JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Judgment/Order Dated 5th December, 1992 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No. 125/34 of 1990 convicting the Appellants of the charge u/s 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each is impugned in this appeal. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid Sessions Trial were as follows. As revealed from the FIR, Ext. 3/1, lodged by PW 3 Bipin Bihari Mohanty, on 13-11-1982 at 2.00 p.m. the Appellants being armed with lathis, iron rods and other lethal weapons entered into the lands of P.W. 5 Chittaranjan Mohanty appertaining to Khata Nos. 339 and 340 of Mouza Battapur and started to cut and remove away the crops raised by the latter. P.W. 5 having resisted the aforesaid acts of the Appellants, they brutally assaulted him laying him down senseless and left the spot. But then coming to know that he was alive, the Appellants returned to the spot and again indiscriminately assaulted him. Hearing hullah, the co-villagers rushed to the spot and removed P.W. 5 to the Bhadrak Hospital where he was treated as an indoor patient for about seven days. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, G.R. Case No. 1219/92 was registered which was subsequently committed to the Court of session. 3. The Appellants took the plea of complete denial of the prosecution allegations. They further stated that P.W. 5 while plucking leaves and fruits from a 'Muniga' tree standing on a bamboo platform, fell down and the bamboo clips having pierced at various places of his body he had sustained injuries. However, due to prior enmity a false case had been initiated. 4. In order to substantiate the charges against the Appellants, prosecution got six witnesses examined, of whom P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 to 6 belonged to the locality where the incident occurred, P.W. 5 was the injured and P.W. 2 was a doctor who had medically examined P.W. 5. The Appellants in support of their defence had got two witnesses examined. 5. 1, 3 and 4 to 6 belonged to the locality where the incident occurred, P.W. 5 was the injured and P.W. 2 was a doctor who had medically examined P.W. 5. The Appellants in support of their defence had got two witnesses examined. 5. The Trial Court after threadbare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the Appellants while unlawfully cutting and removing the paddy raised by P.W. 5, at the protest of the latter, had assaulted him and caused injuries on his person. On the basis of such conclusion the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated above. 6. This Court heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. The judgment of the Trial Court is assailed mainly on the ground that P.W. 1 who claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence being an old man with defective eye-sight, the Court below acted illegally in relying on his statement. Further, the Trial Court failed to notice the material contradictions in the statements of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants, as the investigating officer had not been examined as a witness, the Court below ought to have disbelieved the prosecution case and it is a fit case of acquittal of the Appellants. However, perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 reveals that the Appellants had entered into the field, and in spite of protest of P.W. 5 started cutting and removing the paddy raised by P.W. 5. The latter having resisted the acts of the Appellants they assaulted him with lathis, iron rods, Emkuna and other weapons. P.W. 1 was an eye-witness to assault on P.W. 5. He has stated that he had seen the assault on P.W. 5 from a distance of 100 cubits. The evidence of P.W. 1 is criticized by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants on the ground that he was an old man, his vision was not good and he being a close relative of P.W. 5 his evidence should not have been believed. But then P.W. 3 the informant has corroborated the statement of P.W. 1 stating that he had seen the Appellants assaulting P.W. 5. The statement of P.W. 3 is also corroborated by P.W. 4. But then P.W. 3 the informant has corroborated the statement of P.W. 1 stating that he had seen the Appellants assaulting P.W. 5. The statement of P.W. 3 is also corroborated by P.W. 4. It is also very much apparent from the evidence that P.W. 5 was lying on the ground having sustained several injuries on his person and that all the Appellants were present at the spot being armed with lethal weapons. P.W. 5 was carried by villagers to the Bhadrak Hospital where he was treated. The treating physician has been examined as P.W. 2. In his statement he corroborated the statement of other P. Ws. that P.W. 5 had been brutally assaulted. The weapons of offence had been seized and produced in Court which were marked as M. Os. 7. It is apparent from the evidence that there was dispute over the land in question between the injured and the Appellants and proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and under the OLR Act were pending. Though P. Ws. 3 and 4 had been cross-examined by defence, nothing was elicited from their statements so as to discredit them. The statement of the doctor P.W. 2 coupled with the injury report submitted by him reveals that P.W. 5 had sustained as many as fourteen injuries among which there were lacerations, abrasions, contusions and grievous fractures at the vital parts of his body. After going the entire evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court did not commit any error and the conclusions arrived at by him were supported by oral and documentary evidence adduced in Court. Though much is said with regard to non-examination of the investigating officer as a witness in the case, it appears that attendance of the investigating officer could not procured for which the case was being adjourned time and again. The occurrence was of the year 1982, the trial was completed in 1992, i.e. ten years after. In the meanwhile twenty-six years have passed. Considering all these and taking a lenient view this Court while confirming the conviction of the Appellants, sentences them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (two thousand) each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. No doubt as per law the period of imprisonment undergone as UTP shall be set off. 2,000.00 (two thousand) each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. No doubt as per law the period of imprisonment undergone as UTP shall be set off. The total fine amount that may be realized shall be paid to the injured P.W. 5. With the aforesaid modification in sentence the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The bail-bonds of the Appellants being cancelled they be apprehended forthwith to serve the sentence. 8. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed