Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellant No. 1, Hirdya Singh alias Hirdya Ahir has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Ram Pravesh Singh @ Ram Pravesh Ahir, Ramadhar Singh @ Ramadhar Ahir and Jag Narayan Singh @ Jag Narayan Ahir have been convicted under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. 2. The fact leading to the case is that on 23.3.1988 in the morning at the time of sun-rise, while the informant Jai Govind Ahir (who died during the pendency of appeal) and his brother Bhaiya Ram Ahir (deceased) were in their cowshed and the informant Jai Govind Ahir was giving gawat to cattle while deceased Bhaiya Ram Ahir was cutting fodder by means of garasi, then all the appellants came there, who are distant gotia of the informant and asked them as to why they are going to transfer their properties to their daughters son. Upon which deceased Bhaiya Ram told that as the property belongs to him, therefore, they have got no right to interfere with that. Hearing this, appellant Jag Narain Ahir ordered to assault and appellant Hirdya Ahir, who was hiding garasi within his chadar assaulted Bhaiya Ram Ahir twice on his head with the result Bhaiya Ram Ahir fell down and became unconscious. Then, the informant raised alarm, with the result witnesses and female members of the deceased came there, who saw the occurrence. Thereafter, Bhaiya Ram Ahir was taken to Referral Hospital, Bikramganj and as Bhaiya Ram Ahir was unconscious, fardbeyan was recorded on the statement of Jai Govind Ahir, who is the full brother of deceased Bhaiya Ram Ahir. The doctor after examining the injured Bhaiya Ram Ahir referred him to PMCH but, keeping in view the convenience injured Bhaiya Ram Ahir was being taken to Varanashi hospital, but, in the way at Sheosagar he succumbed to the injuries. The dead body of deceased Bhaiya Ram Ahir was taken by his relations to Varanasi for cremation, where he was cremated without post-mortem examination as according to the prosecution case, they were not knowing of this fact. After completion of the investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and subsequently trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. After completion of the investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and subsequently trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in his case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether 12 witnesses including the doctor (PW 5). PW 1 is Ram Nath Singh, PW 2 is Maheshwari Devi, PW 3 is Sheoratni Devi. PW 4 is Adhu Saran Singh, PW 5 is Dr. Madan Mohan Verma. PW 6 is Ram Chandra Singh. PW 7 is Lachhuman Singh. PW 8 is Shri Bhagwan Singh. PW 9 is Kulwant Singh. PW 10 is Paramhans Singh. PW 11 is Ram Nagina Ojha and PW 12 is Bihari Singh. PWs 9, 10 and 12 are formal witnesses. 5. PW 5, Dr. Madan Mohan Verma has stated that on 23.3.1982 at about 7.30 a.m., while he was posted at Referral Hospital, Dhangai (Bikramganj) the patient Bhaiya Ram Singh, son of Dewan Singh of Village-Manpur Milki, PS Bikramganj, District-Rohtas was brought there in an injured condition and he was unconscious. Then, he informed local police of Bikramganj and SI of Police of Bikramganj Police Station came and he issued him a requisition for injury report. Then, he examined the above named patient and found the following injuries on his persons : (i) Incised wound measuring 3-1/4" x 1/3" deep upto cranium antero-posterior over left fronto parital region of scalp covered with blood and blood clot; (ii) incised wound measuring 3" x 1/4" x scalp deep antero-posterior over summit of scalp covered with blood and blood clot. According to him both the injuries were caused by sharp-edged substance such as garasa. The opinion regarding nature of both the injuries was kept reserved till X-ray report available and the patient was referred to PMCH. According to the doctor, some special features were noted that the patient was old, was in state of coma and hypertensive having left sided residual hemi-paresis and was in low state. The injury report (Ext. 1) has been proved by the doctor, which, according to him, is in his pen and signature. According to him, the injured was unconscious due to these two injuries which were dangerous to life. 6. PW 1 is Ram Nath Singh. The injury report (Ext. 1) has been proved by the doctor, which, according to him, is in his pen and signature. According to him, the injured was unconscious due to these two injuries which were dangerous to life. 6. PW 1 is Ram Nath Singh. He has stated that the deceased Bhaiya Ram Ahir was his father-in-law and in the morning of the alleged occurrence while this witness was at his sasural and he was returning after nature call, then he heard bulla at the darwaja of Jai Govind Singh and he went there and saw the daughter of deceased Bhaiya Ram Ahir weeping and appellant Hirdya Singh, Jag Narayan Singh, Ram Pravesh Singh and Ramadhar Singh were fleeing away and Bhaiya Ram Ahir was fallen down on earth in injured condition. Then, the informant told him that at the order of Jag Narayan, appellant Hirdya assaulted Bhaiya Ram Ahir with garasa. He has further stated that, thereaiter, the deceased was brought to Referral Hospital Dhangai, Bikramganj where he was examined and doctor advised him to take the injured to Patna for better treatment. But, according to their convenience, they started taking the injured to Varanasi but, in the way at Sheosagar Bhaiya Ram Ahir (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, he was cremated at Varanasi without postmortem, as they did not know regarding that. He has further stated that the cause of annoyance to these appellants was that Bhaiya Ram Ahir and informant Jai Govind Singh wanted to transfer their properties to their daughters son, but, these appellants were opposing it. 7. PW 2, Maheshwari Devi, who claims to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence in the morning while she was cleaning the cow-shed of her father Bhaiya Ram Ahir and at that time, Bhaiya Ram Ahir was cutting fodder and her uncle Jai Govind Singh was giving fodder to cattle and mother of Jai Govind Singh was also there. In the meantime, the appellants came there and asked Bhaiya Ram Ahir as to why he was transferring properties to their daughter and son-in-law. On this Bhaiya Ram Ahir told that he was owner of his properties and, therefore, they are nobody to ask about it. Thereupon, the appellant Jag Narayan ordered to assault him. In the meantime, the appellants came there and asked Bhaiya Ram Ahir as to why he was transferring properties to their daughter and son-in-law. On this Bhaiya Ram Ahir told that he was owner of his properties and, therefore, they are nobody to ask about it. Thereupon, the appellant Jag Narayan ordered to assault him. Thereafter, the appellant Hirdya assaulted her father on his head twice with garasi which was hidden by him under his chadar. He has further stated that her father fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was brought to Dhangai Hospital. 8. PW 3, Shoratni Devi, who is the wife of the informant Jai Govind Singh, has stated that on the alleged date of the occurrence at about sun-rise in the morning, while she was present at the place of occurrence along with her daughter Maheshwari Devi, her husband Jai Govind Singh and husbands brother Bhaiya Ram Ahir these appellants came there and asked Bhaiya Ram Ahir as to why he was transferring his property to his daughters son. On it, Bhaiya Ram Ahir told that he was owner of his properties and, therefore, he would dispose it of according to his sweet will. Hearing this appellant Jag Narayan ordered to assault and thereafter, the appellant Hirdya assaulted the deceased on his head with garasi as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital for treatment. 9. PWs 4, 6, 7 and 8 have also fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR. 10. PW 11, Ram Nagina Ojha is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that on 23.3.1982 while he was posted at Bikramganj Police Station as SI of Police, on that day at 10 a.m. He went to Referral Hospital, Dhangai, Bikramganj on the basis of OD slip by the doctor of the said Hospital to the effect that Bhaiya Ram Ahir has got head injury. After receiving the OD slip, he prepared Bikramganj PS Station Diary Entry No. 364, dated 23.3.1982 (Ext. 5) and he proceeded for Dhangai Referral Hospital, where he found Bhaiya Ram Ahir unconscious and he found injury on his head, upon which there was bandage. Thereafter, he prepared injury slip (Ext. 6). After receiving the OD slip, he prepared Bikramganj PS Station Diary Entry No. 364, dated 23.3.1982 (Ext. 5) and he proceeded for Dhangai Referral Hospital, where he found Bhaiya Ram Ahir unconscious and he found injury on his head, upon which there was bandage. Thereafter, he prepared injury slip (Ext. 6). He has further stated that only because, Bhaiya Ram Ahir was unconscious, he recorded the statement of his brother Jai Govind Singh in the hospital and on the basis of which formal FIR was drawn up. He has further stated that in course of investigation, he again took the statements of informant and injured Bhaiya Ram was referred to some bigger hospital for treatment. He has further stated that in course of investigation, he reached at the place of occurrence on the same day at 5 p.m. According to him, the place of occurrence is aam gali which was adjacent to south-west of informants baithka, where he found nad charan of informant and near that nad charan he found huge quantity of blood fallen on the earth. He found blood stained garasi which was thrown there and which was subsequently seized by him as per seizure list (Ext. 8). He also found log for fodder cutting near the nad charan. In course of investigation, he took statement of the witnesses. He has further stated that he sent blood-stained earth and garasi to Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna for examination, which has been marked as Ext. 9. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been marked as Ext. 10. 11. PWs 9, 10 and 12 are formal witnesses, who have proved fardbeyan (Ext. 8), formal FIR (Ext. 4) and charge-sheet (Ext. 11) respectively. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the informant of this case died during the pendency of trial, therefore, conviction and sentence on his statement is not sustainable in the eye of law. He has further stated that deceased died while going to Varanasi and there was no post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. This also vitiated the case of the prosecution. 13. He has further stated that deceased died while going to Varanasi and there was no post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. This also vitiated the case of the prosecution. 13. In this case, although the informant, who died and was not examined by the prosecution but, there is ample evidence that these appellants went to the place of occurrence and on the order of appellant Jag Narayan Ahir, appellant Hirdya Ahir gave two garasi blows on the head of the deceased, who fell down and became unconscious. Other appellants have also participated in the crime. The evidence of other witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 are consistent and corroborative which has been supported by the statement of PW 5, Medical Officer. 14. I have also gone through the records of the case. Although, the informant was not examined and post-mortem examination of the deceased was not held but, there are witnesses, who came just after the occurrence and saw the occurrence. Their evidence cannot be discarded. They are reliable and trustworthy. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted these appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is hereby upheld. It appears that, the appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.