Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant no. 1 Surendra Raut alias Shyam Sunder Raut has been convicted under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rl for two years and appellant nos. 2 and 3, Sideshwar Raut and baleshwar Raut have been convicted under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo Rl for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 19.5.81, he was at his shop, situated in village Bariya Tola, Navadih. It has been alleged that at about 8 P.M., his son Govind Sao came to him and told that he was abused and assaulted with fists and slaps by accused Sunder Raut, when he was on the way to his shop. Thereafter the informant went to inform the Chaukidar Ramdhani Gope and at about 9 P.M., the informant returned to his shop and then accused Sunder Raut, Sidheshwar Raut and Baleshwar Raut came to his shop and uttered that let father and son both be killed because they had come from outside and opened a shop in the village. Thereupon, Shyam Sunder Raut hit the informant with Garasa on his head. When he fell down, the other two accused persons gave lathi blows upon him. The informant became unconscious and when he regained his consciousness, he found himself lying on a cot inside his home. The cause of occurrence, as stated in the fardbeyan, is that the informant was holding a Fair Price Shop in the village in the name of his son and another shop belonging to Sidheshwar Raut was also there in the village. The accused persons wanted to drive away the informant on account of business rivalry. It has been submitted that the occurrence was witnessed by Dashrath Paswan, Hardeyal Bhuian and others. It has also been submitted that the accused persons while retreating also carried away one quintal of sugar kept in the shop of the informant. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan the case under Sections 307, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. The police started investigation and after conclusion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan the case under Sections 307, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. The police started investigation and after conclusion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The appellants have denied the charges as alleged and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of previous enmity. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether seven witnesses. 6. P.W.1. Matan Sao is the informant of this case. P.W.2 is Chhedi Bhuian. P.W.3 is Dashrath Paswan. He has been declared hostile. P.W.4 Hardeyal Bhuian has also been declared hostile. P.W.5 is Govind Sao. He is the son of the informant. P.W.6 is Yuvraj Yadav. He is formal witness. He has proved fardbeyan Ext.1. and P.W.7 Shoukat Ali is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. 1/1. 7. P.W.1 Matan Sao, the informant has fully supported the case of prosecution. According to him, on 19.5.81, he was at his shop situated in village Bariya Tola, Navadih. According to him, at about 8 P.M., his son Govind Sao came to him and told that he was abused and assaulted by accused Sunder Raut when he was on the way to his shop with fists and slaps. He has stated that he went to inform the Chaukida Ramdhani Gope and at about 9 P.M. he returned to his shop. The accused Sunder Raut, Sidheshwar Raut and Baleshwar Raut all of village Bariya Tola, Navadih came to his shop and uttered, let the father and son both be killed as they had come from outside and opened a shop in the village. He has further stated that accused Shyam Sunder Raut hit the informant with Garasa on his head and he fell down. Thereafter the other two accused persons also gave lathi blows upon him and he became unconscious. According to him, when he regained his consciousness he found himself lying on a cot inside his house. He has stated that the cause of occurrence is that he was running a fair Price Shop in the village in the name of his son and another shop belonging to Sidheshwar Raut and the accused persons wanted to drive him out from the aforesaid village on account of business rivalry. He has stated that the cause of occurrence is that he was running a fair Price Shop in the village in the name of his son and another shop belonging to Sidheshwar Raut and the accused persons wanted to drive him out from the aforesaid village on account of business rivalry. According to him, the occurrence was seen by one Dasrath Paswan, Hardeyal Bhuian and others. 8. P.W.2 is Chhedi Bhuian. He has fully supported the version of the informant, RW.1. According to him, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the informant lying injured on the ground. He had an injury on his head and other parts of his body. He went near him and gave him water. 9. P.W.5 Govind Sao is son of the informant. He has also fully supported the case of prosecution. According to him, at about 8 P.M., he was going to his shop. In the way the accused Shyam Sunder met him and he started abusing him and told him that being an outsider he has opened a shop in the village and thereafter he assaulted with fists and slaps. When he reached to the shop he told about the occurrence to his father. His father went to inform the Chaukidar Ramdhani Gope and thereafter he returned to his shop. Suddenly, at 9 P.M. the appellants Sunder Raut, Sidheshwar Raut and Baleshwar Raut having armed with Garasa and lathi assaulted his father and uttered to kill his father. The appellant Shyam Sunder assaulted his father on his head by Garasa and accused Sidheshwar and Baleshwar assaulted with lathi and thereafter they also carried away three bags of Sugar. 10. P.W. 6 has proved the fardbeyan Ext. 1 of the informant and P.W.7 Shaukat Ali has proved F.I.R. Ext. 1/1. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case Doctor and II.O. have not been examined who investigated the case of the appellants. The injury could not be proved and place of occurrence could not be established. It has also been submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Although, the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined to prove injury and place of occurrence, but from the evidence P.W.1 the informant and P.W.5 the son of the informant, the place of occurrence has been established. It has also been submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. Although, the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined to prove injury and place of occurrence, but from the evidence P.W.1 the informant and P.W.5 the son of the informant, the place of occurrence has been established. It is also apparent that in absence of the examination of Doctor the prosecution has brought injury report on record (Exhibit-2) to prove the injury sustained on the persons of the injured. The submission that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. but the delay is of only one hour which is negligible. 12. Thus, learned court below on the appreciation of the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant Sunder Raut @ Shyam Sunder Raut for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants Sidheshwar Raut and Baleshwar Raut under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction under the aforesaid Sections is upheld. 13. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence is of 1981 i.e. about 25 years ago and the appellants have already been harassed for a long time in contesting the case and there has been inordinate delay in the disposal of the case, as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellants. 14. Considering the submissions so raised, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of R.I. for two years awarded to the appellant Sunder Raut @ Shyam Sunder .Raut is converted to fine of Rs. 2,000/- and R.I. for one year awarded to the appellants Sidheshwar Raut and Baleshwar Raut is converted to fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the substantive sentence awarded by the Court below shall automatically be restored. It is made clear that the fine so deposited by the appellants shall be paid to the informant Matan Sao, P.W.1 by way of compensation. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the and sentence, this appeal is dismissed. 16. Since learned counsel Mr. It is made clear that the fine so deposited by the appellants shall be paid to the informant Matan Sao, P.W.1 by way of compensation. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the and sentence, this appeal is dismissed. 16. Since learned counsel Mr. Ranbir Singh has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, he will be paid his remuneration by the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, in accordance with law. 17. Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to learned counsel Mr. Ranbir Singh for his needful.