Judgment LOK NATH PRASAD, J. 1. This original revision arises out of judgment and order passed on 19th May, 1988 by Shri J. K. Prasad, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No. 130/85 through which the judgment and order of conviction dated 24-8-85 passed by Shri S. M. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in G.R. No. 1254/80 was confirmed so far the petitioners are concerned. 2. The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that the informant Maldeo Singh of village Paharikala, P.S.Lesliganj, district Palamau submitted written report at Lesliganj P. S. in the morning of 9-11-1980 alleging therein that he along with his nephew Brijdeo Singh along with Chandrika Singh, Okil Singh, Autar Dusad etc. had gone to village Kirto for Gow Danr Puja at Bir Kuanr Asthan then the accused Jairam Pandey, Bigan Pandey named in the petition came there and asked the informant-party that they will do Gow Danr Puja first of all then the informant and others insisted that they will do worship first because they had arrived at the place earlier. For that there was altercation and the accused persons left the place. After completing pooja informant and his nephew and other witnesses were returning and reached near a pine then all on a sudden these accused persons came and surrounded them and they were armed with Garansa, Bhala, lathi etc. It has been alleged that accused Jairam Pandey gave a Garansa blow on the head of the informant while Bigan Penday gave Bhala blow near the righ" eye of the informant and another Garansa blow on the head of Brajdeo Singh and Lakhan Pandey assulted him by the wooden portion of Garansa and so they were seriously injured. In the right the villagers came and took them to the village but it was late in the night and they could not go to the police station and on the next morning that is on 9-11-1980 the informant and other injured and village Chowkidar came to P. S. Lesliganj and lodged FIR at 8 a.m. 3. The police then took up the investigation visited the P.O. got two of the injured examined by a doctor and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet as against eight accused persons. The police then took up the investigation visited the P.O. got two of the injured examined by a doctor and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet as against eight accused persons. All the accused persons claimed themselves innocent in the court below and after conclusion of the trial Sheo Murat Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltongany vide his jugdment, dated 24-8-1985 found all the eight accused persons guilty under Section 3 6 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 323/341/324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted all the appellants and sentenced the accused Jairam Pandey, Kedar Pandey, Beghan Pandey, Ram Bilas Pandey to undergo R. I. for two years under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was awarded under Sections 323/324/341 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Shyam Nandan Pandey, Satyanrayan Pandey, Bigan Pandey and Lakhan Pandey were not awarded any substantive sentence rather they were ordered to be released on execution of bond and for maintaining piece for a period of one year under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate of Daltonganj all the eight accused preferred an appeal which was decided by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj and the appellate court vide his judgment, dated 19-5-1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 136/85 confirmed the order of conviction and sentence as against all the appellants except Beghan Pandey and Ram Belas Pandey and these two accused were acquitted and against that order all these six petitioners preferred this revision and had challenged the finding of the learned Addl. Seesions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj. 5. According to the prosecution case this occurrence took place on 8-11-1980 at village Paharikalan near a Pine and as it was late night so the FIR was lodged in the morning on 9-11-1980 as against all these appellants and Beghan Pandey and Ram Belas Paneay who were acquitted by the appellate court. So far the alleged occurrence is concerned. PW 7 Maldeo Singh the is the informant and PW 4 Brajeo Singh who is the nephew are the most important witnesses because according to the prosecurion case they sustained injuries. So far the alleged occurrence is concerned. PW 7 Maldeo Singh the is the informant and PW 4 Brajeo Singh who is the nephew are the most important witnesses because according to the prosecurion case they sustained injuries. It is the evidence of these witnesses that they along with Chandrika Singh, Pandey Gopinath Singh, Ramautar Manjhi and others had gone to village Paharikalan for Gaur Danr Puja but when they were doing Puja in that very worship place then these accused persons came and asked them that they will offer Puja first of all but the informant and the other members of the informant side stated that because they arrived first of all so they will offer prayer first of all, for that there was altercation and the accused persons left the place after giving threatening to them. It is also their evidence that in the evening at about 6 p.m. or so when they were returning after Puja and reached near Pine all these accused persons who were armed with Garansa, Bhala, lathi etc. surrounded them and first of all Jairam Pandey gave Garansa blow on the head of the informant Maldeo Singh and Bigan gave a blow by Bhala near the right eye of the informant and after that Kedar Pandey gave a Garansa blow on the head of PW 4, Brajeo Singh, nephew of the informant and Lakhan Pandey also assaulted on the right hand by wooden portion of Garansa and so they sustained serious injuries and then the accused persons escaped away and in the night they were bruoght to the village by the villagers and as it was late night and so they came in the morning to the Police Station and lodged information. These witnesses are injured witnesses so naturally it can be said they were present at the time of occurrence. Moreover from their lengthy cross-examination nothing has come to show that they falsely implicated the accused persons and at the same time there is no prior enmity. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner-accused assaulted them only out of their annoyance due to previous altercation regarding who will worship first of all. 6. Moreover from their lengthy cross-examination nothing has come to show that they falsely implicated the accused persons and at the same time there is no prior enmity. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner-accused assaulted them only out of their annoyance due to previous altercation regarding who will worship first of all. 6. The other important witnesses on the point of occurrence i.e. PW 5 Wakil Singh and PW 6 Pandey Gopinath Singh and they also consistantly supported the informant and his nephew on the point of occurrence and the manner of assault. Further more evidence of these witnesses also find corroboration from the evidence of the doctor who has figured as PW 9 this doctor witness has examined both the injured on 9-11-1988 at 9 a.m. The doctor found two injuries on the parietal region of the head and third incised injury was found just below the right eye on the person informant and according to the doctor these injuries were grievous and injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by Garansa and injury No. 3 by Bhala which clearly indicates that Jairam gave Garansa blow on the head and Bigan gave Bhala blow near right eye of the informant. Similarly doctor also found one incised wound on the parietal region of the head of Brijdeo Singh and that injnry was also found to be grievous and this injury can be safely attributed to Kedar Pandey is alleged by the prosecution. Similarly the doctor also found a bruise on the right hand and this can also be attributed to Lakhan. 7. So the prosecution case clearly proves the case as alleged without any reasonable doubt and as such the appellate court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion is well proved so far as the petitioners are concerned. Similarly the doctor also found a bruise on the right hand and this can also be attributed to Lakhan. 7. So the prosecution case clearly proves the case as alleged without any reasonable doubt and as such the appellate court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion is well proved so far as the petitioners are concerned. However, learned lawyer for the petitioners submitted that in the trial Court after examination oi most of the witnesses charges were mended vide order, dated 19-3-1985 and charges under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed as against the accused persons by the Judicial Magistrate but the accused persons were not given any opportunity for re-cross-examination of the witnesses after amendment of the charge and in that view of the matter the accused persons were prejudiced because they had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses so far allegation under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. But from the lower court record it is clear that on 19-3-1985 after the amendment of the charge the learned trial Court has observed that if they want to re-cross-examine the witnesses then they must furnish list of the same by the next date so that those witnesses may be called for their cross-examination after amendment of the charge. On the next day that is on 26-3-1985 on behalf of the accused persons a petition was filed that they do not went to cross-examine any of the witnesses after amendment of the charge. If that is so opportunity was given to the defence for further cross-examination of the witnesses after amendment of the charge but the accused persons themselves declined to cross-examine those witnesses. Thus it can be said that the accused persons actually cross-examined the witnesses in detail prior to the amendment of the charge on all the points and as such they declined to re-cross-examine the witnesses. In that view of the matter, the defence is not put to any prejudice as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the appellate court also no such plea of prejudice was taken in memo of appeal and the appellate court also observed that on this score no prejudice was caused to the defence. In that view of the matter, the defence is not put to any prejudice as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the appellate court also no such plea of prejudice was taken in memo of appeal and the appellate court also observed that on this score no prejudice was caused to the defence. In that view of the matter, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defence was highly prejudiced as no opportunity was given to the defence for further cross-examination of the witnesses after the amendment of the charge. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that in this case the Investigation Officer could not be examined and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice and defence was put to prejudice in their defence. This plea was not taken before the appellate court. Moreover from the evidence on the record it can be said that the Investigation Officer has not found any incriminating article at the P.O. morever there is no serious contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. In that view of the matter non-examination of the Investigating Officer had not caused any prejudice to the defence. So from the evidence on the record and the discussions made above it can be said that practically there is no irregularity or illegality so far as the trial of the petitioners are concerned and the court below was justified in recording the order of conviction as against the appellants. Regarding sentence it can be said that the petitioners Jairam Pandey and Kedar Nath Pandey were found guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Admittedly these petitioners were armed with lethal weapon that is Garansa and they caused grievous injury on the vital part that is on the head of the informant and his nephew Brajdeo Singh respectively and as such sentence of two years R.I. under Section 326 oi the Indian Penal Code appears to be reasonable and does not required interference. No doubt these appellants were also found guilty under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code but definitely no separate sentence was awarded under these sections, as such this order also does not require any interference. No doubt these appellants were also found guilty under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code but definitely no separate sentence was awarded under these sections, as such this order also does not require any interference. So far as the other petitioners are concerned no doubt they were also found guilty under Section 326 and also under other sections of the Indian Penal Code but considering their tender age and also old age they were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct after execution of the bonds. So the court below considered the entire aspect of the matter and it does not require any interference. 9. In the result I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision and as such it is dismissed and the petieioners Jairam Pandey and Kedar Pandey should surrender before the trial Court within two months from today for undergoing the remaining part of the imprisonment failing which the court below will take necessary action for their apprehension and the bail bond of these two petitioners are also hereby cancelled. The other petitioners should also execute the bond as ordered by the trial court within two months.