Judgment ( 1. ) Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T.No.23/95, decided on 28.10.98. ( 2. ) Appellants have been convicted under Section 148, 324/149 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and rigorous imprisonment for two and half years with fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the respective offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants are also convicted under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.300/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for seven days by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) As per prosecution case, on 27.9.94 about 2 Oclock in the noon at village Uttar-Guha, when complainant Jagannath Singh was returning from the field with a bundle of grass and reached near the hut of Gopi Chamar, appellant Achal Singh intercepted him and gave two lathi blows on his legs, as a result of which complainant Jagannath fell down. Appellant Hemsingh also came there and assaulted him by means of an axe on his left arm; other appellants, namely, Bapulal, Kamal Singh, Bhura, Phool Singh and Premsingh armed with lathi also emerged there, besieged him and began assaulting him causing injuries on his back, hands, legs and the scapular region; appellant Achal Singh also exhorted the other appellants to kill him. Appellants had assaulted him due to old enmity. Ajab Bai and Balveer, the wife and son of complainant Jagannath, who were following him, called Gokul and Maharaj Singh. Complainant Jagannath was then taken to the Police Station, where he lodged the FIR. On the basis of his report, an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. Injured complainant was sent for medical examination. The axe and lathi used in the commission of offence were seized from the appellants. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 341 and 307 of IPC and were put to trial. ( 4. ) Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to old enmity. ( 5. Injured complainant was sent for medical examination. The axe and lathi used in the commission of offence were seized from the appellants. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 147, 148, 341 and 307 of IPC and were put to trial. ( 4. ) Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to old enmity. ( 5. ) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, came to hold that the offence under Section 307 of IPC was not proved against the appellants, but found them guilty for commission of the offences under Section 148, 324/149 and 341 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the unreliable testimony of interested and related witnesses without any independent corroboration and erroneously convicted them without their being any cogent evidence against them. ( 7. ) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the impugned judgment. ( 8. ) Perused the evidence on record. Complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) categorically deposed in his evidence that at the relevant time, when he was coming from the field with a bundle of grass, appellant Achal Singh gave him lathi blow on his legs near the hut of Gopi Chamar, as a result of which he fell down; then all the appellants assaulted him by lathi and appellant Hemsingh gave him an axe blow on his left hand causing injuries on his back, hand and legs. According to Jagannath (P.W-1), appellants had assaulted him due to old enmity and he had lodged the report (Ex.P-1) at the Police Station. The FIR (Ex.P-1) was recorded by Inspector Anil Singh Rathore (P.W-13), at Police Station, Ahmadpur on 27.9.94 and he had sent the complainant for medical examination. ( 9. ) The evidence of complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of his wife Ajab Bai (P.W-2). She also deposed that when she, her son and husband Jagannath Singh were coming from the field, appellants Achal Singh, Hemsingh and other appellants had assaulted her husband Jagannath. ( 9. ) The evidence of complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) also stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of his wife Ajab Bai (P.W-2). She also deposed that when she, her son and husband Jagannath Singh were coming from the field, appellants Achal Singh, Hemsingh and other appellants had assaulted her husband Jagannath. Ajab Bai (P.W-2) has also specifically named all the seven appellants as the assailants and categorically deposed that first of all appellant Achal Singh had given a lathi blow to her husband on his leg and thereafter appellant Hemsingh gave him an axe blow, then other appellants also assaulted him. According to Ajab Bai (P.W-2), she and her son were coming behind her husband Jagannath, who was ahead, and when she reached near her husband, she saw all the appellants assaulting him. ( 10. ) The evidence of Jagannath (P.W-1) also stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi (P.W-9), who examined complainant Jagannath on 27.9.94 at P.H.C., Ahmadpur found following injuries on his person:- (I) Incised wound 5cm ulnar border of left forearm, sharp margins, clotted blood present, fresh bleeding present, bone seen intact. (II) Diffuse bruise. Brownish black over left back, slight edema underlying ribs, difficult to palpate. (III)Bruise 1 x 3 left shoulder, tip. Brownish black, edema. (IV)Bruise 1 x 4 below injury no.3, same characters. (V)Bruise 1 x 4 cm 2 in number, parallel, back of left arm, edema present, same character. (VI)Bruise 1 x 3 cm back of right elbow, edema present, reddish brown. (VII)Swelling skin of left tibia anterior, bone cant be palpated. (VIII)Swelling back of scalp. No bleeding. ( 11. ) According to Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi (P.W-9), injury no.1 could be caused by hard and sharp object, while the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The MLC report of complainant Jagannath duly signed by Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi (P.W-9) is also placed on record. ( 12. ) Although Shivraj Singh (P.W-3), Roopsingh (P.W-5) and Tejsingh (P.W-6) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile, yet there are no cogent reasons to disbelieve the testimony of injured witness Jagannath (P.W-1) and his wife Ajab Bai (P.W-2), particularly in view of the medical evidence of Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi (P.W-9), who found several injuries on his body including an incised injury on his left forearm. Deepak Chaturvedi (P.W-9), who found several injuries on his body including an incised injury on his left forearm. There has been no cross-examination of the doctor on the number and site of injuries found by him on the person of injured Jagannath (P.W-1). Despite elaborate cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited in the testimony of Jagannath (P.W-1) and Ajab Bai (P.W-2) so as to distrust their version that all the appellants, seven in number, were present on the place of occurrence and they being armed with axe and lathi actively participated in assaulting the deceased on his way back to his village near the hut of Gopi Chamar. ( 13. ) Complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) has also specified the name of all the appellants as assailants in his cross-examination in para 13 of his deposition. All the appellants are also named as assailants in the FIR (Ex.P-1), promptly lodged by him. It is also clearly evident from the testimony of Ajab Bai (P.W-2) that she was coming behind her husband Jagannath alongwith her son and she also witnessed the assault on her husband (P.W-1). The few inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of Jagannath and his wife Ajab Bai (P.W-2) are not such so as to dislodge their basic version that all the appellants, seven in number, armed with lathi were present on the place of occurrence and assaulted complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) on his way back from the field, causing him several wounds including an incised injury. Their evidence cannot be discarded merely for want of independent corroboration, particularly when it stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 14. ) Though it has come in the evidence of complainant Jagannath (P.W-1) that there was long standing enmity between him and the appellants, but that by itself is no ground to discard his evidence, as the enmity is a double edged weapon and it could well be the cause of incident of assault on the complainant at the hands of appellants. ( 15. ) Although the Trial Court did not find it established that any fracture was caused to complainant Jagannath (P.W-1), the medical evidence of Dr. Deepak chaturvedi (P.W-9) clearly shows that number of injuries including one incised injury were inflicted on the body of complainant Jagannath (P.W-1). ( 16. ( 15. ) Although the Trial Court did not find it established that any fracture was caused to complainant Jagannath (P.W-1), the medical evidence of Dr. Deepak chaturvedi (P.W-9) clearly shows that number of injuries including one incised injury were inflicted on the body of complainant Jagannath (P.W-1). ( 16. ) Needless to add that the defence evidence regarding plea of alibi of some of the appellants, which was never put earlier to the prosecution witnesses, is not found to be reliable and acceptable. ( 17. ) In fact, it was clearly established from the evidence on record that appellants, seven in number, armed with axe and lathi conjointly assaulted the complainant on his way to the village and caused number of injuries including one incised injury caused by sharp and hard object, obviously in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly formed by them. In view of these facts, the conviction of appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 148, 324/149 and 341 of IPC does not warrant any interference in appeal and deserves to be maintained. ( 18. ) As regards the sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident of the case occurred way back in the year 1994, appellant no.1 Bapulal is presently more than 65 years of age and others have also settled in life, appellants have also suffered imprisonment for more than ten days, and sentence of imprisonment is also not mandatory for any of the offences under Section 148, 324 and 341 of IPC, appellants should not be sent back to jail after long lapse of time; it was therefore, submitted that the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. ( 19. ) Considering the submissions as advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the incident of the case occurred in the year 1994 and only one incised injury out of other injuries was caused in the left arm of complainant Jagannath, and appellants have also undergone imprisonment for more than ten days, interest of justice would be met if the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants for the offences under Section 148, 324/149 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by each of them with some additional fine. ( 20. ) Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. ( 20. ) Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellants under Section 148, 324/149 and 341 of IPC is maintained. The impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants under Section 148, 324/149 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by each of them. However, each of the appellants shall pay an additional fine of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand only) for commission of the offence under Section 324/149 of IPC within three months from today, failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of fine imposed on the appellants under Section 341 of IPC is maintained. ( 21. ) Out of the amount of fine, if realized, a sum of Rs.6000/- (six thousand only) shall be paid to complainant Jagannath by way of compensation for injuries caused to him. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.