JUDGMENT This criminal appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 15/9/2001 passed by the Special Judge, Designated Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 52/1997 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly, it is the case of prosecution that on 10/2/1997 at about 7.30 p.m. complainant Machhindra, who was tenant of the accused, was subjected to assault as accused was insisting Machhindra to vacate the house, which was occupied by him as a tenant. It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of the incident, accused arrived at the house of the complainant and beat him by stick, due to which he sustained injuries on his both legs, chest and head, which incident was intervened by P.W.2 Mainabai, who was grandmother of Machhindra's wife. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the course of the said action, accused also assaulted P.W.2 Mainabai by stick. Machhindra was brought to Police Station, Ambazari by his wife and thereafter was referred for medical treatment. He was indoor patient in a Hospital till 13/2/1997. According to the prosecution, as the medical reports of Machhindra were awaited upto 30/9/1997, offences came to be registered on that date on the basis of the complaint lodged on 10/2/1997 vide Crime No. 282/1997. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Charges were framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. 3. Charges were framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. Considering the evidence on record; the learned Special Judge convicted the accused as stated above, however, acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Heard Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused and Shri Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. To effectively evaluate the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both the sides, I have scrutinized the evidence with their assistance. 5. Complainant Machhindra (P.W.5) has stated that the incident occurred on 10/2/1997 at about 7.30 p.m. in his house where he was residing along with his wife, mother-in-law Mainabai (P.W.2) and children, when accused arrived and asked him to vacate the house and assaulted him by stick on his head, legs and hands, due to which he sustained bleeding injury to his head. The complainant has further stated that the assault was committed by the accused in the presence of P.W.2 Mainabai while P.W.4 Subhadrabai and P.W.7 Geetabai were at some distance. According to the complainant, the assault was intervened by P.W.2 Mainabai, who was also subjected to assault at the hands of the accused, due to which she suffered fracture to her hand. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing material is elicited to doubt his version, except for suggesting that the accused has not assaulted him, which suggestion is duly denied. In fact, it has come in the cross-examination that the complainant has seen assault on Mainabai at the hands of the accused. Though it is suggested to the complainant that he has lodged a false case against the accused to harass him, no reason appears to have been put to the complainant for his harassing the accused. 6. The evidence of P.W.2 Mainabai corroborates the version of the complainant. She has stated that at the time of incident, she was in the house of complainant Machhindra. Complainant Machhindra arrived at 5.30 p.m. in the house and thereafter the accused being armed with stick, entered the house and assaulted complainant on his head, thigh, leg and hands. She has further stated that the accused also assaulted her on her hand. She has stated that at the time of incident, she was in the house of complainant Machhindra. Complainant Machhindra arrived at 5.30 p.m. in the house and thereafter the accused being armed with stick, entered the house and assaulted complainant on his head, thigh, leg and hands. She has further stated that the accused also assaulted her on her hand. She has also stated that on raising shouts, persons gathered on the spot and accused ran away. In her cross-examination, it has come on record that she was residing at the distance of 10 minutes’ walk from the house of complainant Machhindra. However, at the time of incident, she was present in the house of complainant Machhindra since 3 p.m. Though she has admitted that her eye sight was weak since last couple of years, it has come in her evidence that she could see from the distance of one feet. It is nowhere suggested to this witness that she had not seen the accused from the distance of one feet. 7. The evidence of above witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 Subhadrabai and P.W.7 Geetabai, who were neighbours. They have deposed that from their courtyard they have witnessed accused committing assault on the complainant in front of their house. According to them, the complainant had sustained injury to his head, due to which he fell down. The evidence of these two eye witnesses though is silent on the aspect of assault by the accused on legs and hands of the complainant, their evidence corroborates on the aspect of the accused assaulting complainant on his head. In the cross-examination of P.W.7 Geetabai, it has come on record that her house was at the distance of 5 feet from the house of the complainant and was situated at higher side wherefrom she could witness the incident. 8. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, has contended that the aforesaid neighbours cannot be relied upon since their statements were recorded on 16/10/1997 in respect of the incident occurred on 10/2/1997. 8. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, has contended that the aforesaid neighbours cannot be relied upon since their statements were recorded on 16/10/1997 in respect of the incident occurred on 10/2/1997. However, I do not find substance in the submission in view of the evidence of P.W.9 PSI Vairagade, who has stated that in spite of his repeated attempts to collect medical report from the Government Medical College, Nagpur from the date of incident, i.e. 10/2/1997, he received the same only on 30/9/1997 and thereafter on the directions of his superior Officer, registered offences on 30/9/1997. As such, it appears that the prosecution has sufficiently explained the delay in registering the offences. However, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant to the effect that even after registering offences late on 30/9/1997, statements of P.W.4 Subhadrabai and P.W.7 Geetabai were recorded on 16/10/1997, i.e. after 15 days, also needs to be considered. 9. The evidence of injured complainant and other eye witnesses thus establish involvement of the accused as an assailant on the complainant, which fact further finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Niketan, who states to have examined the injured on 10/2/1997 when he was attached as a Medical Officer to the Government Medical College, Nagpur and has noted the following injuries: (1) Lacerated wound on left parietal region 4 cm x 5 cm. (2) Lacerated wound on left mastoid region 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. (3) Contusion on left shoulder, (4) Contusion on both the legs, (5) Contusion on left side of chest. The evidence of the said Expert thus further corroborates the version of the injured complainant. P.W.11 Dr. Niketan has not expressed any opinion whether the injuries sustained by complainant Machhindra could be possible due to fall of a person on a rough object like boulders. In view of the evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Niketan, it cannot be said that complainant Machhindra sustained injuries, particularly head injury, due to fall on the ground. 10. P.W.11 Dr. Niketan has not expressed any opinion whether the injuries sustained by complainant Machhindra could be possible due to fall of a person on a rough object like boulders. In view of the evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Niketan, it cannot be said that complainant Machhindra sustained injuries, particularly head injury, due to fall on the ground. 10. The case of the prosecution is further substantiated by the evidence of P.W.6 Rajesh Mogarwar when he has stated that memorandum statement of the accused was recorded by the Police in the presence of this witness and Arvind vide Exh.19, according to which the accused stated to recover stick concealed by him and in pursuance of the said memorandum statement of the accused, the said witness as a panch accompanied the Investigating Agency to Sanjay Nagar, Pandharabodi where the accused produced one stick, which came to be seized under seizure panchanama vide Exh. 20. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness except for suggesting that the accused has not discovered stick and the said witness is deposing false to help the complainant, which suggestions were duly denied by him. 11. Having considered the evidence available on record, I find that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Saudagar alias Balu Bajirao Bhange vs. The State of Maharashtra (2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2012) wherein having considered the fact that the incident had occurred about 20 years ago, during which period the accused was living under the shadow of conviction, it was held that it would be harsh to send the accused back to prison and thus, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years imposed upon the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code was reduced to imprisonment already undergone by the accused by imposing fine. 12. In view of the ratio as laid down above and having considered the fact that the appellant, who at the time of incident was aged about 52 years and as of today, must have attained the age of 69 years and having considered the facts in appeal, the appeal needs to be disposed of by reducing the sentence to imprisonment already undergone by him and enhancing the fine imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. 13. 13. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code as recorded by the learned trial Court is maintained. However, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code already undergone by him. The fine amount of Rs.300/- imposed upon the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and fine of Rs.200/- imposed for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.