B. K. SHARMA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8. 3. 1979 passed by Sri P. C. Agarwal, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in S. T No. 361 of 1977, State v. Bipti and 6 others, whereby, he convicted Ranvir present accused-appellant of the offence under Section 324, I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and to suffer R. I. for a period of 6 months in default of payment of fine. 2. The informant in this case is Ram Pal P. W 2. He and his father Ramphal P. W. 3 both were injured in this case. The occur rence took place on 7. 7. 1973 at 8. 00 a. m. The prosecution case is that at that time, the informant Ram Pal and his lather Ramphal were levelling their field in vil lage Gangahari RS. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahar, that at that time Ranvir accused-appellant and his companions Rajbhan, Mahipal, Birbal, Kartar, Salvir and Bipti and Surajmal deceased came there, that out of them, Ranvir accused appellant and Mahipal were aimed with Ballam, Kartar and Birbal were armed with Boori, Rajbhan, Salvir and Surajmal (deceased before the trial) were carrying Lathies and Bipti was carrying gun, that Bipti threatened that he would not allow anyone to come from the side of the village while Birbal exhorted to kill and Ranvir accused-appellant gave two Ballam blows on the body of Ramphal, each of which blows he suslained of his hands and then Mahipal gave him a Ballam blow in his chest and Rajbhan gave a Lathi blow which struck on his right wrist and accused per sons beat Rampal informant also, that on their alarm, Hukum Singh and Vijai Singh came to the spot and tried to save them. 3. The F. I. R. about the occurrence was lodged by Ram Pal informant at the police station, the same day at 11. 30 a. m. on which basis, a case under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323, I. P. C. was registered at the police station against Bipti, Ranvir, Suraj mal, Rajbhan, Mahipal, Kartar, Birbal and Satvir. The medical examination of Ram phal injured was made by Dr. G. C. Tripathi, Medical Officer Incharge, District Hospital, Bulandshahar at 11. 45 hours. 30 a. m. on which basis, a case under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323, I. P. C. was registered at the police station against Bipti, Ranvir, Suraj mal, Rajbhan, Mahipal, Kartar, Birbal and Satvir. The medical examination of Ram phal injured was made by Dr. G. C. Tripathi, Medical Officer Incharge, District Hospital, Bulandshahar at 11. 45 hours. He found the following injuries on his body: (1) Punctured wound 1-1/2cmx 1/2 cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of left upper arm 6 cm below top of shoulder. (2) Penetrating wound 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x depth not probed appears chest cavity deep blood gushing out with respiratory excursions on front of chest mid line 14-1/2 cm below inter clavicular notch. (3) Lacerated wound 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle on anterior aspect front of right wrist. (4) Punctured wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on inner bards of left palm 3 cm below wrist. In his opinion, injury No. 3 was caused by hard blunt weapon and the other injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. The duration of injuries were fresh. Injury No. 2 was kepi under observa tion. Subsequently, injury No. 2 also turned out to be simple in nature. 4. Rampal Singh informant was medieally examined by Dr. U. C. Sharma, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bulandshahar same day at 5. 5 p. m. He found the following injuries on his person: (1)Lacerated wound 3-1/2 cm x 1/2 cmx 1/2 cm on left side of scalp 10 cm above left ear at 10 clock position. (2) Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of right forearm middle 1/3rd. (3) Abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the dorsum of right hand over radial half 4-1/2 cm infront of right wrist. (4) Abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm infront of right side of chest 3 cm below radial 1/3rd of right coller bone. (5) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the posterior aspect of left little finger 3 cm from its tip over proximal phalynix. In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 5 were caused by hard blunt weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by friction against hard surface. The injuries were simple in nature and their duration was about 1/4th day. 5. In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 5 were caused by hard blunt weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by friction against hard surface. The injuries were simple in nature and their duration was about 1/4th day. 5. Across F. I. R. was lodged by Ranvir present accused-appellant the same day at 12. 15 p. m. against Ramphal and Rampal prosecution injured and 5 more persons namely Chokhe, Atar Singh, Nem Pal, Jaipal and Kiran Pal about an incident of 8. 30 a. m. of the same day on the basis of which a cross ease was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,323 and 324, I. P. C. The accused-appellant Ranvir was medically examined by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Lakhawati on the same day at 11. 00 a. m. , having been brought there by himself (this was before lodging of the cross F. I. R. by him ). 6. After committed charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 against the accused Bipti, Ranvir, Rajbhan, Mahipal, Kartar, Birbal and Satvir. 7. The ocular evidence was given at the trial by Rampal-informant P. W. 2 and Ramphal P. W. 3. Rests of the evidence was formal in nature. 8. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused-appellant Ranvir gave his counter version about occurrence. He stated that at the time of the occur rence he was ploughing his field while Ramphal P. W. 3 was ploughing his own field, that Ramphal P. W. demolished the Daul (Maind) between their fields, that thereupon an altercation took place be tween both the sides, that Ramphal P. W. 3 gave a blow of Ballam on him and in protecting himself against Ballam blow, he grappled and snatched the Ballam and that in the act of snatching of the Ballam, Ram phal P. W. received injury. He also claimed in it that Ramphal-informant gave him a blow of Pharsa. He did not lead any oral evidence in defence. The other accused-persons in the case denied the participa tion in the occurrence. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge marshalleda, the evidence on record and found that it is undisputed that an incident took place on 7. 7. 1973 at about 8 a. m. about which a report were lodged from both the sides. The other accused-persons in the case denied the participa tion in the occurrence. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge marshalleda, the evidence on record and found that it is undisputed that an incident took place on 7. 7. 1973 at about 8 a. m. about which a report were lodged from both the sides. He also recorded that the fields of the parties are adjoined each other and that there was a Maind in be tween. He recorded that the presence of accused-appellant Ranvir on the spot can not be doubted and it is also admitted to him in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and that it is also admitted by him that Ramphal received injuries in the very Marpits. He accepted the prosecution ver sion of the occurrence and rejected the defence version taken by Ranvir accused-appellant. He, however, gave benefit of doubt to all the remaining 6 accused at the trial and convicted and sentenced the ac cused-appellant Ranvir as aforesaid. 10. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. There is no force in this appeal. The testimony of the informant-Rampal P. W. 2 and Ramphal P. W. 3 was cor roborated by the medical evidence and also by the F. I. R. lodged by Rampal at the Police Station. It cannot be doubted that the accused-appellant has inflicted in juries to Ramphal P. W. 3 in the occurrence. In his statement under Section 313. Cr. P. C, this accused-appellant claim to have snatched the Ballam from Ramphal injured and admitted that Pamphal received injury on his body though he claimed that it was received in the snatch ing of this weapon. We have noted injury report of Ramphal injured. He received 3 punctured wounds on his body, two of which were muscle deep and one appeared chest cavity deep. It is difficult to accept that these injuries were received by Ramphal P. W. without blows having been given on his body with sharp edged weapon. It may be mentioned here that in the cross F. I. R. lodged by Ranvir accused-appellant, it was stated that he snatched the Ballam from Ramphal but also that he defended himself after snatching the Ballam which essentially means that he assaulted with Ballam. Now in his statement under Sec tion 313, Cr. It may be mentioned here that in the cross F. I. R. lodged by Ranvir accused-appellant, it was stated that he snatched the Ballam from Ramphal but also that he defended himself after snatching the Ballam which essentially means that he assaulted with Ballam. Now in his statement under Sec tion 313, Cr. P. C, he stopped short of it and claimed only this much that the injuries of Ramphal P. W. 3 were received only in the process of shatching. In other words, noe these are not olaimed to have been in flicted by him in self defence but are al leged by him to have come just incidently in the anatching of the we upon. It may be mentioned here that in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. this accused-appellant did not make any mention of the presence of any one except Ramphal and Rampal (both (sic) injured at the time of occurrence, whereas in the cross F. I. R. lodged by him, the presence and participa tion of as many as five other persons had been sc out. According to the allegations made in the cross-F. I. R. Ramphal, Rampal (present P. W. 3 and P. W), Chokhe, Atar Singh, Jai Pal and Kiran Pal were carrying Lathi, Ballam and Pharsa while Nem Pal was carrying gun and that he was beaten with Lathi, Ballam and Pharsa and it was also said that Rampal (present P. W) had given a Pharsa blow in his back. So there was nothing wrong of the learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence version. 11. It has been argued that the prosecution story is falsified by the fact that the seppling of Maize crops had ger minated come out from the agricultural land of the informant as has been elicited from the I. O. satyapal Tyagi, P. W. 4 in his cross-examination. In my view, this con tent ion of the defence cannot be sustained. The positive evidence of the informant P. W and Ramphal P. W. 3 on oath cannot be set at naught by the I. O. by making a casual statement during the course of cross-ex amination. His cross- examination avail able on the record is nothing more than a casual (. . . sic) statement. The positive evidence of the informant P. W and Ramphal P. W. 3 on oath cannot be set at naught by the I. O. by making a casual statement during the course of cross-ex amination. His cross- examination avail able on the record is nothing more than a casual (. . . sic) statement. He first stated that he did not recollect as to what was the height of Maize crops, was standing on the agricultural plot of Rampal informant. The question to which this reply was given pre-supposed that Maize crop was stand ing in the plot of Rampal informant. Then in the next statement he slated that he recollect that Maize Sapling had come out from the land. He has not shown in, the site plan the existence of any crop of any height in the agriculture field of the informant. As a matter of fact, the police papers which were submitted with the lower Court record to this Court contained the case diary of this case and in the case diary, the spot inspection was recorded. Its scrutiny showed that it did not make any mention of the presence of any crop in the agriculture land of the informant. It has also be noted that the statement of the I. O. was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on 5. 1. 1979 while the occurrence had taken place on 7. 7. 1973 i. e. after about 5 and hall years of the occurrence. It is difficult to believe that this I. O. will have a recollection about the existance or non-existance of crops in the plots of parties or the height thereof after a gap of such a time. Therefore, the above statement of the I. O. which could at best be based on conjecture could carry no value and is rejected. 12. Furthermore, the question whether the informant and his father Ramphal were leveling their land or not was itself immaterial. Their presence in the land was not in dispute, at any stage and even if the Maind was demolished as claimed in the cross version there was no allegation from the defence side to show that the informant P. W. and Ramphal P. W. 3 has encroached upon any part of the land of the accused-appellant, that could or would give rise to a right of private defence of property. If a Maind gets demolished or is demolished as alleged then it does not give any legal right to inflict injuries on the bodies of the persons whose act resulted in the demolition of the Maind. Thus, even assuming the genesis as alleged in the cross F. I. R. the defence does not stand to gain. The prosecution evidence is that the accused-party came and committed the oc currence and on that evidence the accused party would be the aggressor party and the victims namely Rampal P. W. 1 and Ramphal P. W. 3 would have a right of private defence of person. 13. Then another contention from the side of the accused-appellant is that the prosecution story was fit to he rejected as it did not explain the injuries on the body of the accused-appellant Ranvir. It is not an invariable Rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the ac cused in the same occurrence. In a recent case of D. V. Shanmugham v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 (2) Crimes 41 (S. C.): 1997 JIC 762 (SC), the Apex Court held that where the injuries received by the accused are simple or superficial in nature, the prosecution is not bound to explain such superficial injuries. In the present case, the injuries received by the accused-appellant on his body were entire superfi cial in nature and so in the circumstances of this case, non-explanation does not af fect the prosecution story specially in so far as the present accused-appellant is con cerned whose presence at the spot is admitted and whose participation in the oc currence is also admitted and whose han dling of a sharp edged weapon is also ad mitted, even though, he claims that he snatched it from Ramphal injured P. W. 3 and that the injuries were received by Ramphal in the process of that snatching. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has already given the benefit of doubt to these accused-appellants about whose presence and participation in the occurrence, there could be the slightest doubt. There is ab solutely no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence for the offence under Section 324, I. P. C. as against the present accused-appellant. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has already given the benefit of doubt to these accused-appellants about whose presence and participation in the occurrence, there could be the slightest doubt. There is ab solutely no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence for the offence under Section 324, I. P. C. as against the present accused-appellant. There is also no occasion for interference on the point of substantive sentence since the substan tive sentence is itself the bare minimum apparently keeping in view the fact that the accused-appellant had him self also received some injuries in the transaction. However, the sentence of R. I. for a period of six months in default of payment of fine is excessive and should be scaled down. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sub stantive sentence of the accused-appellant are maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine is reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of fif teen days. This Court had stayed the realisation of the fine for the pendency of the appeal. The accused-appellant is given one months time from today for deposit ing the fine amount before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned. In default of payment of fine within the period permitted, he shall be arrested and consigned to the District Jail concerned to serve out the sentence in default aforesaid. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the registry to the Additional Ses sions Judge concerned atonce for informa tion and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted by the Addition al Sessions Judge concerned to this Court by 10-8-99. This appeal shall be listed again before this Court for orders on 16-8-99 along with the compliance report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge con cerned. .