Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellants, namely, Raja Ram Yadav and Radhey Yadav have been convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Appellant, Rama Yadav, has been convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant, Beyas Yadav, has been convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.6.1981 at about 3 P.M. informant alongwith co-villagers Sheopujan Pandey, Ram Pravesh Pandey, Laldeo Pandey, Sarva Pandey, Ajhat Pandey and others had gone to the field of Sheopujan Pandey where paddy seeding was transplanted. It has been alleged that this land was purchased from Rewati Raman Yadav some five years ago and since then the land had been coming in possession of Sheopujan Pandey. On 25.6.1981 when Sheopujan Pandey went to plough his field then Rajaram Yadav and others had protested, it has been further stated that Rewati Yadav happens to be the uncle of appellant Rajaram Yadav and others. The informant had gone there to persue them as to why they were doing such an act when the land actually belongs to Sheopujan Pandey. When they were talking about ploughing, Rajaram Yadav, Radhey Yadav, Raman Yadav and Beyas Yadav of Chetaria Bigha came there and abused the informant. Rajaram Yadav attacked with Garasa on his head and he wants to kill him because he used to hold Panchayati. It has been further alleged that Radhey Yadav inflicted Bhala below on the right leg of the informant. Raman Yadav assaulted with Lathi on wrist of the left hand and Beyas Yadav assaulted the informant with lathi on his right shoulder. The informant fell down as a result of assault and thereafter the appellants fled away. The informant was brought to Daudnagar Hospital at the residence of medical officer incharge on a cot, where he was treated and his fardbeyan was recorded. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan an F.l.R. was drawn up. After completion of invesigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan an F.l.R. was drawn up. After completion of invesigations the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Ram Pravesh Pandey. He is the informant of this case. PW. 2 is Ganesh Rai. P.W. 3 is Sheo Pujan Pandey. PW. 4 is Achat Pandey. P.W. 5 is Laldeo Pandey. PW. 6 is Haribansh Pandey injured. PW. 7 is Jagarnath Rai. P.W. 8 is Ram Layak Singh. P.W. 9 is Dr. Mihir Kumar Singh. P.W. 10 is Bimal Singh I.O. of this case. 5. P.W. 1, the informant has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 3 P.M. when he has gone to his land alongwith Harbansh Pandey {P.W. 6) and others some of the villagers were also there. He has further stated that he had gone for hoiding a Panchayati against appellant Rajaram Yadav and others. He has further stated that at that place Rajaram Yadav, Radhey Yadav, Raman Yadav and Beyas Yadav reached. Rajaram Yadav was armed with Garasa, Radhey Yadav had a Bhala and two others were armed with lathi. According to him P.W. 6 Harbansh Pandey persuaded Rajaram Yadav in the meantime Rajaram Yadav asked others to assault Harbansh Pandey saying that he always holds Panchayati. According to him appellant Rajaram Yadav assaulted Harbansh Pandey with Garasa, Rahey Yadav assaulted with lathi with the intention to kill him. He has further stated that he went to save him but he was assaulted thrice with lathi by Raman Yadav. According to him Harbansh Pandey fell down and accused persons thought him to be dead and fled away. Thereafter he was brought on a cot to Daudnagar Hospital but the Doctor was not available in hospital so he was taken to the residence of doctor where he was treated. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have also supported the version of the informant (P.W. 1) and also supported the assault on P.W. 6 and P.W. 1 (informant). 6. P.W. 8 is a formal witness, He has taken the x-ray of two injured. 7. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have also supported the version of the informant (P.W. 1) and also supported the assault on P.W. 6 and P.W. 1 (informant). 6. P.W. 8 is a formal witness, He has taken the x-ray of two injured. 7. P.W. 9 is a Doctor who has examined the injured. He has examined Ram Pravesh Pandey on 26.6.1981 at 7.40 A.M. and found the foilowing injuries on his person (i) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on little finger of left hand. (ii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on left ring finger. (iii) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/2" on left middle finger. (iv) Swelling 3" x 2" on left side of hand. (v) Contusion 3" on the right scapula. (vi) Contusion 2r x 1" on right side of back. According to him the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi within 24 hours. 8 On the same day he examined Harbansh Pandey and found the following injuries on his person : (i) incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the joint of head in middle portion. (ii) Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x scalp deep above one inch from injury no. (i). (iii) Swelling 6" x 3" on dorsom of left hand and wrist. (iv) Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on left lower portion of right leg. (v) Contusion 6" x 3" on right shoulder. (vi) Contusion and swelling 6" x 3" in right part. According to him injury no. (iii) was in such ondition about which he could not give his nion and reserved his opinion. According him injury nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) have been caused by a sharp cutting weapons such as Garasa and rest other injuries have been (Used by hard and blunt substance. 9. P.W. 10, 1.0. of this case has stated tat he visited the place of occurrence but he did not find any blood stain on the place of occurrence. He recorded the fardbeyan of the injured and also recorded the statement of the other witnesses. He has inspected the place of occurrence and has pen the vivid description of the place of occurrence. 10. Learned counsel appearing on be-half of the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses are interested and there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. 11. He has inspected the place of occurrence and has pen the vivid description of the place of occurrence. 10. Learned counsel appearing on be-half of the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses are interested and there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. 11. So far as interested witnesses are concerned there is no hard and fast rule that the prosecution case should be out rightly discarded on this ground rather to evidences should be examined more carefully and cautiously. In this case the testimony of witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 6 are trust inspiring and has been supported and corroborated by the Dr. {P.W. 8). So far the contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are concerned those are very minor and are bound to be occurred. 12. On the appreciation of the evi- (dence of the witnesses the court below came to the conclusion that the appellants assaulted the informant (P.W. 1) and Harbansh Pandey (P.W. 6) with Bhala, Garasa and Lathi. The doctor also found the grievous injuries on the person of the rinjured Harbansh Pandey which was in- flicted by the appellant, Radhey Yadav and as been rightly convicted for the of fence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penai Code having voluntarily causing grievous injury on the person of the injured (P.W. 6). The other appellant have been rightly convicted under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 13. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1981 and since then the appellants have been amply punished and harassed during this prolonged litigation. He has further submitted that the appellants and informant are close agnates and there was no intention to kill the informant and injured (P.W, 6). He has further submitted that during the occurrence the appellants were also assaulted by the informant, therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them. 14. He has further submitted that the appellants and informant are close agnates and there was no intention to kill the informant and injured (P.W, 6). He has further submitted that during the occurrence the appellants were also assaulted by the informant, therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them. 14. Having regard to the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the appellants had gone through mental strain and financial crisis lasting for more than two decades now it will not be proper to send the appellants again in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. In my view it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the appellant no. 4, Radhey Yadav is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- and appellants, Rajaram Yadav, Raman Yadav are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and appellant, Beyas Yadav is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- to be deposited by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In default appellant, Radhey Yadav, shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, appellants, Rajaram Yadav, Raman Yadav shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and appellant, Beyas Yadav, shall have to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is made clear that the amount of fine, if and when realised by these appellants the same shall be equally distributed to both the injured, Ram Pravesh Pandey (P.W. 1) and Harbansh Pandey (P.W. 6). 15. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.