JUDGMENT : By Court.-The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.7.2003 and order of sentence dated 15.7.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Gumla in S.T. No. 216/97, whereby and where under, the appellants have been found guilty for an offence under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine a sum of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the written report dated 30.4.96 of Jagatpal Oraon is that he is resident of village Kura P.S Ghaghra, Distt. Gumla. On 29.4.96 they were sleeping. At around 1.00 a.m. on the sound of the door being forced open his daughter Manju Devi went there and saw Raju Oraon, Paju Oraon both holding Tangi and rod and Ishwar Oraon holding Farsa and standing there. They started abusing her and asked about him. They were also saying that your father being Mukhiya, conducts Panchayati. We will kill him and his family. His daughter moved aside then they entered the house. They called him, all the while abusing. He came out on this commotion. They started abusing him and beating him with fist. Ishwar Oraon assaulted him with the butt of Farsa to his left arm. He was also assaulted on his left eye. When Manju Devi tried to save then they caught hold of her and dragged her. The accused Raju Oraon assaulted on her head with Tangi with intention to kill. Her head fractured. She was injured and fell down. On alarm neighbours came then the accused fled away. The cause behind the occurrence is that he is Mukhiya of the village and decided a matter pertaining to them and due to which the accused were angry. Due to night, he could not come to the police station earlier. 3. On the basis of written report dated 30.4.96 of Jagatpal Oraon, Ghaghra PS Case No. 34/96 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. 4. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Due to night, he could not come to the police station earlier. 3. On the basis of written report dated 30.4.96 of Jagatpal Oraon, Ghaghra PS Case No. 34/96 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. 4. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 216/97. 5. Charge was framed against appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. Learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. PW-1 is Sahmania Kumari. She is the younger daughter of the informant. She has deposed that the incident is of around 1.00 a.m. She has deposed that Raju Oraon was carrying a Tangi, Paju Oraon was carrying a iron rod and Ishwar Oraon was carrying a Farsa. She has further deposed that her father is the Mukhiya. She has further deposed that due to the assault made by Raju with Tangi, her father sustained injury on the eye and that Ishwar hit with fist and that when she along with her sister tried to save her father, then Raju assaulted Manju on head with axe. Elder sister Manju was also assaulted by Paju Oraon with rod. She became un-conscious. She has also deposed that on alarm people came from the neighbourhood, amongst them were Kuwar, Mahadeo and Sarpanch. Subsequently, they were taken to hospital. She further deposed that she identified the accused by their voice and she had informed the police regarding the assault. She has further deposed in cross examination that during fight, she was in the room and that when she came out of fear, her father and sister told her about who assaulted. On this, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that PW1 is not the eye witness. 8. PW-2 is Kuwar Oraon. He is brother of the informant. He has deposed that incident is of around 1.00 a.m. He has deposed that he had gone somewhere and when he returned after 2 days, he got the information. On this, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that PW1 is not the eye witness. 8. PW-2 is Kuwar Oraon. He is brother of the informant. He has deposed that incident is of around 1.00 a.m. He has deposed that he had gone somewhere and when he returned after 2 days, he got the information. He has also deposed that Jagatpal Oraon (informant) is his own brother. In the cross-examination, however, he has mentioned that Jagatpal and his wife Kalawati were no longer alive. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that Kuwar Oraon is also a hearsay witness. 9. PW-3 is Bindeshwari Sahu. He is sarpanch of the village. He has deposed that on alarm he went to see Jagatpal Oraon. He had seen Manju Devi having bleeding injury on her head and Jagatpal Oraon has informed him about the manner of occurrence and named all the three accused persons. They took Manju Devi to Ghaghra Hospital and from there, they went to police station. He also deposed that he recognized Raju in the dock and will be able to recognize other accused. In the cross examination, he said that he came to know about the incident only the next day. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he is also the hearsay witness. 10. PW-4 Manju Devi is injured eye witness and the elder daughter of Jagatpal Oraon. She has also deposed that incident is of around 1.00 a.m. She has deposed that on the sound of opening the door she went there and had seen Raju Oraon with axe, Paju holding rod and Ishwar Oraon holding Farsa, and standing there. They started abusing her and asked about her father. Thereafter they pulled her father outside and assaulted with fists and feet. Her father received injuries on the right eye due to assault by Ishwar with butt of Farsa. She has further deposed that when she tried to save him, Raju assaulted her with Tangi and when she made alarm, then assaulted with intent to kill. Subsequently, she and her father were taken first to Ghaghra hospital, then to hospital in Ranchi for treatment where she was treated for two months. She has further deposed that there was dispute regarding distribution of wood. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is variation in the injury caused in eye. Subsequently, she and her father were taken first to Ghaghra hospital, then to hospital in Ranchi for treatment where she was treated for two months. She has further deposed that there was dispute regarding distribution of wood. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is variation in the injury caused in eye. Moreover, learned counsel has submitted that she has deposed that she spent two months in hospital but there is no document to prove that she had spent two months in hospital and that too for simple injury. Learned counsel has submitted that there was one blow on the head, so there was no intention to make out deliberate, repeated and vicious attack on the victims. 11. PW-5 is Doctor Benedick Minz. He has deposed that the age of the injuries is about six hours and he has deposed that he had examined Manju Devi and found wound on her forehead caused by sharp cutting weapon. She was referred to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He has further deposed that on the same day, he also examined Jagatpal Oraon and found injury such as abrasion on his left eye brow and the injury possibly being caused by hard and blunt substance which was simple in nature. Doctor has said that injury found on the person of Manju Devi can be caused by falling on rock and that on Jagatpal Oraon can be caused by falling in intoxicated state. Learned counsel for the appellants has said that therefore injuries are not caused by any hard and blunt substance. 12. PW-7 is Maheshwari Prasad. He is an advocate clerk and formal witness, who proved formal FIR. 13. After going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is their first offence and they have no criminal antecedent and therefore, benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be given. 14. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has read out Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads- “324. 14. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has read out Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means-.Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 15. After reading out the aforesaid Section, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that this Section is totally applicable in the present situation and the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that it has consistently been proved by the deposition of the witnesses that the assault was made at night that took place at around 1.00 a.m. which indicates their motive. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that there was dispute regarding distribution of wood. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that Doctor has not been able to deny the injuries on the eye brow of the father and injuries on the forehead of the daughter. Therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. 16. I have gone through the case records and heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. It seems that it is a simple case and that accusation was made by the father. Version of the father-in-formant in the written report and version of the elder daughter, PW-4 in the deposition are consistent to each other. PW-4, being the injured eye witness, has supported the written report. Version of PW1 is also believable because PW1 and PW-4 have stated before the Court that the accused were armed with lethal weapon and assaulted Jagatpal Oraon as well as Manju Devi (PW-4). PW-4, being the injured eye witness, has supported the written report. Version of PW1 is also believable because PW1 and PW-4 have stated before the Court that the accused were armed with lethal weapon and assaulted Jagatpal Oraon as well as Manju Devi (PW-4). PW1 was in the house and heard the assault being made and soon after the accused left, she was informed about the accused persons and manner of assault. PW3, who is Bindeshwari Sahu, has deposed that he had seen Manju Devi having bleeding injury on her head, which would prove that something had taken place as claimed by the informant in his written report, which is corroborated by his daughters in their depositions that the assaults were made by the appellants. 17. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The case is an old one and occurrence is said to have taken place in 1996. It is almost twenty years since then the appellants have also undergone long harassing period of trial and appeal and suffered related vagaries, hardships and uncertainties. However, it seems from the records of the case that they have spent short time in custody. Taking all these circumstances, the three appellants’ sentence is restricted to the period already undergone. Their bailors are set at liberty from their liability of bail bonds. 18. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the modification in the sentence.