S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1979, five persons were tried on charges of attempt to murder etc. The sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, by his judgment dated 19-7- 1979 acquitted all the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved by that acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) DURING the pendeney of this appeal, respondent No. 1 Shrikishan died and so by order dated 19- 10-1982, this appeal as against Shrikishan stood abated. ( 3 ) BALKUMAR (P. W. 1) is the younger brother of Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2 ). Gopaldas (P. W. 5) is also their brother. Balkumar (P. W. 1) runs a flour mill, while Santosh Kumar has a grocery shop. Respondents Krishna Kumar and Munna alias Ashok are the brothers-in-law of deceased Shrikishan. Respondent Anand Kumar is the son of deceased-respondent Shrikishan. Respondent Shiv shanker is the maternal nephew of Shrikishan. Deceased - respondent Shrikishan had instituted some proceedings regarding ejectment against Remeshwar Prasad father of Balkumar (P. W. 1) and Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2 ). It appears that a decree had also been passed, but had not been executed. In that litigation 13-2-1979 was the date fixed before the appellate Court. ( 4 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that on 13-2-1979 at about 8 30 to 8. 45 P. M. , while Balkumar (P. W. 1) was standing outside the grocery shop of his brother Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2), respondents and deceased Shrikishan came there. At that time Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) was sitting in the shop. Respondents Shivshanker and. Anandkumar had knives with them, while respondent Krishna Kumar and deceased Shrikishan had lathies. Respondent Munna alias Ashok was empty handed. These respondents had come abusing. On reaching there, respondent Munna alias Ashok caught hold of Balkumar from behind and respondent Shivkumar inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of Balkumar. Thereafter respondent Anandkumar inflicted another knife blow on the thigh of Balkumar (P. W. 1 ). Deceased-respondent Shrikishan had also inflicted a fist blow on his face. Respondent Shivshanker then inflicted another knife blow on the chest of Balkumar, but since the latter had turned round, an injury was caused on the back. Respondent Krishna Kumar is said to have assaulted Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) and his uncle Mahadeo by lathi. ( 5 ) FIRST information report Ex. Respondent Shivshanker then inflicted another knife blow on the chest of Balkumar, but since the latter had turned round, an injury was caused on the back. Respondent Krishna Kumar is said to have assaulted Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) and his uncle Mahadeo by lathi. ( 5 ) FIRST information report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Balkumar (P. W. 1), which was recorded at 9. 00 P. M. by A. S. I. Mohammad Chand Khan (P. W. 9) Balkumar (P. W. 1) was sent to the hospital for examination of his injuries. Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) had also reached the hospital. The respondents were apprehended on 15-2-1979. ( 6 ) DR. Abdul Hadi Khan (P. W. 3) on 13-2-1979 at 9. 05 P. M. examined Balkumar. He found an incised wound 1/2 x 1/2 near umbilicus. The depth of the wound was not measured. The other incised wound was It below the anterior superior iliac on lateral aspect of thigh measuring 1/2! x 2 deep. There also was a defused swelling at the lower lip. These injuries were fresh. The incised wounds could be caused by hard and sharp object and the defused swelling could be caused by hard and blunt object. The injury on the thigh and on the lip were simple in nature. Balkumar was admitted in the hospital. ( 7 ) DR. R. P. Gupta (P. W. 4) had surgically treated Balkumar. He also described the injury found on the peritoneum. ( 8 ) ON 13-2-1979 itself at about 10. 15 P. M. Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) was also examined by Dr. Abdul Hadi Khan (P. W. 3) but did not notice any injury on his body. ( 9 ) THE plea of the respondents was that at about 7. 00 P. M. all the five of them were sitting at the house of deceased-respondent Shrikishan. Gopal, Santosh, Mahadeo and Balkumar came abusing and threatening. They entered the house of deceased-respondent Shrikishan. They were told not to use filthy language because the ladies also live there. Since they did not listen to their advice, they were being pushed out. Suggestion has been made that the injuries may have been received because of the iron PATTIS (a narrow metal sheet) affixed in the doors. They have examined Mangal Prasad (D. W. 1) a bailiff of the Civil Court in defence. Since they did not listen to their advice, they were being pushed out. Suggestion has been made that the injuries may have been received because of the iron PATTIS (a narrow metal sheet) affixed in the doors. They have examined Mangal Prasad (D. W. 1) a bailiff of the Civil Court in defence. His version is that with the warrant Ex. D. 5 he had gone for its execution on 2-5-1978. The judgment debtors refused to vacate the house and tried to commit a breach of peace. The possession could not be delivered. Ex. D. 5 is the certified copy of the warrant with the report of the bailiff. The respondents have also filed certified copies of criminal cases, one of which had been instituted by Shrikishan in which Gopal, Santosh and Balkumar also were accused. The offences all aged are under Section 448 etc. Ex. D. 6 is a certified copy of the order sheet dated 3-4-1979 of that complaint case. Ex. D. 7 is a certified copy of the order-sheet dated 28-11-1975 in which also the three brothers besides others were the accused. This was instituted by the State and the offence alleged is under section 307/34. ( 10 ) AT the trial, the prosecution had examined Balkumar (P. W. 1), Santosh Kumar (PW 2) Gopaldas (P. W. 5) and Kishore Kumar (P. W. 8) as eye witnesses of the incident. Learned Additional Sessions Judge because of the over-writing in the time of the incident as also in the body in report Ex. P. 1, for non-examination of some of the witnesses and taking into account the inimical relations between the parties besides certain contradictions, rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the respondents. ( 11 ) TRUE it is that there is over-writing with regard to the time. The time mentioned is 20. 45. A. S. I. Mohammad Chand Khan (P. W. 9) was cross- examined about the over writing in the time of the incident, which he has explained. Although we would not appreciate this sort of an over-writing, but all the same, this over-writing with regard to the time of the incident is of no consequence in the instant case. The time of recording the report Ex. P. 1 has been mentioned to be 9. 00 P. M. Obviously, therefore, the incident was prior, to this time. The requisition Ex. The time of recording the report Ex. P. 1 has been mentioned to be 9. 00 P. M. Obviously, therefore, the incident was prior, to this time. The requisition Ex. P. 2a issued with regard to the examination of Balkumar (P. W. 1) makes a mention that he was assaulted at 20. 45 which coincides with the time of the incident as mentioned in Ex. P. 1. Assistant Surgeon Dr. Abdul Hadi Khan (P. W. 3) had examined Balkumar at 9. 05 P. M. All this conclusively go to indicate that behind the time of the incident mentioned in Ex. P. 1 there is no element of fabrication. It was nothing more than a correction of a mistake. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, without examining the other material on record gave undue and unnecessary importance to the overwriting in the column relating to time of incident in Ex. p. i. ( 12 ) THE other over-writing in the report Ex. P. 1 is with regard to the name of one of the respondents. A. S. I. Mohammad Chand Khan (P. W. 9) was cross-examined even with regard to this over-writing. The explanation given by the A. S. I. is that earlier the name mentioned was Shivkumar which has been corrected as Shivshanker. This over-writing also in the circumstances of the present case is of no consequence. In the requisition Ex. P 2a regarding examination of Balkumar, the names of the accused have been mentioned, which includes the names of Shivshanker. This apart the learned Judge completely lost sight of the fact that even according to the respondents an incident did take place wherein respondent Shivshanker was present, though the respondents had a different version to make. ( 13 ) WE have been taken through the evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses as also the contradictions which have been found by Tthe learned trial Judge which persuaded him to reject their testimony. We are satisfied that those contradictions were on very minor points and relate to matters of detail. While appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge should have considered that it becomes difficult for any witness to give a photographic description of an incident which had taken place before some time. Yet another reason given for rejecting the evidence of Kishore Kumar (P. W. 8) was that his statement was recorded on the next day in the evening. While appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge should have considered that it becomes difficult for any witness to give a photographic description of an incident which had taken place before some time. Yet another reason given for rejecting the evidence of Kishore Kumar (P. W. 8) was that his statement was recorded on the next day in the evening. This according to the learned trial Judge was a delayed examination. As it is the incident had taken place in the night and time obviously is required to locate a witness and summon him. It is nobody's case that this witness was available to the police even earlier. ( 14 ) ABOUT the other reason with regard to the non-examination of some witnesses, it has been stated that they were not examined because they had been won over by the accused. No law says that the prosecution has necessarily to examine all the eye witnesses. The prosecution has examined witnesses, one of whom had even received injuries. Thus the non-examination of the other witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution and at best the trial Judge could have kept that fact in his mind while appreciating the evidence that the prosecution did not examine the other witnesses for the alleged reason that they had been won over. ( 15 ) HAVING gone through the evidence and the reasonings given by the learned trial Judge, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment is perverse and the trial Judge has appreciated the evidence contrary to the set principles in that behalf. ( 16 ) HAVING reached that conclusion it becomes necessary now to examine the evidence as was led by the prosecution. The presence of Balkishm (P. W. 1), Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) and Gopaldas (P. W. 5) ill the incident is an admitted fact. Balkumar had even received injuries on his body. Soon thereafter Balkumar had lodged the report which corroborates his version about the implication of the respondents in the incident. Admittedly, there were disputes going on between the parties. It was pointed out that in the area called Latkari-ka-Padav is the vegitable market. This is the address given by Balkumar (P. W. 1) as also Santosh Kumar CP. W. 2 ). It was not disputed that the area is the same. Admittedly, there were disputes going on between the parties. It was pointed out that in the area called Latkari-ka-Padav is the vegitable market. This is the address given by Balkumar (P. W. 1) as also Santosh Kumar CP. W. 2 ). It was not disputed that the area is the same. An omission was put to Balkumar (P. W. 1) with regard to the deceased Shrikishan having assaulted by lathi. Apart from this no other contradiction or omission in the police statement was put to him. some omissions in the first information report Ex. P. 1 were no doubt put to him, but they relate to matters of detail. ( 17 ) THE evidence of Santosh Kumar is also substantially the same. He was contradicted with the requisition Ex. D. 2 which was recorded by some Police Officer. It is doubtful whether the version in Ex. D. 2 was his statement to that Police Officer. Apart from this no other contradiction or omission in his statement to the police was put to him. Gopaldas (P. W. 5) has his loud-speaker shop in the same area at a distance of about 100 paces from that of Santosh Kumars shop. He had closed his shop and was returning towards the shop of Santosh Kumar. He had seen these respondents going towards the shop of Santosh Kumar. He has specifically named Shivshankar and Anand Kumar who had inflicted knife blows on Balkumar. In his statement EX. D. 3, there was an omission about his brother Santosh Kumar having been assaulted by a lathi. ( 18 ) KISHORE Kumar (P. W. 8) has his house at a distance of about 25 paces from Santosh Kumars shop. He also corroborates the version of Balkumar and his brothers. One of the contradictions that was brought out in his cross-examination was that in his statement Ex. D. 4 to the police, he had mentioned about Gopaldas also having come there. As a matter of fact, in his examination in chief itself he bad stated that Gopaldas, Tillu and he had intervened in the quarrel. Thus, there was no occasion with regard to that contradiction. The other contradiction brought about was that in his statement EX. D. 4 to the police, he had not stated that the accused were coming abusing. As a matter of fact, in his examination in chief itself he bad stated that Gopaldas, Tillu and he had intervened in the quarrel. Thus, there was no occasion with regard to that contradiction. The other contradiction brought about was that in his statement EX. D. 4 to the police, he had not stated that the accused were coming abusing. ( 19 ) FROM the evidence, it is thus clear that no such material contradiction was brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses which should have weighed with the learned trial Judge to reject their testimony. True it is, that the relations between the parties were strained from before. There was litigation also. It is further clear that deceased respondent Shrikishan bad been unsuccessfully trying to get possession of the property for which he had obtained a decree. Therefore, there is motive also. ( 20 ) WE are, therefore, satisfied that these respondents, two of whom namely Shivshanker and Anandkumar were armed with knife, had attacked and assaulted Balkumar. According to the evidence of the eye witnesses, respondent Shivshankar and Anand Kumar had knives with them when they were coming. It is, therefore, clear that the other respondents very well knew that Shivshankar and Anand Kumar had knives with them. The evidence further makes out that Krishan Kumar and Munna alias Ashok had also done overt-acts in that incident. The defence plea was not specifically put to Balkumar (P. W. 1), Santosh Kumar (P. W. 2) and Gopaldas (P. W. 5 ). Kishore Kumar (P. W. 6) to whom a vague suggestion was put, has also denied the defence plea. Apparently, therefore, the defence suggestion deserves to be rejected out-right. ( 21 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is about the offence made out. Neither the evidence of Dr. Abdul Hadi Khan nor that of Dr. Gupta (P. W. 4) indicates that anyone of the injuries to Balkumar (P. W. 1) was serious or even grievous. Thus the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not be made out against any of the respondents and it would be only under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 22 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of respondents Anand Kumar, Krishna Kumar, Munna alias Ashok and Shiv Shanker is set aside. Thus the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would not be made out against any of the respondents and it would be only under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 22 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of respondents Anand Kumar, Krishna Kumar, Munna alias Ashok and Shiv Shanker is set aside. Respondents Anand Kumar and Shiv Shanker are convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, while respondents Krishan Kumar and Munna alias Ashok are convicted under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code. We had heard the learned counsel on the question of sentence also. The incident was of the year 1979 and more than four years have already passed. In the circumstances, sentence of fine would in our opinion, meet the ends of justice. Consequently, each of the respondents Anand Kumar and Shivshanker are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, while respondents Krishna Kumar and Munna alias Ashok, each are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) under Section 324134 the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the respective respondent shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appeal allowed. .