JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Subham Dubey, assisted by Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial Case No. 259 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 324 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, but accused, has acquitted from the charge under Sections 307,354,452 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Jaleshwar Manjhi (P.W.-4) recorded by Sub-inspector of police A.K.Sinha, In-charge Amlabad O.P., P.S. Chandankiyari on 17.10.1995 at 14:30 Hrs. at Putka Muru wherein the informant has alleged that yesterday i.e. on 16.10.1995 at around 03:30 P.M. while the informant alongwith Kamaldeo Manjhi were sitting under the tree in front of informant''s house, he saw Sunder Lal Manjhi son of Sona Ram Manjhi, entering into the house of his neighbour, Jyoti Lal Manjhi. It is further alleged that the informant has heard brawl raised by a woman from the house of Jyoti Lal Manjhi. The informant alongwith Kamaldeo Manjhi went inside the house of Jyoti Lal Manjhi and asked the reason, upon which, the wife of Jyoti Lal Manjhi namely, Kamla Devi shouted by saying to catch hold of Sunder Lal Manjhi as he has entered into her house and was teasing her and caught hold her with bad intention. When the informant tried to catch hold of Sunder Lal Manjhi, who has started fleeing away from the house and gave threatening with dire consequences and after taking out a knife from his waist gave knife blow to the informant, causing bleeding injury on his abdomen, with intention to kill. When the informant tried to catch hold of Sunder Lal Manjhi, who has started fleeing away from the house and gave threatening with dire consequences and after taking out a knife from his waist gave knife blow to the informant, causing bleeding injury on his abdomen, with intention to kill. In the meantime, other persons assembled there and caught hold of Sunder Lal Manjhi, who has also sustained injury in the scuffle with the co-villagers and thereafter informant was brought before a medical practitioner in the village for his treatment. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Chandankiati P. S. Case No. 91 of 1995, dated 17.10.1995, under Sections 341/354/452/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code against sole accused person namely, Sunder Lal Manjhi. 5. After completion of the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.73 of 1995 dated 14.11.1995, under Sections 452/341/354/307/324 of the Indian Penal Code against the above named accused person. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 20.01.1996 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 23.09.1999. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused/person on 28.06.2000 under Sections 354,341,452,324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused person has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to exhibit-4. Kamla Devi, victim of the case, has been examined as P.W.1, Jyoti Lal Manjhi, husband of the victim, has been examined as P.W.2, Kamal Deo Manjhi has been examined as P.W.3 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Jaleshwar Manjhi, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W.4, Lobin Manjhi, has been examined as P.W.5, Fulchand Manjhi a tendered witness, has been examined as P.W.6, Dr. Birendra Kumar, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.7, who has examined the victim, Jaleshwar Manjhi on 18.10.1995 and found injury, incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep over middle and left side of abdomen, caused by sharp cutting substance, simple in nature and the injury report, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Shankar Thakur an Advocate Clerk being a formal witness, has been examined as P.W.8. Shankar Thakur an Advocate Clerk being a formal witness, has been examined as P.W.8. Injury report of the informant (P.W.-4) has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, fardbeyan in the handwriting and signature the then Officer-in-Charge A.K. Sinha, Sub-Inspector of police, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, endorsement of forwarding on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, endorsement for registration of case on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/A and formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 13.01.2004, to which accused person has pleaded that there is no legal evidence against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case, as no such occurrence has taken place. The defence has also examined only one witness namely, Saharie Manjhi as D.W.-1 but no documentary evidence has been brought on record. 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. Subham Dubey assisted by Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, 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 further submitted, that injured got injury on 16.10.1995 at around 03.30P.M. Injured was initially treated by a medical practitioner in the village but his injury report dated 18.10.1995 issued by Dr. Birendra Kumar (P.W.-7), which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that the initial injury report of the victim, Jaleshwar Manjhi has not been brought on record, which has been issued by the doctor treating in the village on the date of occurrence. Birendra Kumar (P.W.-7), which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that the initial injury report of the victim, Jaleshwar Manjhi has not been brought on record, which has been issued by the doctor treating in the village on the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case nor the Police Officer (Sub-Inspector A.K. Sinha) has been examined in this case, as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant because of nonexamination of the Investigating Officer as the appellant could not get an opportunity to cross-examine him so as to elucidate the fact dispelling the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that place of occurrence has not been proved nor the manner of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the prosecution case is that appellant, Sunderlal Manjhi was caught by the villagers but the witnesses examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution have not claimed that they are the person, who have caught the accused at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that as per the prosecution case the appellant was caught at the spot by the villagers but the alleged chura which has been used for causing injury on the abdomen of the informant has not been recovered and seized nor brought to the Court as such, the prosecution has to fail to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment as in case of Shiva Balak Rai and three others vs State of Bihar reported in , (1986) PLJR 604 and Kandu Murmu @ Khandu Murmu vs State of Jharkhand, 2018 4 JBCJ 29 and has buttressed his argument that in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the appellant deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Sections 324 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code by extending the benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nehru Mahto, 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. Nehru Mahto, 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 this is a case where Jaleshwar Manjhi, P.W.4 went into the house of his neighour Jyoti Lal Manjhi, where wife of Jyoti Lal Manjhi namely, Kamla Devi has alleged against appellant, Sunderlal Manjhi of outraging her modesty, when protest was made and informant (P.W.-4) tried to apprehend the accused, the accused assaulted the informant, Jaleshwar Manjhi P.W.-4 by means of Chura, causing bleeding injury on his abdomen. The injury report of the same has been proved by Dr. Birendra Kumar (P.W.-7), which has been marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Kamla Devi (P.W.-1) has supported the prosecution case and Dr. Birendra Kumar (P.W.7) has found corresponding injury on the person of the victim, Jaleshwar Manjhi (P.W.4), which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case but no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, as appellant has not stated any reason for his false implication in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also not given any suggestion to the witnesses regarding place of occurrence and manner of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has thus 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. Subham Dubey, assisted by Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits and statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and one defence witness as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has taken judicial notice of the evidence brought on record, Jaleshwar Manjhi (P.W.4), informant and injured of this case, has sustained sharp cut injury on his abdomen, proved by Dr. This Court has taken judicial notice of the evidence brought on record, Jaleshwar Manjhi (P.W.4), informant and injured of this case, has sustained sharp cut injury on his abdomen, proved by Dr. Birendra Kumar, Medical Officer (P.W.7), which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The doctor has opined that injury may be caused by chura. The prosecution case has been supported by Kamla Devi (P.W.-1), who is victim of the case, as accused Sunderlal Manjhi has entered into her house and was outraging her modesty. The defence has not asked any question to these prosecution witnesses to dispel the prosecution case nor in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has given any explanation for his false implication. This Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that there was no enmity between the parties and the injury caused upon the informant is not a self inflicted injury. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 324 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code as the appellant has caused injury by a sharp cut weapon as envisaged under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by entering into the house of Kamla Devi (P.W.-1), which constitute an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court upheld and affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, convicting the appellant under Sections 324 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. So far the sentence of the appellant is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the appellant remained in custody for more than nine months and the occurrence is of year, 1995 and thus, the appellant has suffered rigors of trial for approximately 23 years and nature of the injury found to be simple, as such the appellant may be sentenced as period already undergone. Considering the above submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is hereby modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section 324 I.P.C. and imprisonment of one year under Section 448 I.P.C. as awarded by learned trial court, as period already undergone by the appellant considering that appellant has suffered rigor of trial for 23 years and injury was simple in nature. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence. 15. 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. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.