JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nitya Nand Choudhary, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 22.03.2004, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 163 of 1995 / 61 of 2003, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Narayan Mandal has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon the fardbeyan of informant, Bisu Mondal (P.W.1) recorded by Officer-In-Charge, Jamtara Police Station on 08.11.1992 at around 5.00 P.M., wherein, the informant has stated that, on 08.11.1992 his wife Ramia Mondalain @ Devi was in her house and he has gone to see his paddy filed towards eastern side of the village. At about 2.15 P.M., son of the informant Ghanshyam Mondal came there and informed that his mother has been assaulted by the accused, Narayan Mandal with farsha and she has fell down inside the house. Upon which the informant came running towards his house and on seeing him the above named accused, who was standing there with farsha in his hand, assaulted the informant on his head four times. Consequent thereto informant also fell down, then the accused person assaulted the informant on the palm of his left hand with farsha. In the meantime, villagers namely, Pairu Mondal, Shyamdeo Mondal, Nunulal Mondal and others came there and saved the informant from further assault upon which accused person fled away. The informant has been informed by his wife that accused, Narayan Mandal was telling that, why they are not withdrawing the case. Informant has claimed that above named accused person has inflicted farsha blow upon the informant and his wife with an intention to kill them. 4. The informant has been informed by his wife that accused, Narayan Mandal was telling that, why they are not withdrawing the case. Informant has claimed that above named accused person has inflicted farsha blow upon the informant and his wife with an intention to kill them. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Jamtara P. S. Case No. 250 of 1992, dated 8.11.1992, under Sections 448, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person namely, Narayan Mandal. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.115 of 1992 dated 30.11.1992, under Sections 447, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the above named accused person. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 18.12.1992 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 07.06.1993. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused/appellant on 26.09.2000 under Sections 447, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused person has denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to exhibit-5. Bishu Mondal, informant and victim of the case, has been examined as P.W.1, Ghanshyam Mondal, son of the informant has been examined as P.W.2, Pairu Mondal, an eye witness to the occurrence has been examined as P.W.3, Basudeo Mandal, a hearsay witness has been examined as P.W.4, Ramia Devi, wife of the informant and another injured, has been examined as P.W.5, Dr. S.K. Prasad, Medical Officer, who has examined the injured, Bisu Mondal and his wife Ramia Devi has been examined as P.W.6 and Padmalochan Ghosh, an advocate clerk being a formal witness, has been examined as P.W.7. Signature of the informant, Bisu Mondal on formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, Injury report of Bisu Mondal has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, Injury report of Ramia Devi has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, correction slip of injury report of Ramia Devi has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4 and First Information Report of Jamtara P.S. Case no. 250 of 1992 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 20.02.2004, to which the appellant has stated that there is land dispute between the parties and decree has been passed in favour of him by the competent court of law and as such, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has not examined any witness but has adduced a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibits-B. Certified copy of order dated 22.04.75 in R.E. Case 36/74-75 of Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.), Jamtara has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A, Certified copy of order dated 12.2.86 in Mutation case no.73/79-80 of Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.), Jamtara has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A1, Certified copy of order dated 1.5.91 of Crl. Misc case 163 of 91 of Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.), Jamtara, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A 2, Certified copy of order dated 18.7.91 in Crl. Misc. case no.163 of 91 of Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.), Jamtara has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A 3, Certified copy of order dated 20.8.91 in Crl. Misc. case no.240 of 1991 of Sub-Divisional Officer(S.D.O.), Jamtara has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A 4 and Certified copy of Parcha for plot no.235 of Charghara has been proved and marked as Exhibit-B. 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 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nitya Nand Choudhary, 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 the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant. 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 the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that though there is an allegation that, Narayan Mandal(appellant) has assaulted the informant Bishu Mondal by means of farsha, which is a sharp cut weapon, but from the perusal of injury report of Bishu Mondal(P.W.1), which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, the doctor has found that injury nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are caused by sharp cutting substance and injury nos.2, 6 and 7 are caused by hard and blunt substance. The Injuries are as follows:- (I) One incised wound left parietal region 2”x 1/4”x scalp deep. (ii) One L-shaped lacerated wound 2”x 1/2”x scalp deep on right tempora parietal region. (iii) One incised wound 1/2”x1/6”x skin deep on forehead left side laterally. (iv) One incised wound left arm inner aspect 1 1/2” x 1/2” x muscle deep. (v) One incised wound left hand in first web 1/8”x 1/8”x1/8”. (vi) One abrasion right side of chest near shoulder joint 2”x 1/8”. (vii) One abrasion 1 1/2”x 1/2” on left side of chest posteriorly. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the injuries found on the informant, Bisu Mondal and his wife, Ramia Devi are simple in nature and as such, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is non-sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that all the witnesses are related to the informant and no independent witness or co-villager has been examined in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that appellant may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that even though the injuries are simple in nature but there are seven injuries on the person of the informant, Bishu Mondal(P.W.1), out of which four injuries are found on vital parts of the body caused by sharp cutting substance. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the intention of the appellant can be gathered from the injures caused upon the informant, as there is repetition of farsha blow. The informant was saved because of intervention of the co-villagers. Had the co-villagers have not arrived at the place of occurrence, the appellant would have been killed the informant. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant has not given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses nor has stated that he has been prejudiced because of non-examination of the Investigating Officer in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and 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 appellant, Mr. Nitya Nand Choudhary, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, five prosecution exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and defence exhibits up to exhibit-B as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. From perusal of record, it appears that, allegation has been made against the appellant, Narayan Mandal, who has initially assaulted the wife of the informant, Ramia Devi(P.W.5). Ghanshyam Mondal, son of the informant (P.W.2) instead of saving his mother went to call the informant, Bishu Mondal(P.W.1), who was in his paddy field. From perusal of record, it appears that, allegation has been made against the appellant, Narayan Mandal, who has initially assaulted the wife of the informant, Ramia Devi(P.W.5). Ghanshyam Mondal, son of the informant (P.W.2) instead of saving his mother went to call the informant, Bishu Mondal(P.W.1), who was in his paddy field. It appears that, both the parties have land dispute and have several litigations in between them, which has been brought on record by way of defence exhibits i.e. exhibit-A series and exhibit-B. This Court has perused the injury report of the informant, Bishu Mondal(P.W.1), which has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, it appears that several injuries were found on the person of informant, Bisu Mondal but only four injuries are caused by sharp cutting substance and three injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance. The prosecution has failed to explain that, how such injuries have been caused upon the informant by hard and blunt substance as there is an allegation that informant was assaulted by the appellant by means of farsha, which is a sharp cut weapon. The injury report of Ramia Devi(P.W.5), which has been proved and marked as Exhibits-3 and 4 respectively, shows two injuries on the person of Ramia Devi but one injury, is attributed to the sharp cut object and other injury is attributed to the hard and blunt substance. The prosecution has also not explained the same in case of Ramia Devi too. Considering the simple in nature of the injuries found on the informant, Bishu Mondal(P.W.1) and Ramia Devi(P.W.5), this Court is of the opinion that instead of convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the Judgment passed by learned trial Court under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld and affirmed acquitting the appellant from the charge and conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the appellant was aged about 47 years at the time of conviction in the year 2004 and the occurrence is of year 1992 and as such, the appellant has suffered rigors of trial for approximately, 26 years and now he is likely to be aged about 71 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the appellant was aged about 47 years at the time of conviction in the year 2004 and the occurrence is of year 1992 and as such, the appellant has suffered rigors of trial for approximately, 26 years and now he is likely to be aged about 71 years. Considering the rigors of trial and age of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that some fine may be imposed instead of sending him to custody after such lapse of period. The State counsel has no objection, in this regard. Considering the same the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to period already undergone, subject to condition that the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-as fine before the learned trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the fine amount shall be paid to the informant, after due verification. If the fine amount of Rs.15,000/-is not deposited by the appellant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court shall remain as it is. Learned trial Court is directed to issue notice to the appellant for payment of fine and after deposition of fine amount, the trial court shall also issue notice to the informant and injured and after due verification of the informant and injured, Bisu Mondal and his wife Ramia Devi, the same amount shall be disbursed to them is equal share. In case they are not present then the amount shall be paid to legal heirs. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2004, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 163 of 1995 / 61 of 2003, arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.250 of 1992, corresponding to G.R. No. 584 of 1992 is hereby upheld and affirmed under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code with modification in sentence. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands partly allowed with modification in sentence, as stated above. 15. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands partly allowed with modification in sentence, as stated above. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled but no action shall be taken against appellant, Narayan Mandal for eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to comply the order/judgment 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.