ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–On account of non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellants Mr. R. C. Sharma, learned counsel Mr. Patanjali Rishi has been requested to assist the Court as an Amicus Curiae and having acceded therewith and further, with the active assistance of learned Amicus Curiae as well as hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the instant Criminal Appeal is being disposed of. 2. Challenge in this appeal is judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2002 passed by the Additional Cout-1, Fast Track Court, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.59 of 1991 held appellant Ram Bilas Rai guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year while appellants Ram Pratap Rai and Bishundeo Singh, under Section 323 I.P.C. and directed them to Execute Bond of Rs.10,000/- directing them to maintain peace and good behaviour for two year, failing which they will be called upon to receive sentence. 3. PW-3 Ramchander Singh, an injured filed written report on 02.06.1990 disclosing therein that on the same day at about 7.30 a.m. while he was sitting at his Darwaza, his co-villager Ram Bilas Rai, Ram Pratap Rai, Bishundeo Singh, Deo Narain Rai duly armed with lathi and farsa came, abused and on an order of Ram Pratap Rai, Ram Bilas Rai gave Farsa blow which caused injury at his left arm. Rest also assaulted him with lathi as a result of which, he became unconscious. He further divulged political rivalry, the motive for commission of occurrence. He further named Chattish Rai, Brahmdeo Sao, Fuchu Thakur to be the witness of occurrence. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Teghra P. S. Case no.79 of 1990 was registered whereupon investigation commenced and after concluding the same, chargesheet was submitted under Section 307 along with other allied Sections of the I.P.C. whereupon, after taking cognizance of an offence the case was committed and trial commenced accordingly which concluded in the manner, subject matter of instant appeal. 5. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of innocence as well as complete denial of occurrence. 6. 5. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of innocence as well as complete denial of occurrence. 6. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted by the learned amicus curiae that the finding recorded by the learned lower Court convicting appellant Ram Bilas Rai under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is not at all sustainable, in the backdrop of non-examination of doctor, coupled with absence of injury report. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that ocular evidence was not at all sufficient to draw an inference with regard to presence of injury unless the same is found corroborated with medical evidence. Therefore, appellant Ram Bilas Rai should have been treated in same manner than that of other co-accused/ appellants who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. It has further been submitted that appellants Ram Pratap Rai and Bishundeo Singh have already executed their bond and period of bond had already expired long-long ago on account thereof, the appeal filed on their behalf have got only for name sake. 7. Then, coming to merit of the case, it has been submitted that out of six witnesses so examined on behalf of prosecution, PW-4 and PW-6 have gone volte-face to the prosecution. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 are the witnesses of occurrence while PW-3 is the informant/ victim himself. It has further been submitted that when there happens to be parallel scrutiny of the evidence of all the PWs, it is apparent that none of them are an eye witness to occurrence and on account thereof, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 happens to be worthless. Now remains the evidence of sole witness, the victim PW-3. 8. It has fairly been submitted that in terms of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, conviction could substantiate on the basis of evidence of single witness, in case, it happens to be trustworthy reliable one. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the evidence of injured witness happens to be at upper ladder than the other witness, subject to condition that the evidence of injured witness. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the evidence of injured witness happens to be at upper ladder than the other witness, subject to condition that the evidence of injured witness. Further, advances his plea, the learned amicus curiae submitted that after going through the evidence of PW-3, the injured, it is apparent that his testimony happens to be not only unrealistic rather he himself proved to be a liar and on account thereof, his testimony also gone out of purview and on account thereof, in consonance with non-examination of Investigating Officer as well as doctor, the prosecution case fails like house of cards. So submitted that appeal is fit to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while resisting the submission made on behalf of learned amicus curiae has submitted that evidences of the PWs should not be taken in casual manner picking the lines from hither and thither rather the evidence in its totality is to be considered and adopting such methodology, it is apparent that all the witnesses are consistent and on account thereof, the finding recorded by the learned lower Court happens to be just, legal and proper. 10. It has also been submitted that there happens to be absence of doctor. At the other end, there happens to be consistent evidence of the PWs that appellant/ convict Ram Bilas Rai had inflicted Farsa blow over PW-3 Ramchander Singh, then in that event, the learned lower Court rightly concluded and held him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. It has further been submitted that presence of injury report is not a condition precedent for convicting an accused for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. 11. As stated above, it is apparent from the lower court record that altogether six PWs have been examined, out of whom, PW-1 is Fuchu Thakur, PW-2 Brahmdeo Sao, PW-3 Ramchander Singh, PW-4 Kapleshwar Paswan, PW-5 Suresh Choudhary and PW-6 Chhatis Rai, out of whom PW-4 as well as PW-6 on account of their hostile attitude to the prosecution, thrown under same category at the prayer of the prosecution. Now, remains the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5. PW-3 is himself an injured. 12. Now, remains the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5. PW-3 is himself an injured. 12. Coming to the status of witnesses, the PW-1 had stated that while he was washing his mouth at his courtyard inside his house, Ram Pratap Rai, Ram Bilas Rai, Bishundeo Singh, Deo Narain Rai came with lathi and bhala at the house of Ram Chander Singh where they began to abuse. Ram Bilas Rai inflicted Farsa blow over neck of Ram Chander Singh which stroke over left arm. Rest accused assaulted him with sticks and bhala. He further stated that house of Ram Chander Singh lies by the side of his house. He had further stated that on account of political rivalry, instant occurrence has been committed. He has further stated that Ram Chander Singh was taken to hospital. He had claimed identification of accused. 13. During cross-examination at Para-4, he had admitted the status of informant as well as accused to be his neighbours. In Para-5, he had stated that firstly an altercation took place for about 15-20 minutes. He had further stated that at an earlier occasion also the parties have indulged in an altercation. Then had said that during midst thereof, so many persons assembled. In Para-7, he had further stated that first of all, lathi blow was given followed by Farsa. He had further stated that one was armed with Farsa and rest was armed with lathi. He had further stated at Para-8 that his statement was recorded at the police station itself after ten days. 14. PW-2 had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was at his house giving fodder to his animal, he saw Ram Bilas Rai, Bishundeo Singh, Ram Pratap Rai and Deo Narain Rai coming at the house of Ram Chander Singh, began to abuse. Then thereafter, Ram Chander Singh came out of his house and on an order of Ram Pratap Rai, Ram Bilas Rai gave Farsa blow causing injury over his left hand. Others have also assaulted him with lathi and then thereafter, accused persons escaped there from. During cross-examination in Para-3, he had stated that there was no dispute amongst the accused as well as informant relating to drainage. However, in Para-4, he had admitted that the house of informant as well as accused is intervened by a road. Others have also assaulted him with lathi and then thereafter, accused persons escaped there from. During cross-examination in Para-3, he had stated that there was no dispute amongst the accused as well as informant relating to drainage. However, in Para-4, he had admitted that the house of informant as well as accused is intervened by a road. A drain passes through having by the side of the road. Then, he said, he is not aware of the fact whether both the parties are strained relationship in the aforesaid background. In Para-7, he had stated that when he reached at the house of Ram Chander Singh, there was mob. Ram Chander Singh was lying on the ground and was weeping. Thereafter, he was sent to courtyard. He returned back to his house. 15. PW-5 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, after hearing hue and cry, he had gone to the Darwaza of Ram Chander where he had seen an altercation was going on amongst Bishundeo and Ram Chander. Ram Bilas Rai and Ram Pratap Rai were also present there. Ram Bilas Rai was armed with Farsa which he inflicted upon Ram Chander Singh causing injury over his left hand. Bishundeo assaulted Ram Chander with lathi. During cross-examination at Para-3, he had stated that he is not aware with the fact that both the parties are on strained relationship due to drain. In Para-4, he had stated that while he was returning after meeting nature’s call, he heard hue and cry. He came at the place of occurrence and found Ram Chander Singh was lying in front of his Darwaza. He was taken to hospital. In Para-5, he had further stated that he had not given any kind of statement before the police at an earlier occasion. 16. PW-3 is the injured/ informant himself, who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was at his Darwaza. At that very moment, Bishundeo Rai and Ram Bilas came from Southern side armed with Farsa as well as lathi. They began to abuse. Ram Bilas gave Farsa blow over his left hand, rest accused have assaulted with lathi. Then thereafter, all of them returned back. He was taken to hospital by his daughter in-law as well as sister in-law (Bhabhi) as he had fallen unconscious. They began to abuse. Ram Bilas gave Farsa blow over his left hand, rest accused have assaulted with lathi. Then thereafter, all of them returned back. He was taken to hospital by his daughter in-law as well as sister in-law (Bhabhi) as he had fallen unconscious. During cross-examination in Para-4, he had admitted that he had shown the place of occurrence to the Investigating Officer. He had also shown drain falling in between his house as well as house of accused. He had further admitted that he had stated before the police that on account of drain, there happens to be strained relationship amongst them. He had further admitted that even on the date of occurrence, there was dispute on account of drain. He had further said that he was sitting at his Darwaza at the time of occurrence. Again, he said that there was no dispute relating to drain. In Para-5, he had stated that an altercation took place at his Darwaza. Altercation lasted for twenty minutes. Then, had stated that first of all Farsa blow was given. He further stated that just after sustaining Farsa blow, he became unconscious. 17. Thus, from the analysis of the evidence as deposed by different witnesses, it is apparent that while PW-2 had stated the place of occurrence to be house of PW-3 and further, the accused persons abused in absence of PW-3, then thereafter, PW-3, the informant came out from his house while from the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5, PW-3 was sitting at his Darwaza since before the occurrence. As per evidence of PW-3 firstly Farsa blow was given, while from the evidence of other witnesses lathi blow was given. Apart from this, from perusal of deposition of PW-1, he had shown presence of accused with Bhala also which was used during course thereof. That means to say, that there happens to be apparent inconsistency over the place of occurrence as well as over the manner of occurrence. 18. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-3, the injured though, he has stated that he was given Farsa blow and then thereafter, was assaulted by lathi, is not at all found corroborated by other evidence, more particularly, in absence of medical evidence. 18. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-3, the injured though, he has stated that he was given Farsa blow and then thereafter, was assaulted by lathi, is not at all found corroborated by other evidence, more particularly, in absence of medical evidence. Furthermore, the motive of occurrence is also found vanished from the initial stage, because of the fact that PW-3 in Para-4 had admitted that he had shown drain passing through in between the house of PW-3 as well as accused persons. He also admitted that there was strained relationship amongst them, since before on account thereof. Mere accusation, when denied without having further support with other kinds of credible evidence is a circumstance which could have perceived by the learned lower Court while convicting appellant Ram Bilas Rai under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and on account thereof, having been charged at an initial stage for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. of which the lesser sentence includes Section 323 of the I.P.C. also, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against appellant Ram Bilas Rai is converted to under Section 323 I.P.C. from Section 324 I.P.C. Furthermore, taking into account the intervening period covering long 24 years, neither substantial sentence will serve any purpose nor any recourse under the guise of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the sentence is modified as period already undergone. So far appellants Ram Pratap Rai and Bishundeo Singh are concerned, they have already exhausted the period and so, nothing is to say with regard thereto. 19. With the aforesaid modification and direction, this appeal is disposed of. Active assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae is highly appreciable. The first and last copy of judgment be handed over to the learned Amicus Curiae to facilitate in getting his fee. ?