JUDGMENT : Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.02.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1991/108 of 2001, arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case no.136 of 1988 dated 20.06.1988, corresponding to G.R. No.358 of 1988, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 07.05.2004 and provisional bail granted to the appellant, Surendra Kisku by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.02.2004, has been confirmed. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of informant, Parmeshwar Murmu (P.W.8) recorded by Sub-Inspector, Binod Kumar, Mihijam Police Station at Sahadal (Rangadih) on 19.06.1988 at 12.00 hrs., wherein, the informant has stated that, today in the morning at 7.00 A.M., he was ploughing the land of his bari for sowing maize crop. At that time sons of his maternal uncle namely, Jogindra Kisku and Surendra Kisku, armed with bow and arrow came there and abused the informant and prohibited him from cultivating the land. Thereupon, the informant told them that, since the land belongs to him, he will cultivate the same. It is further alleged that, as soon as the informant started ploughing the land, both the accused persons namely, Jogendra Kisku and Surendra Kisku assaulted him by means of bow and arrow and one of the arrow hit the abdomen of the informant. The informant got injured and fell down. Thereupon, the accused persons fled away. In the meantime, co-villagers assembled there have seen the occurrence. The cause of occurrence is that father of the informant was residing there as Gharjamai and was in possession of 4 acres of land, which at present, is in the possession of the informant and these accused persons wanted to dispossess him. 4. Thereupon, the accused persons fled away. In the meantime, co-villagers assembled there have seen the occurrence. The cause of occurrence is that father of the informant was residing there as Gharjamai and was in possession of 4 acres of land, which at present, is in the possession of the informant and these accused persons wanted to dispossess him. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 136 of 1988, dated 20.06.1988, under Sections 324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against two named accused persons namely, Jogindra Kisku and Surendra Kisku. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.104 of 1988 dated 10.07.1988, under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Jogindra Kisku and Surendra Kisku. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16.07.1988 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.12.1990. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against both accused persons on 29.07.1992, under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the 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 eight witnesses and exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Gopin Kisku has been examined as P.W.1, Mansingh Tudu has been examined as P.W.2, Mano Soren has been examined as P. W. 3, Bahadur Murmu has been examined as P.W.4, Sunil Murmu has been examined as P.W.5, Arun Kumar Chakraborty (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.6, Tahir Hussain, an advocate clerk and formal witness, has been examined as P.W.7 and Prameshwar Murmu (informant of the case) has been examined as P.W.8. The prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibits five series. The prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibits five series. Seizure list of arrow, bearing signature of Mano Soren and Mansingh Tudu, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, Injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, Discharge Ticket of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, forwarding of fardbeyan by the Officer-In-Charge has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5/1 and signature of the informant on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5/2. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 20.02.2004, to which the appellant has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. During trial co-accused, Jogindra Kisku died on 19.01.2001 and trial of his case has been dropped. No defence witness or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 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 Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar. Learned Amicus Curiae 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 Amicus Curiae has submitted, that it is a case, which has been filed by own maternal brother of the appellant to pressurise him to leave the land, as land dispute is admitted between the parties. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that investigating officer has not been examined in this case nor the Material, which has been seized i.e. arrow has been brought on record. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that occurrence took place in the year 1988 and as per the allegation, the informant has sustained injury, which is simple in nature and Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty (P.W.6), has admitted during cross-examination that such injury may be caused on abdomen by a pointed rock. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted, that occurrence took place in the year 1988 and as per the allegation, the informant has sustained injury, which is simple in nature and Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty (P.W.6), has admitted during cross-examination that such injury may be caused on abdomen by a pointed rock. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted, that considering the rigors of trial faced by the appellant since 1988, the appellant may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, 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 and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that informant has supported his fardbeyan during examination in the court as P.W.8. Mansingh Tudu(P.W.2), Bahadur Murmu(P.W.4) and Sunil Murmu(P.W.5) are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The Corresponding injury has been found by Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty (P.W.6), who has proved the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-2. The seizure list of arrow has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted, that appellant has committed an offence by any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence as defined under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, though the injury was simple in nature, as such, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage. 13. Heard, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.1, Gopin Kisku, P.W.2, Mansingh Tudu, P.W.4, Bahadur Murmu and P.W.5, Sunil Murmu are eye witnesses to the occurrence and have supported the case of the prosecution, initiated on the basis of fardbeyan of Prameshwar Murmu(P.W.8), who has also supported the prosecution case during trial, but the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case and Tahir Hussain an advocate clerk, being a formal witness has proved the handwriting and signature of Officer-In-Charge on the formal First Information Report as Exhibit-4. This court has found that occurrence took place between close cognates i.e. maternal brothers and injury has been found to be simple in nature and dispute is with regard to possession of land. Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that, impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is based on materials available on record and the same is hereby upheld and affirmed. So far the sentence is concerned, this Court is of the view that, occurrence took place in the year 1988 and the appellant has suffered rigors of trial approximately for 30 years and the parties are close relatives and at the time of occurrence the accused was aged about 24 years, this court is hereby modified the sentence of simple imprisonment of two years to monetary compensation of Rs.1000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/-before the learned trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the notice issued by the learned trial court. After the deposit of the said amount, the learned trial Court shall disburse the same to the injured, Prameshwar Murmu after due verification. In case, appellant fails to deposit the said amount, the appellant shall serve simple imprisonment for two months. After the deposit of the said amount, the learned trial Court shall disburse the same to the injured, Prameshwar Murmu after due verification. In case, appellant fails to deposit the said amount, the appellant shall serve simple imprisonment for two months. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 27.02.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1991/108 of 2001, arising out of Jamtara(Mihijam) P.S. Case no.136 of 1988 dated 20.06.1988, corresponding to G.R. No.358 of 1988, is hereby upheld and affirmed with modification in sentence. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. 17. Before parting with this judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar in disposal of the present criminal appeal. The Secretary JHALSA is directed to pay remuneration as per the rule to learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kumar within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, forthwith.