Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions judge, Shahdol in S. T. No. 127/91, decided on 27. 6. 98. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to Manish Ghai and Girishchand and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default simple imprisonment for four months on each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, appellant was a tenant in the residential house of Seth Jagannath Prasad Agrawal, which was later on purchased by complainants father Girishchand. The eviction proceedings initiated against the appellant ultimately concluded in favour of the appellant and he was again placed in possession. Since then, appellant began quarreling with the complainant party. On the night intervening 7th and 8th Aug. 1990 at 2. 30 A. M. , when complainant Shirish Ghai and all other family members were sleeping in their house, appellant came there on a jeep alongwith co-accused Pankaj Sharma (Since deceased) and other 8-10 anti social elements. They were armed with knife, farsa, ballam and sabbal. Appellant and his associates broke open the doors of the house of the complainant, came inside and began damaging the property; when resistance was made by the inmates of the house, co-accused Pankaj Sharma gave a farsa blow to complainant Shirish Ghai, while appellant Bhagwandas and other co-accused persons began assaulting his brother Manish Ghai and his father Girishchand by knife and sharp edged weapons causing injuries. Upon hue and cry, some neighbours including mohd. Safdar and Deenanath came to their rescue. Then the appellant and other co-accused persons threatened and intimidated them and fled away. The FIR of the incident was lodged by shirish Ghai at Police Station Kotwali, Shahdol, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and other co-accused persons. Injured Shirish, Manish and Girishchand were sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellants and seven others were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 149, 450, 427, 506-B, 307, 120-B of IPC and were put to trial. Co-accused Pankaj Sharma, however, died during the pendency of the trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT and other co-accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. After due investigation, appellants and seven others were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 149, 450, 427, 506-B, 307, 120-B of IPC and were put to trial. Co-accused Pankaj Sharma, however, died during the pendency of the trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT and other co-accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. According to appellant, complainant party had unauthorizedly dispossessed him from his house and he was relegated to the possession under the order of the High Court; complainant party entered into his house quarrelled with him, assaulted and falsely implicated him. ( 5. ) LEARNED additional sessions judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the co-accused persons of the various charges levelled against them and also acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 120-B, 148, 427 and 506-B of IPC, but found him guilty under section 324 of IPC for causing hurt to Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and girishchand (PW-12) by knife, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid under Section 324 of IPC on two counts by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of unreliable evidence of the interested and partisan witnesses and failed to consider that appellant also sustained injury in the incident and there was an old enmity between the appellant and the complainant party over possession of the house. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. Complainant Shirish (P. W-7), his brother Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and father Girishchand (P. W-12) are the injured eyewitnesses and the inmates of the house, where the incident occurred at midnight. As such their presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Complainant Shirish (P. W-7) and his brother Manish Ghai (P. W-8) as well as his father Girishchand (P. W-12) have deposed in their evidence that appellant Bhagwandas had assaulted Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) by knife and caused injuries on their person. There is also corroborative medical evidence on record of Dr. Complainant Shirish (P. W-7) and his brother Manish Ghai (P. W-8) as well as his father Girishchand (P. W-12) have deposed in their evidence that appellant Bhagwandas had assaulted Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) by knife and caused injuries on their person. There is also corroborative medical evidence on record of Dr. Pradeep Khare (P. W-6), who had examined the complainant Sirish as well as injured Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and girishchand (P. W-12) and found incised wound on the person of manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) caused by hard and sharp object. ( 9. ) ALTHOUGH complainant Shirish Ghai, who lodged the FIR (Ex. P-5), Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but there are no reasons to disbelieve their basic version that appellant also assaulted to Manish ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) by knife and thereby caused injuries on their person, which also stood corroborated by the medical evidence. The existence of old dispute over possession of the house or enmity could not be a ground to discard the evidence of aforesaid injured eyewitnesses. The mere fact that appellant also subsequently lodged the FIR with the Police and sustained simple injuries, as found by Dr. M. D. Shukla (D. W-2), does not shatter the the evidence of the complainant Shirish (P. W-7) and other injured witnesses, namely, Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and girishchand (P. W-12) to the effect that appellant had assaulted them by knife. There is also no positive evidence on record that the injuries found on the person of the appellant were caused by complainant party. In absence of any such evidence, the possibility of the appellant sustaining simple injuries in the scuffle could not be ruled out. Be that as it may, that does not cast any doubt on the version made by the complainant and the injured witnesses, namely, Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) that appellant had assaulted and caused hurt to Manish (P. W-8) and girishchand (P. W-12) by knife. ( 10. Be that as it may, that does not cast any doubt on the version made by the complainant and the injured witnesses, namely, Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) that appellant had assaulted and caused hurt to Manish (P. W-8) and girishchand (P. W-12) by knife. ( 10. ) IN fact, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, which was read over by learned counsel for the appellant, the finding recorded by the trial court, that appellant voluntarily caused hurt to Manish Ghai (P. W-8) and Girishchand (P. W-12) by knife, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of ipc on two counts, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. ( 11. ) AS regards the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that appellant is presently around 70 years of age and the incident occurred as back as year 1990 and the appellant also remained in custody in this case nearly for nine days and he also sustained injury in the incident, therefore, he should not be sent back to jail after long lapse of time; it was, therefore, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him with some additional amount of fine. ( 12. ) CONSIDERING the submissions as advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the present age of the appellant and the fact that incident of the case is as old as 8. 8. 90, interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with an additional fine of Rs. 3000/- on each count. ( 13. ) APPEAL is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is affirmed. However, the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 324 of IPC on both the counts is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with an additional fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months, on each count, besides the fine already imposed by the trial court. The fine amount shall be deposited within three months from today, failing which appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment as directed. 3000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months, on each count, besides the fine already imposed by the trial court. The fine amount shall be deposited within three months from today, failing which appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment as directed. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.