JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.6.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, 10th Fast Track Court in S.T No.530 of 1997 whereby the above named appellant has been found guilty and convicted under section 341 and 323 of the of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under section 323 and fine of Rs.300/- under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine S.I for ten days, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as alleged in the Fard-beyan of the informant Ashok Kumar Raut recorded at Saint Barnabas Hospital Ranchi on 25.4.1996 at about 11 P.M by S.I Ram Sidhesar Azad of Lower Bazar police station is that on 25.4.1996 at 8.pm the informant Ashok Kumar Raut (P.W 2) along with Asar Hussain (P.W 1) was going to police Club Ranchi. At about 10.15 p.m. when they reached near State Polytechnic all on a sudden they were restrained by four persons including the current appellant on the road asking them to push their ambassador car but they did not to do so. The Car bore the number BRP 5643. The informant and his associate replied that they were policemen and busy and going to do some urgent work. Being enraged, the accused persons started assaulting them by legs and fist. Although, they were four in number, one of them took out an iron rod from the car and assaulted the informant and another accused gave fist blow on his mouth resulting in his teeth being broken. The accused pushed the informant as a result of which the informant fell down on the ground and after that he climbed over his chest and started pressing his neck with intention to kill him. On hearing hull a constables from nearby TOP rushed and with their help, two of the accused persons was apprehended and other two accused persons managed to run away by opening fire from own pistol. Accused persons was brought to the TOP where they disclosed their names as Tanvir Alam @ Tanu and Innocent Tigga. They could not identify the accused who managed in fleeing away. 3. Accused persons was brought to the TOP where they disclosed their names as Tanvir Alam @ Tanu and Innocent Tigga. They could not identify the accused who managed in fleeing away. 3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, formal FIR was been registered against the accused persons under section 323, 341, 325, 307, 308, 353, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation of the case was started and after completion of investigation charge sheet under sections 341, 325, 307, 308, 323, 353, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was submitted against the accused persons and after that cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and it was registered as S.T. No. 530 of 1997. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined altogether seven witnesses, out of whom P.W 1 Asar Hussain, P.W 2 Ashok Kumar Raut, P.W.3 Ramadhin Rai, P.W.4 Nasir Ahmad, P.W 5 Suresh Singh and P.W 6 Dr. S.N. Sahay, P.W.7 Ram Sideshwari Azad (I.O). 5. The learned trial Judge, after conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused under sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. P.W 2 Ashok Raut, the informant, has deposed that on 25.4.1996 at around 10.00 p.m he and his colleague Asar Hussain were assaulted by the accused persons near Polytechnic college on the road when they refused to push the motor car of the accused persons. He has further deposed that accused Innocent Tigga assaulted with rod on his back and accused Tanvir Alam gave a fist blow on his mouth which broke his teeth. He stated further that accused Innocent Tigga stood upon his chest and pressed his neck when he had fallen down. On his hue and cry constables from TOP arrived and over powered two of the accused persons out of them and two succeeded in fleeing away. He was brought to Barnabas hospital firstly where his Fardbeyan was recorded by the police. He has recognized his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.1 .Later on he went to Sadar Hospital Ranchi and there he was examined by the Doctor. In cross extermination he has stated that the accused persons were not known to him before the occurrence. He has recognized his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.1 .Later on he went to Sadar Hospital Ranchi and there he was examined by the Doctor. In cross extermination he has stated that the accused persons were not known to him before the occurrence. This witness has denied the defence suggestion that he was wandering in the night and some quarrel has taken place with somebody else. 7. P.W 1 Asar Hussain has deposed that while he was on the Church road near the state polytechnic school along with informant Ashok Kumar Raut he found an ambassador car parked there. Two persons were outside and two persons were inside the car. The persons outside the car asked them to push their car and on their refusal they assaulted him and Ashok Raut with fist and iron rode. Teeth of Ashok Raut were broken by the assailant. He also sustained injury in his chest. He was also taken to Barnabas Hospital. Later on he was examined medically at Sadar hospital, Ranchi. He identified both the accused in dock. 8. P.W.6 is Doctor Susil Nandan Sahay, who is the medical officer. He had examined the injured persons on 25.4.1996 and found as many as four injuries on the persons of Ashok Kumar Raut and out of them two injuries are diffused swelling. One is on his upper lip in the middle and another is on right cheek. A lacerated cut injury 1/4”x1/4” skin deep is also found in the right eye brow on lateral side. The medical officer has also found that both the incise teeth of upper Jaw were broken with fresh bleeding. He has found all injuries simple except broken of teeth which is grievous. He has opined that the injuries were caused by the hard blunt substance and lacerated wound can be caused by rod and other injuries can be caused by the blow of hands and leg. He has proved this injury report marked as Ext.2 On the same day he has examined Asar Hussain the another injured and found abrasion on the cheek right side and another in the neck on right side. A diffused swelling was also found in his upper lip in the middle. The nature of the injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance caused by blow of hand. A diffused swelling was also found in his upper lip in the middle. The nature of the injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance caused by blow of hand. He has proved this injury report also and it is marked as Ext.2/1 .The medical officer has affirmly stated that teeth of victim would not be broken by fall rather teeth broken by a blow on his teeth and in such case injuries of lips and nose is not essential. 9. P.W.4 is Nasir Ahmad who is the eye witness of this case. He has deposed that he arrived at the P.O after hearing hue and cry and saw that accused Tanvir Alam and Innocent Tigga were assaulting the informant Ashok Raut. The blood were oozing out from the mouth and teeth were broken of the informant. He caught hold both the accused persons at the place of occurrence. 10. P.W.5 is Suresh Singh and he stated that at the relevant time of occurrence while he was posted in Konka TOP he heard hue and cry, went to the place of occurrence near Polytechnic school and saw that accused persons were assaulting Ashok Kumar Raut and another constable. He identified both the accused persons in the dock. He further deposed that both the accused persons were apprehended by them at the place of occurrence. 11. P.W.7 Ram Sideswari Azad is the investigation officer. He has stated that after getting telephonic message, he went to Saint Barnabas and recorded the fardbeyan of the injured Asshok Raut (P.W 2). He also proved the formal FIR (Ext.III). He inspected the place of occurrence which according to him is situated near the State Polytechnic on Church road .He received the injury report of the injured persons. He has also recorded the statement of other witnesses. He has also deposed that the accused persons had disclosed their name as Tanvir Alam and Innocent Tigga. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this appellant has only been made an accused because of associating him with Tanvir Alam. Moreover, the entire accusations are a concoction of the police, informant is a police person and even the investigator is police personal, so the appellant has been totally framed and does not stand a chance. He has stated that there is allegation of assault by rod. Moreover, the entire accusations are a concoction of the police, informant is a police person and even the investigator is police personal, so the appellant has been totally framed and does not stand a chance. He has stated that there is allegation of assault by rod. But no rod has been produced let alone a blood stained rod, because no seizure of any such rod was made. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that P.W 1 says that they had gone to Saint Barnabas hospital, but there is no injury report from the Saint Barnabas Hospital. The learned counsel further stated that it is said that P.W1 was given first aid by the compounder at Saint Barnabas but there is no examination of this compounder. He has also argued that it is not established from which of the accused persons which particular assault was made, hence the appellant cannot be held liable. Counsel has also stated that P.W.2 has stated that he received blows at his nose which started bleeding but strangely enough neither the I.O found any blood lying at the P.O even when he visited the P.O twice nor he found any marks showing that any struggle took place there. No clothes having blood stain marks have been seized by the I.O. This also negates that P.W's did not receive any blood injury as stated by him at the hands of the appellant and so he has been falsely implicated. 13. The learned A.P.P on the other hand has stated that the case as set out in the fardbeyan has been fully supported by the reliable prosecution witnesses. Further there is support or corroboration of the injuries as claimed by the injured witnesses P.W1 and P.W 2 by the injury reports of the doctor or P.W 6. He has further said that for section 323 IPC, one blow is sufficient and they may not even be an injury or any blood spelt, but doctor has indicated many injuries so offence is fully proved. FINDINGS 14. In this case, the allegation are made on the police personnel, even the other witnesses are policemen except for the Doctor, and the appellant has once more raised this as a ground in his defence .However, two persons are injured eye witnesses and why would the police go to the extent by grievously injuring himself in order to frame some persons. The informant Ashok Kumar Raut, police men has in his deposition fully corroborated his fardbeyan. He in fact was assaulted by the other accused and had two of his teeth broken. Both the person, who were assaulted the injured eye witnesses, P.W 2 and P.W1 Asar Hussain and injured eye witnesses is more reliable. There has to be an explanation for the injuries and on this case it does not seem to be a case of self inflection or received in a free fight. Two other witnesses P.W 4 and P.W 5 though police men have also supported case of the prosecution, that they arrived at the place of occurrence more or less at once and had seen the injuries and even the assault or part of the assault. Further, they helped in apprehending two persons including this appellant. Their evidence is believable. The Doctor's evidence is crucial and believable. The Doctor's evidence support and corroborate the fardbeyan and evidence of the P.W 2 and P.W1.The arguments of the appellant’s counsel that there is no compounder report from Saint Barnabas Hospital, in the presence of the report by P.W 6, who is a Medical Officer, may have been unnecessary. P.W 6's report are sufficient. The case that the rod used in the assault not being produced, in the light of medical evidence is also sufficient to be discarded. 15. Hence, according to the records, evidence and arguments, the conviction of the appellant under sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, FTC Ranchi is upheld. However, being an old case, infact as early as 1996 and it is now the 20th year and the appellant has already spent some time in custody of about four months maximum sentence and having undergone the hardship of trial, his sentence is reduced to the period undergone. The fine of Rs 300/-however remains, for which the convicting or successor court will take the necessary steps in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with above modification in sentence.