JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shree Nivas Roy and Mr. Ashok Kumar, 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 06.10.2005, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-7, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.240 of 2002, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for offence committed and punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded simple imprisonment for two years. 3. The prosecution case is based upon written report of Jainul Ansari (P.W.-3), before the officer-in-charge, Jamua police station on 18.09.1999, wherein the informant has stated, that today on 18.09.1999 he had gone towards his agricultural field at around 7 A.M in the morning to inspect the work done by the labourers in the field. In the meantime Narayan Saw and his elder son came there. The accused Narayan Saw and his son having sword inflicted injury on the body of the informant with intention to kill. The informant tried to save him and in the process he sustained injury on his left hand and also in the thumb. It has been also disclosed that the incident took place for a land dispute. 4. On the basis of written report, police has registered Jamua P.S. Case No.142 of 1999, dated 18.09.1999, under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted final formal report vide charge sheet no.149 of 2000, dated 30.10.2000, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against both the accused persons. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.05.2002 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 19.07.2002. 6. The charge has been framed against both the appellants under Sections 341, 307/34 and 324/34, of the Indian Penal Code, on 07.08.2002, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also adduced documentary evidences. P.W.-1 Sahdeo Hazra, P.W.-2 Mansoor Ansari, P.W.-3 Jainul Ansari, informant of the case, P.W.-4 Dr. Shashi Bhushan Choudhary, who has issued the supplementary injury report and P.W.-5 Nand Kishore Paswan, Assistant Sub-inspector of police, who is investigating officer of the case. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also adduced documentary evidences. P.W.-1 Sahdeo Hazra, P.W.-2 Mansoor Ansari, P.W.-3 Jainul Ansari, informant of the case, P.W.-4 Dr. Shashi Bhushan Choudhary, who has issued the supplementary injury report and P.W.-5 Nand Kishore Paswan, Assistant Sub-inspector of police, who is investigating officer of the case. Signature of the informant on the written report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, endorsement on the written report by the officer-in-charge, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1/1, supplementary injury report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-2 and formal first information report has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants/accused persons have been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.04.2005, to which they pleaded, that false allegation has been levelled against them and they are innocent. But no defence witness or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against both the appellants/accused persons namely, Narayan Saw and Siya Saw, convicting them under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is being heard and disposed of by the Hon’ble Court. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate. 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 has further submitted, that because of land dispute, prevailing between the parties, a false case has been instituted by the informant against the appellants, who are father and son and alleged to have committed an offence by assaulting the informant by means of sword (sharp cut weapon). The main injury report has not been brought on record, rather appellants have been convicted on the basis of supplementary injury report. The main injury report has not been brought on record, rather appellants have been convicted on the basis of supplementary injury report. One of the injury is fracture of vth distal phalangeal bone of left hand, which was shown as grievous in nature and the another injury, showing no bony injury caused on the right arm of the informant is simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that none of these injuries can be attributed to a sharp cutting weapon like sword, as has been alleged against the appellants by the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that in absence of the main injury report, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code defines as hereunder:- 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the appellants cannot be convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as the doctor (P.W.-4) has not given any opinion with regard to weapon used. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the supplementary injury report can only be looked into when the original injury report suggest that patient is being referred for x-ray. The supplementary injury report, which is based upon x-ray report without producing the x-ray plate of the injured, cannot be a ground for conviction of the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 11. Heard, Mr. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. 11. Heard, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 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 appellants under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Sahdeo Hajra and Mansoor Ansari, have been examined as P.W.-1 and P.W-2, respectively as eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have seen the occurrence and assault caused on Jainul Ansari by these two appellants by means of sword. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the Nand Kishore Paswan (P.W.-5), is the investigating officer, who has investigated the case and after finding the case to be true, submitted the chargesheet. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Doctor Shashi Bhushan Choudhary (P.W.-4), has categorically stated that one of the injury found on the person of the informant was grievous in nature and another injury found on the person of the informant was simple in nature and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of the material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage as the same is based on the evidence brought on record. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Ashok Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It appears that original injury report has not been brought on record, where the doctor has referred the victim Jainul Ansari for x-ray rather, on the basis of a supplementary injury report, the doctor has declared one of the injury as grievous in nature and another injury as simple in nature but doctor has nowhere mentioned that both the injuries have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. The doctor has not given any opinion with regard to the cause of injury, rather the doctor has said that fracture of vth distal phalangeal bone of the left hand is grievous in nature. This court has invoked the power under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code and perused the case diary, original injury report is not on record and as such, this Court is of the opinion that appellants cannot be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the conviction of the appellants is alter from section 324 to section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to the appellant of simple imprisonment of two years under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is also modified as period already undergone. 13. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction from Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as period already undergone by the appellants. 14. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled but appellants shall not be taken into custody as they have already served out the sentence awarded by the Hon’ble Court under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.