FAIZAUUDDIU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State has been directed against the order of acquittal dated 31-9-1982, recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, panna, in Criminal Case No. 638/82, acquitting the two respondents who were charged with the offences punishable under sections 294 and 325/34 of the Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE complainant Meherban Singh (P. W. 1) and the respondents both are residents of village Chandravan, tahsil Pawai, District Panna The houses of the complainant and that of the respondents are closely situated in that village. In between their houses, there is said to be a Ghura belonging to Meherban Singh. According to the prosecution in the after-noon of 14. 1. 1980, when respondents were removing the Ghura of complainant Meherban Singh, it was objected to by him, were upon the respondents stated showering filthy abuses on him. The respondent No. 2 Ajit Singh gave him spade blow as a result of which Meherban Singh fell down and thereafter the respondent No. 1 Deepal Singh is said to have pulled him by his legs. Meherban Singh reported the incident to the police, on the basis of which an offence under sections 294 and 325/34 of the Penal Code was registered against the respondents. ( 3 ) MEHERBAN Singh (P. W. 1) was medically examined by Dr. Rawat (P. W. 7) in the Primary Health Centre, Amanganj, who as per his report (Ex. P. 2) found a bruise in the left side of chest, another bruise in the left side of the back an abrasion in the left shoulder and some injuries in the chest. Dr. Bhattacharya (P. W. 9) took X-Rays of the chest of Meherban Singh and as per his report (Ex. p. 5) found his 6th, 7th 8th and 9th rib fractured. ( 4 ) AT the trial, both the respondents took the defence that there was some exchange of hot words between the respondent No. 2, Ajit Singh, and complainant Meherban Singh and both grappled and while tile witnesses intervened Meherban Singh fell on the spade lying there and sustained the injuries. On evaluation of evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence was established against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted them against which the State has come up in appeal. On evaluation of evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence was established against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted them against which the State has come up in appeal. ( 5 ) THE contention of Shri O. P. Namdeo, learned Deputy Government Advocate is that the conclusions recorded by the learned Magistrate are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. On scrutiny of the evidence, I find that there is merit in this contention. ( 6 ) AS regards, the offence under section 294 of the Penal Code there is no satisfactory evidence and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly recorded the order of acquittal insofar as, the offence under section 294 is concerned. But, as regards, the offence under section 325 of the Penal Code, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Magistrate entertained a reasonable doubt in respect of commission of offence under section 325 on the ground that Dr Rawat (P. W. 7) in his injury report has mentioned the date of examination of Meherban Singh as 15. 1. 1979 whereas the incident has occurred on 14. 1. 1980 and on that bash he rejected the evidence of Dr. Rawat as well as that of Dr. Bhattacharya (P. W. 8) on the ground that it was not free from doubt. But this conclusion is wholly perverse. It appears that Dr. Rawat (P. W. 7) has put wrong date as 15. 1. 1979 due to shear inadvertence. However, even if, the evidence of Dr. Rawat and his report are discarded, there is sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt against the respondents under sections 325/34 of the Penal Code. Dr. Bhattacharya (P. W. 8) clearly deposed that he had taken X-Rays (Ex. P-6) of Meharban Singh on 18. 1. 19. 80 and as per his report (Ex. P5) he found his four ribs fractured. No cross-examination was directed against this witness disputing his testimony. The complainant Meharban Singh had categorically stated that he was assaulted by the respondent No. 2 Ajit Singh, by spade on a result of which he has sustained those injuries. There is nothing in his evidence to discredit his testimony. It is supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Bhattacharya (P. W. 8 ). Mst. Raj Kumari (P. W. 2) the wife of complainant, has further corroborated him. Mahendra Singh (PW. There is nothing in his evidence to discredit his testimony. It is supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Bhattacharya (P. W. 8 ). Mst. Raj Kumari (P. W. 2) the wife of complainant, has further corroborated him. Mahendra Singh (PW. 3) has also supported the, complainant. In these circumstances, there was hardly any ground for acquittal of the respondents. On the basis of evidence discussed above, I find both the respondents liable under section 325/34 of the Penal Code. But, since, the incident had occurred in the year 1980 I do not find it advisable to award any substantive punishment after such a long lapse of time. In my opinion the punishment of fine will meet the ends of justice. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of acquittal of respondents under section 325/34 of the Penal Code is set aside and both of the respondents are, convicted under section 325/34 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1350/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. If the amount of fine is recovered from the respondents, a sum of Rs. 500/- be paid to the complainant Meharban Singh (P. W. 1) as compensation, for the injuries suffered by him. .