JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of admonition dated 02.07.2003 passed by 4th Additional sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 256 of 2001 whereby and where under the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and in spite of awarding the sentence the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as set out in the FIR is as under : The informant Rohan Kole (P.W.6) stated that on 14.12.2000, at about 5 p.m. his cousin-accused Makku Kole came to the house of informant Rohan Kole (P.W. 6) and asked him to flee from that place claiming that he had no right to live there. The informant replied that he was living over the property of his maternal uncle and he was not occupying the property of anyone else, thereupon a dispute arose between both the parties. Then the co-accused Khaku Kole having lathi in his hand, Lakhandeo Kole holding lathi in his hand, Gurucharan Kole holding lathi in his hand and Chhotelal Kole having tangi in his hand came there and Khaku Kole caught the informant and the accused-appellant Makku Kole assaulted with lathi with intent to kill him on his head thereby the informant got injured. The informant further started raising hulla and on hearing hulla Kuldeo Kole (P.W. 4), maternal uncle Ratu Kole (P.W. 1), mother Manuwa Devi (P.W. 2) and bhabhi Sanjhwa Devi (P.W. 3) came to rescue him, then Makku Kole gave a lathi blow on the head of Kuldeo Kole (P.W.4) by which he got injured and Chhotelal Kole assaulted Ratu Kole by Tangi on head, Lakhandeo Kole assaulted the mother of the informant and thereby she sustained injuries on her hand, accused appellant Gurucharan Kole gave a lathi blow on Sanjhwa Devi on her hand. After this the son of Makku Kole namely, Umesh Kole (appellant no. 2) came there armed with lathi and assaulted the informant on his hand and back. On hulla, several people came there and then, the accused persons fled-away. 3. After this the son of Makku Kole namely, Umesh Kole (appellant no. 2) came there armed with lathi and assaulted the informant on his hand and back. On hulla, several people came there and then, the accused persons fled-away. 3. A written report was submitted by informant Rohan Kole (P.W.6) at Mohanpur P.S. and a case was registered there under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and after completing investigation police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons in the court of C.J.M., Deoghar, who took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and Committed this case to the Court of Sessions. Charge has been framed under sections 147, 307/149, 341/149 of IPC. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and accordingly they were convicted thereunder. Further, it appears that instead of awarding the sentence to the appellants they were directed to be released after due admonition by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. 4. Heard Mr. Ashok Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmim, learned A.P.P. for the State. Arguments on behalf of the appellants:- 5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition which cast stigma on their future since one of the appellants was aged about 20 years. Further, it has been pointed out that all the injuries were simple in nature and the prosecution has failed to prove as to who had inflicted the injuries upon the injured persons and also it is contended that there is no X-ray Report nor any X-ray plate, but, the injuries have been caused by the hard and blunt substance and, therefore, the order of conviction and admonition is bad in law and the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidences in the right perspective. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that no specific assault against any one of the appellants as to who had inflicted the injuries on the informant and other injured persons and as such the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition is bad in law and fit to be set aside. Arguments on behalf of the State:- 6. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that all the witnesses particularly injured witnesses the informant P.W. 6 Rohan Kole, P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi, P.W. 4 Kuldeo Kole, P.W. 5 Milwa Devi, P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi have consistently and uniformly stated about the assault by the appellants and therefore, their injuries have been supported and corroborated by the doctor who have been examined as P.Ws. 10 and 7 and the injuries reports have also been proved by him corroborating the case of the prosecution that the four persons were injured and, therefore, there is no legal point to be interfered in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition and hence, this appeal is fit to be dismissed for want of merit. Appraisals & Findings 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the Lower Court Records. 8. It is found that in order to prove this case the prosecution has been able to examine altogether 10 witnesses P.W.1 Ritu Kole, P.W. 2 Manua Devi, P.W.3 Sanjhwa Devi, P.W.4 Kuldeo Kole, P.W.5 Milwa Devi, P.W.6 Rohan Kole (informant), P.W.7 Dr. Manju Jha, P.W.8 Nityanand Kumar, P.W. 9 Bharat Raman & P.W. 10 Dr. Jyoti Chaudhary. In addition to the oral evidence the prosecution has been able to brought into evidence the documentary evidence which are as under: Ext. 1 series (Exts. 1/2 is the injury report of P.W. 6 Rohan Kole, Ext. 1/1 injury report of Ratu Kole, Ext. 1 is the injury report of Kuldeo Kole (P.W.4), Ext. 1/3 is the injury report of P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi, Ext. 1/4 is the supplementary injury report of P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi, Ext. 1/5 is the injury report of P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi and Ext. 1/6 is the supplementary injury report of the P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi Ext. 1 is the injury report of Kuldeo Kole (P.W.4), Ext. 1/3 is the injury report of P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi, Ext. 1/4 is the supplementary injury report of P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi, Ext. 1/5 is the injury report of P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi and Ext. 1/6 is the supplementary injury report of the P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi Ext. 2 is the endorsement of Bharat Raman, Officer-in-Charge, S.I. on written report and Ext. 3 is the signature of said Bharat Raman on formal FIR. 9. The charges leveled against the accused appellants as set out in the FIR were that all the three appellants namely Makku Kole, Umesh Kole and Guru Charan Kole holding lathi in their hands assaulted the informant Rohan Kole and others. Accordingly, the learned trial court after going through the evidence convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC. 10. It is found from the testimonies of P.W. 6 Rohan Kole who is the informant of the case and injured also that all the appellants were armed with lathi except Chhotelal who is not appellant in this appeal. This witness informant P.W. 6 categorically stated that Makku Kole had assaulted him with lathi on his head and on his hulla Rattu, Kuldeo Kole, Sanjhwa Devi, Manuwa Devi came to rescue him and then appellant no.1 Makku Kole assaulted Kuldeo Kole with lathi on his head. Gurucharan Kole appellant no. 3 had assaulted Sanjhwa Devi with lathi on her head and Umesh had assaulted P.W. 6 (informant) on his hand and back. This witness P.W. 6 (informant) himself had disclosed the cause of the assault inflicted by the accused appellants that the house was belonging to his nana and the accused appellants were telling them to vacate the house. It is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the deposition of this witness and did not find any anomalies in his testimonies to disbelieve the version of this witness. It is also an admitted case that the accused appellant no. 1 Makku Kole had filed a counter case for the same occurrence against the informant people. 11. P.W. 1 Ratu Kole who was another injured person stated that he was assaulted by the accused appellant no. 3 Guru Charan Kole and he had assaulted him on his left hand and the said appellant no. 1 Makku Kole had filed a counter case for the same occurrence against the informant people. 11. P.W. 1 Ratu Kole who was another injured person stated that he was assaulted by the accused appellant no. 3 Guru Charan Kole and he had assaulted him on his left hand and the said appellant no. 3 had also assaulted Manuwa Devi with lathi on her hand and by the assault this witness’s hand had been fractured and treatment was done. This witness has also stated that the tangi was used by co-accused Chhotelal who is not the appellant in this appeal. Learned counsel has stated that these facts were not stated in the FIR that Guru Charan had assaulted this witness with lathi on his hand and, but, in the testimony he stated that Guru Charan had also assaulted this witness with lathi and, therefore, there is a contradiction in the statement. I find no force in the contentions of the counsel for the appellants. It is well established fact that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the minute details of the incident and fact remains to be taken into consideration which is corroborated by this witness and the informant also that these appellants namely Makku Kole, Umesh Kole and Guru Charan Kole holding the lathi in their hand had assaulted the injured persons which is further corroborated by the another injured persons in the said occurrence. 12. P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi who stated about the occurrence that her daughter was assaulted by the appellant no. 1 Makku Kole and others. She has also stated that Sukhdeo and Ratu were also assaulted on her left hand and they also assaulted her daughter-in-law Sanjhawa Devi. Learned defense counsel has pointed out that her version cannot be believed because this witness P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi has stated that she reached after half an hour of the incident, but, it is immaterial in view of the categorical fact that the P.W.2 Manuwa Devi was injured and all the three appellants were involved in the alleged mar-pit. Injury reports of Manuwa Devi vide Exts. 1/3 & 1/4 has been proved by the doctor by which it appears that she had sustained injuries and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC. 13. Injury reports of Manuwa Devi vide Exts. 1/3 & 1/4 has been proved by the doctor by which it appears that she had sustained injuries and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the testimonies of the witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC. 13. Another witness who was said to have been injured in the said occurrence was P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi and she has stated that the accused persons had reached to their house armed with lathi and tangi and she stated that Makku assaulted the P.W. 6 with lathi on head as well as on other parts of the body. She also stated that Ratu was assaulted by the appellant no. 3 Guru Charan Kole who beat on his left hand. 14. Another injured P.W. 4-Kuldeo Kole, who has stated that he was assaulted by the appellant no. 1 Makku Kole. This witness also stated about the assault inflicted upon another by the accused persons. 15. The another witness P.W. 5 Milwa Devi is an eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the accused appellant Makku Kole has assaulted Rohan Kole with a lathi and Guru Charan Kole appellant no. 3 assaulted Sanjhwa Devi on her hand and Umesh the appellant no. 2 had assaulted Manuwa Devi on her hand. 16. In view of the aforesaid evaluation of the aforesaid witnesses including the injured witnesses, it is manifest that all the three appellants Makku Kole, Umesh Kole and Guru Charan Kole had used lathi by which the informant P.W. 6 Rohan Kole, P.W. 1 Ratu Kole, P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi, P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi, P.W. 4 Kuldeo Kole, P.W. 5 Milwa Devi had sustained injures and the injuries of the injured persons have been proved by the doctors who had medically examined as P.W. 7 and P.W. 10. P.W.7 while examining Rohan Kole, (P.W. 6), on 14.12.2000 at 6:10 pm. found one lacerated wound 1/4”x 1/6” x 1/6” on right side of forehead and one abrasion 1 x 1/4" on left side forearm and injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the injury report of the injured Rohan Kole vide his injury report Ext. 1/2. found one lacerated wound 1/4”x 1/6” x 1/6” on right side of forehead and one abrasion 1 x 1/4" on left side forearm and injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the injury report of the injured Rohan Kole vide his injury report Ext. 1/2. This doctor (P.W.7) had also examined on the same day the another injured witness Ratu Kole whose injury report is Ext. 1/1 and said injured had been examined in the trial as P.W. 1. The doctor P.W. 7 had found that the injury inflicted upon the Ratu Kole P.W. 1, as one lacerated wound 2” x 1/4" x 1/4" on vertex and one abrasion 1/4" x 1/6” and two parallel abrasion of left forearm. The injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. Further, this doctor P.W. 7 had examined Kuldeo Kole (P.W.4) and found one lacerated wound 2” x 1/6” x 1/4" on the right side of scalp and two parallel bruises 2” x 1/4" on the left side of the forehead and the injuries were found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury report of the Kuldeo Kole exhibited as Ext. 1 which has been proved by this doctor P.W. 7. Thus it is found that the testimonies of P.W. 6, Rohan Kole, P.W. 1 Ratu Kole, P.W. 4 Kuldeo Kole are falling in line with the injuries reports of the doctor as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and doctor examined on behalf of the prosecution P.W. 10 Dr. Jyoti Choudhary and she stated that she had examined P.W. 2 Manuwa Devi on 15.12.2000 and found swelling on left hand for which the X-ray was advised also found a small abrasions on the dorsan of left hand. She has reserved the opinion and after X-ray the injury of Manuwa Devi was found fractured in the middle finger of the left hand which was grievous in nature. Injury report of Manuwa Devi P.W. 2, is exhibited as Ext. 1/3 and the supplementary report of Manuwa Devi by which the injury was found grievous in nature and the X-ray plate is exhibited as Ext. 1/4. This doctor P.W. 10 had also examined P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi and found swelling on left forearm for which X-ray was advised. Injury report of Manuwa Devi P.W. 2, is exhibited as Ext. 1/3 and the supplementary report of Manuwa Devi by which the injury was found grievous in nature and the X-ray plate is exhibited as Ext. 1/4. This doctor P.W. 10 had also examined P.W. 3 Sanjhwa Devi and found swelling on left forearm for which X-ray was advised. Bruise 1” x 1/2” was found on left arm, and swelling on left maxillary region and it was found that injury nos. 2 & 3 are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and after X-ray the injury no. 1 found to be grievous in nature which is evident from the injury report which is marked as Ext. 1/5 and supplementary injury report marked as Ext. 1/6 thus, the deposition of the doctors P.W 7 and P.W. 10 who had proved the injury reports vide Ext. 1 series including Exts. 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6 it is well founded that all of them have sustained injuries which are falling in line of the testimonies of the informant as stated in the FIR and, therefore, this Court does not find any irregularities and illegality in the appreciation of injuries of the injured persons by the learned trial Court. 17. Further, it is found that the I.O. of this case P.W. 9 who had stated about institution of the case and recorded the statement of the witnesses, had also described the place of occurrence which is corroborated as disclosed by the informant in the FIR. 18. In view of the aforesaid evaluation of the evidences available on record, it is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and came to the conclusion that all the appellants Makku Kole, Umesh Kole and Guru Charan Kole are held liable for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and after finding their guilt for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC, all the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC. Further, the learned trial court did not award sentence to the appellants and instead all the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition. 19. Further, the learned trial court did not award sentence to the appellants and instead all the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition. 19. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any legal point to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition and accordingly, this Court upholds impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition dated 02.07.2003 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 256 of 2001 arising out of G.R. Case No. 885 of 2000, T.R. No. 879 of 2001, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2000, Deoghar Jharkhand. Therefore, this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 20. As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed. 21. Let the LCR be sent back to the concerned court with a copy of this judgment.