JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. All the aforesaid four appellants have been convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.12.2003 passed in S.T. No.434 of 1995 (arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No.73 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. No.798 of 1994) by the learned 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Koderma, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to furnish bail bond of Rs.5,000/- each to keep peace and good behaviour with the informant as well as family members and by the same judgment the learned trial court has acquitted the appellants under Sections 379, 325, 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of furnishing bond, the appeal has been preferred before this Court. The appeal has been admitted on 02.04.2004 and further execution of bail bond has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the written report of the informant, Jagdish Modi on 16.12.2004 alleging therein that on 15.12.1994 (Thursday) while the informant was returning from his shop at Domchanch to his house on bicycle, having cash of Rs.1560/- in his pocket and as soon as he reached near Sindwar bush of Village Raghunia Tand at around 6 p.m., his own uncle, Rameshwar Modi, his sons, Ashok Modi, Binod Modi and nephew, Vijay Modi S/o Mahadeo Modi came armed with Lathi, Iron-rod etc., assaulted the informant so that he should leave the land. The informant has stated that he left the cycle and fell down. Thereafter Binod Modi has taken Rs.1560/- from his pocket. The informant has stated that all the accused persons are agnates and they had land disputes since long as these persons are not giving the share of the land for which the occurrence has been committed. The informant, in the injured conditions has stated that with the help of villagers he came to the Police Station and reported the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of Jagdish Modi, informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Jainagar P.S. Case No. 73 of 1994 (dated 16.12.1994) corresponding to G.R. No.798 of 1994. 4. The informant, in the injured conditions has stated that with the help of villagers he came to the Police Station and reported the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of Jagdish Modi, informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Jainagar P.S. Case No. 73 of 1994 (dated 16.12.1994) corresponding to G.R. No.798 of 1994. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.07 of 1995 dated 29.01.1995 against the four accused persons under Sections 323, 341, 379, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Cognizance of the offence has been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions where charge has been framed against all the appellants under Sections 325/34, 307/34 and 341/34 I.P.C. and appellant, Binod Modi has been separately charged under Section 379 I.P.C. by the learned court below on 17.04.1999. The appellants pleaded innocence and thus, have been put for trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 9 witnesses. Rafique has been examined as P.W.1. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution by saying that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. Dwarika Prasad Saw has been examined as P.W.2. He is an hearsay witness. Vinod Modi has been examined as P.W.3. He has not supported the prosecution case by saying that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. Girdhari Sundi has been examined as P.W.4. He has also stated the same version that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. Jagdish Modi, the informant of the case has been examined as P.W.5. This witness has reiterated the statements made in the First Information Report and submitted that there is land dispute with the accused persons and two cases are pending. He proved written report as Exhibit-1. In paragraphs 16 & 27 of the cross-examination, this witness has admitted the cases which are pending against him have been filed by the accused persons. Smt. Kunti Devi has been examined as P.W.6. She is the wife of the informant, Jagdish Modi. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m. on 15.12.1994 and further admitted that there is land dispute between the parties for the last 20 years. Arun Kumar Modi has been examined as P.W.7. He is son of the informant, Jagdish Modi. This witness has stated that due to assault, hand of his father got broken. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 8.00 p.m. on 15.12.1994 and further admitted that there is land dispute between the parties for the last 20 years. Arun Kumar Modi has been examined as P.W.7. He is son of the informant, Jagdish Modi. This witness has stated that due to assault, hand of his father got broken. Nunman Modi has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has not seen the occurrence. Prasadi Yadav has been examined as P.W.9. He is a formal witness being the Advocate's clerk and proved the formal F.I.R. and endorsement of Officer-in-charge as Exhibit-2. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.11.2003. No defence witness has been examined. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court has disbelieved the prosecution case and thus, acquitted the appellants under Sections 379, 325, 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in a case where the injury report has neither been proved nor I.O. has been examined. Only on the basis of the statements of the informant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed against the appellants without scrutinizing the evidence and without considering the fact that the land dispute is pending since 20 years between the parties and the cases have been filed by the accused persons against the informant as admitted by the informant himself at paragraph nos.16 & 27 of his cross-examination. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that from perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the court below has not considered, the land dispute between both the parties. Some cases are still pending, non-examination of Doctor and Investigating officer as well as in absence of any eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, the court below has wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 323 I.P.C. which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal was admitted by this Hon'ble Court and stay order of execution of bond has been passed by this Court on 02.04.2004. Since then, nothing has happened between the parties and as such, executing the bond after approximately 14 years is meaningless. 10. Mr. The appeal was admitted by this Hon'ble Court and stay order of execution of bond has been passed by this Court on 02.04.2004. Since then, nothing has happened between the parties and as such, executing the bond after approximately 14 years is meaningless. 10. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State argued and submits that the informant has categorically stated that he had been assaulted by 4 persons by lathi, iron-rod and as such, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 323 I.P.C. as the learned trial court acquitted the appellants under Sections 379, 325, 341 and 307/34 I.P.C. and there is no requirement of any interference by this Hon'ble Court as the execution of the bond which has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court was only for a limited purpose during the pendency of the appeal, as such, this Hon'ble Court may uphold the impugned judgment of conviction and direct the appellants to execute the bonds. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the records. It is true that learned trial court while convicting the appellants has admitted that there is lack of evidence, but only on the basis of the statements of the informant, that he has been assaulted by the appellants with lathi, iron-rod, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It appears from the impugned judgment and the materials available on record, that learned trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 323 I.P.C., without having any cogent material and only on the basis of the statements of P.W.5 (Jagdish Modi), which is not worth credential and it can not be accepted without any taste. It is admitted fact that there is land dispute in between the parties for the last 20 years and two cases have been instituted by the appellants against Jagdish Modi, as such, without formal proof of any injury, the case cannot be accepted as a true case on the basis of such statements of the informant where no witness has supported the case and Investigating officer has not been examined. 12. Furthermore, since 2004 no occurrence has taken place between the parties. There is an stay order of execution of furnishing bonds by this Hon'ble Court. 13. 12. Furthermore, since 2004 no occurrence has taken place between the parties. There is an stay order of execution of furnishing bonds by this Hon'ble Court. 13. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the ground mentioned above. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 06.12.2003 passed in S.T. No.434 of 1995 (arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No.73 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. No.798 of 1994) by the learned 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Koderma is hereby, set aside by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants. 15. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of charge and order directing the appellants to execute bond of Rs.5,000/- is hereby set aside. The appellants are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds. 16. Let L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned along with a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned at once.