K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal no. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Srikakulam confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the judicial I-Class Magistrate, Srikakulam in c. C. No. 53 of 1994 wherein A-l to A-8 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each. Further, A-l was convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to p. Ws. 1 and 2 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to suffer 15 days Simple Imprisonment, A-4 was convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to suffer 15 days Simple Imprisonment and a-5 was convicted for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to suffer 15 days simple Imprisonment. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam found a-6 to A-8 not guilty for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal, in the first appellate Court, A-5 died and therefore, the case against A-5 is abated. ( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal (Revision) may be stated as follows: on 2-8-94 at 8. 00 a. m. while P. W. 1 was present at the house, A-l with his family members was digging foundations in the disputed site. When P. W. 1 questioned the high-handed behaviour of the accused, all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like crowbars and sticks and attacked prosecution witnesses. It is further case of the prosecution that A-1 beat P. W. 1 with a crowbar on his right leg, as a result, he fell down. Thereafter, a-1 beat P. W. 2 with the same crowbar on the right side of his head. It is further case of the prosecution that A-1 beat P. W. 1 with a crowbar on his right leg, as a result, he fell down. Thereafter, a-1 beat P. W. 2 with the same crowbar on the right side of his head. When P. W. 3 intervened, A-3 beat her with boriga on the left hand wrist and A-4 beat her with a stick on right forearm. In the meanwhile, P. W. 4 intervened and he was also beaten. Thereafter, all the injured witnesses went to the Burja Police Station and lodged Ex. P-1 report at about 12. 00 noon on 2-8-94. P. W. 11 registered it in Crime No. 26 of 1994 under sections 323 and 324 read with 34 of the indian Penal Code. He sent P. Ws. 1 to 4 to government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and observed the same. He prepared Ex. P-12 - Rough Sketch. P. W. 9 is the doctor who examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 found certain injuries. P. W. 12 examined P. Ws. 5 to 7, visited the Government Hospital on 4-8-94 and seized blood stained clothes. He arrested the accused and sent them to the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) TO substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 12 documents. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Magistrate having accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7, came to the conclusion that all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to P. Ws. 1 to 4 and therefore, all the accused were found guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 was found guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code, A-4 was found guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as supra. It is as against on the said conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, srikakulam. The conviction and sentence recorded against A-6 to A-8 was set aside and the conviction and sentence of A-1 to a-4 was confirmed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Srikakulam. It is as against on the said conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, srikakulam. The conviction and sentence recorded against A-6 to A-8 was set aside and the conviction and sentence of A-1 to a-4 was confirmed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Srikakulam. It is as against the said conviction and sentence of A-l to a-4, they preferred the present appeal (Revision) questioning the legality and correctness thereof. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the incident in question took place in a busy locality where several independent witnesses witnessed the incident but except P. Ws. 1 to 7 no independent witness is examined, that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7 is with full of discrepancies, that the police did not seize any weapons of offence so as to arrive at a conclusion that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and that the police did not observe the scene of occurrence to know the actual place of incident and the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. Therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the two Courts have believed the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7 and therefore, there is no other reason to deviate from the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and that out of seven witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were the injured witnesses and their presence at the time of incident cannot be doubted and out of four injured witnesses, P. W s. 1 to 3 sustained grevious injuries and immediately after the incident, they were examined by the doctor and it is not the case of self-infliction of injuries by the witnesses and after considering the evidence on record, the learned appellate Judge found the appellants herein guilty for the charges levelled against them and there were no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded against them. ( 7 ) THE incident in question took place on 2-8-94 to 8. 00 a. m. when the first accused along with his family members was digging the foundation in the disputed site. P. W. 1 questioned the same. ( 7 ) THE incident in question took place on 2-8-94 to 8. 00 a. m. when the first accused along with his family members was digging the foundation in the disputed site. P. W. 1 questioned the same. Then, all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, attacked P. Ws. 1 to 4 and caused injuries, P. W. 9 is the doctor who examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 on 2-8-94 found the injuries. P. W. 1 sustained the following injuries: (1) lacerated injury 3 x 2" bone deep over the lower l/3rd of the right leg. (2) Contusion 3 x 3" over the middle of right forearm. (3) Contusion of 3" x 2" over the lower l/3rd of left Forearm. He opined that the injury No. 3 is grevious in nature. Ex. P-3 is the wound Certificate. On the same day, at about 12. 45 p. m. he examined p. W. 2 and found the following injuries: (1) Contusion 3x3" over the upper 1 /3rd of right leg. (2) Contusion 3 x 2" over lower l/3rd of left forearm. (3) Lacerated injury of 3 x 2" bone deep over left parietal bone. (4) Contusion 3x1" over the left upper part of right scapula. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex. P-4 - Wound Certificate. He examined P. W. 3 at 1. 00 p. m. and found the following injuries: (1) Contusion of 2" x 1" over the right wrist. (2) Contusion of 2" x 2" over the back of left palm. (3) X-ray of right fore arm shows fracture of lower end of radius. He opined that the injury No. 1 is grevious and injury No. 2 is simple in nature. He issued Ex. P-5 - Wound Certificate. On the same day, at about 1. 05 p. m. he examined p. W. 4 and found one contusion over the left arm which is simple in nature and Ex. P-6 is the Wound Certificate. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the injury nos. 2 and 3 in Ex. P-3 may be possible due to fall from a tree and the injury Nos. 1 and 2 in ex. P-4 may be possible by a fall from bicycle and the injury mentioned in Ex. P-6 may be possible by a fall on hard object. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the injury nos. 2 and 3 in Ex. P-3 may be possible due to fall from a tree and the injury Nos. 1 and 2 in ex. P-4 may be possible by a fall from bicycle and the injury mentioned in Ex. P-6 may be possible by a fall on hard object. Nothing has been elicited in the evidence of P. W. 9 to discredit his testimony, in so far as sustaining of injuries by P. Ws. 1 to 4. So, from the evidence of P. W. 9 and Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-6, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that P. Ws. 1 to 4, sustained injuries whereas p. Ws. 1 and 3 sustained grevious injuries. ( 8 ) P. W. 10 is the Radiologist. Ex. P-8 is the report relating to P. W. 1 and Ex. P-9 is the report relating to P. W. 3. As seen from these two reports, it is clear that P. Ws. 1 and 3 sustained fractures. ( 9 ) NOW, it has to be seen whether those injuries were caused by the accused or not. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 who are the injured witnesses would go to show about taking place of incident. It is not suggested to them that they have received the injuries at the hands of some others or that they sustained the injuries at some other place and in some other manner. In the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4, it is clear that all the accused were present at the vacant site in front of the house of P. W. 1 and started digging pits in the vacant site. When the prosecution witnesses objected for the digging of pits for foundation, the incident has started and they were beaten with sticks and crowbar. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 would clearly reveal that A-1 beat them with a crowbar. Nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony in so far as A-1 beating them. The same is consistent with the recitals in Ex. P-1, which is lodged within three or four hours after the incident. P. W. 3 stated that A-4 beat her with stick on her right hand wrist. According to the medical evidence, there was a fracture. P. Ws. 1 to 4 are closely related whereas P. Ws. The same is consistent with the recitals in Ex. P-1, which is lodged within three or four hours after the incident. P. W. 3 stated that A-4 beat her with stick on her right hand wrist. According to the medical evidence, there was a fracture. P. Ws. 1 to 4 are closely related whereas P. Ws. 5 to 7 were the caste people of p. Ws. 1 to 4. Admittedly, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The prosecution need not multiply the examination of witnesses one after another. If the independent witnesses were deliberately withheld by the prosecution, then it can be a ground to suspect the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is not suggested to P. Ws. 11 and 12 who are the investigating officers in this case that they have withheld the examination of independent eyewitnesses. It is not the case of the accused that besides P. Ws. 1 to 7 some more witnesses also witnessed the incident. Under these circumstances, non-examination of independent witnesses by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that P. Ws. 1 to 4 were the injured witnesses and their presence at the scene of occurrence is not denied and disputed in the cross- examination so also, sustaining of injuries by these witnesses and some of them with grevious injuries is also not denied and disputed in the cross-examination. Further, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is found to be in corroboration with the evidence of P. Ws. 5 to 7. P. W. 5 categorically stated that at the time of incident, except himself, P. Ws. 6 and 7 and the injured witnesses, no others were present. He is the cousin brother of P. W. 1. Relationship by itself is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence especially when his presence at the scene of occurrence is not denied and disputed in the cross- examination. It is not suggested to him that he was not present at the time of incident. Coming to the evidence of P. W. 6, she also speaks about the presence of all the accused and also A-1 beating P. W. 2 with a crowbar and A-4 beating P. W. 3 with stick. Except suggesting that she is relating to P. W. 1, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. P. W. 7 is another eyewitness. Coming to the evidence of P. W. 6, she also speaks about the presence of all the accused and also A-1 beating P. W. 2 with a crowbar and A-4 beating P. W. 3 with stick. Except suggesting that she is relating to P. W. 1, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. P. W. 7 is another eyewitness. His evidence cannotbe believed because he went to the scene of occurrence after all the injured sustained injuries. P. W. 8 is the mediator or seizure of blood stained clothes and Ex. P-3 report. So, the consistent evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 is very clear that all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons. Their evidence is also very clear that A-1 voluntarily caused hurt to p. Ws. 1 and 2 whereas A-4 voluntarily caused grevious hurt to P. Ws. 1 and 2 whereas A-4 voluntarily caused grevious hurt to P. W. 3. However, the learned Additional Sessions judge disbelieved the presence of A-6 to a-8 at the scene of occurrence and therefore, they were acquitted for the offence of rioting by giving them benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, the learned Additional sessions Judge has given a benefit of doubt to A-6 to A-8 because their presence was spoken to by all the witnesses. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered with the conviction and sentence against A-6 to A-8 for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Since no appeal has been filed by the State, it is not desirable for this Court to set aside the finding of the learned Additional Sessions judge in so far as acquitting A-6 to A-8 is concerned. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the contention that no weapons of offence were seized by the police, the learned counsel contended that it is not desirable to conclude that they were armed with deadly weapons so as to convict them under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court is unable to accept the said contention simply because, the police did not seize any weapons of offence after the arrest of the accused is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. The evidence of P. Ws. This Court is unable to accept the said contention simply because, the police did not seize any weapons of offence after the arrest of the accused is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to6 would clearly indicate that A-l was armed with a crowbar which was a deadly weapon and other accused were armed with sticks. Therefore, non- seizure of weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of offence would not by itself is fatal to the case of prosecution. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel has relied upon the decision Ram Singh and others v. State of haryana, in which it is held: 1. 1998 SCC (Crl.) 950. "their version before the Court was that they had heard the noise of cutting of branches of a tree. This improvement made by the witnesses was not without any purpose. No cut branches were noticed at the place of occurrence. There is neither mention of it in the site plan nor any cut wood was seized by the police. Both these infirmities in their evidence create a serious doubt regarding the reason why and the manner in which they had gone to that "bara". " ( 12 ) THE above decision has no application because it is not at all the case of the accused in this case with regard to the taking place of incident in the manner stated by P. Ws. 1 to 6. As a matter of fact, the scene of occurrence is not disputed by the accused at all. Therefore, non-scribing of observation report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. But the evidence of P. W. 11 would clearly go to show that he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared ex. P-12 - Rough Sketch. He might not have prepared observation report for the simple reason that he did not find any incriminating material at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, non-preparing of observation report is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence especially one of the investigating officers prepared rough sketch of, the scene of occurrence. Immediate lodging of First Information report to the police and examination of injured witnesses by the doctor would clearly reveal about taking place of incident at about 8. 00 a. m. on 2-8-94. Therefore, non-preparing of observation report is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence especially one of the investigating officers prepared rough sketch of, the scene of occurrence. Immediate lodging of First Information report to the police and examination of injured witnesses by the doctor would clearly reveal about taking place of incident at about 8. 00 a. m. on 2-8-94. There was no possibility for mistake or false identity with regard to the assailants of P. Ws. 1 to 4 as it was a day time and the incident took place when p. W. 1 and others objected the accused in digging the pits for laying foundation. There was every possibility for these witnesses to correctly identify the accused. If really, p. Ws. 1 to 4 sustained injuries at the hands of some other persons at some other place, certainly they would not have implicated the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. So, both the Courts have appreciated the evidence on record in a right perspective but unfortunately, the learned Additional sessions Judge gave a finding that A-6 to a-8 were not members of an unlawful assembly because on the premise that no specific overt acts attributed against A-6 to a-8. It is well settled that once all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause any injuries or to commit an offence, then it is not necessary for prosecution in causing any injuries to any particular person nor specific overt acts against each of them. ( 13 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty but on re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions judge found A-1 to A-4 guilty of the offences under Sections 148,324 and 325 of the Indian penal Code. The findings recorded by the courts below are not perverse so as to interfere with the same by this Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the appellants herein. ( 14 ) WITH regard to the sentence, the incident took place in the year 1994. More than nine years have elapsed. The genesis of the occurrence is with regard to the disputed site where the accused tried to dig pits for laying foundation. Though the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, they have not caused any serious injuries on the vital parts of the bodies of P. Ws. More than nine years have elapsed. The genesis of the occurrence is with regard to the disputed site where the accused tried to dig pits for laying foundation. Though the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, they have not caused any serious injuries on the vital parts of the bodies of P. Ws. 1 to 4. Even the fractures sustained to P. Ws. 1 and 3 were on the hands but not on the Vital parts of the body. Considering these aspects, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. ( 15 ) IN the result, the conviction of the appellants - accused herein under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against A-l and under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against a-4 is confirmed but the sentences are modified as under: the appellants 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo three months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 148 IPC, A-l is Sentenced to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and A-4 is sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325 IPC. ( 16 ) TO the extent indicated above with regard to reducing the sentences of imprisonment, the revision is partly allowed.