S.K. SHARMA, J.:- Two appellants namely, Baiju Gope and his father Ram Briksha Gope have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.6.1993 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 1990 whereby appellant no.1 Baiju Gope was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant no.2 Ram Briksha Gope was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Other five accused persons namely, Rajju Gope, Ramanand Gope alias Ramnandan Gope, Buddhu Gope, Chandeshwar Gope and Rameshwar Gope who also faced the trial with the appellants have been acquitted from the charges. 2. Initially, Juri Yadav (since dead) made a fardbeyan that before S.I. of police in Fatwa State Dispensary on 5.11.1989 at 8.30 P.M. in which he alleged that on the same date at 7.00 P.M. due to destruction of the paddy crops by grazing of the animals, some altercation took place between his son Rajnandan Gope with accused Rameshwar Gope son of Ram Khelawan Gope. Co-accused Rajju Gope having armed with lathi came there and started assaulting Raj Nandan Gope (P.W.2). Thereafter accused Baiju Gope came armed with garasa and started assaulting on the head of Raj Nandan Gope, as a result of that assault, he sustained cut injury on his head and fell down on the earth. Thereafter accused Ram Briksha Gope having armed with falsa came and assaulted on the thigh of Fiaj Nandan Gope due to which blood came out. Other accused persons also came armed with lathi and they also assaulted Raj Nandan Gope and accused Ram Briksha Gope assaulted the informant. Thereafter villagers assembled and accused persons fled away. Injured Raj Nandan Gope was brought to Fatwa State Dispensary for treatment by the villagers. On the basis of said farbeyan of Juri Yadav, a case under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The trial proceeded. Charges were framed and explained to the accused persons. They pleaded their innocence and preferred to face the trial. 3. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The trial proceeded. Charges were framed and explained to the accused persons. They pleaded their innocence and preferred to face the trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication and also that no such occurrence has taken place. 4 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses. They are P.W.1 Rajdeo Gope, P.W.2 Raj Nandan Yadav, the injured, P.W.3 Dr. Umesh Prasad, P.W.4 Baleshwar Prasad, P.W.5 Vijay Kumar, P.W.6 Sahdeo Singh, P.W.7 Ram Babu Yadav and P.W.8 Dileshwar Singh. 5. No defence witness has been examined on behalf of the accused persons. 6. The injury report has been proved by the doctor which has been marked as Ext.1. Ext.2 is endorsement and signature of Baleshwar Prasad on the fardbeyan. Ext. 3 is the fardbeyan. The case diary has been marked as Ext. 4. Signatures of Officer-in-charge Raj Kumar on the formal F.I.R. have been marked as Exts. 5 and 5/ 1. 7. P.W.5 has been tendered and P.W.8 is a formal witness. 8. P.W.2 is injured. So his evidence is being considered firstly. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that on the day of occurrence which was Sunday, he was sitting with his father. In the meanwhile, accused Raju Gope and Baiju Gope who have grazed their paddy crops came armed with lathi and grasa respectively. Accused Rarh Briksha Gope armed with falsa and other accused armed with lathi in their hands also came. This witness stated that accused Baiju started assaulting him with garasa as a result of which he received injury on his head. This witness has shown the sign of injury on his head to the court which has been noted by the Presiding Officer. This witness has further stated that accused Ram Briksha Gope also gave a falsa blow on his left thigh and other accused namely, Rajju Gope, Ramnandan Gope and Buddhu Gope assaulted with lathi. Thereafter this witness has stated that by the help of villagers he was brought to State Dispensary, Fatwa. This witness has further stated that accused Ram Briksha Gope also gave a falsa blow on his left thigh and other accused namely, Rajju Gope, Ramnandan Gope and Buddhu Gope assaulted with lathi. Thereafter this witness has stated that by the help of villagers he was brought to State Dispensary, Fatwa. This witness has supported the allegation so far assault on him by both appellants is concerned but with regard to other accused, he did not support any part of allegation, rather he has stated that he has compromised the case with accused Rameshwar Gope and Chandeshwar Gope. 9. P. W.3 is doctor who has stated that on 5.11.1989 he was posted in State dispensary, Fatwa as Medical Officer and on that date, he examined injured Raj Nandan Gope and found following injuries on his person: (i) one incised wound 6"x1" x 1/2" on the left perital region of his head. The bone was totally fractured and the brain tissues was purfadile. The nature of injury was grievous caused by sharp cutting weapon such as garasa. (ii) Incised wound 1 1/2"x1/2"x1/2" on the left thigh. Nature of injury was simple caused by sharp cutting weapon such as falsa. 10. This witness has stated that after examination, the patient was referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. 11. P.W.1 is another son of the informant and he has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurrence, he was present at his house along with Vijay Kumar (P.W.5) and his father Juri Yadav, informant (since dead). This witness further stated that the altercation started between Raj Nandan Gope and accused Chandeshwar Gope and Rameshwar Gope. Accused Ram Briksha Gope armed with falsa, Baiju Gope armed with garasa, Buddhu Gope, Rajju Gope and Ramanand armed with lathis were present there. Accused Baiju Gope started assaulting with garasa on the head of Raj Nandan Gope who sustained cut injury and fell down. Thereafter accused Ram Briksha Gope assaulted Raj Nandan Gope with falsa on his thigh and rest accused persons assaulted him with lathis. This witness further stated that on hearing noise, the co-villagers came and thereafter injured Raj Nandan Gope was brought to Fatwa State Dispensary for treatment where fardbeyan of Juri Yadav was recorded by the police. Later on, injured Raj Nandan Gope referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. This witness further stated that on hearing noise, the co-villagers came and thereafter injured Raj Nandan Gope was brought to Fatwa State Dispensary for treatment where fardbeyan of Juri Yadav was recorded by the police. Later on, injured Raj Nandan Gope referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. This witness in his evidence has stated that after 3-4 days of the occurrence, he made statement before the police that he had not seen accused Rameshwar Gope and Chandeshwar Gope making assault. This witness has further stated that the motive of the occurrence was that the accused persons got the paddy crops of the informant grazed by their cattle and due to that the occurrence took place. 12. P.W.4 Baleshwar Yadav in his evidence has stated that the informant Juri Yadav has already died. This witness has stated that Juri Yadav had made fardbeyan of assault on the person of Raj Nandan Yadav in hospital at Fatwa in his presence. 13. P.W.6 has supported the prosecution case stating that while he was coming from Khanda field he saw accused Baiju Gope and Ram Briksha Gope assaulting Raj Nandan Gope by means of garasa and falsa respectively and other accused persons assaulting with by means of lathi. 14. P.W.7 in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was at his house and on hearing hulla, he came to the place of occurrence and saw that the assault was going on. He supported the entire occurrence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Investigating Officer and the doctor of P.M.C.H have not been examined in this case and as such great prejudice has been caused to the appellants. 16. Learned A.P.P. submits that the injured and other prosecution witnesses have fully supported the manner of assault by the appellants which has been corroboraterd by the evidence of the doctor. Thus, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants and no interference is required by this court. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any prejudice which has been caused to the appellants due to non-examination of the Investigation Officer. Non-examination of the doctor of P.M.C.H. also does not cause any prejudice to the appellants, rather his evidenvce at best could have explained about the treatment given to the injured. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any prejudice which has been caused to the appellants due to non-examination of the Investigation Officer. Non-examination of the doctor of P.M.C.H. also does not cause any prejudice to the appellants, rather his evidenvce at best could have explained about the treatment given to the injured. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case that the appellants are the persons who have given garasa and farsa blow on the person of injured Raj Nandan Gope. 18. After analysing the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond the shadow all reasonable doubts. Hence the conviction of the appellants is maintained. 19. On the question of sentence, it has been submitted that appellant no.2, Ram Briksha Gope, on the date of judgment was 70 years of age and now he has become 85 years of age. So, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 20. It has been proved that this appellant Ram Briksha Gope has also taken part in assaulting the injured and as such he is ,not entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, taking into consideration the old age of this appellant, his substantive sentence is modified to the extent that he shall deposit Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) in the court below within three months from today which amount will be given to the heirs of the informant Juri Yadav (since dead). If the said amount is not deposited in the court below within the stipulated period, the court below will cancel his bail bond and take him into custody to serve out remaining period of sentence. 21. So far as the question of sentence of appellant no.1 Baiju Gope is concerned, I am of the view that as this appellant has caused grievous injury on the head of injured Raj Nandan Gope, he does not deserve any sympathy. Accordingly, his sentence is maintained. His bail bond is cancelled. Appellant Baiju Gope is directed to surrender before the court below to serve out remaining period of sentence. The court below is directed to take coercive steps to take this appellant into custody. 22. Accordingly, his sentence is maintained. His bail bond is cancelled. Appellant Baiju Gope is directed to surrender before the court below to serve out remaining period of sentence. The court below is directed to take coercive steps to take this appellant into custody. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed so far it relates to appellant no.1 Baiju Gope and the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence, as mentioned above, so far it relates to appellant no.2. Ram Briksha Gope.