JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.01.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1997, whereby all the above named appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Arjun Bhumij (P.W. 5), recorded by Officer-in-Charge, Manoharpur police station, Singhbum (W) on 13.05.1995 at 9.00 A.M., alleging therein that on yesterday evening at 7.00 P.M. accused Butru Bhumij was quarreling with the cousin of the informant namely Sukru Bhumij, in front of the house of Lakhindar Bhumij (P.W. 6). The issue of quarrel was not known to the informant. On hearing the brawl, the informant went there at 7.00 P.M. and saw co-villagers Mahendra Bhumij, Yogendra Bhumij, Ruitho Bhumij and Pyar Singh Bhumij were supporting Butru Bhumij and having lathi in their hands, they started assaulting the informant, brother of the informant Dukhu Bhumij, causing bleeding injuries on their head. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has instituted Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 1995 dated 13.05.1995, under Section 341/ 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against five named accused persons. Subsequently, sections 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code have been added vide order dated 16.05.1995. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 31 of 1995, dated 20.08.1995, under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the five accused persons. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 22.08.1995 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 08.01.1997. 6. The charge has been framed against all the accused persons initially on 21.08.2000 under Sections 341/34, 307/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 22.08.1995 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 08.01.1997. 6. The charge has been framed against all the accused persons initially on 21.08.2000 under Sections 341/34, 307/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 11.02.2002, the charge against Butru Bhumij was deleted, as the case of accused Butru Bhumij was splitted up vide order dated 06.07.2000 and subsequently, another charge was framed on 11.09.2003 against accused/appellants Pyar Singh Bhumij, Mahendra Bhumij, Yogendra Bhumij and Ruitho Bhumij under sections 341/34, 307/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused/appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether nine witnesses. Bhim Singh, brother of the informant, being an eye witness has been examined as P.W. 1, Dhan Singh Bhumij, brother of the informant being an injured eye witness, has been examined as P.W. 2, Sukaru Bhumij, eye witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W. 3, Karan Singh Bhumij, another eyewitness to the occurrence has been examined as P.W. 4, Arjun Bhumij, informant and injured witness of the case, has been examined as P.W. 5, Lakhindar Bhumij, another eye-witness has been examined as P.W. 6, Dr. R.J. Tiru, Medical Officer, who has examined the injured Dhan Singh Bhumij, Dukhu Singh Bhumij and Arjun Singh Bhumij and proved their injury reports as Exhibits-1. 1/1 and 1/2 respectively has been examined as P.W. 7, Bishambar Bhumij, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 8 and Rajesh Ram Ravi, an advocate clerk being a formal witness, who has proved the F.I.R. as Exhibit-2, has been examined as P.W. 9. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also exhibited two documentary evidence on record. Three injury reports of the three victims namely Dhan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 2), Dukhu Singh Bhumij and Arjun Singh Bhumij (P.W. 5) have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2 respectively and the First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. Three injury reports of the three victims namely Dhan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 2), Dukhu Singh Bhumij and Arjun Singh Bhumij (P.W. 5) have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2 respectively and the First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.07.2003, to which they have submitted that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case but no defence witness or document has been adduced on behalf of defence. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon'ble Court, assailing the same. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Aditya Raman assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, as the occurrence took place at 7.00 P.M. on 12.05.1995 but the fardbeyan was recorded at 9.00 A.M. On 13.05.1995. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined in this case and as such, the conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of the interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the injuries sustained by three injured persons were simple in nature, which have been brought on record as Exhibits 1, 1/1 and 1/2 and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as the same has caused prejudice to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as the same has caused prejudice to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1995 and the appellants have suffered rigors of trial for approximately 23 years and as such, this Court may acquit the appellants of the charge under Section 341, 323 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the learned trial court has taken judicial notice of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Dhan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 2), Arjun Bhumij, informant of the case (P.W. 5) along with his father Dukhi Singh Bhumij are injured of the case and the medical Officer (P.W. 7) Dr. R.J. Tiru has found corresponding injuries on the person of the victims which have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 1, 1/1 and 1/2. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Bhim Singh (P.W. 1) is an eye-witness to the occurrence and has supported the prosecution case though, he is brother of the informant. Dhan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 2), brother of the informant and another eye-witness to the occurrence has also supported the prosecution case. The defence has cross-examined this witness at length but nothing has been brought on record to dispel the evidence of P.W. 2. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Sukaru Bhumij (P.W. 3), Karan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 4) and Lakhindar Bhumij (P.W. 6) are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The occurrence has taken place in front of the house of Lakhindar Bhumij (P.W. 6). Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that these persons are co-villagers and they have supported the prosecution case of assault made by the appellants upon the victims and the doctor (P.W. 7) has found the corresponding injuries. Though these witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve their evidence. Dr. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that these persons are co-villagers and they have supported the prosecution case of assault made by the appellants upon the victims and the doctor (P.W. 7) has found the corresponding injuries. Though these witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve their evidence. Dr. R.J. Tiru, Medical Officer (P.W. 7), who has examined the victims, has proved the injury reports of the victims, which have been marked as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2. Bishambhar Bhumij (P.W. 8) is a hearsay witness and Rajesh Ram Ravi (P.W. 9) an advocate clerk being a formal witness has proved the First Information Report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 2. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that though the injuries were found to be simple in nature caused by weapon of offence, i.e. lathi as contemplated under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded, on the basis of materials available on record, does not warrant any interference from this Hon'ble Court. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Aditya Raman assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record i.e. the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From the perusal of the evidence brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the injured witnesses namely Dhan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 2) and informant Arjun Bhumij (P.W. 5) are consistent to the prosecution case. The father of the informant namely Dukhi Singh Bhumij has not been examined in this case but injury reports of all these three injured persons have been brought on record, proved by the Medical Officer Dr. R.J. Tiru (P.W. 7), as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2. From perusal of the injury reports of the injured, this Court has found that all the injuries found on the persons of the victims/injured are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. R.J. Tiru (P.W. 7), as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2. From perusal of the injury reports of the injured, this Court has found that all the injuries found on the persons of the victims/injured are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. This Court has also perused the evidence of Bhim Singh (P.W. 1), brother of the informant, Sukaru Bhumij (P.W. 3), Karan Singh Bhumij (P.W. 4) and Lakhindar Bhumij (P.W. 6). The evidence of these four eye-witnesses are also consistent to the prosecution case. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to disbelieve their testimonies. Lakhindar Bhumij (P.W. 6) is the witness in front of whose house, the occurrence has taken place on 12.05. 1995 at 7.00 P.M. and Sukaru Bhumij (P.W. 3) is the person with whom initial altercation took place with the appellants, as such their presence is also not under cloud. The defence has raised objection that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. This Court has perused the First Information Report and has found that village Makranda is the place of occurrence, which is situated at a distance of 11 K.M. South from the police station and the occurrence took place on 12.05.1995 at 7.00 P.M. and the fardbeyan was recorded on 13.05.1995 at 9.00 A.M., as such, this Court is of the opinion that there is no delay in lodging the First Information Report. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstance, as discussed above and the materials brought on record, proves the guilt of the accused/appellants under Sections 341, 323 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the injuries were caused by weapon of offence i.e. lathi but all the injuries were simple in nature. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction from Section 325/34 to Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld and affirmed. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction from Section 325/34 to Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld and affirmed. 14. So far the sentence is concerned, the learned trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341 of the Indian Penal Code, while this Court has convicted the appellants under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellants have suffered the rigors of trial for a period of 23 years. Under the aforesaid circumstances, considering the submissions made by the appellants that instead of sending the appellants to jail, the appellants may be saddled with fine amount, in lieu of sentence of incarceration. The counsel for the State has no objection but has submitted that fine should be reasonable, and appropriate, instead of Jail. This Court has taken judicial notice of the fact, that appellants Pyar Singh was aged about 64 years at the time of conviction and other appellants were in the age group of 26, 27 and 28 years but 14 years have lapsed since the judgment of conviction, now the appellant no. 1 Pyar Singh Bhumij may be aged about 78 years approximately and other appellants, approximately 40 years, and as such this Court instead of sending them to jail, modifies the sentence as period already undergone by the appellants, subject to the condition that appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the learned trial court and deposit the same within four weeks further time. The learned trial court will disburse the amount to the injured. Rs. 20,000/-to the father Dukhu Bhumij, Rs. 10,000/-to Dhan Singh Bhumij and Rs. 10,000/-to the informant, Arjun Bhumij. In case of non-availability of the injured, the amount will be disbursed to the legal heirs after due verification by the learned trial court. 15. The learned trial court will disburse the amount to the injured. Rs. 20,000/-to the father Dukhu Bhumij, Rs. 10,000/-to Dhan Singh Bhumij and Rs. 10,000/-to the informant, Arjun Bhumij. In case of non-availability of the injured, the amount will be disbursed to the legal heirs after due verification by the learned trial court. 15. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.01.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1997, in connection with Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 1995, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 144 of 1995, is hereby upheld and affirmed with respect to Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and is modified to Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code from Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with modification in sentence as period already undergone. 16. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. In case the appellants fail to deposit the fine amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of notice by the learned trial court, the appellants will have to undergo the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court of simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 18. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal partly allowed.