Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant no. 1 Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and appellant no. 3 Baiju Chaudhary have been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for two months. Appellant no.2 Kailash Chaudhary has convicted under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for three years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 17.7.1988 at about 6 P.M., the informant along with Bijoy Kumar Sanyal, Hardeo Chaudhary and Kishun Singh had been at Dharampur Haat (market) to purchase articles. They saw that accused Ashok Chaudhary, Kailash Chaudhary and Baiju Chaudhary were assaulting Ajay Kumar aged about 12 years and were dragging him out of the Haat towards road. Some persons raised bulla whereupon the informant and others reached the place and tried to rescue Ajay Kumar, son of Hardeo Chaudhary. Meanwhile, the accused Kailash Chaudhary with Hasua and Ashok Kumar and Baiju Chaudhary with daggers assaulted the informant and other persons. They were badly injured and fell down and became unconscious. The witnesses Rameshwar Chaudhary, Baleshwar Chaudhary, Shankar Chaudhary, Saryug Singh, Shyam Bahadur Singh and many others saw the occurrence. It has been stated that Hardeo Chaudhary sustained serious injury in his abdomen and Bijoy Kumar Sanyal sustained dagger injury on his chest and thigh and Kishun Singh sustained dagger injury on his head. The motive of occurrence has been given as previous enmity. 3. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the A.S.I. of Pirbahore P.S. and was forwarded on the same day to the Officer- in-charge of Bidupur P.S. within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. On the basis of fardbeyan the formal F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether nine witnesses. 6. P.W.1 Bijoy Kumar Sanyal an injured and eye-witness, P.W.2 is Ajay Kumar, P.W.3 is Kishun Singh, injured. P.W.4 is Hardeo Chaudhary, injured. P.W.5 is Laxmi Chaudhary, the informant of this case. P.W.6 is Dr. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether nine witnesses. 6. P.W.1 Bijoy Kumar Sanyal an injured and eye-witness, P.W.2 is Ajay Kumar, P.W.3 is Kishun Singh, injured. P.W.4 is Hardeo Chaudhary, injured. P.W.5 is Laxmi Chaudhary, the informant of this case. P.W.6 is Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, he has examined Hardeo Chaudhary only. P.W.7 is Dr.R.K.Agarwal, he has examined all the four injured persons. P.W.8 is Saryug Singh, he is an independent witness but he was not examined by the I.O. and P.W.9 is Raj Kishore Singh, the I.O. of this case. 7. P.W.1 Bijoy Kumar Sanyal is one of the injured witnesses. He has stated that on 17.7.1988 at about 5.30 P.M. he was taking tea in a tea-stall at a distance of about 30 yards from the place of occurrence. He heard hulla in Haat and rushed to the place of occurrence. He saw that Ashok Chaudhary immediately started to inflict him chhura blow on the chest with an intention to kill him. He fell down and then accused Kailash Chaudhary assaulted him on his right knee with a sickle of the shape of a dagger. According to him, he was taken to P.M.C.H. in unconscious state and was medically treated there. He stated that he had seen Hardeo Chaudhary and Laxmi Chaudhary on the place of occurrence in injured condition when he first reached there. 8. P.W. 2 Ajay Kumar. He is the witness on the point that he was being dragged and was assaulted in the Haat. He has also supported the occurrence of assault. According to him, the accused Kailash and Ashok were empty handed when they came to this witness and began to drag him. He further stated that he did not raise any objection when he was being dragged by the accused persons whereas other witnesses have stated that when he was being assaulted and dragged he was raising alarm. 9. P.W. 3 Kishun Singh is also an injured witness. According to him, he had gone to Haat to purchase vegetable. He has stated that P.W.2, Ajay Kumar was assaulted and dragged in the Haat by the accused persons. When he went to rescue him the accused Baiju Chaudhary objected and ultimately he inflicted chhura blow on his head and he fell down and became unconscious. According to him, he had gone to Haat to purchase vegetable. He has stated that P.W.2, Ajay Kumar was assaulted and dragged in the Haat by the accused persons. When he went to rescue him the accused Baiju Chaudhary objected and ultimately he inflicted chhura blow on his head and he fell down and became unconscious. He regained consciousness in the P.M.C.H. He also stated about the assault on the persons of Hardeo Chaudhary, Bijoy Kumar Sanyal and Laxmi Chaudhary. According to him, there was a commotion in the Haat when quarrel cropped up. 10. P.W.4 is Hardeo Chaudhary. According to him, he reached the place of occurrence when he got an information that his son was being assaulted by the accused persons. As he wanted to ask the accused Kailash Chaudhary relating to the assault on his son, the accused Kailash chaudhary inflicted a dagger blow in his stomach with an intention to kill him. He also sustained chhura blow on his thigh. According to him, due to dagger injury the intestine came out and he fell unconscious. He regained consciousness in the P.M.C.H. 11. P.W.5 Laxmi Chaudhary is also one of the victims of assault. According to him, on the date of occurrence he was going to purchase vegetable from the market. He was near the Haat of Dharmpur. He saw Baiju Chaudhary, Kailash Chaudhary and Ashok Chaudhary were dragging Ajay Kumar. He went there and saw that Kailash Chaudhary was assaulting Hardeo Chaudhary by chhura. He was also assaulted by Kailash Chaudhary. He has further stated that Ashok assaulted Bijoy Kumar Sanyal with a dagger on his chest. He also saw that accused Baiju gave a chhura blow on the forehead of Kishun. According to him, he became nervous. However, he took the victims to hospital then his fardbeyan was recorded in the P.M.C.H. on 18.7.1988. According to him, the occurrence was seen by the witnesses, Saryug Singh, Rameshwar Chaudhary, Baleshwar Chaudhary and Shankar Chaudhary. 12. P.W.6 is Dr. Krishna Nand Singh. He had examined the injured Hardeo Chaudhary on 17.7.1988 at 5.30 P.M. in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. He found the following injuries on his person: (I) Penetrating wound on the abdomen left lumber region- 1" x 1/2" xperitoneum deep with omentum coming out. (II) Incised wound on the left hypochondrium 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. Krishna Nand Singh. He had examined the injured Hardeo Chaudhary on 17.7.1988 at 5.30 P.M. in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. He found the following injuries on his person: (I) Penetrating wound on the abdomen left lumber region- 1" x 1/2" xperitoneum deep with omentum coming out. (II) Incised wound on the left hypochondrium 1/2" x 1/4" x muscle deep. (III) Incised wound on left thigh lateral aspect 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep. According to him, all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like chhura. Injury No.1 was grievous whereas other injuries were simple. He has proved the injury report as Ext.2. RW. 7 Dr.R.K. Agarwal had examined the victim Hardeo Chaudhary on 17.7.1988 in P.M.C.H., Patna at 9 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person: (I) One stitched wound in the left hypochondrium, (II) One stitched wound on left thigh lateral surface, and (III) One sharp cutting wound in the left lumber region anteriorly through which omentum was coming out. The size of the injury was 1" x 1/2" peritoneum deep. He found injury no. (Ill) as grievous one. He has also given his finding on the operation of the victim. These are as follows: A. Lacerated wound over greater omentum, B. Perforat [Aion over olum, and C. Haematomma in retro peritoneal space around left renal area. The injury report has been marked as Ext. 3. 13 P.W. 8 Saryug Singh has also come to support the prosecution case. He has stated that on the date of occurrence in the evening he had gone to Dharmpur Haat for purchasing vegetables. He also saw the accused persons were assaulting and dragging Ajay Kumar. They were trying to take the injured, whereupon the other witnesses and his father, Hardeo Chaudhary came there. In the mean time, accused Kailash Chaudhary inflicted chhura blow in the stomach on Hardeo Chaudhary and his intestine came out. The accused Kailash assaulted him by means of chhura on his left leg and accused Ashok Assaulted with chhura on the chest of Laxmi Chaudhary. 14. P.W. 9 Raj Kishore Singh is the I.O. of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked as Ext.4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext. 5. According to him, he investigated the case and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted chargesheet. 14. P.W. 9 Raj Kishore Singh is the I.O. of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant which has been marked as Ext.4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext. 5. According to him, he investigated the case and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted chargesheet. According to him, the occurrence took place adjacent south side to pitch road. He has given full description of the place of occurrence and injury on the person of the injured. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, all the witnesses are related to the informant and no independent witness has been examined. They have filed a false case on account of previous enmity. It has also been submitted that the genesis of the prosecution case has not been proved. The place of occurrence is not established and time of occurrence is contradicted by evidence of witnesses, even manner of occurrence has not been proved. The motive behind the prosecution case is enmity. The evidence of the doctor does not support the prosecution case. The deposition of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 does not support the case of prosecution. 16. The submission of learned counsel that no independent witness has been examined, all the witnesses are related to the informant and they are family members but all the witnesses are competent witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. As regards the genesis of the occurrence, P.W.2 has stated that appellants came in the Haat and told him that his father sends him for collecting the rent and he himself does not come due to fear and started dragging and beating. In the meantime, his father Hardeo Chaudhary came there and having seen him appellant Kailash inflicted chhura blow in his abdomen. It appears that the appellant was determined to quarrel with Hardeo Chaudhary and for that they started beating his son, Ajay who had gone to Haat for collecting rent. There is admitted previous enmity between the parties. It is not possible to know the genesis for the act done by a person especially when there is evidence of the occurrence the genesis is not important in criminal cases. There is admitted previous enmity between the parties. It is not possible to know the genesis for the act done by a person especially when there is evidence of the occurrence the genesis is not important in criminal cases. As regards the place of occurrence, it is clear that the occurrence took place in the premises of Haat in a village Dharmpur which is adjacent to the road and this point has been dealt with in detail by the Court below in para 16 of the judgment. All the witnesses have stated that how Ajay was dragged and beaten and when his father came he was also given chhura blow in his stomach. Other appellants assaulted Laxmi Chaudhary P.W.5, the informant. The appellant Baiju also assaulted P.W.3 Kishun Singh, as such, I do not find that there is dispute on the manner of occurrence. As regards, the submission of learned counsel it appears that P.W.4 and P.W.5 do not support the prosecution case. But P.W.4 Hardeo Chaudhary, injured has vividly described how he got chhura blow on his abdomen and due to which his intestine came out. He also go chhura blow in his thigh. P.W.5 has also stated that he saw Ajay being dragged and he also saw Kailash inflicting chhura blow on Hardeo Chaudhary. He also got chhura blow inflicted by Ashok Chaudhary. He has further stated that Ashok also assaulted Bijoy on his chest by chhura. It appears that P.W.4 Hardeo Chaudhary reached the Haat prior to P.W.5, as such he was assaulted first and he became unconscious. P.W.5 reached thereafter and he saw assault on Hardeo Chaudhary and also on Kishun and Bijoy. Both the witnesses have seen the occurrence from different angles. As they have seen the occurrence from different angles it is bound to be some differences in their version and as discrepancies is natural and it does not affect the case of prosecution. As regards, medical evidence, P.W.6 who examined Hardeo has fully supported that Hardeo had penetrating wound in abdomen and left lumber region and also found incised wound on the left hypochondrium. P.W.7 also found injury on the left of the abdomen and also on the left thigh which corroborates the assault evidence that Hardeo Chaudhary was assaulted on abdomen and on thigh. P.W.7 also found injury on the left of the abdomen and also on the left thigh which corroborates the assault evidence that Hardeo Chaudhary was assaulted on abdomen and on thigh. The Court below on the appreciation of the evidence rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. The Court below has rightly sentenced the appellant no.2 to undergo RI for three years and appellant no.1 and appellant no.3 to undergo RI for two months. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.