JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.537 of 2002 whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.09.2002 at 07:00 P.M. when the appellant-accused was cutting bamboo in front of the house of the informant, the informant forbade the appellant-accused from cutting Karil (it is used as a vegetable by the villagers in this part of the country) of bamboo. At this, the appellant-accused was enraged and assaulted the informant-victim with Tono (a sharp cutting weapon) by which the informant sustained injury on the backside of his head. The police recorded the statement of the informant-victim Chondey Munda and basing upon the same, Murhu P.S. Case No. 47 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 496 of 2002 was registered. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet and upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant-accused. Upon the appellant-accused pleading not guilty to the charge, he was put to trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses, out of which, P.W.9 – Birsa Munda, P.W.10 – Konta Munda and P.W.11 – Randi Pahan were tendered for cross-examination only. P.W.2 – Etwa Pahan, P.W.5 – Sunil Pahan and P.W.6 – Mangal Munda are the heresay witnesses and they have not seen the occurrence themselves. 5. P.W.3 – Chondey Munda is the informant-victim of the case. He has stated that the occurrence took place about nine months prior to his examination in court. Sao Munda was committing theft of bamboo. P.W.3 forbade him; at this the appellant-accused claimed that the land from which he was cutting bamboo belonged to him. P.W.3 stated that the said land does not belong to the appellant-accused. When the P.W.3 was returning from the place of occurrence, the appellant-accused assaulted on his neck with the Tono and fled away. P.W.3 forbade him; at this the appellant-accused claimed that the land from which he was cutting bamboo belonged to him. P.W.3 stated that the said land does not belong to the appellant-accused. When the P.W.3 was returning from the place of occurrence, the appellant-accused assaulted on his neck with the Tono and fled away. Thereafter, the P.W.3 was taken to his house and in the next morning the P.W.3 was taken to the police station. From there he was taken to Ranchi. On being proved by him, the signature of the P.W.3 on the F.I.R. was marked as Ext. 1/1. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 stated that the place from which the appellant-accused was cutting bamboo belonged to the villagers. 6. P.W.1 – Jagarnath Munda is the brother of the P.W.3. He has stated that 5-6 months prior to his deposing in court, at 05:00 P.M., the appellant-accused was committing theft of bamboo. The informant-victim-P.W.3 forbade him. The accused appellant assaulted P.W.3 with Tono on the backside of his head. He assaulted once only causing injury. Since, it was night, they reported the matter to police on the next morning and police sent P.W.3 to hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when the appellant-accused was assaulting the P.W.3 with Tono, P.W.3 raised alarm and hearing the same the P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence. 7. P.W.4 – Daugi Mundain is the wife of P.W.3 and has stated that the appellant-accused had gone to commit theft of bamboo. Her husband forbade the appellant-accused, at such, the appellant-accused assaulted the husband of the P.W.4 with Tono. The P.W.3 was taken to the hospital in the next morning and police came there. In her cross-examination she has stated that on hearing hue and cry she went to the place of occurrence and no one else went there. She has stated that Karil is used for constructing house. The bamboo belonged to the villagers. Hence, the appellant-accused was intending to cut the same. 8. P.W.7 – Bansidhar Prasad Srivastav is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated about the investigation done by him in the case. On being proved by him, the formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 1/2. He proved the production-cum-seizure list of the Tono, which was the weapon used in the offence involved in this case. The Tono was produced by the P.W.1. He has stated about the investigation done by him in the case. On being proved by him, the formal F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 1/2. He proved the production-cum-seizure list of the Tono, which was the weapon used in the offence involved in this case. The Tono was produced by the P.W.1. P.W.7 recorded the statement of witnesses. He has described the place of occurrence in detail. He did not seize the Karil. He did not find the trace of blood at the place of occurrence nor could he find any trace of scuffle at the place of occurrence. 9. P.W.8 – Birendra Prasad is the doctor who examined the P.W.3 and he found the following injury on the person of P.W.3 :- There was sharp cutting injury on the back of the head (right side) measuring 2” X 3 1/2 “X 1/2 “. Skin was everted out. No fresh bleeding was there. Dry blood on the hair was found. The injury was simple in nature. The P.W.7 opined that the age of injury was 12 to 24 hours and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. It might have been caused by Baluava. P.W.8 further stated that the injury sustained by the victim was simple in nature. He examined P.W.3 on 02.09.2002 at about 12:30 Noon. On being proved by him, the injury report was marked as Ext.3. 10. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. The appellant-accused denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded innocence. 11. Learned court below after considering the evidence both, oral and documentary, in record, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as already indicated above. 12. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the major contradiction appearing in evidence in record and the learned court below also could not properly appreciate the evidence in record. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contradiction in testimony of witnesses regarding seizure of the Karil by the police as though the prosecution witnesses have stated that the Karil was handed over to the police but the P.W.7-the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he has not seized the Karil. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contradiction in testimony of witnesses regarding seizure of the Karil by the police as though the prosecution witnesses have stated that the Karil was handed over to the police but the P.W.7-the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he has not seized the Karil. It is also submitted that though the P.W.3 has stated that Sao Munda fled away with Tono from the place of occurrence but the same was produced by the P.W.1 which contradicts the statement of the P.W.3 that the appellant-accused fled away with Tono from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence took place for a trivial dispute and admittedly the Bamboo which was cut by the appellant-accused do not belong to the P.W.3 and certainly he has no right to restrain the appellant-accused from cutting the Bamboo and as stated by the P.W.8, the alleged injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature. Hence, it is submitted that the sentence of one year imposed by the learned court below is excessive and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in custody since 03.09.2002 to 22.11.2002 during the trial. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant-accused be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said charge. 13. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the P.W.3 who is the victim has categorically stated about being assaulted by the appellant-accused with Tono while he was returning from the place of occurrence which goes to show that there was no reason for the appellant-accused to assault him and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony of the P.W.8 as well as couple of witnesses in shape of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Learned Addl. Learned Addl. P.P. next submitted that the evidence is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and the perusal of the record reveals that the testimony of P.W.3 who is the informant-victim and is an injured witness appears to be trustworthy. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discard his testimony. His testimony is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.4 as well as the other material witnesses who have seen him injured. The testimony of the Doctor-P.W.8 also corroborate the testimony of P.W.3 and the seized Tono-the weapon of offence, is certainly a dangerous weapon. So in view of the evidence in record, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. 15. So far as the sentence is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was aged about 25 years on the date of the judgment and more than 12 years has elapsed from the date of judgment. The evidence in record suggest that the place of occurrence from where the appellant was cutting Bamboo does not belong to the P.W.3 and the genesis of the occurrence is of trivial nature relating to cutting of Bamboo. The evidence in record suggest that the appellant-accused after assaulting the P.W.3 fled away from the place of occurrence and there is no evidence that he ever tried to give any second blow to the appellant even though he was armed with a Tono. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of the appellant be modified to the period he has already undergone in custody during trial. Accordingly the sentence of the appellant-accused is modified from R.I. of one year to the period of the custody already undergone by the appellant during the trial. Accordingly the sentence of the appellant-accused is modified from R.I. of one year to the period of the custody already undergone by the appellant during the trial. The appellant is on bail, as his sentence is modified to the period of custody undergone by him during the trial, the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 16. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith. 17. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence of the appellant-accused as indicated above.