JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal as well as learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the informant, Mr. D.K. Karmakar. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2004 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 18.12.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.V), Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No. 102/2004 has been preferred by the informant against acquittal of appellants under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and are being disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by way of this common judgment. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Jamshedpur has convicted these two appellants under Section 323/342 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Nirmal Chandra Mandal (appellant no. 1) has also been convicted for offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Swadesh Kumar Mandal (appellant no. 2) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. But instead of sentencing them, the learned Trial Court has ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/- with one surety for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the said period and in the meantime, to keep peace and good behaviour. 3. Against the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellant Nirmal Chandra Mandal and Swadesh Kumar Mandal @ Swadesh Mandal have preferred this Criminal Appeal no. 156 of 2004 before this Hon’ble Court on 23.01.2004 which has been admitted on 22.04.2004 and since then, this criminal appeal is pending. Informant Santosh Kumar Mandal has also preferred Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2004, against the acquittal of both the appellants and under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Criminal Revision application was filed on 10.02.2004, which has been admitted on 20.12.2005 to be heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2004. 4. The brief facts of the case is based upon First Information Report lodged by Santosh Kumar Mandal, informant of the case, before the Officer-in-Charge, Potka Police Station and registered as Potka P.S. Case No. 41 of 2000 on 23.8.2000 at 11.30. 4. The brief facts of the case is based upon First Information Report lodged by Santosh Kumar Mandal, informant of the case, before the Officer-in-Charge, Potka Police Station and registered as Potka P.S. Case No. 41 of 2000 on 23.8.2000 at 11.30. The informant has alleged that while in the morning at 8.00 am, he was going to his paddy field with spade to do work. His elder brother- Nirmal Mandal, father- Ishwar Chandra Mandal and nephew- Swadesh Kumar Mandal, who were sitting at the door, caught hold of him. Swadesh Kumar Mandal snatched away his spade and said that, ‘kill him’, upon this, the informant was assaulted on his head causing bleeding injury. He fell down and thereafter his brother, Nirmal Mandal assaulted him from the handle of the spade, on back, causing injury. Thereafter all three persons, took him inside the house and tied him with rope, in a pole. After arrival of the police, the rope was untied and taken out of the house. The informant has alleged that, because of assault, he has sustained injury on head, back, neck and other parts of the body. Informant has further stated that, occurrence took place as few years ago there was a fight between the brothers, in which firing was also made. The said case is pending in the court and for this, the occurrence has been committed. The informant has further stated, that in a very planned manner the accused persons have tried to kill him. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Police instituted Potka P.S. Case No. 41 of 2000 dated 23.08.2000 under Section 341/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet vide No. 38 of 2000 dated 15.11.2000 under Section 341/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against, all the three named accused persons. The cognizance of the offence has been taken on 25.11.2000 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide notification dated 22.05.2001. The charge has been framed against Nirmal Chandra Mandal, Ishwar Chandra Mandal and Swadesh Kumar Mandal under Section 323, 342 and 341 of the Indian Penal code. Against Swadesh Mandal under Section 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Nirmal Chandra Mandal and Ishwar Mandal under Section 323/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 20.08.2002. Against Swadesh Mandal under Section 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Nirmal Chandra Mandal and Ishwar Mandal under Section 323/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 20.08.2002. The appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus put under trial. During pendency of the trial, Ishwar Chandra Mandal, father of the informant and father of the appellant Nirmal Chandra Mandal died and thus the proceeding against Ishwar Chandra Mandal was dropped vide order dated 25.09.2003. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal has submitted that learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 323, 342 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 1 Nirmal Chandra Mandal has further been convicted under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Swadesh Kumar mandal (appellant no. 2) under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, without scrutinizing the evidence as the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that in this case altogether thirteen witnesses have been examined but so far the intention is concerned, to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, that is lacking but the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted these appellants under Section 323/ 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis, that informant has been assaulted by three accused persons. The learned Trial Court has not taken judicial notice of the material available on record and without scrutinizing the evidence properly, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal has further submitted, that it is a case between son, father, brother and nephew with whom, previous litigation are pending in the court and it has wrongly been accepted by the learned Trial Court that injury caused upon by the informant is mainly of the assault made by the appellants and father of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal has further submitted, that the appellants may be acquitted, by giving benefit of doubt as earlier also these persons have been dragged in a case but in that case appellants have been acquitted, by the learned Trial Court and the judgment of the learned Trial Court has already been brought on record which has been marked Exhibit ‘B’ during trial. Learned counsel, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal has further submitted, that the bond, as directed by the learned Trial Court has already been executed by the appellants and the period has already lapsed. To this, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. D.K. Karmakar and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor, has no dispute. 7. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by counsel for the informant Mr. D.K.Karmakar, who has filed Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2004 for setting aside the acquittal of appellants under Section 307 Indian Penal Code in Revisional jurisdiction, has submitted that, the only grievance is the acquittal of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently argued the case in support of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted, that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant as there is sufficient material for conviction of the appellants under Section 323, 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 1 Nirmal Chandra Mahto under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Swadesh Kumar Mandal under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as such there is no material warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Dilip Karmakar, learned counsel for the informant and from perusal of the material available on record, it is true that thirteen witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. They have supported the case of the prosecution and a number of documents have been adduced, which has been marked as Exhibits in this case. Dilip Karmakar, learned counsel for the informant and from perusal of the material available on record, it is true that thirteen witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. They have supported the case of the prosecution and a number of documents have been adduced, which has been marked as Exhibits in this case. From perusal of the evidence of Santosh Kumar Mandal (P.W. 1), Subodh Kumar (P.W. 9) and Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 10) coupled with the injury report, which is Exhibit 2. This court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 323, 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code is justified. So far the conviction of Nirmal Chandra Mandal under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, is also justified and the conviction of the appellant Swadesh Kumar Madal under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is also justified and in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. As such this court affirms the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. From perusal of the order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, against, the appellants to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/- for one year for keeping peace, good behavior and receive sentence when called upon by the learned Trial Court also requires no interference by this Hon’ble Court as the parties are son, father, brother and nephew. 10. As such this court is of the opinion that the appeal preferred by appellants is devoid of any merit and requires no interference and is fit to be dismissed without any modification. So far the criminal Revision No. 102 of 2004 preferred by the informant is concerned the same is also dismissed as no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants and as such both Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2004 and Criminal Revision no. 102 of 2004 are hereby dismissed. 11. Let the lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the court below for necessary action. Appeal dismissed.