ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Ms. Pooja Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. - II, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 184 of 1995 whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 341/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one month and six months respectively as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.05.1994 at about 06:30 A.M. when the informant was in his house on the cry of alarm he came out and saw the accused persons armed with Farsa assaulting his father Hakim Gope resulting in injury near his left knee. It is alleged that when the informant tried to save his father appellant no. 2 gave a Farsa blow on the informant which caused injury on his left arm and fingers of the right hand. It is alleged that the appellants had also assaulted him on his head. When the younger brother of the informant and his mother came to their rescue, the accused persons had bolted the door. It is alleged that the reason behind the occurrence is previous enmity with respect to an alley. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Tundi P. S. Case No. 36 of 1994 was instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognisance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges were framed and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W.-1, Basudeo Mandal, is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness had seen the injury on the head of Raju Gope (informant). He had also seen injuries on the left leg of Hakim Gope and also on the left arm and fingers of right hand of Raju Gope. This witness had stated that he had brought Raju Gope on a bicycle to the hospital and after sometime he had also taken Hakim Gope to the hospital. 7. He had also seen injuries on the left leg of Hakim Gope and also on the left arm and fingers of right hand of Raju Gope. This witness had stated that he had brought Raju Gope on a bicycle to the hospital and after sometime he had also taken Hakim Gope to the hospital. 7. P.W.-2, Hulash Mandal, is an eye-witness to the occurrence who had stated about the manner of occurrence as well as the place of occurrence. He had gone to the house of Hakim Gope to call on him as he works with him. He has stated that when he went to the house of Hakim Gope he saw the accused persons assaulting. He had further stated that the accused persons were armed with danda and Farsa. He had disclosed that Hakim Gope suffered injury on his leg and when he and Raju Gope had tried to save him and appellant no. 1 had assaulted Raju Gope leading to his suffering injury on his hand and fingers. This witness had also deposed that Raju Gope had suffered injuries on his head also. In cross-examination, he had stated that the incident had taken place in the courtyard and who was holding the Farsa was not disclosed by him. 8. P.W.-3, Raju Turi, had stated that on alarm when he reached the place of occurrence he saw fight going on between Raju Gope and the appellant no. 2. He had stated that both the appellants had Farsa and appellant no. 1 had assaulted with a Farsa on the head of Raju Gope. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that Hakim Gope had given one Farsa blow whereas Raju Gope suffered three Farsa blows. He had deposed that both the sides were on inimical terms from before. 9. P.W.-4, Hakim Gope, had stated that on the date of occurrence he was in his courtyard washing his mouth when the appellants came and pushed Hakim Gope as a result of which he fell down. He had stated that thereafter both the appellants assaulted him with a Farsa on his left leg. He started shouting at which his son Raju Gope came out and both the appellants assaulted Raju Gope with Farsa on the head and hands. He had stated that thereafter both the appellants assaulted him with a Farsa on his left leg. He started shouting at which his son Raju Gope came out and both the appellants assaulted Raju Gope with Farsa on the head and hands. He had further stated that they had gone along with the other to the police station where after they were referred to Tundi hospital for treatment. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that the house of this witness and the appellant no. 1 are in a common courtyard. He had stated that at the time of the incident his son Tuplal Gope was present but he did not come out to rescue him. He had further stated that when the occurrence was going on several persons had assembled. 10. P.W.-5, Tuplal Gope, had stated that he saw his father Hakim Gope being assaulted at which his brother Raju Gope came to rescue but he was also assaulted by means of a Farsa. He had stated that Raju Gope was later on taken to the hospital by P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 on a bicycle. In cross-examination, this witness had stated that the appellant no. 1 is his gotia and the partition of properties between Hakim Gope and the appellant no. 1 was effected long back. He had further stated that a dispute was going on from before between both the sides with respect to the courtyard. He had also stated that on hearing the cry of alarm 30-40 persons of the locality had assembled. 11. P.W.-6, Raju Gope, is the informant who had stated that when he was in his house he heard the cry of alarm and when he came out saw his father being assaulted with Farsa by the appellants. He had stated that when he tried to save his father he was assaulted on various parts of his body including head. He had disclosed that the dispute was with respect to the courtyard and after the incident he and his father accompanied by P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 had gone to Tundi Police Station. He had further stated that he and his father were treated at Tundi hospital for twenty two days. In cross-examination, he had disclosed that he had gone alone to the police station. He had further disclosed that his father and appellant no. 1 are gotias. 12. He had further stated that he and his father were treated at Tundi hospital for twenty two days. In cross-examination, he had disclosed that he had gone alone to the police station. He had further disclosed that his father and appellant no. 1 are gotias. 12. P.W. - 7, Krishna Prasad Mandal, is an Advocate's Clerk who had proved the formal F.I.R. marked as Exhibit - 1. This witness had proved certain other documents. 13. The defence had examined three witnesses in support of its case. 14. D.W. - 1, Arun Mandal, had stated that Hakim Gope and Raju Gope had disclosed about the naxalites and the injuries were related to them. 15. D.W. - 2, Manik Yadav, had stated that both the injured persons had put the blame on the naxalites for the injuries suffered by them. Similar is the statement of D.W. - 3, Govind Saw. 16. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and they denied to have participated in the incident. 17. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that neither Investigating Officer was examined nor the Doctor. It has also been stated that the injury report was never exhibited by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that bloods smeared cloths were also not examined. He submits that LTI was given in the police station whereas the fardbeyan was recorded at Tundi hospital. He had further stated that the evidence of the defence witnesses had not been given much weight-age by the learned trial court. Learned counsel submits that minor injuries could not have been received by the P.W. 4 and P.W. - 6 if their indeed was an intention to commit murder. 18. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the appellants. 19. It appears that P.W. - 6 had stated that after recording his fardbeyan in the hospital his thumb impression was taken there itself. The learned counsel for the appellants has stressed much upon the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. However, such non examination does not prove fatal to the prosecution in all cases as it has to be gathered from the chain of circumstances regarding the complicity or otherwise of an accused in an offence. The learned counsel for the appellants has stressed much upon the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. However, such non examination does not prove fatal to the prosecution in all cases as it has to be gathered from the chain of circumstances regarding the complicity or otherwise of an accused in an offence. It has become a fashion in the State that the Doctors and Investigating Officers are not produced by the prosecution in a large number of cases thus giving an undue advantage to the defence. The oral evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution reveals about the appellants being armed with Farsa and causing assault upon P.W. - 4 and P.W. - 6. The evidence of P.W. - 4 and P.W. - 6 have been supported by P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3, an independent witness as well as by the brother of P.W. - 6 namely Tuplal Gope (P.W. - 5). The evidence of P.W. - 2 and P.W. - 3 suggest that they were eyewitnesses to the occurrence relating to the assault and they have given a vivid description about the occurrence. Thus the incident of assault by the appellants upon P.W. - 4 and P.W. - 6 have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W. - 2 appears to be quite natural as he was a chance witness having gone to the house of P.W. - 4 as both were working together. The place of occurrence has also been established by the prosecution to be the courtyard of Hakim Gope and appellant no. 1. The evidence of defence witnesses have been considered by the learned trial court but since the same was not trustworthy it was rejected outright. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2009) 11 SCC 334 wherein it was held that if on appraisal of evidence and on consideration of the relevant attending circumstances, if two views are possible the High Court is not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. The judgment under reference is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as it has been proved beyond doubt that the appellants had committed assault with a deadly weapon upon P.W. - 4 and P.W. - 6 which has been supported by independent eye-witnesses. The attending circumstances leads to only one view which is of the appellants having committed the offence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to judgment in the case of Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1981) 2 SCC 166 wherein it has been held that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and the courts below ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. The learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence and this Court has also meticulously gone through such evidences but none of the evidence adduced by the defence inspires confidence in view of the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution pointing specifically to the guilt of the appellants. 20. Thus on consideration of the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court has not committed any error and having found no merit in this appeal the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.