S. K. CHAWLA, J. ( 1 ) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents for offences u/ Ss. 324 / 34 and 323 / 34,i. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief was that on 16-5-80 at about 12-30 p. m. at village Sirmour police station Baikunthpur district Rewa M. P, the three respondents came and started abusing one Dashrath (PW-7), who had come to the house of his brother-in-law Jageshwar (PW-1 ). Dashrath (PW-7) had earlier refused to give bail for respondent Rajnish at Shahdol, where the latter had got arrested for throwing acid on one person. This was the grouse, which the respondents entertained against Dashrath. The house owner Jageshwar (PW-1) came out and protested why the respondents were abusing his brother-in-law Dashrath. It is said that thereupon all the three respondents by means of iron rod, cycle chain and Lathi beat Jageshwar. When the parents of Jageshwar named Badriprasad (PW-2) and Mst. Ram Mani (PW-3) came to intervene, they too were assaulted by the respondents. Respondent No. 3 Rajnish is son of respondent No. 1 Satyabhan, while respondent No. 2 Kanhaiyalal is also related to them, who lives with them in the same house. On these allegations the respondents were charged with having committed offences u/ss. 324/34 and 323/34, IPC. After recording the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 15-1-1985 acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by that acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate in his judgment held that Jageshwar (PW-1) as also his parents Badriprasad (PW-2) and Mst. Ram Mani (PW-3) were in fact assaulted and had received injuries. He, however, held that these three injured persons, who supported the prosecution story were closely related and hence interested witnesses. Independent witnesses Awadh Sharan (PW-4), Rampratap (PW-5) and Ramjiyawan (PW-8), who were neighbours, had not supported the prosecution story and had stated that they had not seen the quarrel. The FIR could not be proved by the prosecution. The weapons of the offences; namely, iron rod, cycle chain and lathi could not also be seized by the police. On these grounds the learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the respondents were the assailants who caused the injuries in question. The FIR could not be proved by the prosecution. The weapons of the offences; namely, iron rod, cycle chain and lathi could not also be seized by the police. On these grounds the learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the respondents were the assailants who caused the injuries in question. It is plain that the judgment of the trial Court suffered from serious infirmities in as much as prosecution evidence of the victims of assault was rejected on flimsy and untenable grounds. The evaluation of prosecution evidence suffered from perversity and if interference is not made, it will result in failure of justice. ( 4 ) JAGESHWAR (P. W. 1) was the victim of merciless assault on him. He had received as many as 10 injuries as per injury report Ex. P-5. Of those injuries, one was an incised wound 3" x 1/4" x 1/4" on his forehead and another was also an incised wound 2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the right side of his scalp. The remaining 8 injuries were contusions and abrasions. When the parents of Jageshwar came to save their son in the quarrel, they too received injuries. Thus, Badriprasad (PW-2) received contusion 2" x 2" over the left forearm vide injury report Ex. P-6 while Mst. Ram Mani received lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over the web between right index and right middle finger vide injury report Ex. P-7. The learned Magistrate in fact held that Jegeshwar and his parents were beaten at the time of the incident. Heentertained doubt only on the question about who were the assailants? The evidence of injured persons Jageshwar (PWl), Badriprasad (PW-2) and Mst. Ram Mani (PW-3) was that respondents were their assailants who had beaten them with sharp side of iron rod, cycle chain and lathi. The injuries sustained by the three persons and particularly by Jageshwar were so numerous and they could not have been self inflicted. In fact, as already indicated, the learned Magistrate also held that these persons were the victims of assault on them. Speaking about the evidence of injured persons, it must be said that their evidence should be rated high and should receive credence inasmuch as such persons are not likely to screen the real offenders and would not in their place involve innocent persons. Speaking about the evidence of injured persons, it must be said that their evidence should be rated high and should receive credence inasmuch as such persons are not likely to screen the real offenders and would not in their place involve innocent persons. It is ordinary human conduct that when a person is beaten, the desire to see that the real assailant is punished is bound to be so powerful in him that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place an unconcerned and innocent persons. It was wrong on the part of learned Magistrate to have rejected the evidence of the injured persons on the alleged ground that they were closely related and interested witnesses. The learned Magistrate failed to see that if at all they were, what he calls, interested witnesses, they were interested in seeing that their real assailants were punished and not interested in any other manner. The incident had taken place in broad day light and the assailants were too well known to the victims. There was no question of any mistaken identification. ( 5 ) THE evidence of alleged independent witnesses Awadhsharan (PW-4), Rampratap (PW-5) and Ramjiyawan (PW-9), who professed ignorance about the quarrel, did not detract from the truth of the prosecution case to the effect that the respondents were the assailants. These witnesses did not give any positive evidence that the assailants were somebody else. They were moreover contradicted with their contrary police statements. ( 6 ) THE non-seizure of the alleged iron-rod, cycle chain and lathi did not also have the effect of impairing the prosecution case. Even if these articles had been seized, unless those articles were stained with blood of the victims, which would have been also required to be proved by the prosecution, that would not have advanced the prosecution case any further. ( 7 ) THE FIR was recorded in a roznamcha entry and was naturally not signed by Jageshwar (PW-1 ). Still Jageshwar did state in his evidence that he had made a report. It was missed to prove the roznamcha report in question in the evidence of Police Officer J. R. Singh (PW-10 ). ( 7 ) THE FIR was recorded in a roznamcha entry and was naturally not signed by Jageshwar (PW-1 ). Still Jageshwar did state in his evidence that he had made a report. It was missed to prove the roznamcha report in question in the evidence of Police Officer J. R. Singh (PW-10 ). When that fact was noticed by the A. P. P. on 13-12-1984, he made an application before the learned Magistrate praying for recall of that witness so that he could be questioned on the roznamcha entry in question as being recorded by him. The learned Magistrate rejected that application. In those circumstances, it was not reasonably open for the learned Magistrate to criticise the prosecution case by saying that the FIR was not proved. ( 8 ) ON a total re-appraisal of the prosecution evidence, it is amply established that respondents were the assailants and that they committed the offences charged namely the offences u/ Ss. 324/ 34 and 323/ 34, I. P. C. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents was given a hearing on the question of sentence. He argued that the incident had taken place nearly 11 years back. Sending the respondents to jail after lapse of such a long time would be, according to him, too harsh and cruel. It was urged that the respondents were not previous convicts. Prayer was made for their release on probation. I find that offences which the respondents committed were three distinct offences, each under S. 323/34, I. P. C. , so far as beating on the three victims was concerned. In addition, offence of voluntarily causing injuries by sharp weapon committed on Jageshwar in furtherance of common intention i. e. offence u/ S. 324 / 34, IPC. was also committed by the respondents. In other words, the respondents had committed four offences but were charged under two heads only. The respondents were in that way already treated lightly. The assault on Jageshwar (PW-1) had resulted in as many as 10 injuries on him. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, it would be proper to inflict substantial fines upon the respondents. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the respondents for offences u/ss. 323/34 and 324 / 34, IPC. is set aside. The respondents are convicted of these offences. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, it would be proper to inflict substantial fines upon the respondents. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the respondents for offences u/ss. 323/34 and 324 / 34, IPC. is set aside. The respondents are convicted of these offences. They are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each for the offence u/s. 324/34, I. P. C. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offence under S. 323/34, I. P. C. and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Out of the total fine, if recovered, Rs. 1,000/ - shall be paid to Jageshwar (PW-1) as compensation. The respondents are given one month's time to pay the fines. Appeal allowed. .