D. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS Smt. Rukmani, Smt. Premiabai and Smt Ramwati were prosecuted u/s. 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in S. T. No. 10 1/85 vide Judgment dated 3. 1. 1986. It was held that the appellants had not committed the offence u/s. 302/34 of the I. P. C. but they had committed an offence u/s. 323 I. P. C. and hence they were held guilty u/s. 323 I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction they have preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) IN Short, the case of the prosecution was that on 2. 6. 1985, at about 10 A. M. at village Kathar Mhohur, Police Station Manpur, Chironjiya wife of Ramai (deceased) aged about 60 years was assaulted by wooden bamboo sticks (Dangis) by the accused appellants when the appellants were picking Mahua fruits from the trees standing in the filed of Chironjiya Bai. The incident was witnessed by some boys and information was also given to Domri son of Chironjiya Bai. Chironjiya Bai had expired. A report of the incident was lodged at the police station by Domari Sio Ramai. After usual formalities and investigation a chargesheet u/s. 302/34 I. P. C. had been put up against the appellants. ( 3 ) THE appellants had abjured the guilt before the trial Court. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record the trial Court came to the conclusion that offence u/s. 302/34 I. P. C. or u/s. 304 I. P. C. was not made out but instead offence u/s. 323 I. P. C. was made out against the present appellants and so they were convicted and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for six months each u/s. 323 I. P. C. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellants it has mainly been submitted that the story as given in the Court is too artificial to be believed. The injuries inflicted on the deceased Chironjiya Bai were of simple nature. The eye witnesses to the incident were interested persons and were young boys and so without independent corroboration their versions should not have been relied upon. There were several contradictions and omissions in the diarys statements also. The injuries inflicted on the deceased Chironjiya Bai were of simple nature. The eye witnesses to the incident were interested persons and were young boys and so without independent corroboration their versions should not have been relied upon. There were several contradictions and omissions in the diarys statements also. It was further submitted that all the appellants are young ladies and all of them were having small children aged about 3-4 months old and that the ladies who have already remained in custody for 14 days each, and in case if they are again sent to jail to undergo the remaining imprisonment then it will be imprisonment for the young children also. It was submitted that it was a fit case for grant of the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and in the alternative it was submitted that the imprisonment already under gone by the appellants was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. For this proposition reliance has been placed on Chamra v. State of M. P. and Takhat Singh v. State of M. P. . ( 6 ) THE judgment dated 3. 1. 1986 passed in S. T. No. 101/85 by Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya and his findings have been supported on behalf of the respondent State of Madhya Pradesh. ( 7 ) AFTER a perusal of the evidence adduced in the case on behalf of the prosecution, the findings arrived at by the trial Court that no offence u/s. 302 or 304 I. P. C. is made out against the accused appellants and instead offence u/s. 323 I. P. C. is made out against all the three accused/appellants appears to be correct and borne out from the evidence on record. Domari (P. W. 1) who is son of Ramai and deceased Chironjiya Bai. This witness Domari had been informed about the incident by Deendayal and then he had also reached the spot and had seen the injuries on the person of his mother, who was lying dead below the Mahua tree. Domari had then lodged a report at the police Station. ( 8 ) DAYARAM (P. W. 2) aged 14 years, Mohit (P. W. 3) aged about 11 years and Deen Dayal (P. W. 4) aged about 22 years have fully supported the prosecution version regarding the incident. Domari had then lodged a report at the police Station. ( 8 ) DAYARAM (P. W. 2) aged 14 years, Mohit (P. W. 3) aged about 11 years and Deen Dayal (P. W. 4) aged about 22 years have fully supported the prosecution version regarding the incident. Dayaram (P. W. 2) has clearly stated that all the three accused had been assaulting Chironjiya with Dangi below the Mahua tree. According to Dayaram, he and vohit (Mohit) had then shouted to Deendayal. According to Dayaram all three of them had been told by Chironjiya that all the accused persons had assaulted her. Version of Dayaram (P. W. 2) stands corroborated by the version of Mohit (P. W. 3) and also Deen Dayal (P. W. 4 ). There is no doubt that there are some discrepancies in the versions of the aforesaid witnesses but the same are not very material so as to discredit their entire testimony regarding the incident. The versions of the aforesaid eye witnesses to the incident also stands corroborated from the medical evidence on record. The versions of the eye witnesses Dayaram (P. W. 2) Mohit (P. W. 3) and Deen Dayal (P. W. 4) cannot be disbelieved on the ground that they are interested witnesses, as submitted on behalf of the appellants. The only caution to be followed is that the testimony of interested witnesses should be carefully scrutinized. The trial Court has relied on the versions regarding the appellants having assaulted the deceased Chironjiya Bai and I see no reason to disagree. ( 9 ) AS regards the sentence, the appellants do not deserve to get the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, looking to the facts that the appellants have already remained in custody for a period of 14 days, they are ladies, they are first offenders and also that the incident had taken place about 7 years back, hence it would not be proper to send them back to undergo the remaining jail sentence after such a long period. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of all the three appellants u/s. 323 I. P. C. , looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court to the sentence already undergone by them (as they have remained in custody for a period of 14 days ). However, it is further ordered that all the three appellants shall pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S. I. for one month each u/s. 323 I. P. C. Appeal allowed partly. .