Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. All the three appellants have been convicted under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- each and in case of non-payment of fine all the appellants have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 3.1.1985 at 7.30 P.M. at Village Dhanauti the informant, Ram Bachan Singh, was in his hut to take care of his paddy crops and in the meantime about 7 or 8 persons came to his Khalihan and began to carry away the stolen paddy crops. Thereafter the informant protested but some of the accused persons tried to flee away with the paddy crops and the informant after chasing them caught hold one of the criminals. In the meantime, all the accused persons armed with lathi, Pharsa and Bhala came back to his Khalihan where one of, the criminals was caught and from the back side the accused persons assaulted the informant. The informant warded of the assault in which his hands received cut injury. In the meantime, accused Prabhu Nath Singh came and assaulted the informant on his neck with Pharsa but the informant warded his neck and received cut injury on his head. Thereafter, accused Jirakhan Singh asked, the other co-accused to kill the informant and Jirakhan Singh assaulted him on the neck with Pharsa which resulted in cut injury on the head of the informant and his head was fractured. Thereafter, accused Jirakhan Singh assaulted on the head of the informant and in this assault the hand of the informant received cut injury. Thereafter, other accused persons also assaulted the informant whereupon, he received several injury and fell down upon the ground. Even then all the accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi. In the meantime, accused Arun Kumar Singh took away the wrist watch from the hand of the informant and all the accused persons fled away. The informant remained lying there and after that witnesses Satendra, Rajni Kant, Dhara Singh came and they saw and chased the accused persons in the light of torch. The cause of occurrence as per the F.I.R. is previous enmity. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. 3. The cause of occurrence as per the F.I.R. is previous enmity. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and has stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of their enemies. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether two witnesses. P.W.1, Ram Bachan Singh, is the informant. P.W.2, Dasrath Singh, is the father of the informant. 5. P.W.1, Ram Bachan Singh, the informant of this case has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him on 3.1.1985 when he was looking after his Khalihan accused Prabhu Nath Singh, Jirakhan Singh, Jimdar Singh and Arun Kumar Singh alongwith other persons came and began to carry away the crops. He has further stated that he caught hold one of the accused persons and thereafter all the accused persons came armed with lathi, Pharsa and Bhala and Jirakhan Singh called co-accused persons to kill the informant upon which Prabhu Nath Singh assaulted him with Pharsa on the head of the informant which resulted in cut injury. Jirakhan Singh and Kamindar Singh also gave informant Pharsa blow inflicting injury to him. He has further stated that in the meantime accused Arun Kumar Singh snatched away the wrist watch worth Rs. 250/- from the hand of the informant. He has further stated that his paddy crop worth Rs. 300/- was taken away from his Khalihan by the accused persons. He has further stated the motive for the occurrence was that the land where his Khalihan was situated was purchased by the informant where as the accused himself wanted to purchase the same. 6. P.W.2, Dasrath Singh is the father of the informant (P.W.1). He has stated that he had gone to take his food and after hearing Hullah he came to his Khalihan and saw his son the informant had recived several injuries and was fallen down on the earth and he also saw the accused Jimdar, Prabhunath Singh, Jirakhan Singh and Arun Kumar Singh there having Pharsa and lathi in their hands. He has further stated that his son narrated him as to who assaulted him with what weapon and that his wrist watch was also snatched away by Arun Kumar Singh. He has further stated that his son narrated him as to who assaulted him with what weapon and that his wrist watch was also snatched away by Arun Kumar Singh. He has further stated that there was no previous enmity between him and the accused. In his cross-examination he has not contradicted the prosecution case although he did not see the occurrence i.e. assault from his own eyes but immediately, after the assault he reached the Khalihan. 7. Three D.W.s were also examined on behalf of the defence. D.W.1, Radha Kisun has stated that on the same day when he was in his Khalihan by the side of the alleged place of occurrence he saw Jirakhan Singh, irrigating his land and in the meantime Ram Bachan Singh and Dasrath Singh reached there and tried to irrigate their land and this gave rise to a quarrel whereupon Ram Bachan Singh gave lathi blow to Jirakhan Singh and Dasrath Singh also assaulted Jirakhan Singh on the waist. D.W.2, Ram Chandra Prasad, has proved the true copy of Sanha. D.W.3, Beshlal Sah, has stated that he has seen the injury on the person of Ram Bachan Singh. His evidence has been disbelieved by the court below. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the important witnesses named in the F.I.R. have not been examined. Even the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined. 9. Dhara Singh other named charge sheet witness has not been examined. It is not necessary that all witnesses should be examined to repeat same story. In this case the story of prosecution gets support from the injured and his father and they are competent witnesses. 10. As stated non-examination of the I.O. and Doctor in this case have not prejudiced the case of the defence as appellant no.3 has been charged under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code but was convicted under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing voluntary injury to the informant. It has been submitted that the persons on the side of accused party have also received injury showing therein that there was scuffle between the parties but the court below has disbelieved the version of D.Ws. about assault on the accused persons. 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing voluntary injury to the informant. It has been submitted that the persons on the side of accused party have also received injury showing therein that there was scuffle between the parties but the court below has disbelieved the version of D.Ws. about assault on the accused persons. As far as submission of the learned counsel that there is discrepency in the evidence of the witnesses which is natural and minor which is bound to occur after such a long time. 11. The court below on the appreciation of the evidence on record has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgment. It is accordingly directed that the amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if and when the fine is realized the same shall be given to the informant, Ram Bachan Singh, by way of compensation. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.