JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 17.12.2003, passed in S.C. S.T. Case No.18 of 1999 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions-Judge-cum Special Judge, for S.C. and S.T. Act Cases, Garhwa, whereby the sole appellant- Jasmuddin Ansari @ Jasim Mian has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and released the appellant under Section 4(i) of the Probation of Offender's Act by directing the appellant to furnish a bond of Rs.2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for the period of two years. 3. Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the appellant has executed the bond, but preferred this Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment on 09.01.2004 and vide order dated 20.02.2004, the order directing execution of bond has already been stayed and since then the matter is pending before this Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that there is a case and counter-case between the parties and except Jhari Singh (P.W.5), no body is eyewitness of the occurrence in this case. There is land dispute as admitted by the informant himself and as such, the learned trial court is not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the counter-case filed by Jabir Hussain against the present informant, Jhari Singh as well as Dhanu Singh, Ajay Ram and Hari Singh, and one Prasadi Singh, five named persons accused for assaulting his father (Jasmuddin Ansari), but the said case was instituted subsequent to the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that in view of the case and counter-case between the parties owing to land dispute, the learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant, on the testimony of sole witness-cum-victim of the case who has been examined as P.W.5 (Jhari Singh) and has submitted that benefit of doubt may be granted in favour of the appellant. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on evidence brought on record. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on evidence brought on record. The informant being P.W.5 (Jhari Singh) has categorically stated, in the First Information Report that accused, Jasim Mian assaulted him by knife on his right thigh and corroborated by the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and proved by Dr. Ram Rekha Prasad (P.W.3). The testimony of the informant (P.W.5) as stated in the First Information Report or in his deposition in the Court as P.W.5 is very consistent, as such, the credential of P.W.5 cannot be disputed in the background to the effect, that he has categorically stated that it was accused, Jasim Mian who has assaulted on his right thigh by knife and the said injury was also shown to the Court. This witness also stated that except Jhari Singh (P.W.5), nobody has seen the occurrence, as such, credential of this witness is worth reliable and as such, there is nothing on record which would disbelieve the statement of the informant. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State and also on perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence brought on record are consistent to the prosecution case and the learned trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant, as evidence of P.W.5 (Jhari Singh) is consistent to the medical evidence (Exhibit-1) and by acquitting the other accused persons and also acquitting the appellant under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Special Act and as such, this Court affirms the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 17.12.2003, passed in S.C. S.T. Case No.18 of 1999 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, for S.C. and S.T. Act Cases, Garhwa, by upholding the same. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the learned trial Court has also given benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, as such, lenient view has been taken by the learned trial court and there is no reason before this Court to interfere with the same. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the learned trial Court has also given benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, as such, lenient view has been taken by the learned trial court and there is no reason before this Court to interfere with the same. The judgment of conviction and order of executing bond under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, is hereby affirmed. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 9. The interim order granted vide order dated 20.02.2004 by this Court, is hereby vacated. The appellant filed bond, will remain on the same bond as directed by the learned Court below. 10. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned.