Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. The appellants suffered conviction under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and while for the first count, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 15 days, for the second count, for a term of three months each, with rider that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrixIt was alleged by Baban Ram (PW 1) in his written complaint submitted before the Police, that in the evening of 7th December, 1987, while he was coming with bundle of paddy, he was intercepted by appellants, near a banyan tree, who assaulted him. It was alleged that they took him to their field and dealt blows there also. However, he was rescued by Salik Singh. After a police case was instituted, as usual, investigation followed, in course of which Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, got injured clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined five witnesses who are injured, his family members, doctor and also the Police Officer. 3. The defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court has been that of plea of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. However, appellants had chosen to examine defence witness to strengthen their defence and false implication. The trial Court on evaluating evidence of prosecution witnesses including that of the doctor who clinically examined the injured, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced appellants in the manner stated above. 4. The brief resume of narrations by witnesses would be essential to appreciate contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version, Baban Ram PW 1, stated to have received assault by appellants, when he was carrying paddy bundle, and it was only on intervention of Salik Singh that he was rescued. He stated to have taken recourse to public authority for launching prosecution against appellants, by filing a written complaint before the Police Officer. Narrations in similar terms were made also by Atiranjya Devi, PW 2, the wife of the injured, who stated to have witnessed assault on Baban Ram by appellants when he was carrying bundle of paddy. Dr. Ram Ashish Singh, PW 3, who clinically examined the injured stated to have noticed swellings and abrasions on his person caused by hard and blunt substance. Dr. Ram Ashish Singh, PW 3, who clinically examined the injured stated to have noticed swellings and abrasions on his person caused by hard and blunt substance. Ram Naresh Singh, PW 5, stated to have carried out investigation, pursuant to receipt of written complaint by Baban Ram Chamar. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that if earliest version of Baban Ram, which is also the sheet anchor of the prosecution case, was to be given any credence, that altogether excludes presence of wife and son, during incident, and in view of omission of their names in the written report of Baban Ram, presence of these two witnesses had to be excluded from consideration. My attention has also been drawn to narration made by Ramchandra Ram, PW 4, whom this witness had stated that neither preceding the incident nor after incident, there was any one to witness assault. However, considering the narrations made by the wife and son of the informant which do not appear to have suffered blemishes, I do not find good reason to discredit their testimony simply for omission of their names in the First Information Report and also the statement made by son in his evidence, particularly in view of positive finding of doctor who had noticed corresponding injury on the person of the injured. 6. The last submission that has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that the prosecution was launched against appellants in the year 1987 and since then about 16 years had elapsed, and appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for such a long period, and that too for petty offences. 7. In the circumstances, regard being had to the evidences placed on the record, while finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court is up held, considering that the appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for 16 years, instead of substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court, appellants are sentenced to fine and it is directed that while for the first count, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- each, for the second count, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in case of default, they would suffer imprisonment awarded by the Court below. 250/- each, for the second count, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in case of default, they would suffer imprisonment awarded by the Court below. The fine to be deposited with the Court below within two months from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this judgment. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. Appeal dismissed with modification.