JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 31.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 123 of 1999, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded simple imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default in payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Baleshwar Marik (P.W. 7) recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, L. Choudhary at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar on 24.03.1999 at 16.45 Hrs. The informant has alleged that today around 12.00 Noon, when the informant was harvesting the wheat crop from the land, which was taken on bhuktbandhi for six years in the year 1998 by his brother Mangru Marik and Naresh Marik from Subhadra Devi, wife of late Foki Manjhi, the accused Govind Manjhi assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head causing bleeding injury and Sukhdeo Marik, son of late Chutri Marik having lathi in his hand assisted Govind Manjhi in assaulting the informant. Because of such bleeding, informant became unconscious at the place of occurrence from where he was taken to hospital for treatment and thereafter his statement has been recorded. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has instituted Jasidih P.S. Case No. 36 of 1999 dated 26.03.1999, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 114/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Govind Manjhi and Sukhdeo Marik. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused vide charge sheet no. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has instituted Jasidih P.S. Case No. 36 of 1999 dated 26.03.1999, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 114/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Govind Manjhi and Sukhdeo Marik. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused vide charge sheet no. 45 of 1999, dated 20.05.1999 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 114/34 of the Indian Penal. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 01.06.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.07.1999. 6. The charge has been framed against both the accused/appellants under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 30.06.2003, 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 eight witnesses and exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibit- 8. Naresh Marik, eye-witness and brother of the informant has been examined as P.W. 1, Pradeep Marik, another eye-witness and cousin of the informant has been examined as P.W. 2, Subodh Manjhi, brother of the appellant Govind Manjhi, has been examined as P.W. 3, Subhadra Devi, mother of the appellant Govind Manjhi, has been examined as P.W. 4, Jharu Marik, brother of the informant has been examined as P.W. 5. Dr. Akhilesh Prasad Singh, who has examined the informant and victim Baleshwar Marik on 24.03.1999 at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and proved the injury report as Exhibit-2 series and discharge slip as Exhibit-3 and the X-Ray Report as 'X' for identification, has been examined as P.W. 6, Baleshwar Marik, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 7, Bhairam Prasad, formal witness being an advocate clerk has been examined as P.W. 8. Signature of Naresh Marik on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, signature of Baleshwar Marik on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1, written report with signature of Sub Inspector of Police, L.Choudhary has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2, injury report of Baleshwar Marik has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, supplementary injury report of Baleshwar Marik has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/1 and the police requisition for medical examination of Baleshwar Marik has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/2, discharge slip of Baleshwar Marik has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, certified copy of the order dated 11.02.2003 in R.M.A. No. 20/99-2000 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, endorsement of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on petition of Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 20/99-00 has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5, certified copy of the judgment of P.C.R Case No. 115/99 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6, signature of S.I. Ram Saran Yadav on F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 and paragraph-1 to 51 of the case diary has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8 (wrongly marked). 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.11.2003, to which they have said that because of land dispute prevailing between the parties, they have been falsely implicated in this case as there is no legal materials against them. The defence has also examined two defence witnesses namely Birendra Marik as D.W. 1 and Govind Manjhi as D.W. 2 and has proved the certified copy of the order dated 30.07.1999 passed in Rev. Misc. Case No. 134/98-99, [Govind Manjhi as first party and Subhadra Devi as second party] as Exhibit-A. Defence has also proved certified copy of the order dated 14.06.2001 passed in P.C.R. No. 115/99, [which ended in acquittal in a case filed by Shobha Devi, wife of Govind Manjhi against Baleshwar Marik and Ors.] as Exhibit-'B'. certified copy of order dated 22.06.1999 passed in P.C.R. No. 115/99 [filed by Shobha Devi against Baleshwar Marik] has been proved and marked as Exhibit-'C'. Original notice issued by the Court of S.D.M., Deoghar to both the parties under Section 144 CrPC in Cr. Misc. Case No. 357/99, [Govind Manjhi as first party and Naresh Marik & Ors. certified copy of order dated 22.06.1999 passed in P.C.R. No. 115/99 [filed by Shobha Devi against Baleshwar Marik] has been proved and marked as Exhibit-'C'. Original notice issued by the Court of S.D.M., Deoghar to both the parties under Section 144 CrPC in Cr. Misc. Case No. 357/99, [Govind Manjhi as first party and Naresh Marik & Ors. as second party] has been proved and marked as Exhibit-D & E. Certified copy of complaint petition in P.C.R. Case No. 115 of 1999 [filed by Shobha Devi, wife of Govind Manjhi against Baleshwar Marik & Ors.] has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 'F'. 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 appellants for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has filed the present criminal appeal, before this Hon'ble Court assailing the same. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary 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 without scrutinising the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has buttressed his argument on the basis of the deposition of P.W. 6, Dr. Akhilesh Prasad Singh, who has admitted in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his cross-examination that X-Ray report does not bear the name of the injured and this witness has no knowledge that who has written R-16 in the X-ray plate. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that appellants have been wrongly convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code without proving the injury of the injured to be grievous in nature beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is a case between the relatives. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that appellants have been wrongly convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code without proving the injury of the injured to be grievous in nature beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is a case between the relatives. The mother of the appellant Govind Manjhi namely Subhadra Devi got land at her parental house and the brother of the informant have claimed those land on the basis of bhuktbandi. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, a land cannot be transferred by any method unless and until a notification is issued by the State Government specifying the land under Section 21 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that prosecution party has not brought said notification on the record claiming the said land on the basis of bhuktbandi rather as per the evidence brought on record by the prosecution party, the land belongs to father of Subhadra Devi who is mother of appellant, Govind Manjhi. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that at the relevant time, the brother and mother of the appellant Govind Majhi were in favour of the prosecution party because there was some family feud. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even though the mother has said that she has executed a bhuktbandi that will not give any right to prosecution party to cultivate the land, which belongs to Govind Manjhi, his brother and his mother as the legal heir and successor of the land but none of them have any right to transfer the land. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus, submitted that considering the nature of allegation coupled with the fact that appellants have faced the rigors of trial for more than 19 years in a case where investigating officer has not been examined, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded by the learned trial court for holding the appellants guilty under Sections 341, 323 and 324 may be modified as period already undergone by them by imposing some fine amount. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Niki Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Niki Sinha, 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 341, 323, 324 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the occurrence has taken place and the assault was made by these appellants over Baleshwar Marik and the injury report of Baleshwar Marik has already been brought on record by the prosecution party, which has been marked as Exhibit-2 series and as such, the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the occurrence has been seen by a number of witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that from the exhibits brought on record, it seems there is a civil dispute between the parties and they are in litigating terms but that will not give any right to the citizen to take law in their hands and commit an offence. 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. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Niki Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on records including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, eight prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., two defence witness, defence exhibits and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has taken judicial notice with regard to the nature of the injury found on the injured. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that the initial injury report was issued which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 keeping the opinion reserved. This Court has taken judicial notice with regard to the nature of the injury found on the injured. From perusal of the evidence brought on record, it appears that the initial injury report was issued which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 keeping the opinion reserved. Subsequently, on the basis of an X-Ray the supplementary injury report has been issued showing the injury caused by lathi on the temple of Baleshwar Marik as grievous and the injury caused by farsa on the head of the Baleshwar Marik has been declared as simple which was “5” x 1/4” x skin deep on the middle part of top of the head longitudnally” whereas the injury no. 2 caused by lathi is “bruises 1” x 1” on right side of head 3” above right ear, redish in colour”. From perusal of the evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Prasad Singh (P.W. 6) who has admitted in paragraph-7 of his cross-examination, that if anyone falls on hard floor with stone pieces, then injury no. 2 may be caused. Subsequently, the doctor in paragraph-8 of his cross-examination has admitted that he is not aware as to who has written R-16 in X-ray plate. X-ray plate does not bear any date or name or signature of any one below R-16. This Court has found that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury shown by the injury report as grievous in nature, on the basis of X-ray plate, which has not been proved as the X-ray plate of the injured Baleshwar Marik. This Court has also perused the entire materials brought on record. Several disputes and proceedings under Sections 144 & 145 CrPC were initiated and the investigating officer of the case has not been examined. The prosecution party are claiming the land on the basis of Bhuktbandhi, which has no legal sanctity in view of the S.P.T. Act i.e. the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, as the notification issued by the State Government has not been brought on record and proved and the same has been cancelled subsequently by a competent court of law. Since assault has been made by these two appellants upon Baleshwar Marik, which was witnessed by a number of eye-witnesses including the brother and mother of the appellant. Since assault has been made by these two appellants upon Baleshwar Marik, which was witnessed by a number of eye-witnesses including the brother and mother of the appellant. The mother and brother of the appellant Govind Manjhi has some family fued but the evidence suggests that these two appellants have taken law in their hands, as such the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 341/34 323/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court for the offence under section 341/34 323/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld and affirmed by setting aside conviction under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. So far the sentence is concerned, this Court modifies the sentence awarded to the appellants as period already undergone by the appellants subject to payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-each by these two appellants to the victim Baleshwar Marik within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount before the learned court below. The learned trial court will issue notice to the informant Baleshwar Marik after deposit of the fine amount and after proper verification, shall disburse the same to Baleshwar Marik. In default of payment of fine as awarded by this Court, the sentences imposed to the appellants by the learned trial court under Sections 341/34 323/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code shall revive. 14. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 123 of 1999, arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 36 of 1999, corresponding to G. R. No. 190 of 1999, is partly allowed by setting aside the conviction under section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and by upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 341/34 323/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence, dated 31.03.2004 is modified as period already undergone by the appellants with condition as stated above. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. 16. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. 16. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled to comply the order of this Court by depositing the fine amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the learned trial court will take all coercive methods against the appellants to serve out their sentence. 17. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal partly allowed.