D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-1-1983 passed by Shri S. S. Kulshrestha, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, convicting appellant Sm. Lakhpati under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In case of default in payment o fine, she was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Appellant Ram Jiyawan was convicted under Section 325 I. P. C. and sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In case of default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Initially, three persons were prosecuted but Ram Bali was acquitted by the mal Judge. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12-2-1980 at about 9. 00 a. m. some altercation took place in between Smt. Dharmi and Smt. Lakhpati. It is said that Smt. Vidyawati Devi and Matrawati Devi daughters of Smt. Lakhpati Devi reached there and then all of them assaulted Smt. Dharmi. It is said that Ram Lakhan husband of Smt. Dharmi tried to intervene but Ram Bali husband of Smt. Lakhpati came there and instigated his son Ram Jiyawan to kill Ram Lakhan. On the instigation of Ram Bali, Ram Jiyawan struck at the head of Ram Lakhan with the back of an axe. Ram Lakhan became unconscious and then accused persons ran away. It is said that an F. I. R. was Jodged at Police Station Jahangirganj on the same day at 3. 30 p. m. Smt. Dharmi as well as Ram Lakhan were sent for medical examination to P. H. C. Jahangirganj. The were medically examined by Dr. FA Khan (P. W. 7 ). The injuries of Smt. Dharmi were found simple in nature whereas the injuries of Ram Lakhan were also simple except injury No. 1 which was kept under observation. (P. W. 6) Dr. S. K. Srivastava canducted X-ray and he found fracture of skull bone of Ram Lakhan. P. W. 5 Bhim Pati Tfewari S. O. Police Station Jahangirganj conducted the investigation in this case and after recording statement of the witnesses and after preparing site-plan etc. he submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P. W. 5 Bhim Pati Tfewari S. O. Police Station Jahangirganj conducted the investigation in this case and after recording statement of the witnesses and after preparing site-plan etc. he submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Out of them (P. W. 1) Smt. Dharmi, (P. W. 2) Ram Lakhan, (P. W. 3) Bansh Raj and (P. W. 4) Budhu Ram are the witnesses of fact. Out of these four witnesses two of them namely (P. W. 3) Bansh Raj and (P. W. 4) Buddhu Ram did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile. (P. W. 5) S. O. Bhim Pati Ttoeari conducted investigation in this case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. (P. W. 6) Dr. S. K. Srivastava con ducted X-ray and proved the X-ray report. (P. W. 7) Dr. F. A. Khan examined the injuries of the two injured persons and proved the injury reports. 4. On the other hand the accused persons denied the prossecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. The learned Thai Judge, after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 6. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the Additional Government Advocate. As regards appellant Smt. Lakhpati is concerned the Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned THal Judge committed an error in convicting and sentencing her in this case because the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellant Smt. Lakhpati beyond reasonable doubt. In the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1 it is said that some altercation took place between Smt. Dharmi and Smt. Lakhpati. It is said that in the meantime, the daughters of Smt. Lakhpati as well as son and husband Ram Bali reached there. In the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1 it is said that some altercation took place between Smt. Dharmi and Smt. Lakhpati. It is said that in the meantime, the daughters of Smt. Lakhpati as well as son and husband Ram Bali reached there. It is said that Smt. Vidyawati Devi and Smt. Matrawati Devi started beating Smt. Dharmi and on the intervention of her husband Ram Bali came and in stigated his son Ram Jiyawan to kill these persons, P. W. 1 Smt. Dharmi in her statement, stated that Smt. Lakhpati was uprooting the Matar crop in her field and she tried to stop her. It is said that thereafter Smt. Dharmi returned to her house and after some-time Smt. Lakhpati alongwith Vidyawati and Matrawati reached there and all of the them started assaulting Smt. Dharmi including Smt. Matrawati who assaulted Smt. Dharmi With the Kara which she was wearing in her hand. It is said that her husband tried to imtervene but Rain Jiyawan gave a blow from the other side of the axe to Ram Lakhan. It is further alleged that Rani Jiyawan also first assaulted her husband with kicks and fists. On the other hand, Smt. Dharmi was medically examined and the Doctor found only one lacerated wound on the fore-head of Smt. Dharmi. Similarly, (P. W. 2) Ram Lakhan, in his statement, before the Court stated that all these persons namely ladies as well as gents reaced there and thereafter Smt. Lakhpati, Matrawati as well as Vidyawati assaulted Smt. Dharmi by kicks and fists as well as by the Kara of Matrawati. It is also alleged that Ram Jiyawan gave a blow from the back portion of the axe on his head. The statements of these two witnesses, as pointed out above, do not find support from the medical evidence because the Doctor found only one lacerated wound on the head of Ram Lakhan. In view of the conflicting and inconsistent statements of these two witnesses it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of Smt. Lakhpati beyond reasonable doubt. As pointed out above the Investigating Officer did not find any case against Vidyawati as well as Matrawati and thereafter the learned Thai Judge acquitted Ram Bali holding that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Ram Bali. As pointed out above the Investigating Officer did not find any case against Vidyawati as well as Matrawati and thereafter the learned Thai Judge acquitted Ram Bali holding that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Ram Bali. In these circumstances the case of Smt. Lakhpati is also doubtful and it cannot be said that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of Smt. Lakhpati appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances Smt. Lakhpati is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 8. As regards Ram Jiyawan appellant is concerned the case of the prosecution is consistent and also finds support from the medical evidence as well as other circumstan ces of the case. The learned Counsel for the appellants tried to challenge the findings recorded by the learned Thai Judge on the ground of minor discrepancies in the state ment of the two eye-witnesses but, in my opinion, these discrepancies and inconsistencies are so minor in nature that the whole of the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. 9. Lastly the Counsel for the appellant contended that all these persons are resi dents of the same village. The incident is of 1980 and the appellant Ram Jiyawan is also on bail since 1983. No other incident took place between the parties and they are living peacefully in the said village. In these circumstances it would not be proper to send appellant Ram Jiyawan to Jail again. He has already served out some sentence of im prisonment by remaining in Jail, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the sen tence of already undergone is ordered and some fine is imposed against him. I find force in the contention of the appellants Counsel and keeping in mind the fact that the appel lants as well as the complainant party live in the same village and the incident is of 1980, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if appellant Ram Jiyawan is sentenced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2500/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1500/- is given to the complainant. 10. In the result the appeal is dismissed with the modification that conviction of appellant Ram Jiyawan under Section 325 I. P. C is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2500/ -. 2500/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1500/- is given to the complainant. 10. In the result the appeal is dismissed with the modification that conviction of appellant Ram Jiyawan under Section 325 I. P. C is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2500/ -. The appellant Ram Jiyawan is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2500/- within a period of threee months. If the amount is deposited then Rs. 1500 (Rupees fifteen hundred) be given to injured Ram Lakhan. If the appellant fails to deposit the said amount then he would serve out the sentence of one and a half years rigorous imprisonment. 11. The appeal of Smt. Lakhpati is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to her is hereby set aside. She is on bail. She need not surrender and her bail-bonds and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .