JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — Initially ten accused persons were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki in S.T. No.3 of 1994 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and it was directed that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was impugned by the convicts before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 6.9.1996 set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 3 to 10 and acquitted them of all the charges. He, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of present petitioner No.1 Joginath Sahoo under Section 307/34 IPC and convicted him under Section 323/34 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Sessions Judge while acquitting present petitioner No.2 Bidyadhar Sahoo of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, main¬tained his conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and modified his sentence thereunder from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for one year besides a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The present Criminal Revision challenges the said order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners. 2. The criminal proceeding was set in motion on the filing of a complaint case by one Abhiram Sahoo on the allegation that though an FIR was filed by him before the local police station against the accused persons, for reasons best known to police, the FIR was substituted by police and lesser offences were men¬tioned in the substituted FIR for which the complainant was constrained to approach the S.D.J.M., Banki. The said complaint petition was registered as ICC No. 58 of 1992 which was subse¬quently converted into Sessions Trial No.3 of 1994 and was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki. 3. The said complaint petition was registered as ICC No. 58 of 1992 which was subse¬quently converted into Sessions Trial No.3 of 1994 and was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki. 3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the short facts alleged in the complaint of Abhiram Sahoo P.W.4 were that there existed previous disputes between the accused persons and the injured persons, namely, Joginath Sahoo P.W.7 and Krushna Chandra Sahoo P.W.8 regarding modulating drainage of water to their respective lands. On 6th of August, 1992 at about 4 p.m., the accused per¬sons being armed with Lathis, Farsas and other weapons had waited in ambush near the western side intersection of village Panikora¬da for assaulting and killing Joginath Sahoo and Krushna Chandra Sahoo as also other members of their family. It was alleged that both the injured persons were intercepted when they were return¬ing from their paddy field and were attacked by the accused per¬sons. Hearing the commotion, the complainant who happens to be the son of one of the injured arrived at the spot along with others and saw accused Bidyadhar Sahoo dealing a blow with a Farsa on the head of Krushna Chandra Sahoo as a result of which the latter fell down on the ground and became unconscious. At the same time, accused Joginath Sahoo was alleged to have dealt a Lathi blow on the right hand of the complainant’s father causing a fracture injury. Thereafter all the accused persons jointly dealt kicks and fist blow on Krushna Chandra Sahoo and Joginath Sahoo. On the day following the occurrence, the complainant lodged a written report at the Baidyeswar Police Station, but the police being gained over by the accused persons suppressed the said FIR and replaced the same by a fabricated one. The learned S.D.J.M. after holding an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC commit¬ted the accused persons to the Court of session. 4. During trial, to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, of whom P.Ws 1 to 5 were alleged to be the eye-witnesses; P.Ws 7 and 8 were the alleged injured persons; P.W.6 was the Medical Officer of Kantapada P.H.C. who examined the injured persons immediately after the occurrence; P.W.9 was the doctor of Khurda Hospital who had examined injured Joginath sahoo; and P.W.10 was the Professor of Neuro Surgery of S.C.B. Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack who had examined injured Krushna Chandra Sahoo. 5. 5. The plea of defence was total denial. In support of its plea, the defence examined four witnesses, of whom D.W.1 was the O.I.C. of Baidyeswar P.S., D.W.2 was the Handwriting Expert while D.Ws 3 and 4 were the local witnesses. 6. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the accused persons and accordingly finding them guilty convicted and sentenced them as stated earlier. On appeal, the appellate Courts scrutinised the evidence, both oral and documentary, and came to the categorical finding that the FIR alleged to have been lodged by informant Abhiram Sahoo was in fact replaced by another. It was also observed that in course of trial there were exaggerations of the prosecution case by the witnesses and taking advantage of the fact of prior enmity among the parties certain overt acts, like accused Ananda Sahoo and Banamali Sahoo giving direction to the other accused persons to kill the injured persons, were intro¬duced. The prosecution story so far as exaggeration and/or subse¬quent introduction of overt acts was disbelieved by the appellate Court. The appellate Court also held that prosecution had totally failed to establish that all the accused persons had the common intention to kill the injured persons. However, ignoring the minor discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witness¬es, the appellate Court held accused-petitioner Bidyadhar Sahoo guilty of the offence of attempt to commit murder of injured Krushna Chandra Sahoo and convicted and sentenced him under Section 307 IPC. Further, in view of the cognent evidence that accused-petitioner Joginath Sahoo had dealt only one below with a Lathi on injured Joginath Sahoo, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that his conviction under Section 307/34 IPC could not be sustained and convicted and sentenced him under Section 323 IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contended that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The Courts below also lost sight of the fact that due to prior enmity, the case had been falsely foisted against the accused persons. It was also submitted that the Courts below have completely failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by defence. The Courts below also lost sight of the fact that due to prior enmity, the case had been falsely foisted against the accused persons. It was also submitted that the Courts below have completely failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by defence. Last but not the lest, it was also submitted that the Courts below while acquitting eight accused persons out of ten, acted illegally and contrary to the materials on record in convicting the present two petitioners on the basis of the same evidence. Such appreciation, according to the petitioners counsel, was grossly illegal and the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. At the other hand, learned counsel for the State metic¬ulously placed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and relied mostly on the medical evidence to submit that admittedly one of the injured was assaulted with Farsa causing cut injury on his person and the other injured sustained a fracture due to assault with a Lathi. According to him, the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and the appellate Court has rightly convicted petitioner Bidyadhar Sahoo under Section 307 IPC and petitioner Joginath Sahoo under Section 323 IPC and it is a fit case where the order of the appellate Court should not be interfered with by this Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and carefully going through the materials available on record, one of the infirmities in the prosecution case that strikes me at the outset is that the original FIR alleged to have been filed by the complainant was not produced before the Court. There is also variation between the facts narrated in the complaint petition and the overt acts attributed to different accused persons vis-a-vis the FIR, which throws a cloud of suspicion gives me an im¬pression that there was development of the prosecution story subsequently. Previous enmity between the parties is admitted. It always appears that there is an incurable tendency in the fac¬tionists to rope in the innocent persons of the opposite faction along with the guilty and to twist and manipulate the facts in regard to the manner of occurrence, so as to make their case appear true so far as innocent members of the opposite faction are concerned. But then, it cannot be assumed that interested witnesses are necessarily false witnesses. But then, it cannot be assumed that interested witnesses are necessarily false witnesses. The evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to close scrutiny and the Court must assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate the reasons for accepting or rejecting it, and no evidence should be at once discarded simply because it came from the interested party (see Chandramohan Tewari case, AIR 1992 SC 891 ). 10. Examining the oral evidence, keeping in mind the dictum set forth in the preceding paragraph, I find that the statements of P.Ws 1 to 7 who claimed to be the eye-witnesses to accused Banamali and Ananda instigating the other accused persons to kill the injured persons are not corroborated from the facts stated or narrations made in the FIR as well as the complaint petition. The statement that all the accused persons trampled over the injured persons who were lying on the ground senseless and dealt kicks and fist blows on them is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. Needless to say, no corresponding injury was found by the doctor who examined the injured persons on the same day within a few hours. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.6, the medical officer who was then attached to Kantapada P.H.C. and had examined the injured persons at the first instance that only one lacerated bleeding injury was found on injured Joginath Sahoo over his right middle arm. Injured Joginath Sahoo was aged seven¬ty three years. Thus the testimony of the eye-witnesses that injured Joginath Sahoo was trampled over by the ten accused persons besides being given kicks and severe fist blows cannot be accepted and must be held to be exageration. 11. A scrutiny of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses also reveals some discrepancies as to the manner in which the assault was made. The prosecution has totally failed to substantiate that the accused persons had the common intention to kill the two injured persons and the materials on record give a feeling that in fact they wanted to chastise the injured persons with whom they had previous enmity regarding drainage of water to their respective fields. Admittedly the evidence of the doctors and the injury report Ext.6/1 reveals that injured Krushna Chan¬dra Sahoo had suffered a simple incised injury measuring 5" x 1/2" x 5" which was opined to have been caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. Admittedly the evidence of the doctors and the injury report Ext.6/1 reveals that injured Krushna Chan¬dra Sahoo had suffered a simple incised injury measuring 5" x 1/2" x 5" which was opined to have been caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. Injured Joginath Sahoo had also suffered a lacerated injury on his right arm. The injured persons remained in hospital from 10.8.1992 to 16.8.1992. Considering the facts and circum¬stances of the case and the further fact that petitioner Bidyad¬har Sahoo had dealt one blow with a Farsa on Krushna Chandra Sahoo causing a simple injury on him, I have no hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that Bidyadhar Sahoo could not have any intention to kill Krushna Chandra Sahoo. As such, the conviction and sentence of petitioner Bidyadhar Sahoo under Section 307 IPC are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 326 IPC. However, the conviction of petitioner Joginath Sahoo under Sec¬tion 323 IPC is sustained. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1992 and more than ten years have clapsed in the meantime, I modify the sentences of the petitioners and sentence petitioner Bidyadhar Sahoo to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 (five thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred) shall be paid to injured Krushna Chandra Sahoo, P.W.8. I sentence petitioner Joginath Sahoo to pay a fine of Rs.2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.2,000.00 (two thousand) shall be paid to in¬jured Joginath Sahoo, P.W.7. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Cri. Revision allowed.