JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. Both the appeals heard together as they are arisen out of the same judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 1. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 324/34, IPC whereas appellant Nos. 1 and 2 (Paburas Toppo and Epil Hembrom) have further been convicted for the offence under Section 325/34, IPC and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each under Section 325; IPC and fine of Rs. Two hundred and in default of fine, R.I. for two months each whereas all the appellants including Kishore Bage were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each under Section 324/34, IPC. 2. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that a written report was submitted by one Habil Soren alleging therein that on 17.11.1990 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused persons who are the students of Epifani Boys Hostel, assaulted Sneh Masih Dhan and Bardan Topno as a result of which both of them became seriously injured. It is further alleged that all the three appellants, namely, Paburas Toppo, Kishore Bage and Epil Hembrom, who are residing in the said hostel, are arrogant and avoiding discipline for which there was a complaint against them. It is further alleged that the informant tried to make them understood on which they started quarreling. It is further alleged that Sneh Masih Dhan Warden of Hostel and Bardan Topno House Master were assaulted by the appellants by means of iron rod and tangi of which the informant said to be the eye witness and accordingly he submitted the written report to the Officer Incharge. On the basis of which the First Information Report was registered under Sections 323/324/34, IPC and 307, IPC. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. 3. All the appellants appeared before the trial Court and accordingly the charge was framed under Section 307/34, IPC and 324/343 and 323/34, IPC. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants preferred this appeal. 4. All the appellants appeared before the trial Court and accordingly the charge was framed under Section 307/34, IPC and 324/343 and 323/34, IPC. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants preferred this appeal. 4. There is specific allegation against all the appellants for assaulting Sneh Masih Dhan who was Warden of the said hostel at the relevant time and also Bardan Topno, House Master by means of iron rod and tangi. It is also obvious that both injured were examined by the Doctor, PW 7 who found the following injuries on the person of Sneh Masih Dhan- (I) Sharp cut wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" over the vertex damaging the skull bone with profuse bleeding and blood clots. Brain matter was out of the skull box. The patient was semi conscious with severe excitment. (ii) Sharp cutting wound size 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" over the head lying obliquely over injury No. 1. There was profuse bleeding over the blood dots. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were caused by hard blunt and sharp cut weapon. The opinion of the doctor that both the injuries were dangerous to the life of the patient. 5. He also examined other injured, namely, Bardan Topno and found the following injury on- (i) Sharp cutting wound size 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" over the head 4" above the root of the left ear. There was profuse bleeding and blood clots. (ii) Sharp cut wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" over the head just parallel to the injury No. 1. (iii) A lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1 /4" over the left side of the head 11/2" below the injury No. 1. (iv) Swelling of both eye lids of the right side. The opinion of the doctor was that the injuries were caused by hard and sharp substance like kulhari or iron rod. But all the injuries were simple in nature. He proved the injury report Ex. 3 series. 6. PW 2 is the informant who claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, Sneh Masih Dhan one of the injured was the then Warden of the hostel-whereas Bardan Topno was the House Master. But all the injuries were simple in nature. He proved the injury report Ex. 3 series. 6. PW 2 is the informant who claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, Sneh Masih Dhan one of the injured was the then Warden of the hostel-whereas Bardan Topno was the House Master. He deposed that he tried to make the accused persons understood but they started quarreling. He further stated that the appellant Paburas Toppo assaulted with tangi whereas the appellant Epil Hembrom gave iron rod blow and other appellant Kishore Bage caught hold them. He stated in his cross-examination that several students are residing in the hostel and they were present in their room at the relevant time. PW 3 claimed to have taken away the victim to the hospital as they were found to be injured but he claimed that he had seen Paburas having tangi in his hand. PW 4 though has not seen the occurrence but he claimed to have seen the injured who were taken to the hospital. PWs 5 and 6 are the injured who claimed in very clear terms that the appellant Paburas Toppo gave tangi blow whereas appellant Epil Hembrom assaulted with iron rod. According to PW 5, Kishore Bage assaulted with fist. None of the injured said anything against appellant Kishore Bage for using any weapon at that time. PW 8 is the I.O. who claimed to have recorded the evidence of the witnesses and also visited the place of occurrence. It is true that he had neither seized any weapon from the house of the appellants nor he had seen any blood at the place of occurrence. 7. From going through the allegation made, it is obvious that the informant being the eye witness fully supported the prosecution case consistently about the assault as against Paburas Toppo and Epil Hembrom for assaulting with tangi and rod respectively. Both injured PWs 5 and 6 also claimed in the same way that both Paburas and Epil have assaulted them with tangi and rod whereas appellant Kishore Bage assaulted with fist. Medical evidence has fully been corroborated with the evidence of injured as both the injured sustained several injuries on their person caused by sharp cutting and hard blunt object. Both injured PWs 5 and 6 also claimed in the same way that both Paburas and Epil have assaulted them with tangi and rod whereas appellant Kishore Bage assaulted with fist. Medical evidence has fully been corroborated with the evidence of injured as both the injured sustained several injuries on their person caused by sharp cutting and hard blunt object. Thus, I find that the trial Court has rightly passed the order of conviction against the appellants for the offence under Sections 324/325/34, IPC against the appellants, namely, Paburas Toppo and Epil Hembrom but whereas the appellant Kishore Bage is concerned, there appears no weapon used by him, except that he caught hold the informant at the relevant time and assaulted with fist and as such, the offence under Section 323, IPC is made out and for which the appellant Kishore Bage is liable for conviction for the offence under Section 323, IPC. In this way, I find that the prosecution has fully established the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus the order of conviction is confirmed. 8. So far sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the trial Court has not considered the provisions as laid down under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants were the students of Class IX at the time of occurrence and this is first of fence. This occurrence took place as back as in the year, 1991 and they have suffered much and there is no proof about previous conviction. 10. Having regard to the above facts and circumstance and in the interest of justice, all the appellants, namely, Paburas Toppo, Kishore Bage and Epil Hembrom are directed to be released under Section 360(1), Cr PC on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) each with one surety of like amount each to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The trial Court would Lake appropriate steps for their appearance for executing the bond in terms of the order. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence only, both the appeals are dismissed.