Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The appellant No. 2, Umakant Yadav has been convicted u/s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellant No. 1, Mannu Yadav has been convicted under Secs. 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The appellant No. 1 Mannu Yadav was further convicted u/s. 341 ofthe Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed against this section. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 19-5-1981, informant Jai Mandan Yadav went to take bath at the Government well. The well was dirty and the appellant Mannu Yadav and his son Umakant Yadav were also on the well at that time. The informant told both the appellants that the well was situated near their (Appellants) house and why did they keep the well dirty. Thereafter, there was altercation between the informant and the appellants. In the meantime, it has been alleged that the appellant Mannu Yadav caught hold of the informant and appellant Umakant Yadav went running to his house and brought one garasa. Thereafter he gave three garasa blows on the head of the informant. The informant having sustained the cut injury on his head fell down on the ground. On hulla, several persons (namely, Sakaldeo Yadav, Munilal Yadav, Mihi Lai Yadav and Govind Yadav) of the village assembled there and saw the occurrence. Thereafter, he was taken to Sabour hospital and from there he was sent to B.M.C.H., Bhagalpur for his treatment. His fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of the injured informant was also recorded by the police at Kotwali Police Station. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a formal F.I.R. of the case (Ext. 2) was registered at Sabour police Station against both the appellants. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-personss. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where trial concluded and the appellants were convicted as stated above. Hence this appeal. The appellants not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 3. The prosecution in support of the case examined altogether eight witnesses, P.W. 1 is Munnilal Yadav, P.W. 2 is Mehi LaLYadav, son of Sukhlal Yadav, P.W. 3 is Mehi Lal Yadav, son of Gounelal Yadav, P.W. 4 is Govind Yadav. Hence this appeal. The appellants not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 3. The prosecution in support of the case examined altogether eight witnesses, P.W. 1 is Munnilal Yadav, P.W. 2 is Mehi LaLYadav, son of Sukhlal Yadav, P.W. 3 is Mehi Lal Yadav, son of Gounelal Yadav, P.W. 4 is Govind Yadav. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 5 is Sakaldeo Yadav. He is the full brother of the informant. P.W. 6 is Jahindar Yadav injured and informant of this case. P.W. 7 is Binda Prasad, the I.O. of the case and P.W. 8 is Dr. Parmanand Singh, who has been examined the injured on 19-5-1981. 4. P.W. 6, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in his First Information Report. According to him, on 30th July, 1987 about 4 p.m. he had gone to take his bath on a Government well. The well was very dirty and he told the appellants that as the well was near their house and why did they keep the well so dirty. Upon this, the appellant Mannu Yadav started quarrelling with him and he caught hold of him and asked the appellant Umakant Yadav to kill the informant There was also altercation between them and appellant Umakant brought a garasa from his house and assaulted him on his head thrice having sustained injury he fell down. On alarm, witnesses came there and they saw the occurrence. Thereafter, he was taken on a bullock-cart to Sabour hospital since there was no doctor at Sabour hospital, he was sent to B.M.C. H., Bhagalpur where he was treated and his fardbeyan was recorded by the A.S.I. at Sabour Police Station. 5. P.W. 1 Munnilal Yadav has also supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 4 p.m. heheard hulla from the Government well and he went on the well and saw the appellant Umakant Yadav assaulting the informant by means of a garasa on his head. According to him, the witnesses Munnilal and Govind were present there. He has stated that the informant was taken on a bullock cart to Sabour hospital where he was treated. The other witnesses on the factum of occurrence P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 have also supported the version of the informant and P.W. 1. 6. According to him, the witnesses Munnilal and Govind were present there. He has stated that the informant was taken on a bullock cart to Sabour hospital where he was treated. The other witnesses on the factum of occurrence P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 have also supported the version of the informant and P.W. 1. 6. P.W. 7, the I.O. has stated that on 6-6-1981, he received the fardbeyan of the informant which was recorded by A.S.I. Jamuna Prasad and he had proved his writing which is Ext. 1. He has stated that on the basis of the statement and formal F.I.R. was registered which is Ext. 2. Thereafter, he investigated the case and visited the place of occurrence. He wanted to see the informant but he learned that the informant has been sent to Patna from Bhagalpur hospital. He has given the full description of the place of occurrence. According to him, he recorded the statement of the other witnesses. 7. P.W. 8 is the doctor Parmanand Singh. According to him, on 19-5-1981, he was posted as Registrar in department of Surgery at B.M.C.H., Bhagalpur. On the same day at 8 p.m., he examined the injured Jai Nandan Yadav and found the injury on the person of the injured. (i) Cut injury sharp on the left side of scalp 4" x 1/2" x scalp deep. (ii) 3 Insized wound on the right side of the scalp of about 1/2 cut injury on each alter (a) Size 1 1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep (h) 5" x 1/4" x bone deep. Brain matter was out. (iii) 4" x 1 1/2" x scalp deep. 8. According to the doctor, injury No. 2 was grievous in nature and injury No. 1 was simple in nature. All the injuries were caused by sharp-cutting weapons such as garasa. Age of injury was with six hours. 9. The factum of the assault on the informant has been fully proved by P.Ws. 1 to 6 and they have consistently and categorically stated that the appellant Mannu Yadav caught hold of the injured informant and appellant Umakant yadav went to his house and came with a garasa and on the accosting of appellant Mannu Yadav he assaulted the injured informant on his head which has been also supported and corroborated by the doctor P.W. 8. According to the doctor, the informant injured was having cut injury and scalp and his brain matter had come out after sustaining the assault. According to the doctor, the injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. 10. The learned Counsel has stated that the informant was a veteran criminal and he is also accused in a murder case. However even if the informant was a criminal how did affect this case of the prosecution which has been fully proved by the prosecution. It has bean also submitted that there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses but since the witnesses are being examined after such a long time those minor contradictions are bound to happen and are natural. 11. After taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubts and the Court below has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence which has been awarded by the Court below is not excessive. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. 12. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.