JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.07.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 448, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 448, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Dewati Bala Devi, recorded by Sub-inspector of police S. Kumar at Bankmore Police Station on 15.07.1990, at 21.30 P.M., where the informant has alleged, that she was residing in her house along with her son Subhash Chandra Chatterjee. Informant has stated that Girdhar Prasad and Murlidhar Prasad were renter in her house, which comprises of three rooms. They have stopped the payment of rent since death of her husband in the year 1987 and they used to threaten her instead of paying rent. Informant has further stated that since then amount of Rs. 7,480/- is remaining as arrears of rent with the tenants but they are not paying the rent. The informant has further alleged that today, i.e. on 15.07.1990 at about 7.30 P.M., when the informant went to the house of tenants asking them about rent, then accused persons abused the informant and entered into her house and also damaged the electricity supply. They have dragged the informant from the room, thrashed her on the ground and assaulted her by fist and slap causing injury on the right hand and chest. The informant has sustained injury and became unconscious but in the meantime her son Subhash Chandra Chatterjee and neighbours Jai Prakash Gupta and Kishori Khatik have reached there and rescued the informant. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 471 of 1990, dated 15.07.1990, under Sections 447, 448, 307, 341, 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both accused persons Gridhar Prasad and Murlidhar Prasad. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 235 of 1990, dated 15.07.1990, under Sections 448, 342, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the named accused persons. 5. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 235 of 1990, dated 15.07.1990, under Sections 448, 342, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the named accused persons. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.08.1990 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.11.1998. The co-accused Girdhar Prasad, died during pendency of the case on 23.10.2000 and as such, his case was dropped vide order dated 16.11.2002. 6. The charge has been framed against the sole accused on 06.01.2003, under Sections 448, 342, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also exhibited two documentary evidence. Kishori Khatik has been examined as P.W. 1, Jai Prakash Gupta has been examined as P.W. 2, Subhash Chandra Chatterjee, son of the informant has been examined as P.W. 3, Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu, medical officer who has examined the informant on 16.07.1990 has been examined as P.W. 4, Etwari Mahato, a formal witness being an advocate has been examined as P.W. 5. The Signature of Subhash Chandra Chatterjee on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1 and the injury report of the informant Dewati Bala Devi has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused appellant has been recorded on 18.05.2004 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where he has admitted that he was tenant at the time of occurrence but he is innocent and nothing has been committed by him. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant Murlidhar Prasad. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant has further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses namely Kishor Khatik (P.W.1), Jai Prakash Gupta (P.W. 2), Subhash Chandra Chatterjee (P.W. 3), son of the informant are highly interested witnesses and none of the independent witnesses have been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the informant of the case has not been examined in this case nor the investigating officer of the case has been examined. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it was a case between the tenant and the landlord as the tenant was not vacating the house because of the same, landlord has filed a criminal case against the appellant, in which the appellant has been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that police requisition was issued for medical examination of the victim on 15.07.1990 but victim was medically examined on 16.07.1990. The doctor (P.W. 4) has stated while deposing in the Court that the time elapse as injury has been caused is within 4 hours. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since injury report is not in consonance with the prosecution case, as such, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the doctor has opined that the injury may be caused because of dashing with the wall and thus, the injury report is not a sufficient piece of evidence to convict the appellant. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and the learned trial court, has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Kishori Khatik (P.W. 1), Jai Prakash Gupta (P.W. 2) and Subhash Chandra Chatterjee (P.W.3) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have saved the informant, who was being assaulted by the appellant and his father, who is now dead. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Kishori Khatik (P.W. 1), Jai Prakash Gupta (P.W. 2) and Subhash Chandra Chatterjee (P.W.3) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have saved the informant, who was being assaulted by the appellant and his father, who is now dead. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that victim informant of the case has died during pendency of the trial and as such, she has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that as per the statement of (P.W. 4) Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu, who has examined Smt. Dewati Bala Devi (informant), wife of Surendra Nath Chatterjee, Purana Bazar, Ratanji Road, Dhanbad, on 16.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M. and found abrasion over right wrist and pain in front of chest and opined the injury to be simple in nature. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that occurrence took place in the evening of 15.07.1990 at around 7.30 P.M., fardbeyan was recorded at Bank More Police Station on 15.07.1990 at 21.30 Hrs and on the basis of medical requisition issued by the police officer on 15.07.1990, injured informant Dewati Bala Devi (informant) was examined by Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu (P.W. 4) on 15.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M. and has found the injury to be caused within four hours and as such, the injury report is completely corroborating with the occurrence and the prosecution case. Thus, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant because of non-examination of the investigating officer nor any suggestion has been put to P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 by the defence that they are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court, on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has placed before this Court the certified copy of the deposition of Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu. From perusal of the deposition of Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu (P.W. 4), it appears that Dr. Learned counsel for the State has placed before this Court the certified copy of the deposition of Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu. From perusal of the deposition of Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu (P.W. 4), it appears that Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu, without verifying the record has deposed in the court that he has examined the victim on 16.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M. rather the injury report which has already been brought on record as Exhibit- 2, shows that the date of examination of the victim is 15.07.1990, as such, the discrepancies with respect to the date of examination of the victim, in his deposition as 16.07.1990 is over ruled and this Court on perusal of the document Exhibit- 2, is satisfied, that victim has been examined by the doctor (P.W. 4) on 15.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M., on the basis of the police requisition issued by the S.I. of police dated 15.07.1990. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire record i.e. the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, two exhibits of prosecution, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment. From perusal of depositions of Kishori Khatik (P.W. 1), Jai Prakash Gupta (P.W. 2) and Subhash Chandra Chatterjee (P.W. 3), it appears that the evidence adduced by these prosecution witnesses are consistent to the fardbeyan of the informant Dewati Bala Devi, who could not be examined in this case because of her death during pendency of the trial. Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu (P.W. 4), has examined the injured informant on the basis of police requisition issued by S.I. on 15.07.1990 but has wrongly stated in his deposition while examination in the Court as P.W. 4, that he has examined the victim on 16.07.1990. This Court has perused the Exhibit – 2 (Injury Report) issued by Dr. Manjit Singh Sandhu (P.W. 4) dated 16.07.1990, stating therein that he has examined the victim Dewati Bala Devi (informant) on 15.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M. and as such, the discrepancies which has been cropped in the deposition of P.W. 4 does not stand proper as the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit- 2 suggests that the victim was examined on 15.07.1990 at 10.00 P.M., which is in consonance with the prosecution case. This Court has found that non-examination of the investigating officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellant as the defence has not elucidated any material by cross-examining the witnesses nor suggested any prosecution witnesses that they are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence rather the appellant has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of occurrence, he was tenant of the informant. Considering the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment has rightly been passed by the learned trial court against the appellant and as such, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is upheld and affirmed, as this appellant has admitted that, he was tenant in the house of the informant at the time of occurrence and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.W. 1 Kishori Khatik, P.W. 2 Jai Prakash Gupta and P.W. 3 Subhash Chandra Chatterjee (son of the informant). The injury report (Exhibit- 2) is also in consonance with the prosecution case as the appellant has assaulted the informant who is an old aged widow lady by entering into her room and as such, this Court is satisfied with the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court and the sentence passed by the learned trial court is also upheld and affirmed. 13. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.07.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1999, in connection with Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 471 of 1990, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2257 of 1990, stands upheld and affirmed and the appellant is directed to serve out the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 448, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by learned trial court. 14. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled to serve out the sentence. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 30 days from today and if the appellant does not surrender within 30 days from today, the learned trial court shall take all legal remedies for procurement of his attendance to serve out the sentence. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 16. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 30 days from today and if the appellant does not surrender within 30 days from today, the learned trial court shall take all legal remedies for procurement of his attendance to serve out the sentence. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.