Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. A police case was registered at Gaighat Police Station on behest of Radha Choudhary (PW 8) alleging therein that at about 7 a.m. on 6th August. 1982, when his son Bimal Choudhary (PW 7) was coming from the house of labourer, namely, Rameshwar Das, he was intercepted by the appellants and one Mahendra Choudhary when, on exhortion, Mahendra Choudhary dealt blows with sharp edged weapon on his back, waist, right arms and right shoulder when he dropped injured. The accusation attributed to Nagendra Choudhary was that he too dealt blows with farsa on head and below ear of Bimal Choudhary. The accusation attributed to Sitaram Choudhary was that he dealt blows with farsa on neck and right side of head of Bimal Choudhary. Other accusations were that when Nand Kishore Choudhary came for rescue of Bimal Choudhary, he too suffered injuries at the hands of Mahendra Choudhary who dealt blows with sharp edged weapon on right side of his shoulder. The injured was carried to the Primary Health Centre for treatment, and on these statements rendered by Radha Choudhary. first information report was drawn up at Gaighat Police Station and investigation commenced. 2. In course of collection of evidence during investigation, Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence. seized blood stained earth, witnessed marks of violence in the field, found the plants trampled, seized incriminating objects from the house of the appellants which was said to be the instruments by which Bimal Choudhary and Nand Kishore Choudhary suffered injuries on their persons. got the injured clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. On committal of the appellants to the Court of Session, they were put on trial. It seems that the Police laid charge sheet against Mahendra Choudhary also along with the appellants, but, as he was absconding, he was not put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses and those examined by the State include two injured, father of Bimal Choudhary and those who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence. The State also examined Dr. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses and those examined by the State include two injured, father of Bimal Choudhary and those who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the occurrence. The State also examined Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 6) who examined both the injured at Primary Health Centre, Gaighat, on 6th August, 1982 and it seems that after the injured were referred to S.K. Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur, they were treated there, for which the State examined Dr. Jaleshwar Prasad. The State also examined Ram Jiwan Singh Investigating Officer, (PW 9). 3. Defence of the appellants before this Court as also the trial Court had been total denial of allegations attributed to them and they ascribed false implication. Explicit defence of the appellants at trial had been that while Bimal Choudhary made abortive bid to commit rape on a woman in a patua field, he was apprehended and suffered injuries at the hands of the villagers and after Nand Kishore Choudhary came for his rescue, he too suffered injuries at the hands of the villagers. The trial court on appreciation of evidences placed on record, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, though did not record finding of guilt under Section 307/34 IPC, found them guilty under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months which is being challenged in this appeal. 4. Adverting to the evidences placed on record, one would find Radha Choudhary (PW 8) reiterating his early version which he rendered before the Police to set it in motion. about Bimal Choudhary sustaining injuries on his person at the hands of the appellants and one Mahendra Choudhary while coming from the house of his labourer. He would also reiterate accusations attributed to Mahendra Choudhary about assaulting Nand Kishore Choudhary (PW 5). The details of injuries suffered by the victims have been stated in extenso by the witnesses. The evidence of Nand Kishore Choudhary (PW 5) was, more or less, in similar terms about he along with Bimal Choudhary sustaining injuries at the hands of the appellants and Mahendra Choudhary. The witness would state before the trial Court that while Bimal Choudhary was being assaulted by Mahendra Choudhary, Nagendra Choudhary and Sitaram Choudhary, when he came for rescue, he too sustained injuries at the hands of Mahendra Choudhary with sharp edged weapon. The witness would state before the trial Court that while Bimal Choudhary was being assaulted by Mahendra Choudhary, Nagendra Choudhary and Sitaram Choudhary, when he came for rescue, he too sustained injuries at the hands of Mahendra Choudhary with sharp edged weapon. Evidences of Upendra Narain Choudhary (PW 1), Nunu Prasad Singh (PW 2), Kameshwar Prasad Singh (PW 3), Abdul Gani (PW 4), and Bimal Prasad Choudhary (PW 7) were in similar terms about the two victims sustaining injuries on their persons at the hands of the appellants and Mahendra Choudhary. 5. Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 6) stated to have examined Bimal Prasad Choudhary on 6.8.1982 while he was posted as Medical Officer, Public Health Centre at Gaighat. The doctor stated to have noticed multiple incised wounds on different parts of his person which were caused by sharp edged weapon. Some of the injuries noticed by the doctor were also dangerous to life and grievous. 6. Dr. Jaleshwar Prasad (PW 11) stated that on 6.8.1982, while he was posted as Registrar, Surgery Department in S.K. Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur, two persons namely, Bimal Prasad Choudhary and Nand Kishore Choudhary were forwarded to him from Primary Health Centre, Gaighat, for further treatment bearing Registration No. 3267 dated 6th August, 1982. He stated to have examined both the injured and noticed stitched wound on various parts of their persons. The doctor also brought on record beu- head tickets of the injured which was Exhibit 8 series. The prosecution also examined one Chandra Shekhar Singh (PW 10), who brought on record two entries bearing nos. 6237 and 6238 in the out-door register of Primary Health Centre in respect of both the injured recorded on 6.8.1982, ostensibly, to show admission of these two injured in the Primary Health Centre on 6.8.1S82. Ramjiwan Singh (PW 9) stated to have proceeded to Gaighat Hospital on 6.8.1982 on receipt of O.D. slip when he noticed Bimal Prasad Choudhary and Nand Kishore Choudhary injured. He stated to have recprded statement of Radha Choudhary, as the two injured were not able to render their statements due to injuries sustained by them. He stated to have issued injury reports in respect of both the injured and arranged for their examination and treatment in S.K. Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He stated to have recprded statement of Radha Choudhary, as the two injured were not able to render their statements due to injuries sustained by them. He stated to have issued injury reports in respect of both the injured and arranged for their examination and treatment in S.K. Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He stated to have visited place of occurrence, which was a kachcha road in village Gaighat which was adjacent north of the house of the appellants. He noticed trail of blood from the road to Patua field, and also plants in the field were trampled with stains of blood. There was copious blood at the place of occurrence. He stated to have seized blood stained earth blood stained plants and also blood stained wearing apparel of the injured. The witness would state to have seized blood stained weapons from the houses of the appellants. Though attempts were taken for apprehension of the appellants but they were found absconding and it was only on 15.9.1982 that Nagendra Choudhary was apprehended and eventually on conclusion of investigation, he stated to have submitted chargesheet before the Court. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 7. Manifold submissions were canvassed on behalf of the appellants and it is sought to be urged that though PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 were claiming to be ocular witnesses before the trial Court, from the tenor of their evidences, it would seem that not only that, they were chance witnesses, but also possibility of witnessing the occurrence by them was extremely remote. Contentions were raised that as evidences of the witnesses were discrepant also about the place of occurrence, the prosecution was also guilty of introducing distorted version about the place of occurrence and hence credibility of the prosecution case has to be discarded on this score alone. The next submission canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellants was that though Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 6) stated to have examined the injured on 6.8.1982, from the injury report which was placed on record, it would seem that injury report was issued by the doctor on 7.9.1982 and though a good deal of questions were put to the doctor about there being such discrepancy, no satisfactory explanation was placed on record. Umesh Sharma (PW 6) stated to have examined the injured on 6.8.1982, from the injury report which was placed on record, it would seem that injury report was issued by the doctor on 7.9.1982 and though a good deal of questions were put to the doctor about there being such discrepancy, no satisfactory explanation was placed on record. In quick succession, it is urged that O.D. register of Primary Health Centre too was brought on record obviously to show examination of the injured on 6.8.1982 but that too would not come to rescue of the State for the simple reason that details of the injuries were not recorded in the register and last submission canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellants was that since genesis of the incident was land dispute persisting between the parties, as was the admission of Radha Choudhary (PW 8) and appellants have suffered agony of criminal trial for about 19 years, a lenient view be taken by the Court of law while awarding sentence to them. Learned counsel for the State would resist the submissions mode on behalf of the appellants. 8. The accusations attributed to the appellants about Bimal Prasad Choudhary (PW 7) and Nand Kishore Choudhary (PW 5) about sustaining injuries on their persons finds all corroboration from the evidences of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 6), who recorded positive finding about presence of multiple injuries on the person of the injured, had afforded ample corroboration to the testimonies of Nand Kishore Prasad (PW 5) and Bimal Kumar Choudhary (PW 7). Since PWs 5 and 7 were injured and happened to be stamped witnesses, there was no good reason to discard their evidences and in similar fashion, the testimony of those, who claimed to be ocular witnesses, cannot be discarded, their evidences being quite good on material particulars of the case. Since PWs 5 and 7 were injured and happened to be stamped witnesses, there was no good reason to discard their evidences and in similar fashion, the testimony of those, who claimed to be ocular witnesses, cannot be discarded, their evidences being quite good on material particulars of the case. Though attention of witnesses was also drawn by defence towards early version rendered by them before the Police, ostensibly to impeach their credibility, true it is that they had not been stating before the Police, as has been the evidence of I.O., about Bimal Prasad Choudhary sustaining injuries in Patua field, but consequence of evidences that followed from the tenor of the evidence of these witnesses was that after Bimal Prasad Choudhary sustained injuries at the hands of Mahendra Choudhary at kachcha Road, which was the place of occurrence in terms of the objective finding recorded by the Police Officer, he ran to the field where he dropped to the ground on sustaining injuries at the hands of Nagendra Choudhary and Sitaram Choudhary. Though the Police Officer did not find either blood stains or mark of violence at the kachcha road, he found it near the Place of occurrence notwithstanding presence of trampled plants in the field, where Bimal Prasad choudhary was suggested to have proceeded and dropped to the ground. 9. Though much stress was laid on the discrepancy about issuance of injury reports and also claim of the doctor about examination of the injured on 6.8.1982. it seems from the out- door register of Primary Health Centre, Gaighat, that shortly after being referred by the Police Officer. these two injured were admitted on 6.8.1982 and it is only after primary treatment that they were forwarded to S.K. Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur, where they were examined by Dr. Jaleshwar Prasad (PW 11) which would unerringly suggest that these two injured were referred to him on 6.8.1982 and in the backdrop of these evidences placed on record. which unerringly suggests examination of injured on 6.8.1982 by Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 6), entire evidence cannot be discarded only on the premises that the doctor had put 7.9.1982 as the date on the injury reports. 10. It is brought to my notice by the learned counscl for the appellants that they have suffered custody for more than four months both as under-trial prisoner and also during post conviction period. Umesh Sharma (PW 6), entire evidence cannot be discarded only on the premises that the doctor had put 7.9.1982 as the date on the injury reports. 10. It is brought to my notice by the learned counscl for the appellants that they have suffered custody for more than four months both as under-trial prisoner and also during post conviction period. The incident took place on 6.8.1982 and since then much water has flown in the Ganges. The appellants have suffered agony of criminal trial for about 19 years and one mitigating factor that the appellants have suffered custody for more than four months out of six months to which they were sentenced, cannot be lost sight of. In that view of the matter, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and with these modification in the sentence, there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.