JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.2.1996 and 12.9.1996 respectively, passed by Shri Bhagat Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1993, convicting the appellants under Section 325/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. imprisonment for four years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows : On 4.7.1990 at 4 p.m., a written report was lodged by one Mr. S.K. Dalmia, (PW 1-the Managing Director, Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd., P.O., Rehla, Garhwa Road, Palamau), alleging that on receiving telephonic message from Shri S.K. Jhajharia, (P.W.2-the Chief Electrical Engineer of the factory), to the effect that the workers of the Plant have resorted to tool-down strike, he reached at H.C. 1. plant at 6.15 A.M. P.W. 2 was there, Prayag Singh (appellant No. 1, a worker of this plant), was standing outside. PW 1, enquired from him as to why he was not working, to which he replied in a harsh and insubordinate way. PW 1 proceeded towards Chlorine Plant and towards his car. On this, appellant No. 1 manhandled him. Simultaneously, Ram Pravesh Ram (appellant No. 2-andther workman), came with a G.I. Pipe and shouted "maro sale ko jan se". P.W.-2 went to call the security staffs. PW 1 proceeded further and when he reached near the Chlorine Tanks, all the appellants began to assault him with G.I. Pipes. He fell down on the ground and became semi unconscious. With the help of other staffs, he was brought to his car and then to the bachelor hostel. P.W.-2 and others have seen the occurrence, which occurred between 6.15 A.M. to 6.30 A.M. Ultimately, charges were framed against the appellants under Section 307/34, to which they pleaded not guilty. 3. PW 1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3-Megha Ram, the security guard, P.W,- 4-the Doctor, P.W.-5, Bindhachal Shukla, an employee of the Company, have fully supported the prosecution case, P.W,-6 is a formal police witness, who proved the formal FIR-(Ext.-3) and the case diary of this case (Ext.-4) P.W.-7 has proved the doctors report (Ext. 5), prepared by Dr. S.K. Roy (who had expired). P.W.-8 is X-ray technician, who proved the X-ray Plates dated 9.7.1990 (Ext.-6). 4. Mr. 5), prepared by Dr. S.K. Roy (who had expired). P.W.-8 is X-ray technician, who proved the X-ray Plates dated 9.7.1990 (Ext.-6). 4. Mr. T.N. Jha, appearing for the appellants, submitted that; the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to their active involvement in unrecognized union; that no such occurrence had taken place; that taking advantage of the injuries suffered by him in an accident, PW 1 has lodged this false case; that the companys doctor, who gave first aid, the other eye witnesses named in the FIR and the Investigating Officer were not examined; that P.W.-4 (Government doctor) examined PW 1 at 11 A.M., but FIR was lodged at 1 P.M.; that there are contradictions about the tool-down strike; that there is nothing to show that the doctor-PW 4 was called by the police; that the blood stained cloths were not seized; that no blood was found at the place of occurrence; that P.W.-4, the doctor did not prepare any injury report on 4.7.1990; that the prosecution developed its case during trial. 5. It was submitted by learned State counsel (assisted by learned Counsel for the informant) that it was a case of direct evidence and not a case of circumstantial evidence. PW 1 was seriously injured and therefore after some treatment, a written report was lodged with the police. It is further submitted that PW 1 was injured in a car accident on 26.11.1985 i.e. about five years back to the present incident, in which he sustained injuries on other parts of the body. It is submitted that P.W.-4- the doctor, has explained that PW 1 was referred for better specialized treatment, and after receipt of the X-ray reports he prepared the injury report on 24.7.1990. With reference to the medical evidence, it was submitted that PW 1 was indiscriminately assaulted by G.I. Pipes causing 10 injuries including grievous injuries of fracture and that the doctor opined that the injuries were dangerous to human life. Other medical evidences were referred to show that PW 1 had to undergo specialized treatment at Daltonganj and Calcutta. Skull and right hand of PW 1 were fractured. It was further submitted that the tool-down strike was in one of the plants about which there is no contradiction. Other medical evidences were referred to show that PW 1 had to undergo specialized treatment at Daltonganj and Calcutta. Skull and right hand of PW 1 were fractured. It was further submitted that the tool-down strike was in one of the plants about which there is no contradiction. It was further submitted that only because a portion of prosecution case was not accepted by the trial Court, it cannot be said that the whole case was false. It was lastly submitted that the evidences are to be read fully and the quality of the evidence is important and not the quantity. 6. After carefully going through the materials on record, I find force in the submissions of learned Stats counsel. The appellants assaulted PW 1, who was the Managing Director of the Company, indiscriminately by G.I. Pipes. PW 1 sustained about ten injuries including grievous fracture injuries on vital parts of the body. All the eye witnesses have fully supported the incident, which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In the circumstances noted above, non-examination of the I.O. has not prejudiced the defence of the appellants. Moreover, it was said that due to his death I.O. could not be examined. Learned trial Court on consideration of the materials on record properly, has come to correct findings. The intention of the appellants was to cause grievous hurt by G.I. Pipes. On the date of occurrence, PW 1 was running from one place to other for his treatment which explains, why FIR was lodged after about nine hours. Only because, the trial Court found that the prosecution tried to improve its case, the incident of causing grievous injuries cannot be disbelieved. The injuries cannot be self inflicted. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. On the point of sentence, Mr. Jha submitted that appellant No. 3 has served out his sentence and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been sufficiently punished by facing this case from 1990, and instead of sending them to jail they may be given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel submitted that the appellants do not deserve any leniency. 8. In the result, the conviction is maintained. However, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to execute bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each, with two sureties, for maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year. 8. In the result, the conviction is maintained. However, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to execute bonds of Rs. 2,000/- each, with two sureties, for maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year. If the bonds are not executed within two months of if after execution of bonds, the terms thereof are violated, they will be taken into custody for serving out the sentence. But on successful completion of the term of the bond, they will be discharged from their bail bonds.