JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Awadesh Pandey, and Mr. G.S. Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 14.07.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years. The period already undergone will be set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from charges under Sections 341, 325, 326, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of Ram Pratap Agrawal, P.W.2, recorded by Binay Krishna, Sub-inspector of police of Meral Police Station, Garhwa, at 15.00 hours, on 27.07.1997, at Sadar Hospital Garhwa, where the informant has alleged, that in the morning at 6.30 a.m., while the mother of the informant was bringing her she baffalow after grazing in the field, she baffalow entered into the field of the Krishna Lal Agrawal, for which Krishna Lal Agrawal and his wife Asha Devi abused the mother of the informant and when the informant returned home from outside at around 7.00 a.m., both the accused persons, Krishna Lal Agrawal and his wife Asha Devi were insulting the mother of the informant by abusing her, Krishna Lal Agrawal disrobed himself and went to the house of the informant, on protest made by the informant, Asha Devi having lathi and Krishna Lal Agrawal having garasha in his hand, assaulted on the head and the body of the informant and because of assault made by garasha, the informant sustain bleeding injury on his head and right ear. The informant has stated that his neighbour Reyaz Ansari came for rescue but the accused persons assaulted the informant causing unconsciousness and thereafter family member of the informant brought him to the Sadar Hospital Garhwa, where his treatment was going on. The informant has stated, that he put his signature on the statement before Bijay Pal (P.W.4) and Munna Choubey (P.W.3) after finding the statement true. 4. The informant has stated, that he put his signature on the statement before Bijay Pal (P.W.4) and Munna Choubey (P.W.3) after finding the statement true. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Police instituted First Informant Report bearing Meral P.S. case No. 47 of 1997, dated 28.07.1997, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 290/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 67 of 1997, dated 31.12.1997, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against Krishna Lal Agrawal and Asha Devi. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.01.1998 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 25.04.1999. The learned trial Court has framed charge against both the accused persons, Krishan Lal Agrawal and Asha Devi, on 23.03. 2001, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidences. Rupdeo Pal has been examined as P. W. 1, Ram Pratap Agrawal (informant of the case) has been examined as P. W. 2, Munna Choubey has been examined as P. W. 3 and Vijay Pal has been examined as P. W. 4. P. W.1, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 are hearsay witnesses. 8. The prosecution has proved the signature of the Ram Pratap Agrawal on the fardbeyan, which has been proved and marked as exhibit 1, and signature of Munna Choubey (P.W.3), on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit 1/1. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant has been examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 19.01.2005, to which the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has passed impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against both the accused persons but Asha Devi, who has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, has been directed to be released on her entering into a bond of Rs. 10. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has passed impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against both the accused persons but Asha Devi, who has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, has been directed to be released on her entering into a bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety for a period of one year to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the aforesaid period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of a good behaviour. No appeal has been preferred by Asha Devi against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Krishan Lal Agrawal, who has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years, has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence, before this Hon'ble Court. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Awadesh Pandey, who has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the entire evidence revolves around informant Ram Pratap Agrawal (P.W.2) and none of the witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that neither Investigating Officer nor the doctor have been examined in this case nor the medical evidence has been brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there is no document to prove, that the informant Ram Pratap Agrawal (P.W.2) has sustained any injury on the head caused by garasha, which has been inflicted by this appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Reyaz Ansari, one of the eye witness to the occurrence has not been examined in this case and as such, benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the appellant and may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Reyaz Ansari, one of the eye witness to the occurrence has not been examined in this case and as such, benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the appellant and may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that non examination of the doctor, has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as learned trial court has accepted that, injury was caused upon the head of the informant, though the injury has not been shown to the court nor any document has been produced to show that informant has sustained any injury on the head. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that investigating officer of the case has also not been examined in this case and thus appellant has seriously prejudiced, because of non examination of the investigating officer. The place of occurrence and manner of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution and the appellant has not been provided opportunity to cross examine the investigating officer to establish the fact, that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated by the informant, Ram Pratap Agrawal (P.W.2) for ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the mother of the informant has not been examined in this case and as such, the appellant may be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in this case. 12. Heard, Learned counsel for the State, Mr. G. S. Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is, well founded and based on the materiel available on record and as such, this Court may not interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that non examination of the investigating officer or doctor has not caused any prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant during cross examination has never raised any question with regard to the same. Learned counsel for the State, has further submitted, that the informant has sustained injury by means of garasha, caused by this appellant and learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years. 13. After hearing Mr. Learned counsel for the State, has further submitted, that the informant has sustained injury by means of garasha, caused by this appellant and learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years. 13. After hearing Mr. Awadesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.S. Prasad learned Additional Public Prosecution Prosecutor appearing for the State, and from perusal of the record i.e. First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of four witnesses and exhibits 1 and 1/1 and also the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., this Court is of the opinion, that prosecution has not even proved the First Information Report, rather exhibits 1 and 1/1 are the signatures of the informant (P.W.2) and Munna Choubey (P.W.3), on the fardbeyan respectively. This Court also found that non examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the place and the manner of the occurrence has not been established by the prosecution as such, non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice the appellant, as the appellant has not been provided opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer to prove his innocence. This Court has also found, that the mother of the informant and the Reyaz Ansari, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence have also not been examined in this case. P.W.1, Rupdeo Pal, P.W.3, Munna Choubey and P.W.4, Vijay Pal are hearsay witnesses. This court is of the opinion, that conviction of the appellant without having any documentary evidence of injury, only on the statement of P.W.2, Ram Pratap Agrawal cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as doctor has not been examined in this case. Since the appeal has not been preferred by Asha Devi, who has been convicted under Section 323 and has been released after execution of bond of Rs. 2000/- for a period of one year, this Court is of the opinion, that this appellant Krishna Lal Agrawal be also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is hereby modified to period undergone, with a fine of Rs. 1000/- to be payable, to the informant. 14. 2000/- for a period of one year, this Court is of the opinion, that this appellant Krishna Lal Agrawal be also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is hereby modified to period undergone, with a fine of Rs. 1000/- to be payable, to the informant. 14. From the aforesaid discussion made above, the criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction under Section 323 instead of under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence is modified from rigorous imprisonment for three years to period already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- by the appellant within a period of six weeks from today. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine of Rs. 1000/- the sentence of the appellant shall remain rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine amount shall be disbursed to the victim or his legal heir after due notice by the learned trial Court. 15. The appellant, who is on bail is discharge from the liabilities of his bail bonds, to comply the order. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed with modification. 17. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.