JUDGMENT : The appellant nos. 1 and 2, stood convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four months under Section 324 of the IPC and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 stood convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and were released on due admonition by giving them benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2003 passed by Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.–III, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1988. 2. Prosecution case as per fardbeyan of informant Lal Bahadur Bharati PW4, in short is that on 12.11.87 at about 8 A.M. in the morning, accused – appellant Vijay Kumar Bharati and Rameshwar Bharti were digging the compost manure and cutting the field of the informant and amalgamating it to their own field and on enquiry by the informant, they started abusing him and accused persons rushed towards their home and came back armed with farsa, lathi and bhala and appellant Vijay Kumar Bharti gave farsa blow on the head of the informant due to which he fell down on the ground then appellant Surendra Bharti assaulted him by means of bhala near his temple region. Appellants Rameshwar Bharti and Shri Kishun Bharti assaulted the informant at his left wrist with lathi and on alarm, Kashi Nath Bharti, Ramashan Bharti and Duryodhan Bharti came there and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, the informant was brought to the Manjhi hospital for his treatment. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Manjhi P.S. Case No. 71/81 under Sections 323, 324 and 307/34 of the IPC was registered. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to the file of Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, Additioanl District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.–III, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1988 for trial and disposal. 4. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 324 and 307/34 of the IPC and to prove the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. 4. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 324 and 307/34 of the IPC and to prove the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. They are; P.W. 1 – Kashi Nath Bharti, P.W. 2 – Ramashan Bharti, P.W. 3 – Duryodhan Bharti, P.W. 4 – Lal Bahadur Bharti, (informant), P.W. 5 – Ram Pratap (the Investigating Officer), P.W. 6 – Nagendra Prasad and P.W. 7 – Dr. Radhe Shyam Choudhary, who examined the informant. 5. Apart from that following documents have been brought on record and marked as; Ext. 1 – Signature of Duryodhan Bharti on fardbeyan, Ext. 1/1 – Signature of Lal Bahadur Bharti on fardbeyan, Ext. 2 – Fardbeyan, Ext. 3 – Requisition for examination of the informant Lal Bahadur Bharti, Ext. 4 – Formal F.I.R. Ext. 5 and 5/1 – Injury report of Lal Bahadur Bharti issued by the Dr. Radhe Shyam Choudhary and Ext. 6 – Certified copy of judgment dated 30.04.93 in the case of Rameshwar Bharti vs. Lal Bahadur Bharti and Others in T.R. No. 124/93. 6. On behalf of defence no ocular evidence has been brought on record. However, they have brought on record the sale deed dated 24.06.67 executed by Chandrama Puri in favour of Sri Kishun Bharti and others as Ext. A., notice under Section 144 Cr.P.C. as Ext. B and B/1, certified copy of deposition of Dr. B.K. Singh as Ext. C, certified copy of deposition of Harbansh Prasad Singh as Ext. C/1, Injury certificate of Surendra Bharti and Rameshwar Bharti as Ext. D and D/1, certified copy of Complaint petition of Rameshwar Bharti vs. Lal Bahadur Bharti as Ext. E and carbon copy of order passed in A.B.P. No. 473/87 dated 02.12.87 as Ext. F. 7. The defence of the accused persons as per cross-examination and as per statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that as a matter of fact, the informant side is the aggressor in the occurrence and they have assaulted them and they have also received injuries in the said occurrence. 8. Learned Trial Court after conclusion of trial acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, however, convicted the appellant nos. 1 and under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced them in the manner aforesaid and also convicted appellant nos. 3 and 4, however, they were released on due admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 9. 1 and under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced them in the manner aforesaid and also convicted appellant nos. 3 and 4, however, they were released on due admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the occurrence took place with respect to extracting the compost manure and while the appellants were cutting in his field, the informant side came and assaulted the appellants, which will appear from the fact that the land, on which the appellants were digging the compost manure was the land of the appellants with respect to which a number of documents have been brought on record. It has also been submitted that the Trial Court has also failed to consider the fact that the informant himself has stated in his evidence that other witnesses viz. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 reached after the occurrence and took him to the hospital and, therefore, except informant, none is the eye witness of the occurrence. It has further been submitted that from the evidence of PW 7 Dr. Radhey Shyam Chaudhary, in cross-examination, it appears that he has issued injury report at his house, though he is a doctor of a Government Hospital and further no bed head ticket and other documents have been brought on record, which creates a serious doubt about the injury report issued by him, however, the Trial Court has not considered all these infirmities in the prosecution story and has convicted the appellant nos. 1 and 2 under Section 324 of the IPC and appellant nos. 3 and 4 under Section 323 of the IPC, which is out and out perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has supported the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that the informant PW 4, who is the victim in this case has stated about assault to him by appellant nos. 1 and 2 by farsa and bhala and doctor P.W. 6 has found the injury on the head of informant PW4 and appellant nos. 3 and 4 assaulted him by means of lathi and doctor has also found lacerated wound on the person of the informant PW4. 1 and 2 by farsa and bhala and doctor P.W. 6 has found the injury on the head of informant PW4 and appellant nos. 3 and 4 assaulted him by means of lathi and doctor has also found lacerated wound on the person of the informant PW4. As such the evidence of PW4 has been corroborated by the evidence of doctor and I.O has also been examined in this case and he has filed the charge-sheet in this case. It has further been submitted that even if it is believed that PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not the eye-witness of the case but they reached the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and saw the informant in injured condition, who disclosed the names of the appellants. Hence, the conviction of appellants in this case is just and proper and does not require any interference. 11. Having heard both sides, from perusal of evidence, it appears that PW4 is the informant and he has supported the case of prosecution in toto in his evidence in chief and stated that appellant nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him by means of farsa and bhala and appellant nos. 3 and 4 assaulted him by means of lathi. The evidence of doctor PW7, who examined the informant PW4, shows that he has found altogether four injuries on the person of the informant viz. (i) Incised wound 2 1/2” x 1/2” upto bone deep on the middle of scalp (ii) Incised wound 1 1/4 “ x 1/4” upto bone deep on the right side of scalp (iii) Abrasion 1/2” x 1/4” skin deep lateral side to the right eye and (iv) Swelling 1 1/2”x 1/2” on left wrist joint. In the opinion of doctor injuries nos. (i) and (ii) were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon and sharp pointed weapon and injuries nos. (iii) and (iv) were found to be simple in nature. As such, the evidence of doctor fully corroborates the evidence of PW 4. No doubt, PW1 to PW3, appears to have reached the place of occurrence just after the occurrence and saw PW4 in injured condition but they have stated that the name of the appellants have been disclosed by the informant to them. It further appears that place of occurrence in this case is the field of the informant and the evidence of PW4 clearly disclose that appellant nos. It further appears that place of occurrence in this case is the field of the informant and the evidence of PW4 clearly disclose that appellant nos. 1 and 2 were extracting the compost manure and also cutting the soil so as to fill their own field and the Investigation Officer has also found the deep cut in the field, which clearly establishes the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and also corroborates the evidence of PW4. It further appears that appellants side have also brought a complaint petition on record and the deposition of some witnesses and injury certificates no witnesses have been examined by defence as such, there is nothing available on record except aforesaid documents to suggest that the appellants had also received injuries, whereas, doctor PW7 had found the injuries on the person of appellant nos. 1 and 2, grievous, however, conviction is under Section 324 of the IPC. 12. In view of above discussions, it appears that prosecution has been able to prove its case and, therefore, I find no infirmity in the finding arrived at by Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.–III, Saran at Chapra and accordingly the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2003 is hereby affirmed. 13. So far sentence of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, a submission has been put forth by learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellant nos. 3 and 4 have been given the benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and have been released on due admonition, the said benefit may also be extended to appellant nos. 1 and 2 as at the time of conviction the appellants in the year 2003 appellant nos. 1 and 2 were aged about 26 years and 35 years respectively and since then fifteen long years have passed and they would be now aged about 41 and 50 years and as such no fruitful purpose will be served to send them behind the bars as there is nothing on record to show that they were previously convicted in any other case or have ever misused the privilege of bail. 14. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the fact that the case is very old one and as appellant nos. 14. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the fact that the case is very old one and as appellant nos. 3 and 4 have already been released by the trial court itself under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, I deem it appropriate to release appellant nos. 1 and 2 also on due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 15. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.