Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Among the appellants, Sudama Chaudhary, Mathura Chaudhary, Harilal Chaudhary and Hira Chaudhary suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years each. As for Jawahir Chaudhary, Badri Chaudhary and Chandrama Chaudhary, they suffered conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to same term of imprisonment. All the appellants suffered conviction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and though on second count, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year, for the first count no sentence was awarded to them. Those who suffered on two counts, their sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The essential features of the prosecution which are not in much details, can be discussed with brevity. It was alleged that in the evening of 31st May, 1990, while Babban Chaudhary and his son Parma Chaudhary were returning to their village from village Surwala and were hardly at a distance of 1 k.m. north to their village, the appellants holding arms emerged from a nearby sugarcane field near orchard and encircled them and dealt blows on them. It was alleged that when Babban Chaudhary wanted to escape, Hira Chaudhary dealt a farsa blow in his neck and after he dropped injured, Mathura Chaudhary and Harilal Chaudhary dealt indiscriminate blows with bhala on him. As for complicity of other appellants, it was alleged that when Parma Chaudhary too wanted to escape, Sudama Chaudhary dealt bhala blow in his armpit, and when informant Gopal Chaudhary came for rescue, he too was assaulted by Jawahir Chaudhary, Ashrafi Chaudhary, Badri Chaudhary and Chandrama Chaudhary by hard and blunt substance and also bhala. He is alleged to have sustained injury above the left eye, in armpit, abdomen and also on finger of left hand, when he dropped injured. He is alleged to have sustained injury above the left eye, in armpit, abdomen and also on finger of left hand, when he dropped injured. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Laxman Chaudhary, Ramparti Chaudhary, Bidhya Chaudhary and others, After the Police was set in motion on behest of Gopal Chaudhary who claimed to have witnessed the incident from a nearby field, as usual, investigation followed, in course of which the Police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor, visited place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. At the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses and those examined by the State include the injured, the person who set the law in motion and also those who claimed to have witnessed the incident. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the State are not on material particulars of the incident. 3. The defence of the appellants before the trial Court and this Court had been that of innocence, and they ascribed their false implication. However, the trial Judge on evaluating the probative value of testimony of the witnesses, while negativing the plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. A brief resume of narrations made by the prosecution witnesses can be noticed at threshold to appreciate the contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Gopal Chaudhary (informant), PW 8, would state about assault on Babban Chaudhary by Harilal Chaudhary by means of farsa when former sustained injuries on his neck and also arm. This witness states that when Babban Chaudhary dropped injured, Harilal Chaudhary and Hira Chaudhary too assaulted him with bhala in the abdominal region. As for complicity of Sudama Chaudhary evidence of this witness is that he assaulted Parma Chaudhary in abdominal region with bhala and as for himself he stated to have been assaulted by Mathura Chaudhary and Sudama Chaudhary. Narrations were made by Rampati Chaudhary, PW 1. Laxman Chaudhary, PW 2, Vidhya Chaudhary, PW 3, Parma Chaudhary, PW 4 and Babban Chaudhary, PW 5 about receipt of injuries by Babban Chaudhary Parma Chaudhary and Gopal Chaudhary and I may refer to their evidences with brevity. Narrations were made by Rampati Chaudhary, PW 1. Laxman Chaudhary, PW 2, Vidhya Chaudhary, PW 3, Parma Chaudhary, PW 4 and Babban Chaudhary, PW 5 about receipt of injuries by Babban Chaudhary Parma Chaudhary and Gopal Chaudhary and I may refer to their evidences with brevity. Narrations almost in similar terms and veins about Hira Chaudhary assaulting Babban Chaudhary on the neck and arms, were made by Rampati Chaudhary, PW 1, Laxman Chaudhary, PW 2, Vidhya Chaudhary, PW 3, Parma Chaudhary, PW 4 and Babban Chaudhary, PW 5, and there has been corresponding finding of Dr. Uma Shankar Pandey, PW 6, about presence of incised injuries on right upper arm and on the neck of Babban Chaudhary. The other injured happens to be Parma Chaudhary, of which author of injuries was suggested to be Sudama Chaudhary, and for which narrations with sustained consistency were made by PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 about Sudama Chaudhary assaulting Parma Chaudhary with bhala in his abdominal region and for which there has been corresponding finding of Dr. S.K. Aman, PW 7 who noticed sharp cut wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep over posterior auxiliary line of left chest. 4-A. Though Mathura Chaudhary too was suggested to have dealt blows on Babban Chaudhary in the version of Gopal Chaudhary, PW 8, corroboration on this point was wanting from other witnesses, who were either injured or those who claimed to have witnesses the incident. Though in earliest version, Gopal Chaudhary, PW 8, alleged to have suffered injury at the hands of Jawahir Chaudhary, Ashrafi Chaudhary, Badri Chaudhary and Chandrama Chaudhary, the evidence of witnesses bristles with major contradiction on this point and inconsistency in their evidences had largely surfaced in narrations made by them, for four persons to be the assailants of Gopal Chaudhary. Taking evidence of Gopal Chaudhary, making significant departure from earliest version, he alleges to have sustained injuries at the hands of Mathura Chaudhary and Sudama Chaudhary. Rampati Chaudhary, PW 1 was not explicit in his evidence about assault on Gopal Chaudhary. Taking evidence of Gopal Chaudhary, making significant departure from earliest version, he alleges to have sustained injuries at the hands of Mathura Chaudhary and Sudama Chaudhary. Rampati Chaudhary, PW 1 was not explicit in his evidence about assault on Gopal Chaudhary. As for Laxman Chaudhary, PW 2, while he would saddle on Badri Chaudhary for assaulting Gopal Chaudhary with hard and blunt substance, accusations were attributed to Ashrafi Chaudhary, Chandrama Chaudhary and Jawahir Chaudhary for assaulting Gopal Chaudhary with bhala notwithstanding that in the earliest version of Gopal Chaudhary no explicit accusation about assault by bhala or lathi by an individual appellant had been attributed to them. As for Vidhya Chaudhary, PW 3, his evidence about assault on Gopal Chaudhary is conspicuously wanting. Now adverting to the evidence of Parma Chaudhary, PW 4, though he states about assault on Gopal Chaudhary, name of the assailants was not disclosed by him and similar was the case with evidence of Babban Chaudhary, PW 5 also, who too states about assault on Gopal Chaudhary but he could not notice the assault. On marshalling the evidences available on the record, one cannot help feeling that barring accusation attributed to Hira Chaudhary and Sudama Chaudhary for assault on Babban Chaudhary and Parma Chaudhary respectively, evidence about complicity of other appellants about they too being assailants of the injured, is far from satisfactory. Though Jawahir Chaudhary, Ashrafi Chaudhary, Badri Chaudhary and Chandrama Chaudhary were suggested to be the assailants of Gopal Chaudhary in the earliest version of the informant, as has been noticed, though the evidences available on the record does not involve them in the incident, as assailants and other evidence against them was about encircling the injured shortly they reached near the orchard. 5. Now coming to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, the doctor who clinically examined Babban Chaudhary, though stated to have noticed five injuries, all were simple in nature caused by sharp weapon, except one injury caused by hard and blunt substance. The finding of the doctor about presence of injury on the upper arm and neck was in tune with the narrations made by the witnesses. The finding of the doctor about presence of injury on the upper arm and neck was in tune with the narrations made by the witnesses. As for Parma Chaudhary, other injured, though the doctor stated to have noticed three injuries on his person, while opinion in case of injury No. 1 which was caused by sharp cutting weapon on chest, was reserved, other two injuries caused by hard and blunt substance were simple in nature. Though doctor in his evidence says that injury No. 1 may be dangerous to life, he would acknowledge that it was not so expressly mentioned in the injury report. As for Gopal Chaudhary, other injured, though doctor stated to have noticed four injuries, all were simple in nature and two injuries out of them were caused by sharp edged substance but as has been noticed, that even evidence of injured Gopal Chaudhary was not inconformity with his earliest version about assault on him and similar was the evidence of other witnesses too about assault on him. 6. Three fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants to assail the finding recorded by the Court below. Contentions are raised that if earliest version of Gopal Chaudhary was to be given any credence, occurrence took place near Banswari which was at a distance of 1 k.m. north from the village, the prosecution was guilty of introducing distorted version at trial, as witnesses in chorus manner stated about incident happened near a well, close to the house of Sudama Chaudhary. These contentions were raised before the trial Court also and I find that with good and sturdy reasonings, contentions raised were negatived by the Court below, as witnesses were explicit in their evidence that after they were chased by the assailants they came near the well close to the house of Sudama Chaudhary where they sustained injuries, and in that view of the matter, contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants is bereft of merit. 7. Other limb of argument was that the prosecution case would suffer major set back in view of the fact that fardbeyan of Gopal Chaudhary had not been legally brought on the record, and on this count, I feel that the credibility of prosecution version and also consistent narrations made by the witnesses cannot be thrown overboard. 7. Other limb of argument was that the prosecution case would suffer major set back in view of the fact that fardbeyan of Gopal Chaudhary had not been legally brought on the record, and on this count, I feel that the credibility of prosecution version and also consistent narrations made by the witnesses cannot be thrown overboard. Yet it is urged that during the same transaction, Mathura Chaudhary and Patiya Devi too had suffered injuries on their persons which would be evident from the finding recorded by Dr. S.K. Aman, PW 7 and dilating this issue, learned counsel would urge that since injuries on these persons had not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, the credibility of the prosecution case was open to question and reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecution was also guilty of suppressing the truth. Now coming to the injuries noticed on Mathura Chaudhary by PW 7, though there was one incised wound on the left wrist, other injuries were abrasion and swelling, the doctor has not recorded any finding about nature of injuries. As for Patiya Devi, all the injuries noticed by the doctor were bruises. The doctor has not recorded any finding about injuries found either on Mathura Chaudhary or Patiya Devi to be grievous so as to raise a presumption that injuries being conspicuous must would have been noticed by the prosecution witnesses, had it been caused during the same transaction, and that apart, it is no longer res Integra that even if the injury on the person of the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution, if evidences were direct, credibility of prosecution case could not be thrown over broad. 8. Other argument was that since appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about 13 years, if the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is upheld by this Court, the sentence be suitably reduced in view of efflux of time. 9. 8. Other argument was that since appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about 13 years, if the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is upheld by this Court, the sentence be suitably reduced in view of efflux of time. 9. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences available on the record and also the facts and circumstances of the case, while finding of guilt recorded against appellant Hira Chaudhary and Sudama Chaudhary under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, finding against rest of appellants who have been found guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code is converted under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As for their conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code though that finding is set aside, their conviction under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. It is brought to my notice that Sudama Chaudhary and Hira Chaudhary have suffered incarceration for 15 months and for rest appellants learned counsel would submit that they too suffered incarceration for a fortnight, and in that view of the matter, sentences awarded to them is reduced to the period undergone by them and in addition, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 800/- (eight hundred) each, in default of which, they would suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and with these modifications, the appeal is dismissed.