ORAL JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 26-06-2001 passed by Sri B.B. Verma, l Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1996 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellant no. 2 for the offence U/s 325 of the IPC and appellants nos. 1 and 3 under Section 323 of the IPC and accordingly, the appellant np. 2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year whereas rest appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The learned sessions judge, Rohtas at Sasaram acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Section 307/34 and 341/34 of the IPC and appellants no. 1 and 3 were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 325/34 of the IPC and similarly appellant no. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 323/34 of the IPC by the impugned judgment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 7 Harihar Singh gave written report to officer in charge of Agrer Police Station on 28.01.1995 to this effect that on the same day, while he was digging in his land for irrigation, appellants came there and forbade him and when he made protest, appellant no. 1 gave one RAMI blow on his head as a result of which he fell down there and blood started oozing out from his head and after that appellant no. 2 gave back portion of RAMI to him as a result of which his wrist of left hand was broken and appellant no. 3 assaulted him with a RAMI as a result of which he sustained injury on his leg and back. P.W. -7 raised alarm which attracted Ram Ekbal Singh, Ram Sunder Singh and Kapil Deo Singh who saved the P.W. 7. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the P.W. 7, Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case No. 42 of 1995 was registered for the offences under Section 341, 323 325, 307/34 of the IPC and formal FIR was drawn against the appellants under the above said sections. 5. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the P.W. 7, Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case No. 42 of 1995 was registered for the offences under Section 341, 323 325, 307/34 of the IPC and formal FIR was drawn against the appellants under the above said sections. 5. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under the above said sections. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way. 6. The appellants were put on trial and all the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections- 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, prosecution examined, altogether, ten witnesses and also got exhibited documentary evidence including injury report as well as X-ray plates. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story. 8. The learned trial court, having analyzed the materials available on the record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that material witnesses have contradicted each others not only on the point of place of occurrence but also on the manner of occurrence and to fortify the above said contention, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.-1 has stated in his deposition that when he reached on the place of occurrence, he did not find any person there whereas other witnesses stated that they reached near the place of occurrence before arrival of the P.W. 1 and similarly, some witnesses stated that the blood was fallen on the earth whereas some witnesses stated that they did not find any blood on the earth. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that all the material prosecution witnesses are related to each others and as a matter of fact, they are interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that all the material prosecution witnesses are related to each others and as a matter of fact, they are interested witnesses. In the aforesaid context, he submitted that some prosecution witnesses have admitted this fact that the appellants had also filed criminal case against the prosecution party for the occurrence of the same day and some of the witnesses of this case were made accused in the aforesaid case and therefore, no reliance can safely be placed on the testimony of the above said prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that some witnesses stated that alleged occurrence took place in the field of P.W. 7 whereas; some witnesses stated that alleged occurrence took place in the filed of appellant no. 1 and the aforesaid contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case and, therefore, no reliance can safely be placed on the prosecution story and the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. He further submitted that according to prosecution itself the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1995 and near about more than 17 years have already been elapsed, so no purpose would be served by sending the appellants in jail to serve out their sentences and this court should take a lenient view in sentencing the appellant, if the appellants are found guilty on the basis of materials available on the record. 10. On the other hand, learned additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that all the material witnesses have supported the prosecution story and the prosecution has, successfully, proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. He further submitted that even if some minor discrepancies have occurred in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, then also, the aforesaid discrepancies do not go to the root of the prosecution case the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown on the basis of aforesaid minor discrepancies. He further submitted that so far as interested witnesses are concerned, now it has already been set at rest by several judgments of Apex Court of this country that the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is interested witness if he is found trustworthy. 11. As I have already stated that to prove its case prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses. 11. As I have already stated that to prove its case prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses. Out of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1 stated that he reached on the place of occurrence, having heard the noise of his father and while he was going towards place of occurrence, he saw the appellants fleeing having RAMI in their hands. P.W. 2 Kapildeo Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Ekbal Singh, P.W. 4 Brij Bihari Singh claimed themselves to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the aforesaid witnesses stated that appellants assaulted the P.W. 7. P.W. 5 stated only to this extent that having heard the cry of his father, he ran towards the place of occurrence and on way, he saw the appellants going towards village having RAMI in their hands. 12. P.W. 7 Harihar Singh is informant of this case. This witness stated that appellant No. 1 Rajdeo Singh gave RAMI blow on his head, appellant No. 2 gave back portion of the RAMI on his wrist as a result of which, wrist was broken and appellant No. 3 assaulted him with Danda as a result of which, he sustained injury on his back. 13. On scrutinizing the statements of the above-said witnesses, I find that on the point of assault, almost all the aforesaid witnesses have made consistent statements and there is nothing in their depositions to disbelieve their statements on the point of assault. 14. P.W. 6 is a doctor who had examined the P.W. 7 after the alleged occurrence and this witness stated that he found three injuries on the person of P.W. 7 and out of them; one injury was on left fore-arm near wrist and he advised for X-ray of injury No. 1. This witness further stated that on being receipt of the X-ray report, he found fracture of lower ulna and accordingly, he opined that the aforesaid injury was grievous in nature. The X-ray plate was proved by P.W. 8 and, therefore, it is apparent that prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that appellants assaulted the P.W. 7 on the alleged date of occurrence and appellant No. 2 caused grievous hurt by RAMI to P.W. 7 and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned court below rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 15. 15. So far as minor discrepancies occurred in the depositions of prosecution witnesses are concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly submitted that the aforesaid minor discrepancies do not go to the root of the prosecution case and similarly, the statement of material prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown only on the ground that they are interested witnesses. Moreover, P.W. 7 is an injured witness and he is himself competent to say who had assaulted him and this witness specifically proved this fact that the appellants had assaulted him and the aforesaid factum of assault is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, injury report as well as X-ray plate and, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction. 16. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place on account of irrigation dispute and the alleged occurrence took place in the year, 1995. Furthermore, I find that both parties filed cases against each others and therefore, in my view, no purpose would be served by sending the appellants in jail to serve out their sentences after such a long gap and to meet the end of justice, it would be sufficient to impose fine upon the appellants and accordingly, all the appellants are fined of Rs 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo for simple imprisonment of three months. 17. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence order in the manner as stated above. 18. The learned trial court shall take steps for realization of the aforesaid find. Appeal dismissed.