JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Gaya, by a judgment dated 4.7.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 1992. 2. The prosecution case according to one Razia Devi is that on the previous day of 6.4.1991 when her son Rambal Yadav was irrigating his onion field, the Appellants came there armed with Garansa and Bhala. On seeing them, the Informant cried out at which her son Rambali Yadav attempted to ran away but Appellant Jageshwar Yadav is said to have given a Garasa blow on the head of her son on account of which he fell down and, thereafter, the Appellants further assaulted and when the 2 Informant attempted to save her son, she was also assaulted. On hearing cries, the daughter-in-law came who was also chased by the accused persons for which she entered the house of one Tikam Mahto where the accused persons ransacked his house. The Appellants also came along with other relatives and damaged tiles of house of the Informant. 3. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case out of whom PW-2 and PW-3 have been tendered whereas PW-7 is the Investigating Officer and PW-8 is the Doctor who examined the injured and the Informant as well as PW-9. PW-6 is the Informant whereas PW-1 is the son of her brother-in-law. PW-5 is her son Rambali Yadav and PW-9 is her brother-in-law who was injured. Even though, PW-5 has stated that he was eye witness to the occurrence but in his cross-examination he admitted that he was not sure as also that there was a land dispute between the parties. PW-5 is the son of the Informant who has stated about the place of occurrence as also the weapons with which the injured was assaulted. 4. From the evidence of eye-witnesses, I find that there are all interested and related witnesses and even though the occurrence has taken place in full open view, no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The Doctor who examined the injured Razia Devi the Informant however, found eleven injuries on her person out of which two injuries were grievous in nature whereas rest was the simple and the two grievour injuries are on non-vital parts. The Doctor who examined the injured Razia Devi the Informant however, found eleven injuries on her person out of which two injuries were grievous in nature whereas rest was the simple and the two grievour injuries are on non-vital parts. Similarly, on the person of Rambali Yadav (PW-5), seven injuries were noticed by the Doctor 3 out of which one injury was found to be grievous which was also on non vital parts. 5. From the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that there is full corroboration on the manner of occurrence as well as assault resorted to by the Appellants which is corroborated by the Doctor and, therefore, finding no scope for interference in the conviction of the Appellants, the Appeal is dismissed. However, the period of sentence already undergone by them during trial is sufficient in the interest of justice. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification.