Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted under Sec.353 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each. 2. Appellant no.2 Devendra Prasad and appellant no.3 Mahendra Prasad were further convicted under Sec.225 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 3. Appellant no.1 Rajendra Prasad was further convicted under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 4. Appellant no.3 Mahendra Prasad has been further convicted under Sec.224 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 5. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Dafadar Ram Prasad Yadav (informant) was deputed to arrest the accused Mahendra Prasad in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 82 dated 3.9.1983 under sections 354 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant received order from the Officer-in-Charge, Konch P.S. on 2.10.83. On 4.10.1983 at about 7 A.M. he went to Gaharpur village along with Choukidar Sarjug Dusadh and Satan Dusadh for arrest of accused Mahendra Prasad. It has been stated that they found the accused Mahendra Prasad sitting on the Darwaza of his house. The informant with the help of aforesaid Choukidars arrested tha accused Mahendra Prasad and tried to bring him at Police Station. It has been alleged that Mahendra Prasad raised hulla of Chor-Chor. In the meantime, accused Rajendra Prasad. Devendra Prasad and Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) armed with lathi came there and treid to rescue the arrested accused Mahendra Prasad. It has further been alleged that accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) assaulted Satan Choukidar by lathi and he sustained injury on his right hand and waist. It has further been stated that Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) also assaulted the informant by lathi. Thus the accused presons succeeded and rescued the arrested accused Mahendra Prasad who fled away from the place of occurrence. The informant thereafter came to the Konch Police Station and reported the matter to the concerned authority. On the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under Sections 224, 225, 323, 353, 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Eventually trial concluded with the result as mentioned earlier. 6. On the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted under Sections 224, 225, 323, 353, 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Eventually trial concluded with the result as mentioned earlier. 6. The appellants have pleaded that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 10 witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 is Urmila Devi. She claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is Mahesh Kumar. He also claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence P.W. 3 is Sarjug Dusadh. He is a Choukidar. P.W. 4 is Parwati Devi @ Lalita Devi. She also claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 5 is Ram Prasad Yadav, the informant of this case. P.W. 6 is Satan Dusadh. He is also a Choukidar. P.W. 7 is Ram Swaroop Prasad. P.W. 8 is Kumar Yogendra Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 9 is Md. Syeed Khan and P.W. 10 is Chandradeo Mistri. He is a formal witness and has proved injury report prepared by the doctor Ext. C, Exts. 5 & 5/1. 9. P.W. 5 Ram Prasad Yadav, the in- formant of this case has fully supported the case of prosecution and has stated that on 4.10.83 at A.M. he went for arresting the accused Mahendra Prasad along with Choukidar Sarjug Dusadh and Satan Dusadh after receiving letter Ext. 1 from Konch Police Station in this regard. He has further stated that accused Mahendra Prasad was found in his house where he was arrested. It has further been stated that after arrest the accused Mahendra Prasad tried to get flee and raised hulla of Chor-Chor. The other accused, namely, Ramdeo Prasad (since dead), Rajendra Prasad and Devendra Prasad having armed with lathi and garasa tried to rescue the accused Mahendra Prasad from their custody. He has further stated that Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) assaulted Satan Choukidar by lathi, accused Rajendra Prasad also assaulted Satan Choukidar by lathi. Accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) further assaulted the informant with lathi and they rescued the arrested accused Mahendra Prasad from their custody. He has further stated that Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) assaulted Satan Choukidar by lathi, accused Rajendra Prasad also assaulted Satan Choukidar by lathi. Accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) further assaulted the informant with lathi and they rescued the arrested accused Mahendra Prasad from their custody. According to him, the lathi of Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) was left at the place of occurrence which he subsequently produced in the Police Station. He has proved the seizure list prepared with respect to the seizure of lathi marked Ext. 2. He has also stated that Mahesh Kumar (P.W.2), Urmila Devi (P.W.1) & Parwati Devi @ Lalita Devi (P.W.4) saw the occurrence. According to him, he reported the matter at Konch P.S. which was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge Yogendra Prasad (P.W.8) The F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 3. He has also been cross-examined and has fully corroboroated the prosecution case. 10. P.W. 3 Sarjug Dusadh has stated that on 4.10.83 at about 6-7 A.M. he along with Satan Dusadh and Ram Prasad Yadav, the informant went to arrest the accused Mahendra Prasad on the basis of letter issued by the Konch Police Station. When the informant arrested him he wanted to get free and shouted for help. Thereafter accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead). Rajendra Prasad and Devendra Prasad came there having armed with lathi and garasa. Accused Ramdeo and Rajendra assaulted Satan Dusadh by lathi as a result of which the accused Mahendra Prasad was left from his hand. The right hand of Satan Dusadh was fractured due to lathi injury. 11. P.W. 6 Satan Dusadh, another Choukidar has stated that he along with Ram Prasad Yadav, the informant and Sarjug Dusadh, Choukidar went to arrest accused Mahendra Prasad. They arrested accused Mahendra Prasad on the basis of kaman letter. According to him the accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) assaulted him with lathi, accused Rajendra Prasad also assaulted him with lathi. He sustained injury on his wrist and elbow. After assault the accused persons rescued the accused Mahendra Prasad from the custody of the informant. He has also stated in his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence P.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 were present. 12. He sustained injury on his wrist and elbow. After assault the accused persons rescued the accused Mahendra Prasad from the custody of the informant. He has also stated in his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence P.Ws. 1, 2 & 4 were present. 12. P.W. 1 Urmila Devi who claims to be the eye-witness of the occurrence has stated that on the date of occurrence accused Mahendra Prasad was arrested by Chowkidars Satan Dusadh, Sarjug Dusadh and Ram Prasad Yadav, the informant. According to her the accused Ramdeo Prasad (since dead) and Rajendra Prasad tried to rescue Mahendra Prasad from the custody of the informant. They also assaulted the Choukidars by lathi. The accused Devendra Prasad was having garasa in his hand at the place of occurrence. 13. P.W. 8 is Kumar Yogendra Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case. According to him he lodged the First Information Report of this case on the basis of statement of Ram Prasad Yadav, the informant. Thereafter he prepared injury memo and sent both the injured persons for treatment in the Konch hospital. According to him he inspected the place of occurrence and in course of investigation he received injury report. He also stated that lathi was produced before him for which he prepared production-cum-seizure list marked Ext. 2. In his cross- examination he has stated that kaman letter was issued for arresting the accused Mahendra Prasad and he endorsed it to Dafadar Ramdeo Yadav for execution. He has established the place of occurrence and has also given full description of the same. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in this case the doctor was not examined, as such injury report could not be proved. It has further been submitted that P.W. 4 is an inimical witness. She has stated in her deposition that she had lodged a case against the appellant Mahendra Prasad in which her sister-in-law Urmila Devi P.W.1 was witness and she was the informant. It has further been submitted that the Police sent F.I.Ft. after four days of the occurrence to the C.J.M., as such there was enough time to concoct and implicate the appellants in this case. It has also been submitted that P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 were not named in the F.I.P.. 15. In this case the other witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. after four days of the occurrence to the C.J.M., as such there was enough time to concoct and implicate the appellants in this case. It has also been submitted that P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 were not named in the F.I.P.. 15. In this case the other witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. Certainly, there are minor contradiction in their deposition but they are bound to occur after such a long time. Lastly, it has been stated that P.Ws. 1 & 2 have not fully supported the case as they have stated that they did not see the appellant Mahendra being arrested. 16. It appears that F.I.R. was recorded on the same day of the occurrence i.e. on 4.10.83 but it was received by the C.J.M. on 8.10.83 i.e. after four days. There is delay in receipt of F.I.R. in the office of C.J.M. but in the story of prosecution case there is hardly anything to be concocted as per the story the informant Ram Prasad Yadav was entrusted to apprehend the accused Mahendra for which he went to the place of occurrence in the morning and apprehended him but the appellant got himself freed with the help of other accused persons and on protest they also assaulted the informant and choukidars. Thereafter on the same day the injured were examined by the doctor at Konch hospital who issued certificate of injury to both the injured Ram Prasad Yadav and Satan Dusadh. The injured were examined at 3.00 P.M. at State Dispensary, as such there is hardly any scope of false implication of the appellants. Even if F.I.R. was received late, it is hardly fatal to this case. Though doctor has not been examined but P.W. 7 has proved the injury report issued by the doctor. Non cross-examination of doctor does not adversely affect the case of defence. 17. The learned Court below on appreciation of the evidence so adduced and material on record has rightly found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under aforesaid sections. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 18. Non cross-examination of doctor does not adversely affect the case of defence. 17. The learned Court below on appreciation of the evidence so adduced and material on record has rightly found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under aforesaid sections. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 18. Coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place 23 years back and the appellants have been amply punished during the prolonged litigation, as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellants. 19. Considering the submissions that the occurrence took place more than two decades, in my view, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to the payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to be deposited by them within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In default, they shall further undergo R.I. for six months each. If the amount of fine, so realised, shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. 20. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.