JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant, Shaktidhar Mahto @ Shakti Mahto was put on trial to face charges under Section 307 as well as under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he attempted to commit murder of the informant, Prabha Devi (PW 4). The learned trial Court having found the appellant guilty convicted him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the morning of 27.7.2001 while the appellant was cutting the earth of the field belonging to the informants husband, the informants son, Lalit Mahto (PW 3) forbade him from doing so. Further case is that on the same day in between 9 to 10 p.m. the appellant came to the house of the informant while she was cooking meal and started hurling abuses by saying as to why they did stop him for cutting the earth from the field and as soon as she came out of the house, the appellant assaulted on her head with donda, as a result of which she became unconscious. 3. It appears that the informant, Parbha Devi gave her fardbeyan at Sonahatu Police Station on the same night at 10.50 p.m. On the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation by Investigating Officer, Ganesh Dutt Sharma (PW 8), who got the informant examined by Dr. R.C. Jha (PW 6). On examination doctor found lacerated wound over the right parietal region size 15 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 3 c.m., apart from a Haematoma size 18 c.m. x 6 c.m. over right forearm. Accordingly the doctor issued injury report (Ext. 1) with the opinion that the injury found over the head, was grievous, caused by sharp heavy dangerous weapon. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly the cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of sessions the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Accordingly the cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of sessions the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Of them PW 1, Nepal Mahto, happens to be the husband of the informant, whereas PW 3, Lalit Mahto, happens to be the son of the informant. PW 2, Gopal Mahto, PW 5, Rahda Mohan Mahto and PW 7, Duryodhan Mahto, have been declared hostile. 6. After the prosecution case was closed the appellant was questioned under Section 313, Cr. PC about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, to which he denied. 7. After taking into consideration the evidences, the trial Court did find the appellant guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 8. Being aggrieved with that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the husband of the informant (PW 1) and son of the informant (PW 3), though have claimed to be the eyewitnesses, but, in fact, neither PW 1 nor PW 3 is the eye-witness to the occurrence and therefore their testimonies are not worth reliable. So far PW 4, the informant, is concerned, her testimony does not find corroboration from the medical report, as according to her she was assaulted on her head by lathi but the injury found on the person of the informant according to the doctor, was caused by sharp heavy dangerous weapon and in this view of the matter her testimony is also not worth reliable. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the State. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that PWs 1 and 3 have deposed that in the morning of the occurrence the appellant was cutting earth from the field belonging to them and therefore he (PW 3) forbade him from doing so. They further deposed that on the same day in the night, the appellant came to their house and gave lathi blow on the head of the informant causing injury. They further deposed that on the same day in the night, the appellant came to their house and gave lathi blow on the head of the informant causing injury. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, these two witnesses came on hearing hullah and therefore they can certainly be not the eye-witnessses to the occurrence. But from the evidences of PW 1 and PW 3, it is evident that before the informant (PW 4) was assaulted, alarm was raised. It is not the case that after PW 4 was assaulted she raised alarm and as such in absence of any other material or evidence it cannot be said that they are not the eye-witnesses. Further I do find that PW 4, the informant, in her evidence, has also testified that while she was in her house the appellant came and assaulted. Her statement gets corroboration substantially from the First Information Report and also from the medical report, as the doctor found the grievous injury on the parietal region of the scalp. Learned Counsel did argue that it is the case of the prosecution that PW 4, the informant was assaulted with lathi, but according to the doctor injury on the scalp was caused by sharp heavy dangerous weapon. I do not find substance in the submission as it is oftenly found that if the injury is caused by lathi on a bony part of the body e.g. scalp injury appears to have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. In that event ocular evidence as testified by the witness gets corroboration from the medical evidence as well. 12. In the circumstances, I do find that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of 3 months during trial and thereafter when he was convicted and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case sentence for the period already under gone shall be sufficient. 14. As has been noted above, the occurrence took place on a trivial matter and that the appellant is none other than the nephew of the informants husband. 14. As has been noted above, the occurrence took place on a trivial matter and that the appellant is none other than the nephew of the informants husband. Keeping this aspect of the matter as well as other aspect that occurrence took place in the year 2001, ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly he is sentenced. In default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. 15. With the modification in the order of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.