Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri A.P. Shrivastava, Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Session Trial No. 119/87. Appellant No. 1, Raghunath Tiwari, was convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and appellant No. 2, Binod Tiwari was convicted under Section 324/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Both the appellants were further convicted under Section 148, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. However, the sentences awarded against them shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the fardbeyan of Chandra Bhushan Singh, was that on 4.4.85 at 9-10 a.m. he was proceeding on a motorcycle with Pramod Tiwari and he was going home. When both reached west of Sheohar block and near the old mela wale garden, he heard some kinds of sound from the north of the road. Suddenly Binod Tiwari armed with country made gun approached the informant and then informant stopped his mptorcycle. Then Raghunath Tiwari, Bishwanath Tiwari, Ram Kishore Tiwari and four other unknown persons suddenly surrounded the informant. Raghunath Tiwari was armed with garasa. Biswanath Tiwari was armed with chura. Raghunath Tiwari told the informant that he had created differences among bis family members and so he would not spare him the day. Thereafter Raghunath Tiwari dealt one farsa blow upon his head. He repeated the farsa blow upon his head. After that Biswanath Tiwari dealt chura blows upon the informant which caused injury upon his left arm and on his left eye. There were bleeding profuesely from his injuries. He was relieved of Rs. 6,000/- from his pocket by Biswanath Tiwari. The occurrence was seen by Upendra Singh, Pramod Tiwari and Bipin Bihari and others. 3. Appellant, Raghunath Tiwari, was charged under Section 307 and 326, IPC. Appellant, Raghunath Tiwari and Binod Tiwari both were charged under Section 148, IPC. I find that the prosecution has examined almost 5 witnesses in support of its case. PW 5 was the Investigating Officer of this case. PW 4 Chandra Bhushan Singh was the informant, PW 3 was the doctor, PW 2 was Pramod Tiwari. eye-witness and PW 1 was the another eye-witness. 4. Now in the first place, the evidence was critised on the ground that in the fardbeyan. PW 5 was the Investigating Officer of this case. PW 4 Chandra Bhushan Singh was the informant, PW 3 was the doctor, PW 2 was Pramod Tiwari. eye-witness and PW 1 was the another eye-witness. 4. Now in the first place, the evidence was critised on the ground that in the fardbeyan. Exhibit 2, the informant had referred to the weapon wielded by the accused Raghunath Tiwari as garasa while describing the occurrence, he said that Raghunath Tiwari dealt farsa blow in his head. However, this discrepancy regarding the weapon in the hand of the accused, I do not think, so vital to belie the whole story regarding the alleged occurrence. So far the alleged occurrence is concerned, both PWs 1 and 2 speak of the alleged occurrence at the place and also the manner of assault upon the informant. Of course, certain statements in the evidence of these PWs regarding the assault did not figure in their statement before the police to which their attention was drawn. IO (PW 5) has also referred to certain statements before him regarding the alleged occurrence of assault on the informant. So I do not find, so far assault in particular is concerned, that the contradiction between the statement of PW 1 and the same given before the IO is so vital as to belie the occurrence as a whole. There is no legal presumption that whatever the IO recorded as the statements of the witnesses is correct or it gives an authentic picture of what the witness told him. What witnesses stated on oath are more reliable. However, statement made by a witness may be belied by other circumstance on record. In that case, discrepancy between two statements of the witnesses can be given a serious consideration. What witnesses stated on oath are more reliable. However, statement made by a witness may be belied by other circumstance on record. In that case, discrepancy between two statements of the witnesses can be given a serious consideration. I find that in suggestion to PWs 2 and 3, both the accused had taken the plea that Binod Tiwari, appellant No. 2 had, received injury at the hands of the informant party on the same date and at the same time and at the same place and it was also suggested to both PWs 2 and 3 that they had asked the men of Raghunath not to do the earth work at the place of occurrence and this was followed by hot words between the parties whereupon Binod Tiwari was assaulted and the informant himself was assaulted by labourers of Binod Tiwari who was looking after the work of Raghunath Tiwari. So it is apparent from the circumstances and suggestion made to PW 2 that there was certainly some sort of an occurrence on the alleged date or alleged time or alleged place of occurrence. From the evidence of IO, it transpires that he had investigated both the cases and PW 3 had said that counter case investigated by the IO ended in police report showing it to be non-cognizable. The alleged occurrence is well supported by PW 2 who was accompanied by the informant in his motorcycle. I do not find that the trial Court find any serious discrepancy that could belie the prosecution case regarding the alleged occurrence. 5. The doctor, PW 3, has found two incised injuries: one on the head and the other on the shoulder of the informant. There was one abrasion and one lacerated wound also on other parts of the body of the informant and the injury No. 1 was grievous. Doctor also said in chief itself that abrasion could be caused even by assault with chhura if it was used lightly just touching skin. The accused had brought on record the injury report of Binod Tiwari and it has also been exhibited as Exhibit A. This circumstance also supports his presence at the place of occurrence. Where, perhaps both sides indulged in mutual assault. So alleged occurrence cannot be disbelieved or discarded in view of certain discrepancies or infirmities as pointed by the appellants lawyer in course of hearing. Where, perhaps both sides indulged in mutual assault. So alleged occurrence cannot be disbelieved or discarded in view of certain discrepancies or infirmities as pointed by the appellants lawyer in course of hearing. So I think the findings arrived at by the trial Court does not call for any interference. 6. So far the order of conviction is concerned, I think the trial Court was rather lenient in finding the appellant Raghunath Tiwari guilty for the offence under Section 324, IPC only although he was charged under Section 307, IPC also. However, the trial Court while holding the appellant Binod Tiwari guilty under Sections 324/149, IPC had committed a legal blunder because Binod Tiwari was charged under Section 148, IPC only and he was not clubbed together for the charge under Section 326, IPC and 307, IPC read with Section 149, IPC with Raghunath Tiwari. Even the evidence is to the effect that he had simply pointed out fire- arms upon the informant. So it could not be gathered from the circumstances that there was common object in causing injury upon the informant. So his conviction under Section 324/149, IPC was bad. This part of the order is set aside. However, his conviction under Section 148, IPC it was perfectly justified. His sentence was also proper. 7. So far sentence against Raghunath Tiwari is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year under Section 324 and 148, IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. So maximum period of sentence he will undergo would RI for one year. This sentence does not deserve any reversal or reduction. So sentences passed against him is upheld. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence passed against appellant, Binod Tiwari, as stated above.