JUDGMENT : LOK PAL SINGH, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions trial No. 18 of 2001, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 308 / 34 IPC. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 308/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02.03.1999, at 04:00 P.M., accused-appellants with common intention voluntarily caused hurt on the person of Manoj Kumar and all of them with common intention made attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Bobby alias Ajay Kumar by causing hurt. Complainant Manoj Kumar submitted a report (Ext. A-1) in this regard at P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat. On the basis of said report, chik FIR (Ext. A-6) was lodged against the accused-appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 308, 323 IPC. Injured Manoj Kumar was medically examined and his medical examination report was exhibited as Ext. A-2. Injured Ajay Kumar was also medically examined and his medical examination reports are exhibited as Ext. A-3, Ext. A-4 and Ext. A-5, respectively. After completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ext K-11) was filed against the accused-appellants for their trial in respect of selfsame offences. 4. The Magistrate concerned on receipt of the charge sheet, appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh after hearing the prosecution and the defence, framed charge against the accused relating to offences punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and 308/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Ajay Kumar (injured eyewitness), PW2 Manoj Kumar (informant and another injured eyewitness); P.W3 Dr. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Ajay Kumar (injured eyewitness), PW2 Manoj Kumar (informant and another injured eyewitness); P.W3 Dr. Umed Singh Adhikari (Medical Officer who recorded injuries on the person of the injured persons); PW4 R.K. Mahajan (Medical Officer, who proved CT scan report of injured Ajay Kumar) and PW5 Head Moharir Brijmohan (who prepared chik FIR). The oral and documentary evidence, was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged the evidence adduced against them to be false. An opportunity was given to the accused to lead evidence in defence. However, no evidence in defence was adduced on their behalf. The trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, found all the accused guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and Section 308/34 IPC, and after hearing the parties on sentence, sentenced them accordingly. Aggrieved against the same, both the criminal appeals have been filed by the accused-appellants. 5. Medical Officer PW3 Dr. Umed Singh Adhikari, found following injuries on the person of PW1 Ajay Kumar, which were recorded by him in the register of accidental report (Ext. A-5). The same are being reproduced hereunder: “1. Incised wound on scalp posterior aspect area about 7½ cm X 0.2 cm, margins are sharp. Regular, spindle shaped (7 cm posterior to right ear. 2. Hematoma present in the parietal region of scalp. Just above right ear. Bleeding present in right ear. 3. bleeding from nose and mouth present. 4. Contusion on right shoulder posterior aspect 5 cm x 0.2 cm, irregular shaped, dark brown in colour, 7 cm below tip of right shoulder, slightly oblique. 5. Contusion on posterior of right supra and infra scapular area about 23 cm x 6 cm, irregular shaped, dark brown in colour. Oblique shoulder to mid vertical line. 6. Contused abrasion on left maxillary area of face, 4½ X 2½ cm X 1½ cm lateral to left angle of left eye. Opinion : injury no. 1 is caused by hard and sharp object. All other injuries are caused by hard blunt object. Injury nos. 3 to 6 are simple in nature except injury nos. 1 and 2. For injury nos. 1 and 2 X-ray of skull and CT scan advised. Case referred to higher centre. 6. Opinion : injury no. 1 is caused by hard and sharp object. All other injuries are caused by hard blunt object. Injury nos. 3 to 6 are simple in nature except injury nos. 1 and 2. For injury nos. 1 and 2 X-ray of skull and CT scan advised. Case referred to higher centre. 6. Considering the general condition of the patient, on being referred to Keshlata Hospital, Bareilly, PW4 proved the report (Ext. A-3), made after going through the CT scan. In said report, it has been mentioned that subdural haematoma with contusion was found present and right zyganostic arch and parietal bone were found fractured. 7. The same Medical Officer PW3 found following injuries, on the person of PW2 Manoj Kumar and he prepared a report (Ext. A-2) in this regard. The same are being reproduced hereunder: “1. Contused abrasion on back of chest, left to right, 24 cm X 3 cm, 27 cm below left shoulder. Brown colour, irregular shaped. 2. Contused abrasion on right infra-scapular area 5 cm X 2 cm upto downwards direction, irregular shaped, brown colour, 2 cm below right shoulder joint. 3. Contused abrasion on left lumber area back about 4 cm X 1½ cm, irregular shaped, brown colour. 4. Contused abrasion on right upper arm about 8 cm X 4 cm, oblique direction 15 cm below left shoulder joint. Irregular shaped, brown in colour. 5. Lacerated wound on inner surface of lower lip size 2 cm X 1 cm, irregular shaped and margins also irregular on mid lip inner side. It was opined by PW3 that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Simple in nature. Duration about one day back. 8. PW2, Manoj Kumar, who lodged the first information report, stated on oath that he knows all the accused. PW2 further stated that on 02.03.1999, he was present at his house. Vinod, Vikram, Phool Kumar and Rohit came to PW2 and insisted him to play Holi. All of them proceeded towards the house of Bobby @ Ajay Kumar (PW1). Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Vikram Lal. They had tea there. Some glasses were inadvertently got broken down by Bobby @ Ajay Kumar at his house. On this an altercation took place between Bobby @ Ajay Kumar and accused Vikram Lal. Bobby and PW2 returned to their respective houses. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Vikram Lal. They had tea there. Some glasses were inadvertently got broken down by Bobby @ Ajay Kumar at his house. On this an altercation took place between Bobby @ Ajay Kumar and accused Vikram Lal. Bobby and PW2 returned to their respective houses. When both of them reached near the house of Shiv Charan, accused Vikram, Rohit, Phool Kumar and Vinod came there and assaulted Bobby with lathi. When PW2 tried to intervene, accused assaulted him also with lathi, fists and kicks. The accused fled away leaving PW2 and Bobby unconscious. Both the injured were taken to hospital. The time of maarpeet was about 4 o’clock in the evening. PW2 lodged the FIR (Ext A-1) on the next day of incident, as he was injured badly. In his cross-examination, PW2 has categorically stated that he had not given any statement to the Investigating Officer regarding the fact that they have consumed liquor either in the house of Ramesh or accused Vikram. He also denied the fact that he fell down and got injured in an inebriated state. PW2 further stated that he is a teetotaler. In his cross examination, PW2 denied the fact that he had enmity with accused Vikram, Ranjit and Vinod. PW2 further stated that he had told the Investigating Officer that accused Phool Kumar hit PW1 Ajay Kumar @ Bobby with lathi on his head and the same fact is also mentioned in the FIR lodged by him. 9. PW1 Ajay Kumar @ Bobby stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows the accused persons. They are residents of Lohaghat. It was the day of Holi festival on 02.03.1999. Accused persons as well as PW2 came to the house of PW1 for paying Holi and they all proceeded towards the house of Ramesh Lal and Ram Swaroop. After Holi Milan, all of them went to the house of accused Vikram to play Holi with him. Thereafter, when he (PW1) and PW2 were coming back to their respective houses and hardly reached on the road in front of Shiv Charan’s house, all the accused, armed with lathies and wooden planks (a long flat piece of timber thicker than a board), started assaulting them on head, forehead, arms and legs, with an intention to kill them. On raising an alarm, one Rampal came on the spot and intervened in the matter. On raising an alarm, one Rampal came on the spot and intervened in the matter. The incident occurred at 4 o’clock in the evening. PW1 got unconscious due to the assault. PW2 was then taken to the Lohaghat hospital from where he was referred to Bareilly hospital, as PW2 suffered grievous injury on his head. PW1 remained hospitalized at the Bareilly hospital. PW1 further stated in his examination-in-chief that had he not been treated at the right time in the hospital, the injuries sustained by him on his head could have proved fatal to his life. In his cross-examination, PW1 almost reiterated the same facts as were narrated by PW2 in his cross-examination. PW1 also stated, in his cross-examination, that accused Phool Kumar is relative of accused Vikram and Ranjit and Phool Kumar is his maternal uncle (Mama) in relation. 10. PW3 Dr. Umed Singh Adhikari, was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Center, Lohaghat on 03.03.1999. This witness examined the injuries sustained by PW2 and prepared report (Ext. A-2) in this regard. In his cross examination, PW3 stated that the injuries were caused by hard blunt object and are simple in nature. 11. PW3 was recalled. PW3 also examined the injuries sustained by PW1 Ajay Kumar and prepared report (Ext. Ka-4). In his cross-examination, PW3 reiterated the same facts as stated by him while being cross-examination by the defence in respect of PW2. In the opinion of PW3, injury nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death of the injured. 12. PW4 Dr. R.K. Mahajan, was posted as Consultant Neurologist in Keshlata hospital, Bareilly, on 03.03.1999. In his examination-in-chief, PW4 stated that injured Ajay Kumar was admitted in his hospital on being referred from P.H.C. Lohaghat. CT scan of PW1 was done there. Dr. Ajay Pipersania, who was posted with him in the Radiologist department has prepared the report (Ext. A-3) regarding medical examination of PW1. Name of PW4 was also there in the medical report. PW4 identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ajay Pipersania. In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that the injuries sustained by PW1 could have been possible by falling down also. In the opinion of PW4, above injuries are grievous in nature sufficient enough to cause death of the injured. 13. PW5 H.C. Brijmohan was posted as Head Moharir at P.S. Lohaghat on 03.03.1999. Ajay Pipersania. In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that the injuries sustained by PW1 could have been possible by falling down also. In the opinion of PW4, above injuries are grievous in nature sufficient enough to cause death of the injured. 13. PW5 H.C. Brijmohan was posted as Head Moharir at P.S. Lohaghat on 03.03.1999. In his examination-in-chief, this witness stated that he prepared chik FIR (Ext. A-1), brought by PW2 himself on 03.03.1999, and on the basis of which, FIR of the incident was lodged. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Ram Ratan Pathak. PW5 proved site plan (Ext. A-8), charge sheet (Ext. A-11). In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that the statements of PW2 were taken by the I.O. in his presence. PW5 also stated that PW2, in his statements has disclosed the fact of taking alcohol. The same thing was also there in the statements of PW1. It was the day of Holi festival, and all the accused and witnesses were drunk. FIR was lodged on the next day of incident. 14. The statements of the two injured eyewitnesses named above, gives a natural eye account of the day light incident. Not only the eyewitness account of the incident is there on the record as against the appellants, but also the injuries received by the injured eyewitnesses, as narrated by them get corroboration from the injury reports (Ext. A-4 and Ext. A-5), which is proved by PW3 Dr. Umed Singh Adhikari as well as radiologist report (Ext. A-3), which is proved by PW4 Dr. R.K. Mahajan. 15. This Court concurs with the finding given by the trial court which is recorded after lengthy discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the injured eye- witnesses and other prosecution witnesses, in the above circumstances. As such, the conviction of the accused / appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 323/34 IPC and Section 308/34 IPC is maintained. 16. Appellant Vikram Lal is reported to have died during the period of this appeal and the appeal as against him has already stood abated vide order dated 10.08.2015. 17. As such, the conviction of the accused / appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 323/34 IPC and Section 308/34 IPC is maintained. 16. Appellant Vikram Lal is reported to have died during the period of this appeal and the appeal as against him has already stood abated vide order dated 10.08.2015. 17. As to the sentence passed by the trial court on both counts, since the appellants as well as injured persons belongs to the same locality; were known to each other and the incident is of the year 1999, as also the fact that they remained in jail earlier after conviction, and no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail at this stage, after 19 years of incident, this Court finds that the period undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice, in this case. 18. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC and Section 308/34 IPC is maintained, but sentence awarded to the appellants on these counts is reduced to the period already undergone. In default of payment of the fine (if not, already deposited) the appellants shall further undergo the period of sentence as directed by the trial court. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender, provided they deposit the fine as directed by this Court. Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court. With the modification as above, both the criminal appeals stands disposed of.