JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 28.06.2003, passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.414 of 1992/143 of 2001, whereby appellants, Mansingh Marandi, Debeshwar Marandi and Guwashwar Marandi have been convicted under Sections 324/148 I.P.C. and appellants, Musai Marandi, Mallik Marandi and Parmeshwar Marandi have been convicted under Sections 323/148 I.P.C. The learned trial court has awarded the convicts, Debeshwar Marandi, Guwaeshwar Marandi and Mansing Marandi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. The learned trial court has also awarded the convicts, Musai Marandi, Mallik Marandi and Parmeshwar Marandi, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of detention in jail during investigation and trial of the case, would be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by the informant, Sahdeo Marandi (P.W.1) before the Officer-in-charge, Bindapathar Police Station on 21.07.1991, alleging therein that at 7.00 a.m. in the morning while he along with others was ploughing his field, the accused persons, namely, Mansingh Marandi, Debeswar Marandi, Musai Marandi, Mallik Marandi, Parmeshwar Marandi, and Guwashwar Marandi armed with lathi, danda and knife, asked the informant why they are cultivating the land, as the case related to the land is pending in the Court, upon which hot exchange of words took place and thereafter the accused persons assaulted the informant, his sister and brother by means of lathi, danda and knife. On brawl, co-villagers, Lakhi Ram Marandi, Dulu Marandi and Shivlal Marandi came for rescue and thereafter the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the Police instituted Bindapathar P.S. Case No.63 of 1991 dated 21.07.1991 under Sections 147/148/323/337/324 I.P.C. 4. On brawl, co-villagers, Lakhi Ram Marandi, Dulu Marandi and Shivlal Marandi came for rescue and thereafter the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the Police instituted Bindapathar P.S. Case No.63 of 1991 dated 21.07.1991 under Sections 147/148/323/337/324 I.P.C. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide No.27 of 1991 dated 31.07.1991 under Sections 146, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337 and 307 I.P.C. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.09.1991 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 14.08.1992. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. vide order dated 10.06.1991, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case has examined altogether seven witnesses. Sahdeo Marandi, the informant and injured of the case has been examined as P.W.1, Lakhiram Marandi, an eye-witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W.2, Paneshwar Marandi, brother of the informant has been examined as P.W.3, Devirani Murmu, injured cum eye-witness has been examined as P.W.4, Mahadev Marandi, brother of the informant and injured witness has been examined as P.W.5, Dr. Alfred Murmu, who has examined all the four injureds, has been examined as P.W.6, Tahir Hussain, a formal witness who has proved the formal First Information Report as Exhibit-3, has been examined as P.W.7, Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence. ‘Fardbeyan’ has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, injury reports of the injured persons have been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 to 2/3 and the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants/accused have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2002 and they have pleaded innocence and stated there is no evidence against them and that they have falsely been implicated in this case. 7. The defence has also examined one witness as D.W.1 (Sharat Kumar Yadav) and has proved several documents as Exhibits. Three rent receipts have been proved and marked as Exhibit-A Series, Parcha has been proved and marked as Exhibit-B, copy of Judgment of G.R. No.236 of 1991 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-C, Copy of original petition of Misc. 7. The defence has also examined one witness as D.W.1 (Sharat Kumar Yadav) and has proved several documents as Exhibits. Three rent receipts have been proved and marked as Exhibit-A Series, Parcha has been proved and marked as Exhibit-B, copy of Judgment of G.R. No.236 of 1991 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-C, Copy of original petition of Misc. Case No.242 of 1989 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-D, Certified copy of judgment of P.C.R. Case No.364 of 1992 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-E, Certified copy of First Information Report of G.R. No.279 of 1991 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-F and Certified copy of charge-sheet of G.R. No.279 of 1991 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-G. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with, the appellants have assailed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the present Criminal Appeal which is being heard and disposed of, by this judgment. 9. Heard, Mr. Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that there is land dispute between the aganates and there is free fight between the parties, as stated by P.W.2 (Lakhiram Marandi). He has further submitted that all the injuries found on the person of the victim are simple in nature and the same have been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 to 2/3 (Exhibit-2 Series). Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case filed by them against the present prosecution party has been decided by the learned trial court in which they have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case filed by them against the present prosecution party has been decided by the learned trial court in which they have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the case of the appellants, as the appellants have not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating officer to elucidate the fact regarding aggressor of the occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the place of occurrence, as such, the appellants have been seriously prejudiced for non-examination of the Investigating officer. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellants are aged about 70 years and the case was instituted in the year 1991 and thus, they have faced the rigour of long trial for approximately 28 years. 10. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the same is well-founded and based upon the material available on record, as such, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has further submitted that the Doctor has found corresponding injury, as alleged by the prosecution. Two of the victims are lady and they have been assaulted with knife and other weapons and the learned trial court is justified in convicting the appellants vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Thus, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based upon the material available on record, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same, at this stage. 11. Heard, Mr. Rajiv Lochan learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and from perusal of the record, First Information Report, evidence of all the seven prosecution witnesses, exhibits of the prosecution side, statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence witness and the defence exhibits including the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are consistent to each other. There are four injured witnesses and corresponding injuries have been found by the Doctor who has been examined in this case as P.W.6 (Dr. Alfred Murmu) and has proved the injury reports as Exhibits 2 to 2/3 (Exhibit-2 Series). From perusal of the record, it appears that the First Information Report lodged by the informant (P.W.1-Sahdev Marandi) is worth credential as the informant has alleged that in the free fight in between the parties, the accused persons have also sustained injury. P.W.2 (Lakhiram Marandi) who has been examined in this case, has also submitted that the prosecution party were cultivating the land, when the accused persons came, they being aggressor have assaulted the prosecution party for which there was free fight. Paneshwar Marandi (P.W.3), brother of the informant and an eyewitness of the occurrence, saw the occurrence of assault from his house. Devirani Marandi @ Murmu is the sister-in-law of the informant and she is also an injured. Mahadev Marandi (P.W.5) is the victim of the case, who was assaulted along with Sahdev Marandi (P.W.1) and the corresponding injuries have been found by the Doctor. Tahir Hussain (P.W.8) has proved the formal First Information Report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The present prosecution party has been acquitted by learned trial court in this case filed by the present accused persons also proves that present prosecution party is not guilty nor aggressor of the occurrence. 12. Under such background, seeing the consistency of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and injuries supported by the medical evidence which has been proved as Exhibit-2 Series, this Court is of the opinion that these appellants are the aggressors as in the counter case, present prosecution party has been acquitted by the learned trial court and said judgment of acquittal has not been assailed by present accused before learned appellate court and they have committed offence, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants, Mansingh Marandi, Debeshwar Marandi and Guwashwar Marandi under Sections 324/148 I.P.C. and appellants, Musai Marandi, Mallik Marandi and Parmeshwar Marandi under Sections 323/148 I.P.C. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2003, passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.414 of 1992/143 of 2001, is hereby upheld and affirmed. 13. Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.414 of 1992/143 of 2001, is hereby upheld and affirmed. 13. So far, order of sentence is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellant, Mansingh Marandi was aged about 55 years, Debeswar Marandi was aged about 55 years and Guwashwar Marandi was aged about 60 years at the time of conviction and order of sentence in the year, 2003, as such, now they have reached the age of about 70 years and 75 years respectively. Considering this aspect of the matter, since they have faced rigour of trial for about 28 years, in the case of land dispute between agnates, instead of sending them jail, fine may be imposed. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that sentence may be modified, as the occurrence took place because of the land dispute, for which a civil case was pending before the competent court of law between the agnates and the appellants have suffered the rigour of trial for more than 28 years, as such, appellants, Mansingh Marandi, Debeshwar Marandi and Guwashwar Marandi who have been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned trial court, is modified to the period already undergone, but with a condition that they well deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each before the learned trial court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So far, appellants, Musai Marandi, Mallik Marandi and Parmeshwar Marandi are concerned, who have been convicted under Sections 323 I.P.C. by the learned trial court, their sentence is being modified by imposing a fine of Rs.3,000/- each within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sentence imposed for rigorous imprisonment for six months against all the appellants under Section 148 I.P.C., is hereby modified, as period already undergone. 14. In the result, this instant Criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in the order of sentence, as aforesaid. 15. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(total Rs.15,000/-) and Rs.3,000/-(total Rs.9,000/-), failing which, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will be confirmed. 16. 14. In the result, this instant Criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in the order of sentence, as aforesaid. 15. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(total Rs.15,000/-) and Rs.3,000/-(total Rs.9,000/-), failing which, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court will be confirmed. 16. The learned trial court is directed to issue notice to the four injured /victims or their legal heirs and successors and disburse the fine amount, as aforesaid, in equal shares. 17. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.