JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.11.2003, passed in Sessions Case No.240 of 2000, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dhanbad, whereby all the above-named four appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and further appellant no.1, Rabindra Nath Thakur has further been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but they have been released under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act by directing to execute a personal bond of Rs.3,000/- along with a surety of the same amount each for maintaining peace, tranquility and good behaviour for two years. Against the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.11.2003, the appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal on 05.01.2004, which has been admitted on 19.03.2004 by this Hon'ble Court and since then, the matter is pending. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the written report of Sri Narayan Singh (P.W.3) before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad Police Station, Dhanbad, stating therein that, on 18.03.1999, his neighbour Ravindra Nath Thakur @ Ravindra Thakur was in the house, adjacent to the house of the informant. Both sons and both daughters of Ravindra Nath Thakur climbed over the boundary wall to pluck guava from the tree planted in the house of the informant. On protest made by the family of the informant, all the accused persons entered into the house of the informant by climbing over the boundary wall and assaulted them. Rabindra Nath Thakur having 'bhala' assaulted the daughter of the informant in her hand, causing bleeding injury. Both sons of Rabindra Nath Thakur, namely, Hari Thakur and Ravi Thakur and both daughters assaulted them by pelting stones causing injury to the informant also. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 191 of 1999 (dated 18.03.1999) corresponding to G.R. No.843 of 1999 under Sections 452, 337, 323, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 191 of 1999 (dated 18.03.1999) corresponding to G.R. No.843 of 1999 under Sections 452, 337, 323, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.391 of 1999 dated 30th June, 1999 under Sections 452, 337, 323, 326, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the six accused persons namely, Ravindra Nath Thakur, Pratima Thakur, Hira Thakur, Shammi Thakur @ Tini, Sachin Thakur @ Golu and Shilpi Thakur @ Gunja. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16/07/1999 and the case of the juvenile in conflict with law, namely, Sachin Thakur @ Golu and Shilpi Thakur @ Gunja was separated and transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, for trial under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, on 27.09.2003. 6. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide Notificatin dated 19.08.2000. 7. The charge has been framed against the appellants on 20.09.2001 under Sections 307/34, 326, 452 of the Indian Penal Code to which, the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. That the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined seven witnesses. Sunaina Devi, wife of the informant has been examined as P.W.1. Uday Narayan Singh @ Uday Singh, Conductor has been examined as P.W.2. Sri Narayan Singh, informant and injured of the case has been examined as P.W.3. Dr. Nand Lal Rajak has been examined as P.W.4. He is the Medical Officer, who has treated Poonam Kumari. Surendra Prasad, Investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.5. Dr. Prem Chandra Lal Das, other Medical Officer, who has treated Sri Narayan Singh (informant of the Case) has been examined as P.W.6 and Poonam Kumari, daughter of the informant and one of the injured has been examined as P.W.7. 9. The prosecution has adduced documentary evidence. The written report of Sri Narayan Singh (P.W.3) as Exhibit-1. Injury report of Poonam Kumari as Exhibit-2. Medical requisitions issued by the Sub Inspector, Surendra Prasad with respect to injury of Sri Narayan Singh has been marked as Exhibit-3 and with respect to injury of Poonam Kumari has been marked as Exhibit-3/1 respectively. 9. The prosecution has adduced documentary evidence. The written report of Sri Narayan Singh (P.W.3) as Exhibit-1. Injury report of Poonam Kumari as Exhibit-2. Medical requisitions issued by the Sub Inspector, Surendra Prasad with respect to injury of Sri Narayan Singh has been marked as Exhibit-3 and with respect to injury of Poonam Kumari has been marked as Exhibit-3/1 respectively. Requisition for opinion of the Doctor with respect to the injury of Poonam Kumari has been marked as Exhibit-4. The formal First Information Report has been marked as Exhibit-5. Injury report of the informant, Sri Narayan Singh has been marked as Exhibit-6. 10. The defence has not adduced any oral evidence, but adduced documentary evidence i.e money receipt issued by Uday Narayan Singh as Exhibit-A. Police requisition for injury of Ravindra Nath Thakur as Exhibit-B. The charge-sheet submitted in counter case filed by Ravindra Nath Thakur against Sri Narayan Singh, Poonam Kumari, Ishwari Dutt Singh vide Charge-sheet No.839 of 1999 dated 30.10.1999 has been marked as Exhibit-C and the formal First Information Report lodged by Ravindra Nath Thakur vide Dhanbad P.S. Case No.192 of 1999 dated 18.03.1999, has been marked as Exhibit-D and written report has been marked as Exhibit-D/1. Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, dated 14.12.1993 in G.R. Case No.3517/88 and T.R. No.601/93 has been marked as Exhibit-E. 11. Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that there is a case and counter-case between the parties. Both have been found to be true during investigation by the Police and submitted charge-sheet and the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants and acquitted the accused in the case of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 192 of 1999 (dated 18.03.1999). 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is material contradiction in the deposition of prosecution witnesses and the conviction of the appellants under Sections 337, 447, 324 of the Indian Penal Code is non-sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed only on the basis of the material available on records, and warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Court. 13. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed only on the basis of the material available on records, and warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that in the counter-case, lodged by the appellant, Ravindra Nath Thakur against the informant, Sri Narayan Singh, his son and daughter vide Dhanbad P.S. Case No.192 of 1999, has been tried by the learned court below and the accused persons of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.192 of 1999 have been acquitted. No appeal was preferred by the informant against the said acquittal and as such, the case lodged by the appellant is found to be false. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted, that the charge has been framed against the appellants under Sections 307/34, 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court after considering the material available on record, the evidence of 7 prosecution witnesses including the independent witness, P.W.2 (Uday Narayan Singh), P.W.4 (Dr. Nand Lal Rajak), P.W.5 (Investigating officer of the case), P.W.6 (Dr. Prem Chandra Lal Das) and P.W.3 (Sri Narayan Singh, injured and informant of the case) and P.W.7 (Poonam Kumari, injured of the case) and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution such as, injury report and the First Information Report and other documents, as stated above, the learned trial court has passed the judgment of conviction under Sections 337, 447 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of awarding substantive sentence, has given benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act by directing the appellants to execute a personal bond of Rs.3,000/- each along with surety of same amount and maintaining peace, tranquility and good behaviour for a period of two years. Pursuant thereto, the appellants have already executed the said bond and as such, considering the materials available on record, no interference is required by this Hon'ble Court. 15. Learned counsel for the State has also admitted that bond has been executed by the appellants and as such, needs no interference by this Hon'ble Court. 16. Having heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 15. Learned counsel for the State has also admitted that bond has been executed by the appellants and as such, needs no interference by this Hon'ble Court. 16. Having heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. This Court has also perused the materials available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. This Court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is well-reasoned and the conviction of the appellant has been passed on the basis of the materials on record, such as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the corresponding injuries found by the Doctor and the injuries reports have also been exhibited in this case, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is upheld and affirmed. So far as sentence passed by the learned trial court is concerned, the learned trial court has taken lenient view while directing the appellants to execute bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act by executing a bond of Rs.3000/- each along with surety of same amount each and maintaining peace, tranquility and good behaviour for a period of two years and also requires no interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2003, passed in Sessions Case No.240 of 2000 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dhanbad, is hereby affirmed. 18. Thus, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed without any modification. 19. In-compliance of the order passed by the learned lower court, it is submitted that the bonds have already been executed by the appellants and as such, no further order is being passed. 20. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned.