JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 24.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.280 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of three months. By the same impugned judgment other co-accused namely, Gangu Turi, Rajkumar Turi and Nilkanth Turi have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 143 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the written report of Kamdeo Prasad Mandal (P.W.-2), before the Officer-In-charge Madhupur police station on 05.08.2000, alleging therein that while the informant went to his field at about 02:00 P.M., in the village Tilauna, he saw cattle were grazing his crops, the boy who has brought this cattle was called by the informant upon which, boy started abusing. The informant slapped that boy, thereafter villagers namely, Rajkumar Turi, Ganga Turi, Golka Turi, Nilkanth Turi and some other persons came there from the village Tilauna, with lathi and rod and started abusing the informant. It is alleged that on protest made by the informant, Golka Turi assaulted the informant by means of rod on chest and head, due to which informant became unconscious and fell down and blood started oozing out from his head. On brawl, neighbouring persons came there and intervened into the matter. The informant claimed that Vishu Raut and Gopal Raut also came there and saved the informant, thereafter accused persons have fled away. 4. On the basis of written report, police has instituted Madhupur P.S. Case No. 128 of 2000, dated 05.08.2000, under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, against four named accused persons namely, Rajkumar Turi, Ganga Turi, Golka Turi and Nilkanth Turi. 5. 4. On the basis of written report, police has instituted Madhupur P.S. Case No. 128 of 2000, dated 05.08.2000, under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, against four named accused persons namely, Rajkumar Turi, Ganga Turi, Golka Turi and Nilkanth Turi. 5. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.238 of 2000, dated 30.11.2000, under Sections 143/307 of the Indian Penal Code, against all the four named accused persons. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 02.01.2001 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 03.08.2001. 7. The charge has been framed against four accused persons namely, Rajkumar Turi, Ganga Turi, Nilkanth Turi and Golka Turi under Sections 143 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on 23.04.2002, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to exhibit-5. Shaligram Mandal, cousin of the informant, has been examined as P.W.-1, Kamdeo Prasad Mandal, informant and injured of the case, has been examined as P.W.-2, Bhuddu Mandal, father of the Shaligram Mandal (P.W.-1), has been examined as P.W.-3, Dr. Vishwanath Das, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.-4, Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.-5, Dipak Verma, has been examined as P.W.-6 and Bauaji Mandal, has been examined as P.W.-7. P.W.-6, Dipak Verma and P.W.-7, Bauaji Mandal have not supported the prosecution case, as such they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Written report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, endorsement on the written report has been proved and marked as exhibit-3, formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as exhibit-4 and medical requisition issued by police officer for treatment of injured has been proved and marked as exhibit-5. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 16.02.2004, to which the appellant has denied the evidence levelled against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 16.02.2004, to which the appellant has denied the evidence levelled against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. But no defence witness has been examined or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against sole appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and learned trial court has acquitted other co-accused persons facing trial namely, Gangu Turi, Rajkumar Turi and Nilkanth Turi from the charge framed against them. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside as the half of prosecution case as alleged by the informant has found to be false by the learned trial court and thus the learned trial court has acquitted three co-accused persons namely, Gangu Turi, Rajkumar Turi and Nilkanth Turi from the charge levelled against them. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Medical Officer has found three injuries on the person of injured, which are : (i) Lacerated wound 3” x 1/4” x bone deep red in colour over the middle portion of right parietal region of the scalp away from A.P. midline. (ii) Acute tenderness over chest and (iii) Bruise 6” x 1” red in colour over the middle portion of right side of back but all the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that during cross-examination, Dr. Vishwanath Das, Medical Officer (P.W.-4) has admitted that injury no.1 may be caused by fall of heavy object on the head of person and because of fall of person injury nos.2 and 3 can be caused. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that during cross-examination, Dr. Vishwanath Das, Medical Officer (P.W.-4) has admitted that injury no.1 may be caused by fall of heavy object on the head of person and because of fall of person injury nos.2 and 3 can be caused. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant has claimed the land, on the basis of bataidari, as admitted by Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer (P.W.-5) in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Shaligram Mandal (P.W.-1), cousin of the informant, Kamdeo Prasad Mandal (P.W.-2), informant and Bhuddu Mandal (P.W.-3), father of Shaligram Mandal (P.W.-1), whose half of the prosecution story has been disbelieved by the learned trial court. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that appellant may be acquitted from the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as the appellant has not been found guilty under Sections 143 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in which charge has been framed. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that entire prosecution case is based upon the interested and related witnesses as the independent witnesses namely, Dipak Verma (P.W.-6) and Bauaji Mandal (P.W.-7), have not supported the prosecution case and thus they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that appellant may be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that corresponding injury on head of the informant, Kamdeo Prasad Mandal (P.W.-2) has been found by Dr. Vishwanath Das (P.W.-4), though injury is simple in nature but that will not absolve the appellant from the offence committed under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence has acquitted three co-accused persons and has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence has acquitted three co-accused persons and has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State thus submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate and learned counsel for the State Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records i.e. First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits, the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It appears that there is land dispute between the parties as the informant has himself not claimed the ownership of the land rather he has claimed the land, on the basis of bataidari. This court has also perused the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, wherein injuries have been shown as simple in nature. Kaushlendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer (P.W.-5) has also found the case to be true and has submitted charge sheet. The independent witnesses namely, Dipak Verma (P.W.-6) and, Bauaji Mandal (P.W.-7) have not supported the prosecution case and thus they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The occurrence is of dated 05.08.2000 and thus, the appellant has suffered the rigors of trial for approximately 18 years. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which is hereby upheld and affirmed. So far the sentence of the appellant is concerned. The appellant is given benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 and the appellant is directed to surrender before the learned court below within eight weeks from today for receiving due admonition and the appellant shall be released after due admonition under section 3 of Probation of the Offender Act, 1958. 15. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds is hereby cancelled to comply the modified sentence of admonition as awarded under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 17. 15. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds is hereby cancelled to comply the modified sentence of admonition as awarded under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 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 dismissed.