GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, field by tile State under section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the acquittal of respondents for offences punishable under sections 325, 323 and 448, I. P. C by judgment dated 24. 4-1982 passed by Smt. B. M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Class I, in Criminal Case No. 492 of 1980. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case against the respondents was that complainant Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) while he was going to his house on 2-10-19/10 at about 12 noon was caught hold of by the respondents who dragged him and assaulted him with lathis, as a result of which the said complainant received injuries. One of the injuries was fracture of ulna of right hand. The report of the incident was lodged immediately thereafter vide Ex. P-I and the complainant sent 10 medical examination. X-ray of his right hand was taken by Dr. R. P. Gupta, which revealed the fracture. Thereafter the respondents were put on trial, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) LEARNED Judge on examination of oral evidence of Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) and Lodhilal (P. W. 2) held that their evidence when read together revealed inconsistencies and therefore could not be accepted as sufficient to justify a conviction. Other witnesses were not the eye-witnesses of the incident. As far as seizure of lathis was concerned, Ratan (P. W. 9) and Dhanji (P. W. 10) did not support the same and were declared hostile. Under the circumstances, the learned Magistrate held that no offence was proved and therefore the respondents were acquitted. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Advocate submits that the learned Judge has misread the evidence on record and has reached unjustifiable conclusions. The findings recorded by learned Magistrate are said to be perverse and such as no reasonable man reasonably instructed in law would ever arrive at. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the acquittal and submitted that evidence is so creptic that no reasonable man would ever convict the respondents. ( 5 ) KANHAIYA (P. W. 1) is the victim of the alleged assault which is said to have taken place at 12-30 p. m. on 2-10-1980 at village Pandiya. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Piplodh at 5. 45 p m. on the date of incident. ( 5 ) KANHAIYA (P. W. 1) is the victim of the alleged assault which is said to have taken place at 12-30 p. m. on 2-10-1980 at village Pandiya. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Piplodh at 5. 45 p m. on the date of incident. From the report, it appears that the respondents Govind and Mangilal entered into the house of Kanhaiya (P. W. 0, Govind caught hold of his shirts collar, Mangilal caught him by his two hands and they both dragged the complainant outside the house. The complainant was brought in front of the house of Mangilal where all the 4 respondents started beating him by lathis. Mangilal is said to have hit the complainant on his right hand causing procedure. The report further indicates that on hearing shouts of complainant his sister Ramaibai (P. W. 4) came on the spot and protected him. Medical report (Ex. P-12) indicates that 4 contusions and two abrasions were found by Dr. Singh (P W. 11) on the person of the complainant. On taking X-ray of the right hand of the complainant Kanhaiya Dr. R. P. Gupta (P. W. 5) found fracture of right ulna of the complainant. (Ex. P-2 ). Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) in his statement in the Court asserted that respondent Govind entered into the compound of his house and caught hold of his collar from behind. Mangilal and Mango also caught hold of him. The three dragged him to a place in front of the house of Mangilal. Mango mentioned by this witness in his Court statement has not been mentioned him in his report, Ex. P-iand may be considered an exaggeration. This witness further stated that all the respondents started hitting him by lath is According to him, respondent Mangilal hit a lathi on his right hand causing him the fracture. Lobhilal who was with him had run away shouting. On hearing shouts from the witness several persons including his sister came on the spot and saved him. The witness has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination during which he admitted previous incident between his son and the children of the respondents resulting in strained relations with them. Lobhilal who was with him had run away shouting. On hearing shouts from the witness several persons including his sister came on the spot and saved him. The witness has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination during which he admitted previous incident between his son and the children of the respondents resulting in strained relations with them. He was confronted with his police case diary statement (Ex D-1) portion marked AT to AT wherein he is reported to have stated that the respondents first hit him with their hands and fists but he denied having given such a statement. Except for this inconsistency between his statement in the Court and before the Police there is no thing in his evidence to doubt his version in relation to the respondents. It is however true that this witness is the complainant and has given this statement in the context of previous strained relationship between him and the respondent. Under the circumstances, his statement wilt have to be appreciated with caution and accepted only after due corroboration. It may therefore be examined whether any part of the aforesaid statement is corroborated by any other evidence on record. ( 6 ) LOBHILAL (P. W. 2) is said to be the person who accompanied Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) before the alleged incident. Lobhilal in his Court statement deposed that as soon as he and Kanhaiya reached the lane near the house of Kanhiya, Govind alone came, caught hold of Kanhaiya and dragged towards the Chowk where 3 other respondents joined him. This witnesses therefore, does not corroborate Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) about his being dragged from the courtyard of his house. This witness was not declared hostile. Admittedly, Lobhilal was the only person with Kanhaiya immediately before the incident. Under the circumstances, evidence of Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) that the respondents entered into the courtyard of his house with an intention to drag him out of the house and assaulted him is not proved. This by itself would justify acquittal of the respondents under section 448, I. P. C. ( 7 ) EVIDENCE of Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) that respondent Mangilal hit him with a lathi on his right hand and caused fracture is corroborated by the first information report, Ex. P-2. That a fracture was found on his right hand is proved by Dr. Gupta (P. W. 5 ). P-2. That a fracture was found on his right hand is proved by Dr. Gupta (P. W. 5 ). Lobhilal (P. W. 2) had seen 4 respondents on the spot and had run away as soon as they ran to assault Kanhaiya. He came back to the spot after some time and found Kanhaiya beaten. He was told that Kanhaiya was beaten by lathis. Clearly, therefore, the fact that respondent Mangilal was one of the assailants is proved by the evidence of Lobhilal. On this incident Kanhaiyas evidence is corroborated not only by medical evidence and first information report but also by evidence of Lobhilal. Ramaibai (P. W. 4) had reached the spot while the respondents were beating Kanhaiya and had saved him by falling on him. It is true that in her cross-examination she admitted that she was protecting Kanhaiya by lying over him and at that time her face was towards Kanhaiya and therefore she could not say which respondent hit Kanhaiya at what particular place, This evidence is in fact. natural and adds to its credibility. This further proves that all the respondents had indulged in beating. Clearly, therefore, Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) is also supported by Ramaibai (P. W. 4 ). Gulab Chand (P. W. 3) is the person who had reached the spot and had seen Kanhaiya lying in front of Mangilals house and his sister protecting him by lying over him. This witness was told by Kanhaiya that respondents had assaulted him by lathis. It was suggested to this witness in cross-examination that there was an enmity between him and the respondents but he denied. He of course admitted his friendly relationship with Kanhaiya. This, however, is not sufficient to discard his evidence. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid evidence would therefore clearly establish that Kanhaiyas statement that all the four respondents hit him with lathis and respondent Mangilal hit him on his hand resulting in fracture is corroborated by F. I. R. (Ex. P. 1), medical evidence and the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses. As far as this part of the story is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the version of different witnesses. Kanhaiyas statement in the Court is no doubt full of exaggerations and that is precisely the reason why it cannot be relied upon without any corroboration. P. 1), medical evidence and the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses. As far as this part of the story is concerned, there is no inconsistency between the version of different witnesses. Kanhaiyas statement in the Court is no doubt full of exaggerations and that is precisely the reason why it cannot be relied upon without any corroboration. As far as corroborative evidence is concerned, it need not be had from any particular source. If different parts of the story are corroborated by different witnesses who are trustworthy and reliable the evidence should be accepted. What the Courts are required to see in such cases is the all probability factorst and nothing else. Kanhaiyas evidence if read as a whole with caution, proves the offence and this Court should therefore not hesitate in convicting the offenders. The learned trial Magistrate has not applied the correct law while appreciating the evidence and bas emphasized inconsistencies and discrepancies unnecessarily. Most of the inconsistencies did not relate to material part of the matter and should have been ignored. The inconsistencies and discrepancies in the instant case are of the type from which no criminal case is free and if they were to be given prominence, as by the learned Magistrate, no criminal prosecution would ever succeed. The main thing to be seen is whether inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to any significant aspect thereof. In the former case the defence may be justified in seeking advantages but in the latter case no such benefit may be available to it. Unfortunately, the trial Magistrate did not apply this accepted standard of appreciation of evidence and therefore illegally rejected the evidence. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to agree with the learned trial Magistrate that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, there is good and acceptable evidence to hold that the respondents had assaulted complainant Kanhaiya and have caused injuries by using lath is. ( 9 ) THE next and important question about the offence of which these respondents can be convicted. These respondents have not been tried for offence with the aid of section 34, I. P. C. or 149, I. P. C. and hence each one would be responsible for his own act. ( 9 ) THE next and important question about the offence of which these respondents can be convicted. These respondents have not been tried for offence with the aid of section 34, I. P. C. or 149, I. P. C. and hence each one would be responsible for his own act. From the evidence of Kanhaiya (P. W. 1) which is fully supported by his first information report and medical evidence, it is clear that respondent Mangilal has given the blow resulting in fracture. Respondent Mangilal is, therefore guilty of offence punishable under section 325, I. P. C. All other respondents have caused only simple injuries and therefore they are guilty of offence punishable under section 323, I. P. C. All the respondents are therefore convicted, as aforesaid. ( 10 ) NEXT and important question is about the sentence to be imposed upon them. Admittedly, the incident had taken place more than 51/2 years before. Since the trial has continued from 13-10- 1980 and these respondents have participated in the trial without any default, it must be assumed that they have suffered serious inconvenience so far. There is nothing on record to indicate that they are hardened criminals having any previous history of criminality. The incident appears to have taken place because of the earlier dispute between the children and no pre-meditation is alleged. Taking an overall view of the matter, it is considered proper to give them the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and release them on their furnishing a personal bond and a security bond for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) each for a period of two years during which they may be called upon to undergo the sentence that may be imposed upon them and in the meantime maintain peace and be of good behavior. Since the respondents are on bail, they shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa on 28-4-1986 to furnish bonds, as aforesaid. ( 11 ) THE appeal partly succeeds and is allowed, as aforesaid. Appeal partly allowed. .