Dharnidhar Jha, J.

1. -this appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions judge. Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial no.65 of 1987 on 27-8-1993. The four appellants were put on trial in the above noted case for a joint charge under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There were individual charges also. Appellant Ram Naresh sharma was charged under Sec.326 of the Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to nevilal Sharma. P. W.5 whereas, appellant anant Lal Sharma stood charged under section 324 of the Penal Code for causing hurt to the above noted P. W.5 namely. Nevilal Sharma. The remaining two appellants, namely, Nagendra Sharma and dhurandhar Sharma were charged under section 323 of the Penal Code for causing hurt to the informant Nevilal Sharma. The occurrence took place on 28-4-1984.

2. The prosecution story was that the grandson of the informant had defecated in the field of the accused persons and, as such, appellant Nagendra Sharma abused him which was forbidden by the informant and that ensued an altercation between the two sides. It is alleged, at the orders of appellant Nagendra Sharma to assault, appellant ram Naresh Sharma dealt farsa blows on the head and back of P. W.5, Nevilal Sharma. Accused Dhurandhar Sharma assaulted p. W.5, Nevilal Sharma with lathi on his waist, whereas, accused Anant Lal Sharma assaulted P. W.5 with Bhala which hit him somewhere around his left elbow. The injured Nebilal Sharma was rushed to Sadar hospital, Hajipur, and his fardbeyan was recorded and that resulted in investigation by the police and ultimate laying down of the charge-sheet and trial of the appellants which ended in judgment and order of conviction, as indicated above.

3. The defence, as set up by the appellants in the Court below, was that there was no such occurrence as alleged and that the witnesses had come with false story of assault and other aspects of the matter. The informant was suggested that there was some litigation between the parties and in order to settling scores a false case was lodged by him.

4. It may be relevant to note at this juncture itself that the defence has not examined any witness nor it could produce any document in support of its suggestion. As regards the prosecution, it examined a total of nine witnesses out of whom P. Ws.1,2 and 5 have given eyewitness account of the occurrence, P. W.5 being an injured witness also. PWs 7 and 8 are the Doctors who examined P. W.5 and P. W.8 being a Radiologist who was attached to the Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, and who gave his opinion on the X-Ray plate which was placed before him for that purpose. After appreciation of the evidence the learned Judge who rendered the judgment of conviction and passed the order of sentence found appellants Ram naresh Sharma and Anant Lal Sharma guilty of committing offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, appellant Nagendra Sharma was convicted for committing offence under Sec.324 read with Sec.109 of the Penal Code though there was no charge in that behalf. As regards appellant Dhurandhar Sharma, he was found guilty of committing offence under Sec.323 of the Penal Code. While hearing on sentence the learned Judge refused to give the benefit of Sec.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also did not pass any substantive sentence for any term of imprisonment and proceeded to inflict sentence of fine upon all the appellants which was of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by each of them found guilty under Sec.324 of the Penal Code and in default to rigorous imprisonment for two years. That sentence covered all the appellants except appellant dhurandhar Sharma who was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing the offence under Sec.323 of the Penal Code, else, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The entire amount of fine to be realized from the appellants, was directed to be paid to the victim and the informant as compensation, probably, under