JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.01.2006 and sentence dated 18.01.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 224 of 1990/61 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 7 (Seven) years u/s 307 I.P.C. and further R.I. for 1 (one) year and Rs. 2000 fine for the offence punishable u/s 341 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.4.1988 at about 5.00 p.m. the informant was going from door to door for inviting villagers for a feast. It is alleged that as soon as the informant reached near an alley besides house of Lakhiram Marandi, the appellant came there and started assaulting by means of Lathi. In the meantime, the witnesses Bhonde Tudu and Rashbihari Tudu reached there and tried to pacify the appellant, but he assaulted them also with Lathi and Katta and causing injury to them. According to the informant, the incident had taken place due to previous enmity between the parties. Based on the aforesaid allegation Nala (Bindapathar) P.S. Case No. 48 of 1988 was instituted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant pursuant to which cognizance was taken u/s 341,323 and 326 I.P.C. and the case was transferred to Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara for trial and disposal. In course of trial after recording the evidence of the witnesses, it was found that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and accordingly the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed u/s 341/323 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in course of trial had examined as many as seven (07) witnesses. P.W. 1 Rashbihari Tudu is an eye witness to the occurrence. In course of examination he has stated while he was returning home along with Bhoalde Tudu, near the house of Saina Tudu (informant) they saw the appellant assaulting the informant with Lathi. 3. The prosecution in course of trial had examined as many as seven (07) witnesses. P.W. 1 Rashbihari Tudu is an eye witness to the occurrence. In course of examination he has stated while he was returning home along with Bhoalde Tudu, near the house of Saina Tudu (informant) they saw the appellant assaulting the informant with Lathi. This witness as well as Bhonde Tudu tried to pacify the matter, but the appellant had also assaulted them resulting in injuries suffered by them. P.W. 2 Bhonde Tudu had deposed in similar lines to that of PW 1. P.W. 3 Subodhan Tudu has stated that he had seen the appellant assaulting the informant with Lathi. He had also witnessed the assault committed at P.W. 1 and 2. P.W. 5 Babujan Tudu is also an eye witness to the occurrence who had seen the appellant assaulting the informant as well as P.W. 1 and 2 with Lathi. P.W. 5 Shivlal Tudu has deposed that he was in his house and when he came out on hearing commotion when he saw that the appellant was assaulting the informant. He has further deposed that P.W. 1 and 2 were trying to calm down the commotion and they were also assaulted by the appellant. P.W. 6 Tahir Mian is a formal witness. P.W. 7 Dr. Shyam Kumar Jha had examined the informant as well as P.W. 1 and 2 and had given his report. He had also examined the appellant and he found that the injuries suffered by the appellant were simple in nature. 4. The appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. 5. After conclusion of the trial the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 7 (Seven) years u/s 307 I.P.C. and further R.I. for 1 (one) year and Rs. 2000 fine for the offence punishable u/s 341 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. 6. Heard Mr. Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence of the prosecution in its proper perspective. 6. Heard Mr. Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence of the prosecution in its proper perspective. It has been submitted that the charge-sheet was given u/s 326 I.P.C., but charge was framed u/s 307 I.P.C. although there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of the informant. Learned counsel submits that apart from any intention there was apparently no motive for committing the offence. Learned counsel has also submitted that no grievous injury was sustained by the injured persons. He further adds that Investigating Officer of the case was not examined which has caused great prejudice to the defence. It has further been submitted that the place of occurrence was also not established by the prosecution. In such circumstances, therefore, the learned trial court has committed error of law in convicting the appellant u/s 307/341 I.P.C. 8. Learned A.P.P. for respondent-State has submitted that although the informant was not examined, but the other witnesses have corroborated the factum of occurrence. It has been stated that P.W. 1, 2 and 5 are eye witnesses and in fact P.W. 1 and 2 are the injured eye witnesses and the veracity and truthfulness of their evidence cannot be doubted. Learned A.P.P. further submits that some of the injuries suffered by the informant, P.W. 1 and 2 were found to be grievous in nature and same also corroborates the assault made by the appellant and in such circumstances, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. The informant in the present case could not be examined as during the pendency of the trial he had died. However, P.W. 1 and 2, who reached to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm by the informant, had witnessed the appellant assaulting the informant. When they had tried to pacify the matter, the appellant had also assaulted them by means of Lathi and Farsa, which caused injuries to them. Apart from PW 1 and 2, being the injured witnesses, P.W. 4 and 5 had also corroborated their statements on the point of assault by the appellant. When they had tried to pacify the matter, the appellant had also assaulted them by means of Lathi and Farsa, which caused injuries to them. Apart from PW 1 and 2, being the injured witnesses, P.W. 4 and 5 had also corroborated their statements on the point of assault by the appellant. On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 there does not appear to be any major discrepancy or material difference so as to disbelieve what has been stated by them. These witnesses have been consistent in their statement that they had reached to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm, where they had seen the appellant assaulting the informant and subsequently due to intervention these witnesses were also assaulted by the appellant. P.W. 4 and 5 are also the eye witnesses who have stated on similar terms as that of P.W. 1 and 2. 10. The defence in course of trial had exhibited the formal F.I.R. of Nala (Bindapathar) P.S. Case No. 49 of 1988 to state that there was previous litigation between the appellant and the informant and therefore the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The motive which was lacking for committing the assault, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, seems to be apparently present as the appellant and the informant were on litigating terms. Moreover, the Doctor who had examined the informant had found several injuries on the scalp although the nature of injury was opined to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance. Similarly with respect to the injuries suffered by the P.W. 2 Bhonde Tudu the same were found on the head which was also opined to be simple in nature caused by heard and blunt substance. So far as the P.W. 1 Rasbihari Tudu is concerned several incised wounds were found on his person on vital parts of the body and all of the injuries were found to be grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. The appellant was also examined by P.W. 7 and a lacerated wound was found in the frontal region of the scalp which was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon. The appellant was also examined by P.W. 7 and a lacerated wound was found in the frontal region of the scalp which was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon. The witnesses to the occurrence had categorically stated that the appellant was armed with Lathi and Farsa and he had used both the weapons in course of assault. The enquiry report of the witnesses as well as the informant clearly demonstrates that what has been alleged and what has been stated by the witnesses have been sufficiently corroborated by the nature of injuries as well as the weapons used for causing such injuries. The injuries suffered by the appellant may be on account of the assault upon three persons and probably due to the resultant commotion. The informant in the F.I.R. had stated about how suddenly the appellant had appeared and had started assault on the informant. This conduct of the appellant shows that he had a predetermined intention to commit assault upon the informant. Moreover, the multiple injuries suffered by the informant as well as the P.W. 1 and 2 would suggest that there was a repetition of blow on all of them. As regards the non-examination of the I.O. is concerned, nothing has been shown as to how such non-examination has prejudiced the defence, more so in the teeth of the consistent evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 and corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 and 5. 11. Learned trial court while convicting the appellant u/s 307 and 341 of the I.P.C. had taken into consideration the evidence of the witnesses as well as the injury reports and thereafter had passed the judgment dated 17.01.2006. The judgment of the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or any blemish as the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of the observations made above, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to forthwith surrender for serving out the rest of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.