J. C. MISHRA, J. This appeal has been filed by accused Vijai Singh, Shobha Ram, Nihal Singh, Shcodan and Baboo against their conviction recorded by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura by order dated 20-12-79 and sentence for various terms under Sections 307/149, 325/149. 323/149 and 147/148. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report lodged by Devi Ram on 3-1-77 at 10- 50 a. m. al P. S. Kosi Kalan, district Malhura is that there was land Dispute between the informant Devi Ram and accused-appellants Sheodan, Nihal Singh and accused Niranjan Singh (acquitted) with respect to a plot at the site of old house. The informant with a view to get the matter settled approached a panchayat of 32 villages of the locality popularly known as "sri Tonta Baba Samaj Sudhar Samiti". In view of the re quest the panchayat was convened at the house of accused Niranjan Singh in vil lage Elbara on 2nd January, 1977 at about 4. 00 p. m. The panches tried to resolve the matter with mutual cement but the ac cused Niranjan Singh refused to accept the decision of the panchayat and instead abused them. He set his thatch on fire and formed an unlawful assembly and attacked panches. The accused Vijay Singh, Sher Singh, Niranjan Singh and Nihal Singh were armed with ballaras whereas Bhajan Lal, Shobha Ram, Leela, Badan Singh, Om Prakash, Nawab, Mi. id. an Singh, Tej Singh, Basudeo and Charan Singh were carrying lathis. Accused Sheodan and Ba boo were armed with guns. They fired at the panches but luckily none was hurt. The panchayat was disturbed and the partici pants started running hither and thither. The other accused started assaulting Kushal Singh, Bishambhar, Balbir, Rajpal, Ntirpat, Kalyan, Bhudeo, Kanchan Singh and informant Devi Ram with lathis and ballam and caused them serious injuries. As a result of assault Bishambhar sus tained a fracture. The incident among oth ers were witnessed by Ajay Singh. Shudhan Singh son of Chiranjee Pradhan, Lekha, Barkha, Dulichand, Balvant, Joginder Singh, Sri Ram Saran intervened and saved the victims. 3. On the following day the informant along with the other injured went to the police station Kosi Kalan and lodged re port at 10. 50 a. m. After registration of the case the injured were sent to the Govern ment Hospital where they were medically examined by Dr. T. M. Goyal. 3. On the following day the informant along with the other injured went to the police station Kosi Kalan and lodged re port at 10. 50 a. m. After registration of the case the injured were sent to the Govern ment Hospital where they were medically examined by Dr. T. M. Goyal. The injuries found on their bodies have been described in the judgment and need no repetition. The radiological examination of Nirpat. Bani Singh, Vidya Ram. Rajpal, Bishamb har and Balbir disclosed presence of frac tures. 4. The investigation was conducted by S. I. P. R. Sharma who visited the spot, pre pared site plan, interrogated the witnesses and observing the other formalities of in vestigation submitted charge-sheet. 5. The case was committed to the ses sion. The accused denied the charge. The defence version is that the incident took place at 5. 30 p. m. on 2-1-97 and not al 4. 30 p. m. as alleged by the prosecution. Niranjan was sitting at his door, where Vidya Ram accompanied by 13 others, armed with lathis arrived and beat Niran jan with kicks and fists. Dariyao had a gun, Niranjan raised an alarm which at tracted Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram who rushed to the spot to rescue their uncle but they were beaten by the assailants with lathis and spears. Nihal Singh getting an opportunity went on the roof of his house. He and women inmates of the family threw bricks on the assailants. Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram wielded lathis in self defence. It is alleged that Dariyao fired a shot at Nihal Singh. 6. The accused Vijai Singh and Shobha Ram went to the hospital and got them examined by Dr. R. P. Pachhu. 7. To prove its case the prosecution examined Balbir (PW-1), Informant Devi Ram (PW-2), Vidya Ram (PW-3), Daryao Singh (PW-4), Duli Chand (PW-5 ). Dr. T. M. Goyal (PW-6), the then constable clerk Sampat Singh (PW-7), Investigating Officer S. I. , P. R. Sharma (PW-8) and Dr. M. M. Sharma (PW-9), Dr. T. M. Goyal proved the injury reports whereas Dr. M. M. Sharma proved the x-ray reports. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on analysis of the evidence held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. M. M. Sharma (PW-9), Dr. T. M. Goyal proved the injury reports whereas Dr. M. M. Sharma proved the x-ray reports. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on analysis of the evidence held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. Rejecting the defence version he convicted Sheodan Singh and Babu Singh under Section 148, IPC while accused Vijay Singh, Shobha Ram, Niranjan and Nihal were convicted under Section 147, IPC. All the aforesaid accused were convicted under Sections 325/149, IPC for causing grievous hurts to Nirpat, Balbir, Bishambhar and Rajpal and under Section 323/149 for causing injuries to Vidya Ram, Khusal, Bhoodev, Kalyan, Bani Singh and Kanchan. The accused were acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 307/149, IPC. 9. Sher Singh, Bhajan Lal, Leela, Badan Singh, Om Prakash, Nawab, Madan Singh, Tej Singh, Basudeo and Charan Singh were acquitted. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave Niranjan Singh benefit of First Offenders Probation Act. on account of his old age and directed him to be released on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for maintaining peace for a period of one year. 11. Accused Sheodan and Babu were sentenced to one year R. I. under Section 148, IPC whereas the other accused were sentenced to undergo 6 months R. I. under Section 147; IPC. All the aforesaid ac cused were sentenced to undergo 2 years R. I. under Section 325/149, IPC and one years R. I. under Section 323/149, IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concur rently. 12. Felt aggrieved the accused Vijay Singh, Shobha Ram, Nihal Singh, Sheo dan and Babu filed an appeal. 13. The appeal was decided on 8-9-97 but without hearing the appellants coun sel, maintaining the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment was converted into sentence of fine. 14. The appellants filed an application for recall, which was allowed vide order dated 1st May, 1998 passed in Criminal Misc. Recall application No. 59037 of 1997. After hearing Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. the judgment was re served. 15. The learned counsel for the appel lants contended that prosecution case suf fered from serious infirmities and the learned Additional Sessions Judge com mitted illegality in recording conviction. He contended that the accused side had sustained serious injuries in the incident which could not be explained by the prose cution. 15. The learned counsel for the appel lants contended that prosecution case suf fered from serious infirmities and the learned Additional Sessions Judge com mitted illegality in recording conviction. He contended that the accused side had sustained serious injuries in the incident which could not be explained by the prose cution. The incident was started by the complainant side, who were aggressor. The accused succeeded in explaining the injuries caused on the complainant side. It was slated by the accused that the injuries were caused while the accused Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram wielded lathis in exercise of their right of private defence. 16. The prosecution has examined the informant Devi Ram (PW-2), Balbir (PW-I), Vidya Ram (PW-3), Daryao (PW-4) and Duli Chand, who had stated that they had seen the incident. Out of them Vidya Ram and Balbir had received injuries during the incident Their presence on the spot cannot be doubted. Duli Chand and Devi Ram are independent witnesses, who had no reason to speak falsehood against the accused. It is true that the accused had named these witnesses as well in the cross-case and they were tried but acquitted. Merely on the ground that the accused had implicated these witnesses as accused is not sufficient for discarding their evidence. 17. The learned Additional Sessions Judge analysed the evidence of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and found them reliable. In his detailed dis cussion he has considered the criticisms levelled against them. Nothing could be shown to discard their testimony, or to discredit their testimony. 18. Accused Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram had received visible injuries. They were medically examined by Dr. R. P. Pachhu on 4-1-77. The incident had ad mittedly taken place on 2nd January, 1977. The accused could not offer any plausible explanation for delayed medical examina tion of these witnesses. The accused have not examined even a single witness to support their defence version. The Jearned counsel for the appellants relied on the statement of Dr. R. P. Pachhu to prove that these accused had received injuries during the incident. It is true that the Medical Officer opined that the injuries found on the bodies of Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram could be caused at the time alleged by the accused on 2-1-77. In the cross-examination, however, he staled that the injuries could be caused in the morning of 3rd January, 1977. It is true that the Medical Officer opined that the injuries found on the bodies of Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram could be caused at the time alleged by the accused on 2-1-77. In the cross-examination, however, he staled that the injuries could be caused in the morning of 3rd January, 1977. It may be mentioned that the opinion of Medical Officer regard ing time of injuries is merely an opinion evidence and cannot fix the time of the injuries with precision. From the evidence of Medical Officer all that can be said is the injuries of the accused could be caused at the time -of the incident but cannot definitely indicate that they were -caused during the incident. The burden lay on the accused to prove that they received injuries in the incident. In absence of such evidence the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries of the accused and consequently no adverse inference against authenticity of the prosecution can be drawn. 19. There is another reason, for not drawing any adverse inference against the truthfulness of the prosecution case on account of the injuries found on the body of the accused Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram. A perusal of the injury reports would show that all the. injuries found on the body of Vijay Singh were of superficial nature, Except 2 injuries out of 7 found on the body of Shobha Ram other injuries were also" of superficial nature. The remaining injuries were found on non-vital parts of the body. It is settled view that no onus is cast on the prosecution to explain superficial and simple injuries. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no illegality in not discarding the prosecution case on the ground that the prosecution could not explain the injuries of Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram. 20. The date and place of the incident are admitted. It is also admitted that the incident had taken place in the evening. The prosecution case is that the incident took place at 4. 30 p. m. while according to the accused the incident took place at 5:30 p. m. The difference of only one hour is inconsequential. The incident could have taken place around 5. 00 p. m. However, the prosecution has given direct evidence of eye-witnesses two of whom were injured witnesses while two others were independent witnesses. 30 p. m. while according to the accused the incident took place at 5:30 p. m. The difference of only one hour is inconsequential. The incident could have taken place around 5. 00 p. m. However, the prosecution has given direct evidence of eye-witnesses two of whom were injured witnesses while two others were independent witnesses. From their evidence cor roborated by First Information Report the prosecution has established time of the incident. 21. The First Information Report was no doubt lodged on the following day at 10. 50 p. m. The place of incident is located at a distance of 14 kilometers from the police station. It would be that after receiv ing serious injuries the complainant side would not have dared to go to the police station in the winter night due to fear of the accused persons. The informant had stated that the report was dictated on the very date of the incident. Even if this ver sion is not accepted and it is held that the First Information Report was scribed on the following day, it, by itself, cannot make the First Information Report doubt ful. There appears to be plausible explana tion for not lodging the report on the very date of the incident. The informant and injured persons would have left the village in the morning so as to reach the police station at 10. 50 a. m. No other criticism had been levelled against the First Information Report. I find that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the First Information Report was lodged without unnecessary delay does not suffer from any error. 22. The defence case is that Niranjan was sitting at his door when Vidya. Ram along with 13 others armed with lathis arrived and beat Niranjan with fists and kicks. They also assaulted Vijay Singh and Shobha Ram with lathis and spears, when they rushed to save their uncle. 23. If the defence case is accepted Vi jay Singh and Shobha Ram. who were assaulted by 14 persons, in all received only 15 injuries which were superficial and simple in nature despite the fact that their assailants were armed with lathis and spears. It has been alleged that Shobha Ram and Vijay Singh wielded lathis in exercise of their right of private defence. It is surprising that, these two persons could cause injuries to Kalyan. It has been alleged that Shobha Ram and Vijay Singh wielded lathis in exercise of their right of private defence. It is surprising that, these two persons could cause injuries to Kalyan. Kanchan, Bhudeo, Vidya Ram, Rajbal. Bishambhar, Nirpat, Bani Singh, Kaushal Singh and Balbir. In all these two persons who had attacked 14 persons succeeding in causing more than 30 injuries, 4 of which were found to be grievous on radiological examination. The defence put by the accused appears to be unnatural and was rightly discarded by the learned Additional Ses sions Judge. 24. There was a land dispute between the parties. The eye-witnesses have proved that the accused had taken forcible pos session over the property of the complain ant. The complainant side had convened panchayat which was held at the door of the accused Niranjan. It has been stated that the panchayat had asked the accused to deliver the possession to the complain ant side, Thus the accused were aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat. The complainant side, whose stand was vindi cated by the panchayat had no motive to attack the accused. On the contrary the accused had motive to commit the crime as they were aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat according to which they were required to deliver possession to the com plainant side. In this situation the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who started marpit appears to be reason able and probable. 25. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given valid reasons for not ac cepting the defence case. He found the prosecution witnesses to be reliable and on the strength of their evidence he held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. He gave benefit of doubt to the 10 accused and acquitted them. Only appellants and Niranjan were found guilty. On account of old age Niranjan was released on probation. The conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be just and reasonable. It is fully supported by the prosecution evidence. In fact, the in ference drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is only possible conclusion that can be drawn on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. I find that the appellants were rightly convicted. 26. The incident had taken place in the year 1977. The appellants were con victed on 20th December. In fact, the in ference drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is only possible conclusion that can be drawn on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. I find that the appellants were rightly convicted. 26. The incident had taken place in the year 1977. The appellants were con victed on 20th December. 1979, Since then their appeal remained pending. On con sideration of the circumstances of the case I find that the sentence of fine in lieu of imprisonment would meet the ends of jus tice. While maintaining their conviction their sentence of imprisonment is converted into sentence of imprisonment al ready undergone and to fine as detailed below: 27. Appellant Sheodan and Babu are sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 148, IPC and the remaining appel lants Vijay Singh, Shobha Ram and Nihal Singh are sencnced to fine of Rs. 7507-under Section 147, IPC. In case of non payment of fine Sheodan and Babu shall undergo R. I. for 6 months while accused Vijay Singh, Shobha Ram and Nihal Singh will undergo R. I. for 3 months. 28. All the appellants are sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,000/- under 3257149, IPC and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 3237149, IPC. The entire fine imposed shall be de posited within three months from the date of order. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo R. I. for one year under Section 3257149, IPC and six months R. I. under Section 3257149, IPC and six months R. I. under Section 3237 149, IPC. Appeal partly allowed-Sentence modified. .