K.D. Sharma, C.J.
1. This is an appeal filed by Kapoora and Jepha against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, dated 6-5-1977 by which Kapoora was convicted under Section 325, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/ in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for I month. Jepha, on the other hand, was convicted under Section 326. I.P.C. and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonmet for a 2 months.
2. The incident that led to the prosecution by the 2 appellants and one Ganga wife of Jepha may briefly be narrated as follows. On 9.4,76 at about 8 or 9 A.M. Manchha Ram was coming back to his house after passing the stool. As soon as he came infront of the gate of the house of Gorkha Jogi, he saw both the appellants standing there. At his sight, the appellants cried catch hold catch hold', thereupon Manchha Ram asked as to what was the matter. Jepha appellant then threw a stone at Manchha Ram which hit the latter on his back. Kapoora appellant brought a lathi from the house of Jepha and with it inflicted a blow on the left side of the of Manchha Ram Kapoora aimed another blow at the hand of Manchha Ram with the same lathi but the blow was warded off by Manchha Ram by raising his left hand The blow however, fell on his left hand and fractured. Kapoora then caused another blow to the right hand of Manchha Ram with the same lathi. Kapoora appellant thereafter cried 'bring Dhari', thereupon Jepha's wife Mst. Ganga brought one Dhari from her house. Jepha appellant sat on the chest of Manchha Ram and Kapoora instigated the former to cut of the legs of the later with the Dhari. Jepha thereupon came towards the legs of the Manchha Ram who atonce got up and cought hold of the Dharia. As a result of which Mancha Ram sustained injuries near the thumb of his hands. Jepha, how ever, succeeded in inflicting 3 blows on the left leg of Manchha Ram, as a result of which the leg was fractured. After some time the mother and brother's wife of Manchha Ram came to the place of occurrence and began to weep. Kapoora and Jepha ran away from there. The immediate cause of this incident was that Manchha Ram abused Jepha appellant, because later refused to pay of loan of Rs. 4/-a day before incident which he had taken from Manchha Ram.
3. Manchha Ram injured was taken to for treatment of his injuries, at Sumerpur the Station House Officer recorded his dying declaration presumably because his condition was reported to be serious On the basis of the statement of Manchha Ram, the Station House Officer registered a criminal case under Sections 307, 327, 324, 323 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code and took up usual investigation in to the matter Manchha Ram injured was got examined by Dr. Anand Kumar Purohit who found as many as 9 injuries on his body:
1. Incised wound 1, 'x 1/8' x bone doep oblique on right fore-head 1, 'above right eye-brow. Epistasis present.
2. Bruise 4'x 3' on left from to parietal region.
3. Incised wound 3/4 'x 1/8' muscle deep on base of left index finger laterally.
4. Bruise 2'x 1' lower and of right ulna posteriorily.
5. Incised wound 1 'x 1/4' x muscle deep base of right thumb medially.
6. Clinically fracture of middle of left radius and ulna.
7. Incised wound 3'x 3/4' x bone deep oblique lower end of left leg laterally.
8. Incised wound 2'x 1/4' x muscle deep lower end of left leg laterally.
9. Fracture of left tibia and fabula at lower one third part i.e. open fracture at the injury No. 7
4. The injuries No. 1,3,5,7 and 8 were simple in nature and caused by sharp edge and rest of the injuries except injury No. 9 were caused by blunt object, injury No. 6 and 9 were found greivous. The doctor advissd X-Ray of skull, left fore-arm and left leg. Upon X-ray examination fracture of shaft of tibia and fabula at the junction of middle third and lower third of left leg and another fracture of shaft of radius and unla left side) radius at the junction of upper third and middle shaft left, unla at she middle third shaft, were detected by Dr. B.S. Mathur.
5. The Station House Officer collected other necessary evidence in the case and eventually filed a charge-sheet against the 2 appellants and Mst. Ganga in the Court of Judicial Magis'rate, Bal, under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Cede. The learned Judicial Magistrate upon finding a prima-facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the 2 appellants and Mst. Gana to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sirohi for trial of he aforesaid effences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the accused persons and acquitted Mst. Ganga of all the charges framed against her. He acquitted Kapoora and Jepha appellants also of the offences punishable under Section 307, IPC and permitted the injured to compound the offences under Sections 323 and 324, IPC. These two offences were accordigly compounded by the injured with the permission of the trial Ccurt. The Adcitional Sessions Judge, hower, refused the permission to compound the offence under Section 325 IPC against Kapoora and, thus convicted Kapoora and Jepha appellants under Section 325 and 326, IPC respectively and sentenced them in the manner stated above.
6. I have carefully persused the record and heard Mr. S.N. Vyas, karned counsel for the two appellants and Mr. Mool Chand Bhati, Public Prosecutor for the State.
7. Mr. S.N. Vyas, learned Counsel for the two appellants contended before me that the trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellants on the sole testimony of Manchha Ram, injured, PW 3, without any independent corroboration. According to his statement, Manchha Ram is an interested witness and his evidence is full of material contradictions. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand urged that conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness if the evidence is of sterling worth and does not suffer from any infirmity. According to the Public Prosecutor, the sole testimony of Manchharam inspires confidence and cannot be dis-carded on any reasonable score sspecially when it finds corroboration from the medical testimony as to the persons of injuries on the body of the injured. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above and carefully perused the statement of Manchha Ram, P.W. 3. Upon careful review of the statement of Manchha Ram. I am of the view that the trial Judge rightly placed reliance on it in convicting Kopoora and Jepha appellants under Sections 325 and 326, IPC respectively. Manchha Ram clearly stated in his deposition that a day prior to the incdent, he demanded a sum of Rs. 4/-from Jepha appellant because the said sum was due to him. Jepha told Manchh Ram that he had no money, thereupon Manchh Ram made it clear to Jepha that the later would have to pay all that sum, Jepha resented the demand made to him by Manchha Ram and told that he would never make the payment. On the next day at about 8 or 9 A.M when Manchha Ram was coming back to his house after his stool he saw both the appellants standing near the house of a Sargara when Manchha Ram pjssed by that house, Jepha threw a stone at him which had hit his back, then Kapoora appellant struck blow on his head with a lathi. Kapoora aimed another blow on the hand of Manchha Ram but the later raised his hands to ward it off. The blow however, fell on the wrist of his hand. Then Jepha appellant asked Mst. Ganga to bring Dhariya from his house. Mst. Ganga brought a Dhariya and handed it over to Jepha who at that time was sitting on the chest of Manchha Ram Jepha stood up and inflicted a blow with the dhariya on the left leg of Manchha Ram when Jepha was about to inflict another blow on the body of Manchha Ram with the dhariya, the later caught hold of the dharya. Thereupon Kapoora appellant struck a lathi blow on the left hand of Manchha Ram, as a result of which his left hand was fractured and dhariya fell down from his hand. Jepha then struck 2 blows with the 'dhariya' on the left hand of Manchha Ram. Both the appellants ran away after injuring Manchha Ram when the mother and brother's wife of the later came there and began to weeping Manchha Ram was cross-examined at length by the learned Counsel for the appellants but his evidence could not be shaken at all in cross-examination. The learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any material discrepancies or contradictions between his statement at the trial and his statement Ex D-l before police. Hence the evidence of Manchha Ram appears to be true and reliable and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he was an injured person and that he demanded a sum of Rs. 4/- from Jepha appellant day prior to the occurrence and Jepha became annoyed with him on that score.
8. The evidence of Manchha Ram finds corroboration from the testimony of Dr. Anand Kumar Purohit as to presence of injuries. The doctor found as many as 9 injuries on the body Manchha Ram and out of which one incised wound on the right fore-hand, one bruise in front to parietal region and other injuries were on left index finger lower end of the right ulna on base of right thumb and on lower left leg etc. The doctor further found that 2 injuries were grievous one and one of them with fracture of middle of radius and unla and the other was fracture at left tibia and fabula at lower one third part of the leg. These 2 grievous injuries were confirmed by X-Ray examination also as is evident from the evidence of Dr B.S. Mathur PW 1 who found fracture of shaft of radius and unla left side and fracture of shaft of Tibia and Fabula at junction of upper third and middle shaft left and unla at the middle third shaft as stated earlier. Manchha Ram deposed in the trial Court that injuries were caused to different parts of his body by Kapoora with a lathi by Jepha with a sharp edge weapon 'dhariya.' Consequently, I do not find any substantial ground for dispensing with the finding of the trial Judge as to the guilt of Kapoora and Jepha appellants under section 325 and 326 IPC respectively.
9. As regards sentences awarded to Kapoora and Jepha appellants by trial Judge, it may be said that when the application filed by the injured to compound the offences committed by Kapoora under Section 325 IPC was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that Kapoora dealt lathi blow on the skull of Manchha Ram and inflicted 2 more blows causing fracture of his hand. Kapoora appellant was not a previous convict for similar or other offences. He is facing protracted trial since April, 1976. He did not cause any grievous injury to any vital part of body of Manchha Ram. The injury caused on hand of Manchha Ram is merely a bruise. The grievous injury caused by him is fracture of shart of Radius and Unla left side of Manchha Ram. In my opinion the ends of justice would be met if Kappoora is released on probation of good conduct under Section 360, Cr.P.C. because the injured appears to have no grievance as he filed an application to compound offence under Section 325, IPC committed by Kapoora but his application was not accepted by the trial Judge for reasons with which I do not agree. Likewise the sentences awarded to Jepha appellant under Section 326, IPC a bit severe in the circumstances of the case. Jepha appellant did not cause any grievous injury on any vital part of the body of Manchha Ram with a sharp edged instrument. The grievous injuries caused by him was on the left leg of the injured causing fracture of left tibia and fabula. The ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentences of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ awarded to him by the trial Judge under Section 326 IPC is reduced to a term of 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
10. Accordingly, I partly accept the appeal filed by Kapoora appeal-lant and while maintaining his conviction under Section 326, IPC set aside sentence awarded to him by the trial judge for the said offence and instead of sentencing him to any term of imprisonment release him on probation of good conduct under Section 360, Cr.P.C. upon his entering into a bond in the amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) together with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of 2 years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Kapoora appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. 2 months' time is given to the appellant, Kapoora, to furnish the aforesaid bond with one surety in the trial Court failing which necessary action under the law shall be taken gainst him.
11. Likewise, I partly accept the appeal filed by the appellant Jepha and while maintaining his conviction under Section 326, IPC reduce the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine by Jepha appellant shall suffer 1 month's rigorous imprisonment only. Jepha appellant is on bail, He shall surrender to his bail bonds. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, is directed to get Jepha appellant arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.