JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.04.2004, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 66 A of 1995/ 55 of 2003, whereby the appellant Ramchandra Mahato has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 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 in fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. Other appellants namely Ravindra Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato and Indrajit Mahato have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. But by the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Gokhul Mahto (P.W.3) recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, B.N. Tiwary of Jamtara Police station on 09.12.1993 at 12.30 P.M. at Sub- Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, where the informant has alleged that today i.e. on 09.12.1993 at around 7.00 A.M. his son Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4) went for fishing in his paddy field. Ajit Mahato put a gogghi for catching the fish from where water was draining. It is alleged that covillager Ramchandra Mahato came there and threw the gogghi implanted by Ajit Mahato and put his own gogghi at that place, upon which some altercation took place. The informant was in the adjacent field and on altercation, came there and stopped them. It is further stated that Ramchandra Mahato went to his house and after some time Ramchandra Mahato returned along with Ravindra Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato and Indrajit Mahato having lathi and farsa in their hands. Thereafter, Ramchandra Mahato assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head, due to which informant sustained bleeding injury. It is further alleged by the informant that accused persons have assaulted the informant and his son Ajit Mahato badly and fled away. Thereafter, Ramchandra Mahato assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head, due to which informant sustained bleeding injury. It is further alleged by the informant that accused persons have assaulted the informant and his son Ajit Mahato badly and fled away. Thereafter, the informant and his son Ajit Mahato went to the hospital for treatment, where the informant has claimed before the police that the accused persons have assaulted them with intention to kill. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has instituted Jamtara P.S. Case No. 263 of 1993 dated 09.12.1993, under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four named accused persons. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 135 of 1993, dated 30.12.1993 against all the four named accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 05.04.1994 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.06.1994. 6. The charge has been framed against all the accused/appellants under Sections 341, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 06.12.2000, to which the accused/appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses (though P.W. 5 has wrongly been mentioned in the deposition as P.W. 4) and exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibit- 2 series. Satyanarayan Mahto, co-villager, has been examined as P.W. 1 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Jagarnath Mahto, has been examined as P.W. 2 and has been tendered by the prosecution. Gokhul Mahto, informant and victim of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3. Ajit Mahato, son of the informant and another injured witness has been examined as P.W. 4, Tahir Hussain, a formal witness being an Advocate Clerk has been examined as P.W. 5 and has proved the signature of Officer-In-Charge on the formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/a. Dr. Damodar Yadav, medical officer, has been examined as P.W. 6 and has proved the injury reports of Gokhul Mahato (P.W. 3) and Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4) in the writing and signature of Dr. L.K. Lal (P.W. 7), which have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 2 and 2/a, Dr. Damodar Yadav, medical officer, has been examined as P.W. 6 and has proved the injury reports of Gokhul Mahato (P.W. 3) and Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4) in the writing and signature of Dr. L.K. Lal (P.W. 7), which have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 2 and 2/a, Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal, who has examined both the injured, has been examined as P.W. 7. Signature of informant, Gokhul Mahato (P.W. 3) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of Officer-In-Charge on the formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/a, injury report of Gokhul Mahato (P.W. 3) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2 and injury report of Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2/a. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/appellants, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.06.2003, where the appellants have categorically stated that because of land dispute and old enmity prevailing between them, they have been falsely implicated in this case and there are no materials against them. 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 present appellants no. 2 to 4 for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 323/34 and appellant no. 1 for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have jointly preferred the present criminal appeal, before this Hon''ble Court on 22.04.2004, which was admitted vide order dated 06.05.2004 and the provisional bail granted to the appellants by the learned court below vide order dated 08.04.2004 has been confirmed by this Hon''ble Court. The appeal has been listed for final hearing before this Court. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra assisted by Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra 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 appellants, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra assisted by Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra 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 on a trivial issue, as per prosecution case, assault took place causing simple injury upon the injured Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3) and Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4). Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that investigating officer has not been examined in this case, as such serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants because of non-examination of the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is vital contradiction in the fardbeyan as compared to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this court towards the fardbeyan of the informant Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3), where nowhere it has been alleged that Gokhul Mahto became unconscious after sustaining injury but while deposing in the court as P.W. 3, Gokhul Mahto has stated that he was assaulted by Ramchandra Mahato by means of farsa on the back side of his head causing bleeding injury, which caused unconsciousness and when he regained consciousness, he was in the courtyard of his house. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that there is vital contradiction in the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that though the charge has been framed under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellant Ramchandra Mahato has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code because of the lack of evidence with respect to ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appellants have suffered the rigors of trial since the year, 1993 i.e. more than 25 years and was aged about 37 years at the time of conviction in the year, 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that appellants may be acquitted of the charge and conviction by extending benefit of doubt as the parties are co-villagers and in litigating terms. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that appellants may be acquitted of the charge and conviction by extending benefit of doubt as the parties are co-villagers and in litigating terms. 11. 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 is well founded and is based on the materials available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Gokhul Mahato, informant and victim of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3, son of the informant namely Ajit Mahato has been examined as P.W. 4, both are injured witnesses of the case, both have supported the prosecution case and corresponding injuries have been found by the medical officer as mentioned in their injury reports, which have been proved by Dr. Damodar Yadav (P.W. 6) as Exhibit- 2 and 2/a. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the non-examination of the investigating officer has not prejudiced the appellants in any manner, as nothing has been suggested to the prosecution witnesses by the defence, so as to draw inference by cross-examining the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court at this stage. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra assisted by Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, prosecution exhibits upto Exhibit- 2 series, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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 on a trivial issue of catching fish from the paddy field, an altercation took place between P.W. 4 Ajit Mahto and the appellant no. 1 Ramchandra Mahato. Subsequently, Ramchandra Mahato went to his house and came with farsa and other accused persons namely Ravindra Mahato, Indrajit Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato, who were having lathi in their hands. 1 Ramchandra Mahato. Subsequently, Ramchandra Mahato went to his house and came with farsa and other accused persons namely Ravindra Mahato, Indrajit Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato, who were having lathi in their hands. The prosecution has proved that Ramchandra Mahato has assaulted the informant on the posterior part of his head by means of farsa and other accused persons have also assaulted the informant and his son Ajit Mahato (P.W. 4), though the injuries were found to be simple in nature but that will not absolve the accused from their liabilities. The witnesses Satyanarayan Mahto has been examined as P.W. 1 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Jagarnath Mahto (P.W. 2) has been tendered by the prosecution, the informant-cum-injured Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3), who has proved his signature on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Exhibit- 1 and another injured witness Ajit Mahto, son of the informant, who has been examined as P.W. 4 and both have supported the prosecution case. Tahir Husain, being a formal witness, who has proved the signature of the Officer-In-Charge on the formal F.I.R., has been examined as P.W. 5, Dr. Damodar Yadav, who has proved the injury reports of Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3) and Ajit Mahto (P.W. 4), issued in handwriting and signature of Doctor Lalit Kumar Lal (P.W. 7) which have been marked as Exhibit- 2 and 2/a, has been examined as P.W. 6 and Doctor Lalit Kumar Lal, who has medically examined both the injured and issued medical report, has been examined as P.W. 7. and the evidence of P.W. 3 Gokhul Mahato, P.W. 4 Ajit Mahato, P.W. 6 Damodar Yadav and P.W. 7 Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal are in consonance with the prosecution case. 13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants namely Ravindra Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato and Indrajit Mahato under Sections 323/34 and Ramchandra Mahato under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, this Court affirms and upheld the impugned judgment of conviction. 13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants namely Ravindra Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato and Indrajit Mahato under Sections 323/34 and Ramchandra Mahato under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, this Court affirms and upheld the impugned judgment of conviction. But so far the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on a trivial issue, occurrence took place without any premeditation for the same and the injuries have been found to be simple in nature, for which, the appellants have faced rigors of trial for more than 25 years, as such the sentence of the appellants may be modified as period already undergone by imposing some fine. 14. Accordingly, this Court affirms and upholds the conviction of the appellants but modifies the sentence awarded under Sections 323/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code as period already undergone by the appellants but imposes a fine of Rs. 2000/- to appellant no. 1 Ramchandra Mahato who has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine amount shall be deposited before the learned trial court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a notice issued by the learned trial court. On deposit of the said amount, the learned trial court will disburse the said fine amount to the victim Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3) and in case Gokhul Mahto (P.W. 3) is not present, then to his legal heirs or successors. If the appellant fail to deposit the fine amount, sentence awarded by the learned trial court will remain as it is. The sentence awarded to appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Ravindra Nath Mahato @ Ravindra Mahato, Nilkanth Mahato and Indrajit Mahato respectively is modified as period already undergone under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In the result, judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2004, passed by learned rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 66 A of 1995/ 55 of 2003, arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 263 of 1993, corresponding to G. R. No. 543 of 1993, is hereby affirmed and upheld and order of sentence dated 08.04.2004 is modified as period already undergone as stated above with condition. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. 17. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. 17. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled to comply the order of this Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the notice issued by the learned trial court, failing which, the learned trial court will take all coercive methods for appearance of the accused Ramchandra Mahato to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. 18. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.