N. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants alongwith appellant Govind Singh and Bhajan Singh since deceased, and co-accused Prathwiraj Singh were tried, by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Durg camp at Bemetra in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1985 on the allegation for assaulting the complainant Sukun (P. W. 3) by means of Tabbal and Lathis on 16. 1. 1985 at 3. 00 p. m. on account of previous litigation. ( 2 ) THE learned Addi. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Govind Singh and Bhajan Singh under Sections 148,325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for three months, under Section 325134 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Go-accused Prathwiraj Singh was however, given clean acquittal. Appellant Govind and Bhajan died during the pendencyof this appeal and the appeal abated, so far as appellants Govind and Bhajan are concerned. ( 3 ) ON 17. 1. 1985, the complainant Sukun P. W. 3 lodged a report about the incident at Police Chouki, Dan which was recorded by P. W. 10 Head Constable Kamla Prasad, Ex. P-18, and he forwarded the report to the S. H. O. Nawagarh P. S. where the formal F. I. R. (Ex. P-19) was drawn up by P. W. 8 Bharatlal and investigation proceeded. ( 4 ) AFTER the investigation charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the appellants and co-accused persons of this case. ( 5 ) AFTER the cognizance and the commitment the case came up for disposal before the Addi. Sessions Judge, Durg. ( 6 ) THE defence was innocence and false implication on account of previous grudge and enmity. There was also abili defence of appellant Krishna Singh and Bharat Singh. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses of the trial, out of whom P. W. 1 Dr. G. N. Tiwari had X-rayed the injuries of the complainant and has proved his report Ex. P-1, P. W. 2 Dr. There was also abili defence of appellant Krishna Singh and Bharat Singh. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses of the trial, out of whom P. W. 1 Dr. G. N. Tiwari had X-rayed the injuries of the complainant and has proved his report Ex. P-1, P. W. 2 Dr. K. P. Baghela had initially examined the complainant, P. W. 3 is complainant Sukun, P. W. 4 Dhan Singh has deposed an eye witness to the occurrence, P. W. 5 Manharanlal, P. W. 6 D. R. Baghel, P. W. 7 T. R. Kuwar, P. W. 8 Bharatlal, P. W. 10 Kamla Prasad and P. W. 11 Ram Alakh are the police witnesses out of whom P. W. 7 T. R. Kuwar is the 1. 0. of this case, and P. W. 9 Yashwant is a witness of seizure of blood stained cloth of the complainant. ( 8 ) AS against the prosecution witnesses, the defence also examined five defence witnesses in support of abili defence of the appellant Krishna Singh and Bharat Singh. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned aforesaid. ( 10 ) SHRI Manish Datt, learned counsel for the appellant Nos. 1 and 4, has contended that there is no discrepancy in ocular evidence of the complainant P. W. 3 Sukun and the eye witnesses P. W. 4 Dhan Singh and the medical evidence of P. W. 1 G. N. Tiwari who had X-rayed the injuries of the complainant and P. W. 2 K. P. Bhagela who had preliminary examined the complainant. The complainant and the eye witness P. W. 4 Dhan Singh have deposed that the complainant was assaulted by means of Tabbal which is sharp pointed weapon but no corresponding injury was found on the person of the complainant. P. W4 Dhan Singh who has deposed as an eye witness to the occurrence is not an independent witness, he is a man of the complainant and had attended the Court of behalf of the complainant as a witness. The prosecution case is not corroborated by any cogent and reliable evidence. ( 11 ) SHRI N. S. Ruprah Dy. G. A. on the other hand has contended that there is no discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence in this case. The prosecution case is not corroborated by any cogent and reliable evidence. ( 11 ) SHRI N. S. Ruprah Dy. G. A. on the other hand has contended that there is no discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence in this case. Moreover; ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved and discarded in preference of medical evidence, which is a mere opinion of the Doctor. Admittedly P. W. 4 Dhan Singh had attended the Court on behalf for the complainant therefore, his presence at the P. O. is clearly established. The testimony of the Dhan Singh cannot be disbelieved and discarded simply he being a partisan and interested witness. On perusal of the evidence of Dr. Baghal P. W. 2 he found 19 injuries on the person of the complainant four incised wounds, three abrasions and rests were the contusions and he opined that the injuries were possible by Tabbal and lathis. P. W. l Dr. G. N. Tiwari had X-rayed the injury of the complainant and found fracture of 5th Matacorpal bone and fracture on the ribs, therefore, there is hardly any discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence in this case. ( 12 ) LASTLY Shri Datt has contended that appellant No. 1 Raru Singh is now aged 66 years and No. 4 Bahadur, 33 years No. SKrishna Singh is in fiftees and appellant No. 6 Bharat Singh is in fourtees. They have undergone the imprisonment for about a month. No previous conviction has been proved by the prosecution, nor they have any criminal antecedents therefore, they deserve to be enlarged u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on execution of bond of good conduct. ( 13 ) SHRI S. L. Kochar counsel for the appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 adopted the arguments of Shri Datt. ( 14 ) IN view of the long pendency of the case, and harassment to the appellants for almost a decade, the antecedents, and the sentence awarded to the appellants, the appellants deserve to be enlarged u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on execution of bond of good conduct of Rs. 3000/- each with two sureties in the like amount for a period of one year. ( 15 ) THE appellants are directed to appear before the A. C. J. M. Bemetra on 30. 3. 1995 to execute the bond as indicated above. 3000/- each with two sureties in the like amount for a period of one year. ( 15 ) THE appellants are directed to appear before the A. C. J. M. Bemetra on 30. 3. 1995 to execute the bond as indicated above. ( 16 ) WITH this modification, in the sentence of the appellants, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. .