Judgment Anwar Ahmad, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 6.8.2003 and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by Shri Govind Prasad Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 1996. Both the appellants have been convicted for the offence u/s. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2.000.00 and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. As both the appeals arise out of the same sessions trial they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Sakaldeo Thakur of Village Mahanth Maniyari, P.S. Maniyari in the district of Muzaffarpur gave fardbeyan on 7.6.1994 at 8 AM alleging therein that on 2.6.1994 at about 9 P.M. his son Pappu alias Ajit Kumar Thakur was sitting at the darwaja of his house and was talking with Shatrughan Thakur. In the meantime some stones fell down near Pappu Thakur and out of them one stone hit his leg. Pappu Thakur abused as to who was throwing the stone. Thereupon Manoj Thakur came there, abused him and assaulted with fists and slaps. Persons of the vicinity pacified the matter. It is further alleged that on 3.6.1994 at 6 AM Krityanand Thakur, uncle of Manoj Thakur came to his house and asked Pappu Thakur the reason of the quarrel. In the meantime, Manoj Thakur came there and gave a fist blow on the nose of Pappu Thakur. As a result blood began to ooze out. Persons of the vicinity pacified the matter. It is further alleged that again on that day at 9.30 AM while Pappu Thakur was sitting at his door. Manoj Thakur with a dagger and Krityanand Thakur with a lathi came there and they challenged Pappu Thakur. It is further alleged that Manoj Thakur dragged Pappu Thakur to the road in front of the house and with the intention to kill Krityanand Thakur out him down on the earth and began to assault him with leg and fists. It is alleged that Manoj Thakur assaulted him on his head, back, shoulder and chest. It is said that Pappu Thakur was seriously injured and became senseless. Persons of the vicinity and informants wife Bidya Devi, Arvind Thakur, Shatrughan Thakur and Guddu Thakur came and witnessed the occurrence. It is alleged that Manoj Thakur assaulted him on his head, back, shoulder and chest. It is said that Pappu Thakur was seriously injured and became senseless. Persons of the vicinity and informants wife Bidya Devi, Arvind Thakur, Shatrughan Thakur and Guddu Thakur came and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter accused persons fled away. Pappu Thakur was taken to Medical, Muzaffarpur where his statement was recorded. 3. A case under Secs. 323, 324, 307, 341, 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. 4. The defence case is that accused persons are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. 5. After trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated above. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, two criminal appeals have been filed to set aside the said judgment and order and to acquit the appellants of the charge. 7. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses. The defence has adduced no evidence, oral or documentary. 8. PW-1 is Guddu Thakur. He stated that on hulla he went to the darwaja of Pappu Thakur. He found dagger injuries and blood oozing out from back, neck and arm. He stated that he did not see the assailant but the persons assembled there disclosed that Manoj had assaulted him. So, on the point of identification of assailant this witness has been declared hostile. 9. PW-2 is Braj Mohan Thakur. PW-3 is Shatrughan Thakur. Both these witnesses who are eye witnesses before the police have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. 10. PW-4 is Sakaldeo Thakur, the informant. He stated that on 3.6.1994 at 9.30 PM in the night he was at his door. His sons Arvind Kumar, Pappu and wife were also sitting there. In the meantime, Krityanand Thakur and Manoj Thakur came there and they dragged Pappu to the road where Krityanand Thakur assaulted him with lathi and Manoj Thakur assaulted him continuously with dagger causing injuries on his head, back and other places. They assaulted him with the intention to kill. His sons Arvind Kumar, Pappu and wife were also sitting there. In the meantime, Krityanand Thakur and Manoj Thakur came there and they dragged Pappu to the road where Krityanand Thakur assaulted him with lathi and Manoj Thakur assaulted him continuously with dagger causing injuries on his head, back and other places. They assaulted him with the intention to kill. It is further alleged that one day before the occurrence on 2.6.1994 in the evening while Pappu and Shatrughan were talking at their darwaja. Manoj Thakur threw a stone which hit in his leg. He stated that Pappu was taken to Muzaffarpur Medical where he was treated. He further stated that he gave fardbeyan to police. He further stated that the police of Ahiyanur P.S. recorded the statement of Pappu Thakur in the hospital on 7.6.1994. 11. PW-5 Arvind Kumar Thakur, son of the informant. He stated that on the night at 9.30 PM on 3.6.1994 he, his father, mother, younger brother, Pappu Thakur and some villager were sitting. Manoj Thakur and Krityanand Thakur came and challenged Pappu Thakur. He stated that Manoj and Krityanand dragged Pappu from his door to the road, put him down and assaulted him with leg and fists. He further stated that Manoj attacked with dagger causing injury to Pappu on his head, back, chest and other places. Pappu was seriously injured and became senseless. Accused persons on hulla fled away. Pappu was taken to Muzaffarpur Medical in the state of unconsciousness where he was given treatment. After 3-4 days Pappu was in a position to give statement and he gave statement before the police of Ahiyapur Police Station. The fardbeyan of Pappu Thakur has been marked as Ext.1. He further stated that in the month of June, 1999 Pappu was killed in which Manoj Thakur in an accused. 12. PW-6 is Baikunth Chaudhary. PW-7 is Ram Briksh Rai. Both the witnesses did not support the case and have been declared hostile. 13. PW-8 is Naresh Kumar, Medical Officer of S.K. MCH, Muzaffarpur. He stated that he examined Pappu Kumar and found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound 1"x1/4"x1/2" deep in front of the chest on the right side. (ii) Incised wound 2"x1/2"x1/2" x muscle deep over the front of left upper arm. (iii) Incised wound over the left side of scalp on back - 3"x1/2"xbone deep. He stated that he examined Pappu Kumar and found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound 1"x1/4"x1/2" deep in front of the chest on the right side. (ii) Incised wound 2"x1/2"x1/2" x muscle deep over the front of left upper arm. (iii) Incised wound over the left side of scalp on back - 3"x1/2"xbone deep. (iv) Incised wound 1"x1/4"x1/2" deep over the back of chest on left side. (v) Incised wound 1-1/2"x1" obliquely downwards on back of abdomen on left side. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature caused by a sharp weapon, may be a chhura. His injury report has been marked as Ext.2. 14 PW-9 is Om Prakash Sah, SI of Police who investigated the case. He stated that he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant, Sakaldeo Sah. He further stated that he inspected the P.O. and has given the details thereof. He further stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses. 15. Thus, out of 9 witnesses, 5 witnesses i.e. Pws 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are hostile. PW-4 is the informant and PW-5 is his son. These two witnesses have supported the case. PW-8 is the doctor who examined the injured Pappu Thakur and the injuries found on the person of Pappu Thakur corroborate the allegation. 16. The learned defence lawyer submitted that informant and his son have supported the case and other witnesses have turned hostile. So he submitted that there is no independent witnesses to support this case. 17. Of course, the informant and his son have supported the case but there is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. Apart from this, the injured Pappu Thakur son of the informant, gave fardbeyan (Ext.1) to the police while he was admitted in the hospital. Pappu Thakur died during the course of trial and hence his fardbeyan becomes a substantive piece of evidence. In the Fardbeyan Pappu Thakur has supported the allegation of assault against the appellants. Apart from this, medical evidence corroborates the allegation of assault and injuries caused. 18. The learned lawyer for the appellants referred to the evidence of the doctor (PW-8) and the injuries found on the person of Pappu Thakur. He submitted that all the injuries which were caused to Pappu Thakur are on the left side of the body. Apart from this, medical evidence corroborates the allegation of assault and injuries caused. 18. The learned lawyer for the appellants referred to the evidence of the doctor (PW-8) and the injuries found on the person of Pappu Thakur. He submitted that all the injuries which were caused to Pappu Thakur are on the left side of the body. He referred to cross examination of the doctor and submitted that as per the evidence, those injuries could be caused by a fall on the Pieces of glass or brickbats. So he submitted that Pappu Thakur sustained injuries by fall on pieces of class or brickbats. In this connection a reference is made to the suggestion given at para-4 to PW-5. A suggestion was given that Pappu Thakur had got dispute with others and for that he was assaulted and on account of Pattidari dispute the appellants were falsely implicated in this case. Thus, this suggestion amounts to admission that Pappu Thakur was assaulted and thereby received injuries and further this suggestion negatives the submission of the learned lawyer for the appellants that Pappu Thakur received injuries by a fall on the pieces of class or brickbats. 19. The learned lawyer for the appellants submitted that as per the evidence of the informant (PW-4), he was suffering from cataract and hence identification of the appellants and the assault given by them becomes doubtful. Of course, the informant stated that he was suffering from cataract but at the same time stated that he had got the cataract operated. So, in this circumstance the submission of the learned lawyer for the appellants can not be accepted. 20. As discussed above, I find and hold that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants and hence I do not find any merit in these appeals. 21. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed and judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are hereby confirmed. 22. Appellant Krityanand Sharma is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below within one month from the date of the judgment so as to suffer the sentence.