JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Tapas Roy, 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 17.12.2002, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih, in Sessions Trial Case No. 129 of 2000 / T. R. No.180 of 2002, whereby, sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence committed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence committed under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence committed under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, written report submitted by Bansi Gope (P.W.13) before the officer-in-charge, Bagodar Police Station, Giridih, on 26.02.1999, wherein, the informant has stated, that today i.e. on 26.02.1999 at about 9.00 P.M. he was going to his house from the railway station and on the way he went to the shop of the accused Ram Lakhan Mandal and asked for a cigarette and a betel, on which Ram Lakhan Mandal demanded money. The informant gave him a note of Rs. 10/- but the accused threw the note towards him and asked to give change. While the informant was picking up the note, said to the accused, that instead of throwing the note of Rs. 10/- he should have returned the same to him and thus altercation took place with exchange of words. In the meantime Bandhan Mandal, father of accused, asked him to beat the informant, upon which the accused Ram Lakhan Mandal took out iron khanti and started assaulting the informant indiscriminately. As a result the informant sustained injury on his head and left leg, which got fractured and also sustained injury on his right leg and other parts of the body. The informant fell down on the ground, whereupon the accused, Ram Lakhan Mandal and his father, Bandhan Mandal pressed him. As a result the informant sustained injury on his head and left leg, which got fractured and also sustained injury on his right leg and other parts of the body. The informant fell down on the ground, whereupon the accused, Ram Lakhan Mandal and his father, Bandhan Mandal pressed him. The informant raised brawl and became unconscious, on which his family members and nearby persons came and took him to Sariya Hospital, where he was treated and when he got sense, persons present there told him that Ram Lakhan Mandal and his father fled away after scattering the articles of there own Gumti. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Bagodar(Sariya), P.S. Case No. 47 of 1999, dated 27.02.1999, under Sections 341/323/ 325/ 307/34 / 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 132 of 1999, dated 29.07.1999, under Sections 341/ 323/ 325/ 307/ 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 28.08.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.03.2000. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against accused/appellant, on 05.09.2000, under Sections 307/34, 504/34, 341/34 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether fourteen witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Tiket Yadav has been examined as P.W.1, Lakhan Gope has been examined as P.W.2, Ashok Kumar Yadav has been examined as P.W.3, Karoo Yadav has been examined as P.W.4, Gopi Modi has been examined as P.W.5, Munna Yadav has been examined as P.W.6, Kulla Ram Verma has been examined as P.W.7, Gangadhar Yadav has been examined as P.W.8, Kheman Gope has been examined as P.W.9, Gopal Chandra Das has been examined as P.W.10, Jagdish Mandal has been examined as P.W.11, Murlidhar Modi has been examined as P.W.12, Bansi Gope informant of the case has been examined as P.W.13 and Dr. Pranai Mohan (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.14. Written report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. Pranai Mohan (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.14. Written report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 11.12.2002, to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case under conspiracy. Defence has not examined any witness but has adduced one documentary evidence i.e. written report, which has been marked as -X for identification. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon''ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, 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 submitted, that in the entire case, there is no eye witness to the occurrence, but during deposition P.W.9, Kheman Gope has claimed himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence by stating at para-1 of his examination-in-chief that, this witness along with the informant were going towards house, but the said version has not been supported by the informant P.W.13, Bansi Gope, who has not taken his name in his written report that, he was going to his house with him. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Tiket Yadav, P.W.1, is a formal witness, being an advocate clerk. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Lakhan Gope P.W.2, Ashok Kumar Yadav (P.W.3), Karoo Yadav(P.W.4), Gopi Modi (P.W.5), Munna Yadav (P.W.6), Kulla Ram Verma(P.W.7), Gangadhar Yadav(P.W.8), Gopal Chandra Das(P.W.10) and Murlidhar Modi (P.W.12) are all hearsay witnesses. Kheman Gope(P.W.9) has claimed himself to an eye witness to the occurrence, but Bansi Gope (informant) has not disclosed his name in the written report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. Kheman Gope(P.W.9) has claimed himself to an eye witness to the occurrence, but Bansi Gope (informant) has not disclosed his name in the written report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. This witness(P.W.9) has categorically stated that, except these two persons namely, Bansi Gope and Kheman Gope, no one was present at the place of occurrence. Jagdish Mandal has been examined as P.W.11, but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Bansi Gope, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.13. This witness has not taken the name of Kheman Yadav(P.W.9), as an eye witness to the occurrence, who was accompanying the informant at the time of occurrence. Dr. Pranai Mohan (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.14, who has examined the informant and has found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 3" below left knee with surrounding skin upto 1" apart not present on left leg 1" x 1/2"x deep depth with severe bleeding coming out. Skin edges jack toll, irregular with bleeding. 2. Underlined lacerated wound at left leg. Fracture of left leg bone observed for which x-ray of the prat advised, this is compound fracture of left leg bone. 3. Abrasion left ankle with 1 1/2" diameter. No skin observed (there was no skin). 4. Lacerated wound left parietal region at mid portion part with complete loss of skin of 4" diameter adjoining wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4". 5. Lacerated wound right leg mid part with complete loss of skin of 1 1/2" diameter 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". The injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. The doctor has admitted during cross-examination that no injury was found on vital part of body and none of the injury was dangerous to life. 5. Lacerated wound right leg mid part with complete loss of skin of 1 1/2" diameter 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". The injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. The doctor has admitted during cross-examination that no injury was found on vital part of body and none of the injury was dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as none of the witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and no one is the eye witness to the occurrence, though the betel shop was situated between railway station and village, nor the iron rod which has been used as weapon for assault, has been recovered by police and the police has disbelieved half of informant''s version by not submitting charge sheet against father of the appellant, whose name has been mentioned in the First Informant Report as an accused. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has rightly been passed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has referred the evidence of the informant, P.W.13, Bansi Gope, who has alleged that, appellant has assaulted him twice, on both the legs and on head by the iron rod and corresponding injuries have been found by the doctor, Dr. Pranai Mohan (P.W.14). Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that since informant was assaulted in the night by the appellant, therefore, no eye witness was found. Furthermore, there is no reason of false implication of the appellant at the hands of the informant as there was no enmity between the parties. The number of injuries found on the person of the victim suggest that, such injury can only be caused because of assault and not by falling. Under the aforesaid circumstance, learned State counsel has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Under the aforesaid circumstance, learned State counsel has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and perused the record, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of fourteen prosecution witnesses, two exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the 6 appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence. The entire case around revolves evidence of P.W.13, Bansi Gope, as P.W.9, Kheman Gope is not an eye witness to the occurrence as his name has not been mentioned in the First Information Report nor disclosed by the informant during his examination as P.W.13. The other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. This Court has perused the injury report. From perusal of injury report, it appears that, those injuries are not self inflicted nor those can be caused because of fall. There is no reason that, why the appellant has been falsely implicated by the informant, nor such thing has been explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Under the aforesaid circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction has rightly been passed by the learned trial Court, which is being upheld. So far the sentence is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that half of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the police and except the informant, nobody is an eye witness to the occurrence and as such, the period as already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to meet the sentence. Thus sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is hereby modified as period already undergone. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in the sentence. 15. The appellant who is on bail, the bail bond is hereby cencelled, but no further order has been passed as he has already served the sentence. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.