JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2003 passed by Shri Binod Kumar Lal, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1995, whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for an offence under sections 148, 452, 379 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, three years each, two years each and three years each respectively with a direction that the aforementioned sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as per the fardbayan of Hari Rana, informant as given in the Sadar Hospital to A.S.I., K.K. Sinha is that on 21.06.1994 around 8.00 a.m. in the morning, when his wife was cooking food and he was sitting then Paran Gope, Dayali Gope, Deepan Gope and Bhagat Gope and Bheklal Gope all from Champa Nagar, Nawadih entered his house and on entering his house took out the box and started searching for some document in the box and when he asked them why they were doing this, then the assailants assaulted his wife Parvati Devi with sticks and broke her leg. He was also assaulted with stick and sword. The accused persons also took silver made hasali, one Kangan from her wife. Further, they took away some utensils. When they made alarm then people from the adjoining houses came, on which the assailants fled away. The reason for the dispute is that there was a land dispute subsisting between the informant and the accused, for which the informant has got a decree in his favour. 3. The police came and recorded the fard beyan of the informant and Ichak P.S. Case No. 55 of 1994 was instituted against the accused persons. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 147, 148, 452, 307, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the present accused persons, cognizance was taken and after taking cognizance of this case, transferred this case for commitment. The learned magistrate committed this case to the court of sessions for its trial and disposal. Charge was framed under sections 148, 452, 307/34, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether fifteen witnesses including the victims and the doctor in this case. 5. The learned magistrate committed this case to the court of sessions for its trial and disposal. Charge was framed under sections 148, 452, 307/34, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether fifteen witnesses including the victims and the doctor in this case. 5. Trial was held and on the basis of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Hazaribagh, convicted the appellants under sections 148, 452, 379 and 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. P.W. 8 the informant Hari Rana, has stated that the accused Paran Gope and Dayali Gope were armed with sword. Bhekhlal Gope was armed with Tangi, Deepan Gope was armed with lathi and Bhagat Gope was armed with lathi. The accused persons after entering his house assaulted him and also assaulted his wife and after assault they broke the box of the house and took out Rs. 4500/- and the documents related with lands which were kept in the box. He sustained assault on both shoulders, thighs, nostril and also on the back. They also assaulted his wife and fractured her legs after assault with the blunt portion of the sword on the right leg. They also took out one Hasuli and Pahuchi from the person of her wife. On hearing alarm, witnesses reached there and took them to hospital. The police came to hospital and took his fard beyan. According to him Dayali Gope assaulted him with the blunt edge of the sword and also on his wife. They were not assaulted with the sharp edge of the sword. The blood was also oozing out due to the alleged assault. Further he has stated that the accused Bhagat Gope and Paran Gope took out money from the box and all the accused persons assaulted them. They also took away the utensils in a cloth. The reason for the alleged assault has not been stated by this witness and according to him there is no dispute related with land. But admitted the 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding against them which was initiated after the alleged occurrence. He has stated that there is existing land dispute with Paran Gope since last seven years but again amended his version by saying that it is not a fact. But admitted the 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding against them which was initiated after the alleged occurrence. He has stated that there is existing land dispute with Paran Gope since last seven years but again amended his version by saying that it is not a fact. He has also admitted the proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. which was initiated between them after the alleged occurrence. 7. P.W. 7, Parwati, is the wife of the informant. She has stated that she was assaulted by the accused after grabbing her by her hair with back of sword and lathi due to which her leg was fractured. Her husband was also assaulted. Further she stated that the accused persons took out her 'Karnful' made up of gold and ornaments of neck and hand made of silver from her person and took out of Rs. 4000/- from her box. They have also taken utensils with them. On hearing alarm the villagers reached there and the accused persons fled away. She had identified all the accused persons who were present in the court and during her examination and also claimed to identify those persons who were not present in the court. She has also stated that the police has taken her statement in the hospital as well as in her house. She denied the fact that there are lands of the accused persons near her house. According to her, Dayali Gope was armed with lathi, Paran Gope was armed with sword, Bhekhlal Gope was armed with axe and the other accused persons were armed with lathi. All the accused persons together assaulted her due to which she sustained injuries and her clothes was blooded. Her husband's leg was not fractured by the assault of the accused persons. When the villagers reached on alarm the accused persons fled away. She further stated that her ornaments were snatched by the accused persons, namely Dayali , Bhagat and Paran and the money which was kept in the box was taken away by the accused Bhekhlal Gope. The money was kept for the marriage of her daughter. She also stated that there was no existing land dispute between them. She also denied the fact that she fell on the agricultural field due to which her leg was fractured. She also asserted that the accused persons took out the documents related to land and fled away. 8. The money was kept for the marriage of her daughter. She also stated that there was no existing land dispute between them. She also denied the fact that she fell on the agricultural field due to which her leg was fractured. She also asserted that the accused persons took out the documents related to land and fled away. 8. P.W. 1, Ugan Rana is the son of the informant Hari Rana who reached his house on hearing alarm and saw the accused persons coming out from his house armed with sword and lathi. According to him, Paran Gope was armed with sword. Dayali Gope was armed with sword and Bhekhlal Gope was armed with bhala. When he went inside his house he found his mother's leg cut and also found her senseless. According to him his father had sustained injuries on the back and leg and he too was lying down. He came to know about the incident from his father. He has also stated that his father sustained injury on both legs, back, shoulders and waist. 9. P. W. 2, Bharat Rana is the nephew of the informant. He also reached the place of occurrence on hearing alarm while he was cultivating the land in agricultural field. He has seen the accused persons coming out from the house of the informant and saw sword in the hand of accused Paran and sword in the hand of Dayali Gope. When he went inside the house, he found his aunt in injured condition who had sustained injury on her leg and his uncle had sustained injury on the back. 10. P.W.3, Laljee Gope who also reached at the P.O. on hearing alarm. When he went inside the house of Hari Rana, he found both Hari Rana and his wife Parwati in senseless condition and they had sustained injuries on their persons. He has also saw the accused persons escaping from the house of the informant armed with sword, farsa and lathi. According to him Dayali Gope was armed with sword, Paran Gope was armed with sword, Bhekhlal Gope was armed with farsa, Deepan Gope and Bhagat Gope were armed with lathi. 11. P.W. 4, Indra Deo Rana is the son of the informant Hari Rana. According to him Dayali Gope was armed with sword, Paran Gope was armed with sword, Bhekhlal Gope was armed with farsa, Deepan Gope and Bhagat Gope were armed with lathi. 11. P.W. 4, Indra Deo Rana is the son of the informant Hari Rana. On the date of occurrence, he was working in his agricultural field and on hearing alarm he reached at the place of occurrence and saw his mother and father in injured condition. He was told by his mother and father that the accused persons, namely, Paran Gope, Dayali Gope, Deepan Gope, Bhagat Gope and Bhekhlal Gope entered into the house armed with lathi and sword and assaulted them. 12. P.W. 5 Bhekhlal Gope also reached at the P.O. on hearing alarm when he was working in his agricultural field. When he reached at the P.O., he found the wife of the informant, and informant himself in injured condition and has stated that the right leg of Parwati was fractured. He also saw accused persons there who were armed with lathi and tangi. 13. P.W. 6, Mahendra Yadav is a chance witness. While he was returning from the forest, he heard hulla from the house of Hari Rana, the informant and he went inside the house of informant and found him and his wife in injured condition. He has also seen the accused persons there who were armed with sword and lathi. According to him Dayali Gope was armed with sword and the rest were armed with lathi. 14. P.W. 12 the doctor Parshuram Bharti has examined the injured Hari Rana and his wife Parwati Devi on 21.6.1994 at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. On examination of the injured Hari Rana he found the following injuries on his person:- (i) a lacerated wound on frontal aspect of left leg size 1”x1/4”x1/4” caused by hard and blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (ii) a lacerated wound on frontal aspect of left leg size 1-1/2”x1/4”x1/4” caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (iii) a lacerated wound on left leg on lateral aspect of 1”x1/2”x1/4” size caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (iv) Raddish bruise on left thigh 6” x1 1/2” caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (v) a bruise 6”x1 1/2” size laterally on left thigh caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (iv) Raddish bruise on left thigh 6” x1 1/2” caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (v) a bruise 6”x1 1/2” size laterally on left thigh caused by hard blunt substance and nature of injury simple. (vi) Three bruises on lateral aspect of right thigh (a) 6”x1” (b) 5”x1” (c) 6”x1” (vii) Two bruises on back (a) 1”x 1 1/2” (b) 6”x 1 1/2” left side. (viii) Two bruises on right arm (a) 5”x1” (b) 4”x 1 1/2” (ix) Three bruises on left arm (a) 4”x 1 1/2”(b) 3”x 1 1/2” (c) 4”x 1 1/2”. The aforesaid injuries were within six hours and according to the doctor the nature of the injuries are all simple caused by hard and blunt substance. 15. Further this witness also examined the injured Parwati Devi, the wife of Hari Rana on the same date and found the following injuries on her person:- (a) lacerated wound of 2 1/2”x1 1/2” boni exposed caused by hard and blunt substance. The opinion of the aforesaid injury has been reserved by this witness till the receipt of radiological report. (b) a wound of 1/2”x1/4”x1/4” with sharp margins caused by sharp cutting substance and the nature of the injury is simple in nature. Subsequently supplementary report was also submitted by the doctor for his opinion with respect to injury no. (a). According to the doctor as the shaft or right tibia and right fibula fractured ( as per the report mentioned on Br/T according to the plate no. 112 dated 22.6.1994), therefore, the nature of injury is grievous. The doctor has proved the injury report of the informant Hari Rana which is Ext. 2/1 and proved the injury of Parwati Devi which are Exts. 2 and 2/2. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants states that there are only two witnesses, the informant and his wife, the rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses and four witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 9, 11, 13 and 14 have been declared hostile. Witnesses P.W.1, 2, 3 and 4 only saw some persons fleeing away. He has also said that even if for the sake of argument, it is said that assault did take place, the assault was made by the back side of the sword, so no intention was there to cause any grievous injury. Witnesses P.W.1, 2, 3 and 4 only saw some persons fleeing away. He has also said that even if for the sake of argument, it is said that assault did take place, the assault was made by the back side of the sword, so no intention was there to cause any grievous injury. In fact injury on informant is simple and injury on his wife is on the leg, which is not vital part of bodies. Hence, offence under section 325 of the IPC is not made out. Hence, offence under section 452 of the IPC will also not be made out. He has also argued that theft is not made out since there is no recovery and the I.O. has not been examined, who would have been the right person to throw light on the allegation. He has also raised land dispute and said allegations have been made to frame the appellants. The allegation of making and causing injury are done with the motivation of land dispute and hence, there is no truth in such allegations. Counsel has also stated that even if just for arguments sake it is accepted there was an assault made, it is seen that of the injuries of Hari Rana and Parwati Devi, only one injury has been found to be grievous and this is also not on sensitive or vital part of body, so intention for offences seem to be lacking. 17. Learned Additional P.P. has on the other hand argued that there are two injured witnesses and injured witnesses are considered trustworthy and reliable and hence cannot be ignored. They proved the allegation against the appellants. Further, the doctors witness support the case of the injured witnesses, corroboration stand completed, the allegation under section 325, 148 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out. So far the allegation of theft is concerned, since the injured witnesses are believable, there is no reason to disbelieve allegation of offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. FINDINGS : 18. After going through the arguments, evidences and records of the case, certain aspects are very pertinent. First and foremost, there are two witnesses, that two injured witness who were assaulted, that is P.W. 8 and P.W. 7 or Hari Rana and Parwati Devi, so they are reliable and trustworthy. FINDINGS : 18. After going through the arguments, evidences and records of the case, certain aspects are very pertinent. First and foremost, there are two witnesses, that two injured witness who were assaulted, that is P.W. 8 and P.W. 7 or Hari Rana and Parwati Devi, so they are reliable and trustworthy. Secondly, the evidence of the doctor P.W. 12, lists as many as nine wounds on Hari Rana and two on Parwati Devi and it is unbelievable that anybody would go to the extent to receive so many injuries to prove any false case. Here there are two injured witnesses. Moreover, the injuries are said to be caused by hard and blunt substance and sharp cutting substance with one grievous injury. Moreover, by the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, they have seen the appellants armed and leaving or fleeing the place of occurrence. Further they saw the injured person just immediately after the assault, so they are also very trustworthy. Also the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 12 cannot be ignored, there are as many as 9 wounds on the husband and 2 on the wife, of which the grievous one was on the wife by which she fractured her leg. These injuries surely are not manufactured and as said by the A.P.P., corroboration stands complete. The ocular evidence tallies with medical evidence. So on the basis of the aforesaid reasonings, offences under section 325, 148 and 452 of the IPC is made out. Regarding section 379 of the IPC is concerned, since there is no recovery of any alleged stolen article as claimed and I.O. was not examined, benefit can be given on this score. But conviction under remaining sections under sections 325, 148 and 452 of the IPC are sustained. 19. The case is of the year 1994 and the appellants have undergone vagaries and hardships of trial, conviction and appeal. It is now more than twenty two years since occurrence. It is also admitted that though injuries were many, but not on vital arts of the body or life threatening, therefore, the sentences imposed by the trial court is modified to the period undergone. The appellants are on bail, their bailors will thus stand discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.