JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Miss Madhulika Dasgupta assisted by Mrs. J. K. Mazumdar and Mr. Suraj Verma, 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 27.09.2004, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1997, whereby, all these seven appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. By the same impugned judgment the appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 308 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of Bhare Hanshda (P.W.3) in presence of his son Sitaram Hanshda, recorded by Officer In-charge, Nirsa Police Station on 07.10.1996 at 1.30 P.M. Monday, at Nirsa police station, where the informant has alleged that, on last Saturday at around 10.00 A.M. co-villager namely, Kalu Soren, Kalu Tuddo, Bishu Murmo and Sundar Hanshda came to the house of the informant and asked him to accompany for pleasing the God to protect Kalo Hanshda, who is ill, upon which the informant came to the village. All these four persons took the informant in the house of Lodhai Kishku and disclosed that daughter-in-law of Lodhai Kishku is ill, because of daain and thereafter, they closed the door of house. It is alleged that, Manager Kishku and Lodhai Kishku took out an iron rod, heated the same with fire to cauterize (Dagna) and pressed the same on the mouth, chest, thigh and other parts of the body of informant, due to which informant raised brawl but because of their fear nobody came there. It is further alleged that Shambhu Kishku, appellant no.1, came there with lathi and asked to assault the informant. At that time, it was 10.00 o’clock in the night. It is further alleged that Shambhu Kishku, appellant no.1, came there with lathi and asked to assault the informant. At that time, it was 10.00 o’clock in the night. The informant has further alleged that, accused persons left him yesterday but not allowed him to come to the police station but somehow the informant came to the police station along with his son. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police registered First Information Report bearing Nirsa P.S. Case No. 176 of 1996, dated 07.10.1996, under Sections 342/ 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 126 of 1996 dated 16.10.1996, under Sections 326/324/342/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all these seven named accused/appellants. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 30.10.1996 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 28.05.1997. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against all seven accused persons on 16.03.1999, under Sections 308/34, 324, 326 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants/accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited a number of document up to exhibit-2. Shiv Lal Hembrom has been examined as P.W.1, Sitaram Hanshda (son of the informant) has been examined as P.W.2, Bhare Hanshda(informant and victim) has been examined as P.W.3, Som Lal Hanshda (independent witness) has been examined as P.W.4, Dr. Panchanan Prasad (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.5 and Ram Bihari Rai (formal witness being a advocate clerk) has been examined as P.W.6. The injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and the signature of the officer in-charge on the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence the statement of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 10.08.2004, to which they have pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Miss Madhulika Dasgupta assisted by Mrs. J. K. Mazumdar. 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 the investigating officer has not been examined in this case and as such, place of the occurrence and manner of occurrence has not been proved in this case. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the injuries have found on the person of the informant and injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, shows that injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that iron rod has not been seized or produced before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that during examination-in-chief, victim has alleged against two persons namely, Jar Kishku and Lodhai Kishku but in the cross-examination he has only attributed such allegations against Jar Kishku only. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted, that appellants may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by extending the benefit of doubt under such contradictions. 12. Heard, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded, passed by the learned trial Court and has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that informant Bhare Hanshda, who is victim of this case has been examined as P.W.3, he has categorically stated the role of appellants in the incident and crossponding injury has been found by the Dr. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that informant Bhare Hanshda, who is victim of this case has been examined as P.W.3, he has categorically stated the role of appellants in the incident and crossponding injury has been found by the Dr. Panchanan Prasad (P.W.5), who has proved the injury report which has been marked as exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Dr. Panchanan Prasad (P.W.5) has found five injuries on the person of the informant which are as follows:- skin burn on left cheek which is about 3”x1/2”. Skin burn between lower lip and chin 1”x1/2”. Skin burn on left side of neck 2”x1/2”. Skin burn on right side of chest, which is about 1 ½” x ½”. Skin burn on right parietal region, which is about 2”x1/2”. The injuries found were simple in nature, caused by hot substance like hot rod, within two days. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that son of the informant Sitaram Hanshda, who has been examined as P.W.2, has also supported the prosecution case by stating that, accused persons have called his father from his house and took his father to the village, where his father was cauterized by hot iron rod. The credential of this witness has been examined by this Court and it has been found that, the credential of this witness is beyond suspicion, as this witness has stated in para-4 of his cross-examination that, he has not seen the occurrence from his own eyes. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that P.W.4 Som Lal Hanshda is an independent witness, who has heard the brawl raised by the informant and came to the house of Lodhai Kishku and witnessed the occurrence from the window. This witness has been cross-examined by defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Ram Bihari Rai, an advocate clerk, who has been examined as P.W.6, has proved the signature of officer in-charge on the formal First Information Report, which has been marked as exhibit-2. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the victim Bhare Hanshda (P.W.3) and independent witness Sitaram Hanshda (P.W.2) and Som Lal Hanshda (P.W.4) have fully supported the prosecution case and Dr. Panchanan Prasad (P.W.5) has found the crossponding injury on the person of the victim, which has been proved and marked exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the victim Bhare Hanshda (P.W.3) and independent witness Sitaram Hanshda (P.W.2) and Som Lal Hanshda (P.W.4) have fully supported the prosecution case and Dr. Panchanan Prasad (P.W.5) has found the crossponding injury on the person of the victim, which has been proved and marked exhibit-1. Under the aforesaid circumstance, learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is on the basis of the material available on record and no interference is needed in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Miss Madhulika Dasgupta assisted by Mrs. J. K. Mazumdar, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Suraj Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, two exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned of conviction and order of sentence. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful confinement. Section 342 reads as follows:- “342. Punishment for wrongful confinement – Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” This Court has perused the evidence and has found that, the informant was taken inside the room and the house was closed from inside thereafter, such occurrence has been committed upon the informant and as such, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. So far Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, since the occurrence has been committed by a hot iron rod, which is weapon of offence as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- “324. So far Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, since the occurrence has been committed by a hot iron rod, which is weapon of offence as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- “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.” This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1(Shiv Lal Hembrom) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.2 (Sitaram Hanshda) has supported the prosecution case as disclosed by the victim Bhare Hanshda (P.W.3) and his testimony cannot be doubted, as his credential has found up to mark. P.W.3, Bhare Hanshda, victim of this case, who has fully supported his case, as made out in the First Information Report by reiterating the same during his examination in the Court. This witness was cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing has been elucidated to dispel the prosecution case. This witness has stated that, he was called by the four persons, who have taken him to the house of Lodhai Kishku, where after closing the door, iron rod was heated in the fire, which was cauterized on his body, causing burn injury. The burn injury has been found by the doctor P.W.5, who has proved the injury report of the victim as exhibit-1. P.W.4 (Som Lal Hanshda) is an independent witness, who after hearing the brawl raised by the informant, when to the house of Lodhai Kishku and witnessed the occurrence from the window. The burn injury has been found by the doctor P.W.5, who has proved the injury report of the victim as exhibit-1. P.W.4 (Som Lal Hanshda) is an independent witness, who after hearing the brawl raised by the informant, when to the house of Lodhai Kishku and witnessed the occurrence from the window. From the evidence brought on record, there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case and the appellants have also not adduced any evidence to dispel the truth of prosecution case by cross-examination. They have not extracted anything from the prosecution witnesses, which create doubt about the prosecution case. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellants under Sections 342 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that all these seven accused/appellants assaulted the informant by means of heated iron rod and accused/appellant Shambhu Kishku was also present there having lathi in his hand and these two instruments are considered as weapons of offence as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage learned counsel for the appellants, Miss Madhulikadas Gupta assisted by Mrs. J. K. Mazumdar, advocates has submitted that since the injuries found upon the person of the victim was simple in nature and the occurrence took place in the year 1996 i.e. 18 years ago and the appellants have also faced the rigorous of trial for 18 years as such, instead of sending them to jail, the sentence may be modified by imposing some fine as compensation. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Suraj Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to this. After considering aforesaid submission on behalf of appellants and the criminal antecedent of the appellants, the age of the appellants and the nature of allegation as well as the nature of injury, this Court is of the opinion that, instead of sending them to jail, a fine amount of Rs.7,000/-is hereby imposed upon each appellants payable to the injured person within eight weeks from today. In case injured is not alive, then the same amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the injured after due notice and verification by the learned trial Court. In case injured is not alive, then the same amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the injured after due notice and verification by the learned trial Court. The appellants who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled to comply the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. In case appellants have failed in depositing the said amount, they shall undergo sentence as awarded by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court will take legal action, after eight weeks from today, to bring the appellants in custody to serve out rest of the sentence, in case said amount is not deposited. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence. 15. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.