JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.9.2001passed by Sri Sita Ram Mahto, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial no. 261 of 1992 by which judgment all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years u/s 148 of the I.P.C and further, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. For 1 year u/s 323 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that informant and appellants, both, are co-villagers and there was some dispute as the informant's wife was stopped from doing delivery case in their family. Hence, this occurrence took place for which the appellants have sufficiently been punished, since, they have undergone a long drawn trial and appeal from 1990. They have also remained in custody for sometime. The entire family members have been made accused and the prosecution case has not been supported by any of the independent witnesses of the village. Only the family members have supported the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants are bad in law and fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state has supported the prosecution case and stated that the nature of the occurrence is such that all of the accused have entered the house of the informant and assaulted him and as such the family members who have been examined are all natural witnesses and trial court has rightly relied upon them and convicted the appellants u/s 323 and 148 of the I.P.C. 4. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, it appears that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by the informant, P.W.8, Sonu Machhua stating therein that on 12.11.1990 he along with his brother Jatwa Machhua and sons Rajendra Machua and Yogeshwar Machhua were fencing his field having brinjal and tomato in order to protect the field from cattle. Then the accused co-villagers, Bipin Mahato, Kirti Mahato, Labhori Mahato, Sashi Mahto, Tulsi Mahato, Meghnath Mahato, Ram Mahato, Gambhir Mahato, Santosh Mahato, Bhubneshwar Mahato, Prahlad Pramanik, Kali Pado Mahato along with others armed with lathi, bhala , tabala came there and assaulted them. Then the accused co-villagers, Bipin Mahato, Kirti Mahato, Labhori Mahato, Sashi Mahto, Tulsi Mahato, Meghnath Mahato, Ram Mahato, Gambhir Mahato, Santosh Mahato, Bhubneshwar Mahato, Prahlad Pramanik, Kali Pado Mahato along with others armed with lathi, bhala , tabala came there and assaulted them. Out of fear they flee away to their house, but they were chased by the accused and when they closed the door of their house, the accused started throwing stones. Thereafter, some persons broke open the roof, door and entered the house. Bipin Mahato , Vidyadhar Mahato and others entered the house and they assaulted the informant's wife , as a result of which she sustained bleeding injury. There was also assault by means of lathi. His sons Rajendra and Jatla were also injured by lathi etc. The accused also took away she goat worth Rs. 300/- and a watch worth Rs.200/- and on the basis of the said F.I.R police registered a case u/s 380, 307 and 148 of the I.P.C and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and subsequently the case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella who convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 5. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P.W.1 is Rajendra Machhua P.W.2 is Jatal Machhua P.W.3 is Karn Machhua P.W.4 is Yogeshwar Machhua P.W.5 is Parwati Machhuain P.W.6 is Kishori Machhua P.W.7 is Somwari Machhuain P.W.8 is Sonu Machhua, informant of the case P.W.9 is Sudhanshu Shekhar Nanda P.W.10 is Tarini Kumar 6. It is important to note that P.W.1,2,3,4,5 and 7 are all family members who have supported the prosecutioncase and P.W.6 is tendered witness. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are formal witnesses. 7. Thus, it appears that although there was allegation made in the F.I.R as also supported by the witnesses in their oral evidence, the injury was received by them, but no doctor was examined. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are formal witnesses. 7. Thus, it appears that although there was allegation made in the F.I.R as also supported by the witnesses in their oral evidence, the injury was received by them, but no doctor was examined. Even the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case and the fardbeyan was proved by the formal witness, P.W.9 and as such the trial court only found the appellants guilty u/s 323 I.P.C. So far as the case u/s 148 of the I.P.C is concerned, the said case has been fully supported by the evidence of P.W.8 who stated in court that on the date of occurrence i.e on 12.11.1990 at about 9 a.m when he along with his brother, Yogeshwar, Jatla and his nephew, Rajendra had gone to his field and was giving fence to protect the same from cattle since, potato, brinjal were cultivated there. Then suddenly all the appellants came variously armed with lathi, tabala etc. started assaulting them. Thereafter, they ran towards their house and closed the house and all the accused started throwing stones. Then some of the appellants forcibly opened the door. Thereafter, they entered the house and assaulted the informant and others causing injury to them. Other family members, P.W.1,2,3,4,5 have also supported the said version of the informant and as such the case u/s 148 and 323 of the I.P.C is made out against the accused persons. However, since there was no motive proved nor the Investigating Officer and doctor were examined and as such the trial court rightly acquitted the appellants u/s 380 of the I.P.C and sentenced only u/s 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. 8. I find nothing to disturb the same. As such the conviction of the appellants u/s 148 and 323 of the I.P.C are confirmed. 9. However, it has been submitted by learned counsel for appellants that appellants and the informant are co-villagers and there was no land dispute or anything. As per the F.I.R there was some misunderstanding, since the informant's wife was stopped from doing delivery in the family of the accused -appellants due to which the occurrence took place and there was no motive for causing any injury to the informant party. Further the appellants have undergone a long drawn trial and appeal and rigor of the same including the period already undergone in the custody are sufficiently being punished. 5 10. Further the appellants have undergone a long drawn trial and appeal and rigor of the same including the period already undergone in the custody are sufficiently being punished. 5 10. Learned counsel for the state has got no objection to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine u/s 148 and 323 of the I.P.C 11. In that view of the matter, the sentence of the appellants is altered to the period of 26 days already undergone by them during trial and appeal plus a fine of Rs.1000/- ( One Thousand) each. If the fine amount is not paid, appellants will undergo S.I. For one year each and if fine amount is paid, 50% of the same will be paid to the informant as cost of the injury suffered by him and his family members. 12. With the aforesaid alteration in the order of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.