R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25. 4. 87 of JInd Addi. Sessions Judge, Dhar passed in S. T. No. 124/86, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for an offence u/s. 324134 I. P. C. for having caused grievous injuries to Siddhiya and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for 4 years each. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd January 1986 injured Siddhiya his wife Bhuribai and daughter Kalabai were sleeping inside their house. These three accused came in front of their house and asked Siddhiya to come out. The moment Siddhiya came out accused Rama hit him by hard and blunt part of Palia on the head and other parts of the body. It is alleged that the two accused appellants i. e. Bhagwaniya and Mangiya also assaulted. The wife and daughter of Siddhiya tried to intervene, but they were also assaulted. Bhuribai sustained injury on the nose and Kalabw also sustained injuries on various parts of the body. Siddhiya became unconscious. Thereafter he was taken to police station Tirla where Kalabai lodged report Ex. P/1. All the three injured persons i. e. , Siddhiya, Kalabai and Bhuribai were sent for medico legal examination. Dr. R. C. Hanutia (P. W. 6) examined all the three injured persons and prepared report Ex. P/5 to P/9. The X-ray examination of Siddhiya at right leg and chest including the frontoparital region of skull was done. There was a fracture in the tibia and fibula and at the left frontoparital region. However, no fracture was found on the body of Kalabai and Bhuribai. ( 3 ) SUB-INSPECTOR S. P. Panwar (P. W. 13) took up the investigation, inspected the spot, prepared spot map and referred the injured persons for medicolegal examination. The accused persons were arrested. Rama gave information about the Falia vide Ex. P/18, the same was seized vide Ex. P/19. Similarly, two lathies were seized from Mangiya and Bhagwania vide Ex. P/23 and P/24. The Investigating officer further seized clothes of injured Siddhiya, Kalabai and Bhuribai. The stained and unstained earth was also seized during investigation. The accused persons were arrested. Rama gave information about the Falia vide Ex. P/18, the same was seized vide Ex. P/19. Similarly, two lathies were seized from Mangiya and Bhagwania vide Ex. P/23 and P/24. The Investigating officer further seized clothes of injured Siddhiya, Kalabai and Bhuribai. The stained and unstained earth was also seized during investigation. All these articles i. e. , clothes of injured Siddhiya, stained earth seized from the spot and clothes of Kalabai and Bhuribai, as also the Falia and sticks were sent for chemical examination. All the articles referred above excepting controlled earth, Falia and handle of Falia were found stained with human blood. Accused persons abjured the built and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Judge after trial has convicted the accused-appellants for having caused injuries to Siddhiya arid sentenced them as above. However, accused persons have been acquitted of the charges of causing injuries to Bhuribai and Kalabai Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution witnesses are near relations; they are in inimical terms and therefore they are not reliable. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was night hours. It is improbable that complainant Siddhiya had any arrangement for light. As against it learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that it was a 12th day of lunar fortnight as such there was sufficient light; the accused persons are residents of the same village and were known to the prosecution witnesses from before, as such there could be no case of mistaken identification. P. W. I Siddhiya, P. W. 2 Kalabai and P. W. 3 Bhuribai have supported the case of the Prosecution. All the three have stated that Rama asked Siddhiya to come out. The moment he went out Rama assaulted him and caused injuries by means of Falia. Siddhiya fell down. Thereafter, Bhagwania and Mangia caused injuries. They have further stated that they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted and sustained injuries. ( 5 ) P. W. 6 Dr. R. C. Hanotia has found 9 injuries on the body of Siddhiya, out of them 6 were lacerated wounds and remaining three injuries were contusions. Four injuries were found on the head, two injuries were found on the mouth including the fracture of teeth. ( 5 ) P. W. 6 Dr. R. C. Hanotia has found 9 injuries on the body of Siddhiya, out of them 6 were lacerated wounds and remaining three injuries were contusions. Four injuries were found on the head, two injuries were found on the mouth including the fracture of teeth. The other injuries were found on the chest, back, right and left shoulder. The X-ray examination conducted by Dr. V. D. Katarkar (P. W. 7) shows that there was fracture of fronto parital region of Siddhiya and fracture of tibia and fibula both. Thus, the fact of injuries having been found on the body of Siddhiya has rightly been found proved. Dr. Hanotia has further stated that he examined Kalabai and Bhuribai same day. He found one contusion on the body of Bhuribai wife of Siddhiya and three injuries (two lacerated and one contusion on the body of Kalabai d/o Siddhiya ). From the medical evidence and the statement of P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the three persons i. e. , Siddhiya, Kalabai and Bhuribai sustained injuries at the time of incident and therefore the presence of Kalabai and Bhuribai cannot be doubted. Even otherwise it was a night hours, Kalabai is the daughter of Siddhiya and Bhuribai is the wife of injured and therefore, their presence in the house is more probable. Injured Siddhiya and witnesses Kalabai and Bhuribai who are near relations of Siddhiya will be the last persons to leave the real culprit and implicate a person falsely. It is a different matter that they may implicate some other persons also who may be the relation of real culprit. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case has to be examined in this back ground. ( 6 ) FROM the statement of Siddhiya it appears that Rama assaulted him first. Rama caused various injuries on the head and leg and thereafter as stated by him other accused persons assaulted, but he is not sure as to who caused him injuries after he has fallen down. P. W. 2 Kalabai has stated that she was assaulted by Bhagwania alone. She has not stated about overt act of Mangia. Rama caused various injuries on the head and leg and thereafter as stated by him other accused persons assaulted, but he is not sure as to who caused him injuries after he has fallen down. P. W. 2 Kalabai has stated that she was assaulted by Bhagwania alone. She has not stated about overt act of Mangia. (P. W. 3) has given a general statement that all the three persons assaulted her husband, but at the same time she has stated that it is accused Rama who caused injuries on her left wrist joint. S he has also not stated about specific overt act of Mangiya. ( 7 ) NOW, so far as the fact of presence of light is concerned, as the same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants but that does not hold good firstly because the F. I. R. contains presence of Chimni of Kerosene candle. A similar statement has been given by three witnesses. Learned trial Judge after perusal of the calendar has given finding that date of incident was 12th day of lunar fortnight in that situation there must have been sufficient light as it was month of January with almost no clouds on the sky. It was not the case of either party that there was any cloud in the sky causing any shadow. On the 12th of lunar fortnight the moon is so bright that it is easy to recognize a person who is known from before. These accused persons were not strangers. They are residents of same village and residing in the neighbourhood then a call was given by Rama. Siddhiya be out of his house after hearing the call, in such a situation the fact of identification cannot be doubtful and in the opinion of this Court also there was sufficient light whereby the prosecution witnesses could recognise the accused persons and it has rightly been held as such. ( 8 ) FROM the discussions above it is apparent that the overt act of Mangia has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He is, therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the conviction of accused Rama and Bhawania is well merited. However, Mangi deserves acquittal because of the benefit of reasonable doubt as referred above. He is, therefore entitled for the benefit of doubt. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the conviction of accused Rama and Bhawania is well merited. However, Mangi deserves acquittal because of the benefit of reasonable doubt as referred above. ( 9 ) NOW so far as sentence is concerned, Siddhiya was mercilessly beaten; there was fracture in the skull and the fracture in the tibia and febula bone both and therefore the sentence of 4 years imposed on Rama calls for no interference. However, so far as the accused Bhagwania is concerned, he is a young man of nearly 24 years of age, Siddhiya is real uncle of Bhagwania he may have been acting under behest of his uncle and, therefore, he deserves leniency in the sentence. As a result, the appeal of accused-appellant Mangiya is accepted. He is acquitted of all the offences while the appeal with respect to conviction of accused-appellant Rama and Bhagwansingh is rejected. Their conviction u/s 325/34 I. P. C. is hereby confirmed. The sentences imposed on Rama is also confirmed and calls for no interference. However, sentence of Bhagwania is concerned he was arrested in January 86 (27. 1. 86) and was released on bail after 16. 2. 86. Thus he has suffered an incarceration for nearly 15 days. He is, therefore sentenced for imprisonment already-undergone i. e. nearly 15 days and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for 15 months. Fine if recovered Rs. 2,500/- be paid to Siddhiya as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Appeal of A1 dismissed of A3 allowed and of A2 allowed partly. .