Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. Appellant, Ramyas Yadav, was convicted under Sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and 3 months respectively. Appellant, Hardeo Yadav and Kamla Yadav, were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for six months each for the offence under Sections 325/34, IPC and RI for the three months each under Sections 323, 147, IPC. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently Appellants, Lalu Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav were convicted under Sections 147 and 148, IPC. However, both were let off on admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, as mentioned in the fardbeyan, was to the effect that on 10.9.1983 at 10.00 a.m., the informant was at his shop. Suddenly there came Ramyas Yadav armed with garasa, Lalu Yadav armed with bhala, Rajdeo Yadav armed with bhala, Kamla Yadav and Hardeo Yadav armed with lathi. These persons asked the informant to come out from the shop, whereupon the informant asked them as to what was the matter. Thereafter, Ramyas Yadav told him to come out after calling him names, as sala, and immediately hurled garasa blow on the informant which was warded off by the balance in the hands of the informant. However, the garasa blow fell upon the head of the informant causing him injury. Thereafter, the informant fell outside his shop, whereafter Rajdeo Yadav dealt bhala blow upon the victim which hit him on the left side of the stomach, causing him a minor injury. Thereafter, Hardeo Yadav dealt with lathi blow on the informant, who raised alarm and wanted to escape, but Kamla Yadav also dealt lathi blow upon him. The informants nephew, Ram Sumiran Yadav, came to the rescue the informant hearing his alarm and then, Kamla Yadav and Hardeo Yadav assaulted him with lathi. The cause of the occurrence, as given in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4), is that the accused Ramyas Yadav was running a shop given by the informant near Kenduadih pool in rent, three years prior to the occurrence. Ramyas Yadav was not paying rent and, hence, there was a case pending in the Court. The informant had a garden at Beech Bahihary which was usually subjected to damage by the she-buffalo of the accused and so there was a dispute between the informant and the accused-appellants. 3. Ramyas Yadav was not paying rent and, hence, there was a case pending in the Court. The informant had a garden at Beech Bahihary which was usually subjected to damage by the she-buffalo of the accused and so there was a dispute between the informant and the accused-appellants. 3. The accused-appellants had alleged false implication on account of enmity and also took the defence that it is they, who were assaulted by the informants party for which there was a counter-case. 4. I find that the prosecution has examined, in all, five witnesses, PW 5 was the IO, Kapil Kumar. PW 4, Murlidhar Yadav, is the informant himself. PW 3 is the Dr. Ram Chandra Thakur, who examined the injuries upon PWs 1 and 4, the nephew and uncle, respectively. PW 2 is the so-called independent witness, Nathu Ram, who arrived at the PO hearing alarm. PW 1 is the nephew of the informant. 5. So far as the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is concerned, it is a repetition of the statemenrof informant, recorded in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4), with the variation that PW 1 said that he had, when he came to the PO, found his uncle lying, who was subjected to lathi blow by Hardeo, Lalu and Kamla. When he came to intervene, he was also subjected to assault by Hardeo and Kamla Yadav with lathi. Due to alarm raised by this witness, people nearby came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, this witness said that he went to the police station from where Daroga sent him to Kenduadih State Hospital and he also went to the hospital. In the hospital, the statement of his uncle was recorded. So far as the evidence of PW 2 is concerned, he came to the PO on hearing alarm and he saw Murlidhar Yadav lying on the ground and bleeding from his head. He also saw the Ramyas Yadav was armed with garasa, Rajdeo Yadav was having bhala in his hand and Hardeo Yadav was having lathi along with Lalu Yadav, who was also armed with lathi Kamla Yadav was also having lathi in his hand. Accused-appellants, Hardeo Yadav, Lalu Yadav and Kamla Yadav assaulted Ram Sumiran Yadav, PW 1, with lathi. The right hand of Sumiran Yadav was fractured. Accused-appellants, Hardeo Yadav, Lalu Yadav and Kamla Yadav assaulted Ram Sumiran Yadav, PW 1, with lathi. The right hand of Sumiran Yadav was fractured. Murli Babu regained consciousness after 3-4 minutes and told this witness that Ramyas Yadav had assaulted him with garasa and Rajdeo hurled barcha blow. The evidence of this witness was criticised on the ground that he had admitted that there was trace of blood at the PO and he had tied a gamcha around the head of Murlidhar which had also become drenched with blood. But, the IO did not find any trace of blood at the PO. So far as the evidence of PW 3 is concerned, he found one lacerated wound on the right side of the scalp of Ram Sumiran Yadav. Injury No. 2 was bruise 4-1/2" x 3-3/4" on the left elbow joint with dislocation. Injuries No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were all bruises on various parts of the body of Sumiran Yadav. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The Doctor found some abrasions on the body of Murlidhar Yadav. PW 3 also found one incised wound 4-1/4" x 1/2" x muscle-deep, bone visible, over the right side of the scalp of Murlidhar Yadav. There was one lacerated wound 3-1/2" x 1/2" x muscle-deep over the right sice of the scalp just right to the mid-line. The 3rd injury was lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1/3" x muscle-deep on the left side of the scalp. The 4th injury was bruise 3-1/2" x 1/2" over right thigh. The 5th injury was also bruise 2-3/4" x 1/2" over the right leg outer part. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp-cutting weapon and the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. PW 4, the informant, supported his case, as stated in the fardbeyan. PW 5 is the IO, whose evidence was criticised on the ground that his investigation was perfunctory, as he did not find objective evidence of assault at the PO, because he did not find trace of blood. Moreover, he failed to record the statement of the informant and his nephew, when they came to the police station, before they were sent to the hospital. Therefore, his conduct was not above suspicion and it appeared that after obtaining manufactured injury report, this false case was filed. 6. Moreover, he failed to record the statement of the informant and his nephew, when they came to the police station, before they were sent to the hospital. Therefore, his conduct was not above suspicion and it appeared that after obtaining manufactured injury report, this false case was filed. 6. However, from the evidence of PW 5, it also transpires that there was also a counter-case in which an occurrence took place at the same place and at the same time. So, apparently, there were two versions, perhaps, of an occurrence and both of the parties are alleging assault from one side on the other. 7. Before, I conclude my finding, I would like to refer to the arguments of the learned lawyer that the motive of the alleged occurrence is not substantiated, because the concerned shop which the informant claims to have let out to one of the accused-appellants were purchased by the accused in the year 1980 itself, on the basis of a paper which was Ext. B. The informant was confronted with this document and he denied to have put his signature. There was an attempt by the accused-appellants to get his signature examined by an export, but in spite of the Courts order the informant failed to give of his signature. So, because of enmity, the cause of occurrence, as given in the fardbeyan, cannot be believed. Suggestions were also given to the PWs that there was an akhada by the side of the informants shop, the boundary wall of which was demolished by the informant and, hence, there was bad blood. From the evidence brought on the record, it is apparent that both the informant and the accused-appellants were involved in some sort of dispute and, therefore, the chance of an occurrence in which both sides exchanged assault (mutual assault) cannot be ruled out. The Doctor had found multiple injuries on the person of PW 1 and there were certain injuries including one incised wound on the person of Murlidhar Yadav. So far as omission in the evidence of the IO about the finding of blood at the PO is concerned, I am of the opinion that simple injury by garasa cannot cause much bleeding, so that the IO could find the same at the PO. So far as omission in the evidence of the IO about the finding of blood at the PO is concerned, I am of the opinion that simple injury by garasa cannot cause much bleeding, so that the IO could find the same at the PO. There may be some kind of exaggeration in this regard by PW 2 which cannot be given much significance in view of the substance of the evidence. So far as the fact that the police officer failed to record the statement of the informant or his nephew before they were went to the hospital is concerned, in this connection also, it was the lapse on the part of the concerned police officer and this lapse cannot be attributed to a false case. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion on the evidence, I do not think, the order of conviction suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Two of the appellants were already released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. So far as the sentences are concerned, the maximum sentence to which the appellants would undergo is RI for six months, which in the circumstances, does not appear to be severe. 9. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is affirmed.