JUDGMENT (ORAL) Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.--None appears on behalf of the appellants on repeated call. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present. 2. Smt. Rina Sinha, advocate is appointed amicus curiae for the appellants. 3. Heard learned counsel Smt. Rina Sinha as amicus curiae for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 4. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 20.01.2000 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1989 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants No. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to furnish bond of rupees two thousand along with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of two years and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime and to appear in the Court to receive sentence as and when called for. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order convicted the appellants No. 1 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to furnish bond of rupees one thousand along with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year for keeping peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime and to appear in the Court to receive sentence as and when called for by the Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted one co-accused, Jitendra Maharaj for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code but aforesaid co-accused, Jitendra Maharaj is not appellant before this Court. 5. On 05.04.1987, at about 10:00 a.m. informant Ram Gati Singh gave his fardbeyan before the A.S.I., Town Police Station to this effect that on the same day at about 06:00 a.m. when he reached at his house after performing chhath puja, he saw that hot exchange of words were going on between his brother Ram Ratan Singh and appellants as well as other accused and at that time, the appellants and other accused were armed with deadly weapons. He further stated that appellants and other accused started assaulting his brother with bhala and lathi whereupon he tried to save his brother but appellant, Babban Maharaj hurled bhala blow causing injury to him as a result of which he fell down on the earth and after that accused Sadan Maharaj snatched rupees four thousand from him. He raised alarm which attracted witnesses and after that appellants and other accused fled away from there. After the aforesaid occurrence, he was taken to hospital where his treatment was done. 6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Sonpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 1987 under Sections 448, 323, 324, 307, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report was drawn up against the appellants and other accused for the above stated offences. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way. 7. The appellants along with two other accused were put on trial and accordingly, they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and one accused, namely, Sadan Maharaj was separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 8. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, eight witnesses and also got exhibited some documentary evidences. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they denied the prosecution story. The defence also examined two witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 9. The learned trial Court having heard the parties and having considered the materials available on the record acquitted the appellants as well as other accused of the charges framed under Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellants and others in the manner as stated above. 10. Learned counsel Smt. Rina Sinha appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence as well as defence of the appellants in right perspective and committed error in passing judgment of conviction and sentence order. 11. 10. Learned counsel Smt. Rina Sinha appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence as well as defence of the appellants in right perspective and committed error in passing judgment of conviction and sentence order. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that injured witness as well as other witnesses proved the prosecution case and there is nothing on the record on the basis of which this Court could interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order. 12. On perusal of evidences of prosecution witnesses available on the lower Court's record, I find that PW 5. Ram Ratan Singh is brother of informant, Ram Gati Singh and this witness supported the story of assault. Furthermore, I find that PW 6, doctor, Sushil Kumar Sinha, who had examined the informant and PW 5, proved the injuries found on the person of informant as well as PW 5 and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly establishes that PW 5 as well as informant of this case had sustained injury on the alleged date of occurrence. Besides it, other prosecution witnesses also supported the prosecution story and I do not find any merit to disbelieve the above stated prosecution witnesses. 13. No doubt, defence adduced evidence before the trial Court to show this fact that there was counter case lodged by the defence and in the aforesaid counter case, appellants had sustained injury but from perusal of impugned judgment I find that the learned trial Court dealt with the aforesaid point properly and there is no ground for this Court to disturb the findings of the learned trial Court. 14. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that this criminal appeal does not have any merit and must be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 20.01.2000 are, hereby, confirmed. Appeal dismissed.