KUNDAN SINGH,J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS Mukhtar and Suleman have preferred criminal appeal No. 8066 of 1979, while appellants Rafiq and Mustaqeen have filed criminal appeal No. 2136 of 1979, against the judgment and order dated 27. 6. 1979, passed by Sri K. P. Sharma, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, whereby all of them have been convicted under Section 324/34 I. P. C. and each of them has been sentenced to 18 monthst rigorous imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 1978. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on: 12. 5. 1978 the marriage of Irfan, son of Anwar Ali I informant, was solemnized and in connection with that marriage a dance programme of the prostitutes was arranged at the house of Hamid Khan. That programme started at about 11. 00 p. m. in the night between 18th and 19th of May, 1976. At about 11. 45 p. m. of that night the aforesaid accused-appellants are said to have reached there. They showed bundle of currency notes to the prositutes, who sat down near the appellants. The appellants started teasing those prostitures which was not relished by Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali and consequently they protested and asked the appellants not to behave in that fashion as the ladies were also sitting and enjoying that dancing programme. Thereupon all the four appellants took out their knives and assaulted both of them. This incident was witnessed by Shiraft Hussain and Atiq including other persons who had already assembled to see the dance. The visitors are said to have scolded the accused persons, who thereafter left the place of occurrence: ( 3 ) ANWAR All, the informant, lodged an F. I. R. of this incident at police station Hoghalpura, district Moradabad at 12. 25 A. M. in the same night and a case was registered against all the appellants under Section 307 I. P. C. , ( 4 ) THE injuries of Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali were medically examined at 1. 00 A. M. and 1. 10 A. M. respectively on 13. 5. 1978 by Dr. D. P. Bahuguna, who has been examined as P. W. 4. ( 5 ) THE Sub Inspector Narain Singh investigated the case, recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared a site plan and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet in court against all the appellants. 10 A. M. respectively on 13. 5. 1978 by Dr. D. P. Bahuguna, who has been examined as P. W. 4. ( 5 ) THE Sub Inspector Narain Singh investigated the case, recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared a site plan and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet in court against all the appellants. ( 6 ) THE appellant denied the prosecution case and claimed to be tried. Rafiq alias Munna accused stated that some quarrel had taken place between him and the son of Anwar Ali and he did not know even the injured witnesses. Accused Suleman stated that there was some altercation between him and the son of informant Anwar Ali on account of some money transaction and he did not know the injured persons. Mukhtar accused stated that some altercation had taken place between him and Anwar Ali complainant before the alleged incident. Similarly accused Mustaqeen stated that some quarrel had taken place between Munna and the son of the informant Anwar Ali in which he intervened for Munna. Thus all of them have denied their participation in the present incident and claimed their false prosecution due to enmity. They have also, stated that the witnesses are relation of the informant Anwar Ali and they are deposing against them due to their relationship with the complainant. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined Anwar Ali informant as P. W. I and the injured Afsar Ali-and liaqat Ali as P. L. Ws. 2 and 3, respectively, is order to prove the factum of incident, while Dr. D. P. Bahuguna, who medically examined the aforesaid two injured persons, was examined as P. W. 4 to prove the injuries of Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali. Sri Narain Singh Sub Inspector, who investigated the case was examined as P. W. 8. All others are formal witnesses. ( 8 ) THE learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record held all the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as afore said. ( 9 ) THE defence also examined one Shakir Khan as D. W. 1, who deposed that a quarrel had taken place between Anwar Ali on one hand and the accused Suleman and Mukhtar on the other and they were not on speaking terms. According to him, they have falsely been implicated due to enmity. ( 9 ) THE defence also examined one Shakir Khan as D. W. 1, who deposed that a quarrel had taken place between Anwar Ali on one hand and the accused Suleman and Mukhtar on the other and they were not on speaking terms. According to him, they have falsely been implicated due to enmity. ( 10 ) I have gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses and heard the learned counsel for the appellants at some length. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that even according to the prosecution, two other persons, namely Atiq and Sharafat Hussain also witnessed the occurrence but neither those persons nor the dancing girls have been examined by the prosecution and they have been with-held because they were not ready to support the prosecution case. It was also argued that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. ( 11 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and I find myself unable to agree with him that the appellants have been falsely implicated inasmuch as both the injured witnesses have testified about the incident and participation of all the accused-appellants in the incident and their evidence finds full corroboration from the statement of Anwar Ali, the informant; and the medical evidence. The F. I. R. in the present case has been lodged promptly and the injuries of both the injured persons have also been examined at the earliest opportunity available. It cannot be gainsaid that the injured had received injuries during the course of incident. It is also not necessary for the prosecution to examine each anti every witness who had seen the incident especially when its case stands proved by the evidence of some of the eye witnesses. The defence evidence in this case is nothing but about some earlier quarrel between the appellants Suleman and Mukhtar on one hand and Anwar Ali on the other, which does not give out full description thereof. ( 12 ) I have carefully examined the statements of the ocular witnesses and I do not find any infirmity of inconsistencies in those statements regarding participation of the appellants in the incident and causing injuries to Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali, both. ( 12 ) I have carefully examined the statements of the ocular witnesses and I do not find any infirmity of inconsistencies in those statements regarding participation of the appellants in the incident and causing injuries to Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali, both. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants next argued on the quantum of sentence and urged that all the accused-appellants are young boys and at the time of incident they were in the range of 18 to 26 years of age. They had no bad antecedents nor any of them is previous convict and hence they are entitled to the benefit of First Offenders Probation Act. I have examined tfie-entire evidence on record in the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel and keeping in view the injuries caused by the appellants to two persons, I feel declaimed to extend either of them the benefit of the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act. However, considering their ages and past antecedents of the appellants as also the fact that appellants Mukhtar and Suleman had already remained in Jail for about two weeks and appellants Rafiq and Mustaqeen have been, in Jail for about 3 weeks, I feel that it would not be proper to send them in Jail again after a lapse of about 12 years and it would meet ends of justice if their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1090/- is imposed on each of them. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants is maintained and their sentences are reduces to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed on each of them, which shall be deposited by them within three months from the date of this judgment. In case of default in payment of fine, each of them would further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. If the amount of fine is deposited by the appellants, half of it would be paid to the injured reasons, namely Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali, proportionately and the remaining half would be deposited in Government treasury. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. If the amount of fine is deposited by the appellants, half of it would be paid to the injured reasons, namely Afsar Ali and Liaqat Ali, proportionately and the remaining half would be deposited in Government treasury. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. However, if the amount of fine is not paid by the appellants or any of them within three months as directed above, the defaulter would be taken into custody and serve out the sentence of six months as mentioned above. Appeal partly allowed. .