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the interested testimony of the prosecution evidence should not be believed. Appellants were falsely implicated and truth is that the complainant party fired gun shots at them, for which, a report was lodged in the police station at 10 a.m., earlier in time, than the one lodged by Hansraj. The injuries on the person of Ramkumar and Banwari were self inflicted and a false report was lodged against the appellants to counter-blast the report made by Hetram. I have considers the arguments carefully. It may be that some incident took place before the incident under consideration i e assault by the appellants on Ram Ratan and Banwari. I am not required to consider the merit of the report lodged by Hetram at police station, Nokha. The question before me is whether in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that Ram Ratan and Banwari injured themselves and then a false report was lodged against the appellants, except conduct of Hetram in lodging the FIR of another incident, there is nothing on the record to warrant such a conclusion. It is also difficult to say whether Hetram lodged a true report or in order to save himself and other co-accused acted promptly in lodging a false report against the complainant party to hide their crime.
5. I have through the testimony of the eye-witness & other witnesses on record. I could find no reason to take a different view than the ore taken by the trial court. I entirely agree with his reasoning and findings of the trial court in convicting the appellants.
6. In the result, the appeal relating to Ramnarain is dismissed. It would not be in the interest of justice of justice to send Ram Ratan to the jail for a short period after 7 yearn of the incident. The conviction of Ram Ratan is, therefore, maintained under Section 324, IPC but his sentence of 8 months rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already under gone by him. The sentence of fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 15 days is also maintained. Ram Ratan is directed to deposit a fine within six weeks. With this modification in the sentence of Ram Ratan, his appeal is also dismissed.