JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 02.08.2004, passed by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 307 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Gulab Mahto (P.W. 4), recorded by S.I. R.B. Singh, Sindri Police Station on 29.07.1998 at 21.00 Hrs. at the house of the informant, where the informant has stated that there is a barren land of Food Corporation of Indian Limited (F.C.I.) adjacent to the house of the informant, which is being used by family members of the informant and female members of the village for attending call of nature. It is alleged that co-villager Rajan Mahato (appellant), Gaju Mahato and others have captured the land and are not allowing the female members of the village to go there to ease themselves. It is further alleged that mother of Rajan Mahato used to abuse them, upon which the informant made a protest, due to which some enmity was there. It is further alleged that on 29.07.1998 at around 8.00 P.M., Rajan Mahato, Gaju Mahato, Lobin Mahato and other accused persons armed with lathi, bhala, sword and tangi came to the house of informant and assaulted him. Rajan Mahato assaulted the informant by means of lathi on his arm. Dilip Mahato and his son Dasrath Mahato were also assaulted by Gaju Mahato and Lal Singh Munda by means of sword on head and hand causing bleeding injury. On brawl, Suresh Mahato came there for rescue, but Rajan Mahato also assaulted on his head and hand with sword, which resulted into cut injury and while fleeing away Rajan Mahato exploded bomb, in order to create panic. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Sindri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1998, dated 29.07.1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against eight accused persons including appellant. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Sindri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1998, dated 29.07.1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against eight accused persons including appellant. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 84 of 1998, dated 09.10.1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the named accused persons including appellant. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 10.10.1998 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 15.09.1999. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.07.2002, 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 six witnesses and exhibited a number of documents upto Exhibit-7, in support of its case. Suresh Mahato, one of the injured of the case, has been examined as P.W. 1, Dilip Kumar Mahato, another injured of the case has been examined as P.W. 2, Dasrath Kumar Mahato, other injured of the case has been examined as P.W. 3, Gulab Mahato, who is the informant and also an injured of the case, has been examined as P.W. 4, Dr. Dharmendra Kumar, who has examined all the four injured persons and issued their injury reports, has been examined as P.W. 5 and Rang Bahadur Singh, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 6. The signature of the informant Gulab Mahato, on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, injury report of Suresh Mahato has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, injury report of Dilip Kumar Mahato has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, injury report of Gulab Mahto has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, injury report of Dasrath Kumar Mahato has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, the hand-writing and signature of Rang Bahadur Singh, investigating officer on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibits-6 and 6/1 respectively. The signature of Officer-in-Charge of Sindri Police Station, on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6/2 and formal F.I.R. in writing of constable and signature of Officer-in-Charge has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 7. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons including appellant, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2004, to which they have pleaded their innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has examined two witnesses namely Babloo Pradhan as D.W. 1 and Munna Tirkey as D.W. 2, but no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the defence. 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, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant Rajan Mahto for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code but by the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the other co-accused persons namely Gaju Mahato, Lobin Mahato, Gopal Mahato, Sanu Rai, Darogi Singh, Arjun Singh and Bhim Singh of all the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. Neither the State nor the informant has challenged the acquittal of other co-accused persons. The present appeal, has been placed before this Court for hearing, this Court is only deciding the present appeal, as no acquittal appeal has been filed against the said impugned judgment, whereby the other co-accused persons have been acquitted. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, 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 there is discrepancy in the evidence of Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) as well as in the evidence of Suresh Mahato (P.W. 1). Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant Gulab Mahato has not specifically alleged about the injury in his deposition caused by which weapon, as such learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injury which has been proved on the basis of the injury reports issued by Dr. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant Gulab Mahato has not specifically alleged about the injury in his deposition caused by which weapon, as such learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injury which has been proved on the basis of the injury reports issued by Dr. Dharmendra Singh (P.W. 5), which have been proved and marked as Exhibits 2 to 5 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the above submissions has submitted that the appellant be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the material available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is a case, where the accused persons including the appellant, lashed with deadly weapons, came to the door of the informant and assaulted the informant. It is specifically alleged that informant Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) was assaulted by Rajan Mahato by means of lathi on his arm, in the mean time informant's brother Dilip Kumar Mahato and nephew Dasrath Kumar Mahato also came there, who were also assaulted by Gaju Mahato and Lal Singh Munda by means of sword on head and hand, causing bleeding injury. On brawl, Suresh Mahato (P.W. 1) came there for rescue, who was also assaulted by Rajan Mahato by means of sword, which was taken from the hand of others by Rajan Mahato and assaulted Suresh Mahato on his head, causing bleeding injury. The informant has alleged that Rajan Mahato along with 8-10 persons have assaulted the prosecution party, whose name is not known to the informant but the informant has claimed to identify, after seeing them. It is further alleged that while the accused persons were fleeing away, they have exploded something, which was like a bomb, to create panic. The informant has alleged that Rajan Mahato along with 8-10 persons have assaulted the prosecution party, whose name is not known to the informant but the informant has claimed to identify, after seeing them. It is further alleged that while the accused persons were fleeing away, they have exploded something, which was like a bomb, to create panic. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the injured persons Suresh Mahato (P.W. 1), Dilip Kumar Mahato (P.W. 2), Dasrath Kumar Mahato (P.W. 3) and Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) have been examined in this case and they have fully supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that there is no material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, who are injured of the case and Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (P.W. 5) has also found the corresponding injury upon the victims, injury reports of which have been proved and marked from Exhibits-2 to 5 in this case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Rang Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6), investigating officer of the case has also supported the prosecution case and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded on the basis of materials available on record. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on records including the F.I.R., framing of charges, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, seven prosecution exhibits, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., two defence witnesses and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the appellant Rajan Mahato and other co-accused namely Gaju Mahato, Lobin Mahato, Gopal Mahato, Sanu Rai, Darogi Singh, Arjun Singh and Bhim Singh came to the door of informant lashed with lathi, bhala, tangi, sword and on the order of Rajan Mahato, the informant was surrounded and Rajan Mahato assaulted the informant on his arm by lathi. Dilip Mahato, brother of the informant and Dasrath Mahato, nephew of the informant, when came on the door, both were also assaulted by Gaju Mahato and Lal Mohan Singh by means of sword on head and hand, causing bleeding injury. Dilip Mahato, brother of the informant and Dasrath Mahato, nephew of the informant, when came on the door, both were also assaulted by Gaju Mahato and Lal Mohan Singh by means of sword on head and hand, causing bleeding injury. Suresh Mahato, another brother of the informant came there for rescue and he was also assaulted by Rajan Mahato by taking sword from the hand of others and assaulted Suresh Mahato on head, causing bleeding injury. The injured witness namely Suresh Mahato (P.W. 1) has categorically stated in paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief that, when he came for rescue of his brother, Rajan Mahato (appellant) took sword from the hand of Gaju Mahato and assaulted on his head causing bleeding injury. This witness has also supported the prosecution case by stating that the accused persons have captured the land of the Food Corporation of India by fencing and barricading, which was used by the female members of the village to attend their call of nature. The defence has not cross-examined this witness to dispel the prosecution case and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the injured Suresh Mahato is in consonance with the prosecution case. Dilip Kumar Mahato (P.W. 2), another injured witness of the case, has also supported the prosecution case. The manner of occurrence as alleged and stated by the informant in his fardbeyan has been supported by this witness. This witness was assaulted by Lobin Mahato by means of lathi on the head. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Dasrath Kumar Mahato (P.W. 3) has stated that Gaju Mahato and Lal Singh Munda have assaulted him by means of lathi and sword, due to which he became unconscious. This witness was assaulted by sword on the head and by lathi on the hand. This witness was also cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) informant and injured witness of the case has reiterated his evidence during cross-examination as to that made in the fardbeyan. This witness has stated that Rajan Mahato has assaulted him by means of lathi on his hand, in the meantime his brother and nephew came for rescue, who were also assaulted by Rajan Mahato. Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) informant and injured witness of the case has reiterated his evidence during cross-examination as to that made in the fardbeyan. This witness has stated that Rajan Mahato has assaulted him by means of lathi on his hand, in the meantime his brother and nephew came for rescue, who were also assaulted by Rajan Mahato. Dasrath Mahato was assaulted by Rajan Mahato by means of sword on his head and on brawl raised by them, the brother of the informant Suresh Mahato also came for rescue, who was also assaulted by Rajan Mahato by means of sword, which was taken from the hands of Gaju Mahato. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case, rather the evidence of all the four prosecution witnesses, who are injured of the case are consistent to the prosecution case. Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (P.W. 5), Medical Officer has examined all the four injured on the basis of police requisition. Suresh Mahato was examined on 29.07.1998 and the doctor has found two injuries on the person of Suresh Mahato: “Injury No. 1: 5” x 1 ½” x 1 ¼” sharp cut over lateral side of the dorsal surface of the left hand. Injury no. 2 is 3” x 1/2” x 3/4” lacerated injury over left side of parietal bone. The opinion with regard to injury no. 1 was kept reserved till X-Ray report and injury no. 2 was found to be simple caused by hard and blunt substances. As per the X-ray report received on 03.08.1998, the injury no. 1, shows fracture at the base of second meta carpel bone with displacement of fragments, soft tissue swelling is also seen, nature of injury is grievous. The injury report of Suresh Mahato has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2.” On the same day, doctor has examined Dilip Mahato on the police requisition and found: “single injury 1/4” x 1/4” lacerated over lateral side of right eyebrow. The nature of injury was found to be simple caused by hard and blunt substances. The injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3.” This witness has also examined Gulab Mahato, informant of the case on police requisition and has found: “abrasion 1” x 1/4” over lateral side of middle of left arm. The nature of injury was found to be simple caused by hard and blunt substances. The injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3.” This witness has also examined Gulab Mahato, informant of the case on police requisition and has found: “abrasion 1” x 1/4” over lateral side of middle of left arm. The nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substances and proved the injury report of Gulab Mahato as Exhibit- 4.” This witness has examined Dasrath Kumar Mahato and found: “single injury 2” x 1/2” x 1/2” lacerated horizontal injury over right side of parietal bone. The nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance and injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5.” Rang Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6), investigating officer of the case has stated that he has recorded the statement of the injured persons and issued requisition for medical examination and inspected the place of occurrence on the next date i.e. 30.07.1998, which was surrounded by a wall. The fardbeyan written and signed by him has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6 and 6/1 and the signature of the Officer-in-Charge on the formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. This witness was cross-examined but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 13. After closure of the prosecution evidence and after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.c., the defence has examined Babloo Pradhan as D.W. 1. This witness has stated that occurrence took place between the parties owing to the demolition of the wall and has admitted in paragraph- 4 of his cross-examination, that accused persons are his friend. Munna Tirkey has been examined as D.W. 2 and similar is the statement of this witness, who has admitted in paragraph-6 of his cross-examination that he is giving tuition to the brother of Rajan Mahato since long and having good relation with him. 14. Munna Tirkey has been examined as D.W. 2 and similar is the statement of this witness, who has admitted in paragraph-6 of his cross-examination that he is giving tuition to the brother of Rajan Mahato since long and having good relation with him. 14. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, as well as the medical evidence, which have been marked as Exhibits-2 to 5, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant Rajan Mahato against whom there is an allegation that he has initially assaulted the informant Gulab Mahato (P.W. 4) on his hand and subsequently Rajan Mahato has assaulted Dilip Mahato and Dasrath Mahato and lastly Suresh Mahato, who came for rescue, by taking sword from the hand of Gajo Mahato. Suresh Mahato has sustained sharp cut injury on the head and informant Gulab Mahato has sustained injury on his left arm and Dilip Mahato and Dasrath Mahato have also sustained injuries which are corresponding to the prosecution case. 15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant Rajan Mahato under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and no interference is needed in the judgment of conviction of the appellant Rajan Mahato. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 02.08.2004, passed by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 307 of 1999, in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1998, corresponding to G. R. No. 2638 of 1998, is hereby upheld and affirmed. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the appellant Rajan Mahato for offence committed and punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is also upheld and affirmed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial court forthwith to serve out rest of his sentence, as awarded by the learned trial court. 17. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled to surrender before the court below to serve out rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 18. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 19. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.