Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 01. 05. 1999 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 448/1997, whereby the appellants hubbilal and Vimal have been convicted under Sections 147, 324/149 and 323/149 of I. P. C. , appellant Gajji Yadav under sections 147, 324 and 323 of I. P. C. and appellants Gulab Yadav and Mukesh under Sections 147, 324/149 and 323 of I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 3 months, R. I. for 3 years and R. I. for 3 months, each respectively with the direction to run the sentences concurrently. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that Dabbal Patel resident of Village Kailwas lodged F. I. R. on 11. 05. 1997 at about 09:00 p. m. at Police Station Barela to the effect that at about 7-8 p. m. his daughter Leelabai came after answering the call of nature and apprised that Gajji has pushed her. Gajji also came there and started talking nonsense for which he objected. Gajji rushed to assault. He caught hold of him and slapped. Thereafter he returned back to his house. After sometime Gajji armed with farsa, Mukesh and Gulab armed with lathi came there, abused him. Gajji inflicted farsa blow on account of which he fell down. Vimal also inflicted lathi blow. Gulab caught hold his hands. Maniklal and Gulab instigated to kill him. At the same time, his brother Dumari came there but he was also beaten by the appellants. Dulli Singh and Suraj Prasad carried him to the police station. On the basis of this report Crime No. 88/97 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 294 of I. P. C. was registered at police station Barela. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. They were examined by Dr. A. K. Nagariya (PW-10) and found the injuries as mentioned in medical reports Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13. X-ray of Dabbal Patel was also taken but no bony injury was found. Spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The weapons of offence were recovered from the accused persons in pursuance of the disclosure statement given by them. The blood stained and controlled soil was also seized. P-12 and Ex. P-13. X-ray of Dabbal Patel was also taken but no bony injury was found. Spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The weapons of offence were recovered from the accused persons in pursuance of the disclosure statement given by them. The blood stained and controlled soil was also seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to F. S. L. Sagar from where the report received. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of j. M. F. C. , Jabalpur who committed this case to the Sessions court for trial. ( 3. ) THE accused persons were charged under Section 147, 307 and 323 of I. P. C. and accused Gajji was further charged under Section 148 of I. P. C. They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and accused persons also examined 2 witness in their defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para no. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds mentioned therein. ( 4. ) SHRI Vikas Mahawar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant party assaulted to the appellants. F. I. R. Ex. D-5c was also lodged at police station barela. The incident occurred in front of the house of the appellants. It was a case of free fight. The injuries to appellants have not been explained by the prosecution. The interested witnesses belonging to the same family have been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined Maya Bai material witness of the case. Learned counsel further submitted that there was darkness and the appellants could not be identified by the complainant party. Therefore, the findings are erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. ( 5. The prosecution has not examined Maya Bai material witness of the case. Learned counsel further submitted that there was darkness and the appellants could not be identified by the complainant party. Therefore, the findings are erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. ( 5. ) ON the contrary, Shri S. S. Bisen, learned Government advocate appearing for the respondent/state supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that there is ample evidence against the appellants. The oral testimony of the witnesses have been supported by the medical evidence. The injuries have also been explained. The appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced hence does not call for any interference. ( 6. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants under the sections as mentioned in the first para of this judgment? ( 7. ) THE cause of crime is that one of the appellant Gajji pushed Leelabai (PW-8) daughter of complainant Dabbal (PW-1) when she was returning after answering the call of nature at evening. She made the complaint to her father Dabbal. When she was complaining Gajji reached at her house and threatened to slap her. On this some altercation took place in between Gajji and Dabbal and in that process Dabbal slapped gajji who returned back to his house threatening to see him. There is the evidence of Leelabai (PW-8), Dabbal (PW-1), dumari (PW-2) and Kunwarlal (PW-7) in this regard. The defence of the appellants that Leelabai herself abused Gajji at the hand pump has not been established. ( 8. ) AFTER sometime Dabbal was going to call his mother-in-law and as soon as he reached in front of the house of shankarlal these appellants met him. Gajji was armed with farsa and others with lathis. Gajji inflicted farsa blow at his head and other appellants also caused marpeet by lathi. He sustained the injuries on his body. He cried. His brother dumari came there to rescue him but he was also beaten. Dabbal lodged report at police station Barela which was recorded by Ashok Tiwari (PW-13 ). Dumari (PW-2), Suraj prasad (PW-6), Kunwarlal (PW-7), Leelabai (PW-8) have also supported the version of complainant Dabbal (PW-1 ). Accordingly the appellants caused injuries to Dabbal (PW-1 ). He cried. His brother dumari came there to rescue him but he was also beaten. Dabbal lodged report at police station Barela which was recorded by Ashok Tiwari (PW-13 ). Dumari (PW-2), Suraj prasad (PW-6), Kunwarlal (PW-7), Leelabai (PW-8) have also supported the version of complainant Dabbal (PW-1 ). Accordingly the appellants caused injuries to Dabbal (PW-1 ). The defence of the appellants is that Dabbal and Dumari came at the house of the appellants and caused marpeet to Gajji and his father Hubbilal but none of the witnesses has admitted this fact. No doubt, Gajji also lodged the report Ex. D-5c which was recorded by Ashok Tiwari (DW-2) and an offence was also registered against Dabbal and Dumari and they also faced the trial of the counter case No. 374/97. But on perusal of F. I. R. (Ex. P-1) and F. I. R. (Ex. D-5c) of counter case it is manifestly clear that the place of occurrence is in front of the house of shankarlal. Thus it is negatived that Dabbal and his brother dumari has gone to the house of appellants and caused marpeet of Gajji and Hubbilal. Moreover, they have not examined any doctor to prove the MLC therefore it is not established as to what injuries they sustained, whether the injuries were simple or grievous have not been proved. Therefore, the appellants have not established the defence that Dabbal and Dumari caused injuries to appellant Gajji and hubbilal. ( 9. ) ON the contrary, there is voluminous record against the appellants. Several prosecution witnesses have given the evidence that Gajji inflicted farsa blow at the head of Dabbal and other appellants inflicted lathi blows on account of which he sustained injuries. Dumari was also beaten. No doubt some contradictions and omissions have been brought in their evidence from their earlier police statements but they are not on the material point and hence inconsequential in nature. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination as to discredit their testimony. ( 10. ) IT is evident that F. I. R. (Ex. P-1) was lodged promptly. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. Dr. A. K. Nagariya (PW-10) examined Dabbal and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/8" full skin deep on the left parietal region of scalp. ( 10. ) IT is evident that F. I. R. (Ex. P-1) was lodged promptly. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. Dr. A. K. Nagariya (PW-10) examined Dabbal and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound 3" x 1/8" full skin deep on the left parietal region of scalp. (ii) Incised wound 1" x 1/8" skin deep on the left parietal region of scalp. (iii) Contusion 3"x"3/4" on the back of chest left side. (iv) Abrasion 1" x " on the back of chest left side. According to his opinion, injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and sharp object whereas injury nos. 3 and 4 were caused by hard and blunt object. Out of these injuries, injury nos. 3 and 4 were simple in nature whereas he was referred to district Hospital, Jabalpur for x-ray examination. Medical report is Ex. P-13 which contains his signature. ( 11. ) SIMILARLY he has also examined Dumari and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/8" full skin deep on the right parietal region. (ii) Contusion 2"x " on the right forearm. (iii) Contusion 2" x " on the left wrist joint. (iv) Contusion 1 " x " on the left forearm. According to his opinion these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object which were simple in nature. Medical report is Ex. P-12. ( 12. ) THUS medically it is proved that Dr. A. K. Nagariya found the injuries on the person of Dabbal and Dumari as described in medical reports Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13. Dr. M. M. Agrawal (PW-11) took x-ray of Dabbal but found no bony injury. X-ray report is Ex. P-14. Dr. Anil Dubey (PW-9) has deposed that Dabbal was admitted in Victoria Hospital, jabalpur from 11. 05. 1997 to 27. 05. 1997. Bed head ticket is ex. P-10. Treatment report is Ex. P-11. This witness has stated that the condition of Dabbal was normal and he has recovered at the time of discharge. Thus, from the medical evidence adduced in the case, it is established that both these injured persons sustained the simple injuries. The oral evidence that appellants caused injuries further finds supports from medical evidence. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that complainant party was aggressor and the case is of free fight. Thus, from the medical evidence adduced in the case, it is established that both these injured persons sustained the simple injuries. The oral evidence that appellants caused injuries further finds supports from medical evidence. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that complainant party was aggressor and the case is of free fight. But the contention of learned counsel is not acceptable for the simple reason that Gajji himself invited the quarrel by pushing to Leelabai-daughter of Dabbal. He had gone to the house of dabbal and made quarrel. Thereafter when Dabbal was going all the appellants caused his marpeet. Dabbal and Dumari both sustained the injuries. Injuries of appellants Gajji and hubbilal have not been proved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not proved that the complainant party was aggressor or there was any free fight. ( 14. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that prosecution has not explained the injuries of appellants gajji and Hubbilal, therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. Learned counsel has placed the reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Laxmi Singh and others v. State of bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 . ( 15. ) SO far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution has explained the injuries. Dabbal Prasad himself has stated that when Gajji inflicted blows then he also slapped him. As stated earlier, the nature of injuries of appellants have not been proved hence the prosecution was not under obligation to explain such injuries. The cited case is distinguishable on the facts of this case. ( 16. ) LEARNED counsel of appellants further submitted that only interested witnesses belonging to the same family have been adduced by the prosecution, therefore, their evidence is not reliable. ( 17. ) IT is evident that Dabbal and Dumari are injured witnesses. They have given the evidence against the appellants. There is no reason to falsely implicate them. Apart from their evidence, there is also the supporting evidence of vishal Singh (PW-5), Suraj Prasad (PW-6), Kunwarlal (PW-7), leelabai (PW-8 ). The presence of these witnesses is quite natural at the time of incident at the place of occurrence, therefore, their evidence can not be discarded only on the basis that they belong to same family. They have vividly described the incident as occurred. The presence of these witnesses is quite natural at the time of incident at the place of occurrence, therefore, their evidence can not be discarded only on the basis that they belong to same family. They have vividly described the incident as occurred. Their evidence is reliable and the trial Court has not committed any illegality in placing the reliance on their evidence. The contention of learned counsel of appellants is not acceptable in this behalf. ( 18. ) ON critical appraisal of the entire evidence adduced in the case, it is manifestly clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The trial Court has dealt with every aspect in great detail and arrived at the correct conclusion. There is no illegality, infirmity, impropriety or perversity in the finding of the trial court hence the same can not be set aside. I affirm such finding. ( 19. ) SO far as the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Gajji has suffered the jail sentence of more than 7 months, Hubbilal more than 4 months, Gulab and Vimal more than 3 months, therefore, they be released on the period already undergone. ( 20. ) SINCE the incident is of 1997, the appellants have suffered a lot mentally, physically and economically. To send them back to jail would not be justified after lapse of 12 years. The interest would be subserved if they are released on the period already undergone. ( 21. ) SO far as appellant Mukesh is concerned, he has not served out any period of sentence. The imposition of fine would subserve the interest of justice. ( 22. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal succeeds and is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction recorded by court below. Appellant Hubbilal @ Maniklal, Gajji, Gulab and Vimal Yadav are released on the period already undergone. Appellant mukesh is sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 147, Rs. 2000/- u/s 324/149 and Rs. 1000/- u/s 323 of I. P. C. , in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month, 2 months and 1 month respectively. The fine so imposed, be deposited in the trial Court within three months from today. Out of the amount so deposited, Rs. 3000/- be paid to Dabbal prasad S/o Jarelal and Rs. 1000/- u/s 323 of I. P. C. , in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month, 2 months and 1 month respectively. The fine so imposed, be deposited in the trial Court within three months from today. Out of the amount so deposited, Rs. 3000/- be paid to Dabbal prasad S/o Jarelal and Rs. 1000/- be paid to Dumari S/o Hulasi, both resident of Village Kailwas, Police Station Barela, District jabalpur under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. by way of compensation. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.