JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 449 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 323 , 341/34 and 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 of I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 34 1 of I.P.C. and also undergo R.I. For seven years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. By the same impugned judgment, two other co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal and Simanto Mandal have also been held guilty under Section 34 1, 323/34 of I.P.C. but they were released after due admonition under Section 360(3) of Cr.P.C. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.08.2001 at about 7:00 A.M., the present appellant along with co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal, Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal came to the house of the informant armed with lathi, rod and tangi and uttered filthy language and started assaulted the father of the informant namely, Sarthi Mandal and on hulla, when the informant and her mother came to rescue, the appellant Lakhi Kant Mandal assaulted the informant on his head and co-convict Fanindra Nath Mandal assaulted the mother of the informant by rod on her head and Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal assaulted the father of the informant by using tangi and danda. The reason behind this occurrence as stated in the fardbeyan that the ox has smashed the paddy crop of Lakhi Kant Mandal. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant recorded by S.I. of Govindpur Police Station, FIR being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 152/2001 dated 09.08.2001 was registered for the offence under Sections 34 1, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections, on which, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After framing of charge, the evidence was recorded and statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegation as alleged. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under the aforesaid sections, on which, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. After framing of charge, the evidence was recorded and statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegation as alleged. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has submitted that admittedly the dispute arose due to grazing of field of the appellant by the cattle of the informant. For the same set of occurrence, there is case and counter case between the parties. It is also apparent that scuffle took place in a sudden manner without any pre-meditation and the injury sustained by the informant was simple in nature caused by single blow by iron rod, which is not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 307 of the I.P.C. regarding intention and knowledge is absolutely lacking in this case. Therefore, at best, offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is attracted in this case, for which, the appellant has remained in custody for about 04 months. 6. It is submitted that out of seven witnesses examined by prosecution, P.W.-6 is Doctor and P.W.-7 is formal witness and out of rest five witnesses, independent witnesses are P.W.-3 and P.W.4, who have not supported the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile. 7. It is further submitted that the I.O. of the case has not been examined which caused serious prejudiced to the defence of the appellant and the occurrence as alleged, has happened in the year 2001 and more than two decades have been elapsed, as such, the appellant has sustained the rigor of trial for about two decades and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has given single blow by rod on the vital part of the body to the injured, showing his intention / knowledge that the injury caused by such act is likely to cause death. The injuries are also opined to be simple in nature by the conducting Doctor, therefore, this appeal has no merits, which is fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that most important witnesses of this case is the injured victim-cum-informant P.W.-1 namely, Mantosh Mandal , who has categorically deposed that on 09.08.2001 at about 7:00 A.M., the present appellant along with co-accused namely, Fanindra Nath Mandal, Asit Mandal and Simanto Mandal came to the house of the informant armed with lathi, rod and tangi and uttered filthy language and on opposition, Sumanto Mandal has given tangi blow on the head of his father, due to which, his father fell down and after that, the appellant and co-accused Asit Mandal has assaulted his father with rod and lathi. When the informant and her mother came to rescue, the appellant Lakhi Kant Mandal assaulted the informant on his head by rod and co-accused Fanindra Nath Mandal assaulted his mother by rod on her head, due to which, all of us sustained injuries. 11. P.W.-2 Anjani Mandal is the mother of the informant and also one of the victims. She has deposed that on the date of occurrence, accused Lakhi Kant Mandal, Simant Mandal, Fanindra Mandal and Asit Mandal came. Asit Mandal armed with danda, Fanindra Mandal armed with rod, Simant armed with tangi and Lakhi Kant armed with rod and assaulted her husband on his head and they have assaulted to all of us on head. She has deposed that police did not enquire from her about the alleged occurrence. 12. Asit Mandal armed with danda, Fanindra Mandal armed with rod, Simant armed with tangi and Lakhi Kant armed with rod and assaulted her husband on his head and they have assaulted to all of us on head. She has deposed that police did not enquire from her about the alleged occurrence. 12. P.W.-3 Anand Kumar Mandal has been declared hostile at the request of prosecution and he has deposed he was taking bath in the pond and saw that Shefale Mandal was going to throw cow dung and was assaulted by Mantosh Mandal (P.W.-1) and Sarthi Mandal (P.W.-5). 13. P.W.-4 Ishwar Mandal has also been declared hostile. He has also deposed that Shefali came and she was assaulted by Mantosh and when other persons gathered there, then Mantosh fled away. 14. P.W.-5 Sarthi Mandal is father of the informant and also one of the victims. He has deposed in examination in chief that this occurrence is of before three years and at that day, he was at his house, then four accused persons armed with rod, tangi and lathi came there and when he opposed, then appellant Lakhi Kant Mandal has assaulted by rod on his head, due to which, his head has broken and blood oozing out. Further, Simanto had assaulted by tangi on his head and Asit had assaulted by lathi on his shoulder and when his wife and son came to rescue him, accused persons had also assaulted them. 15. P.W.-6 is the Dr. Digvijay Kumar, who has examined Mantosh Mandal on 09.08.2001 and found the following injuries on his person:- (i) Lacerated wound ¼” x 1/6” x 1/6” on left eyebrow. (ii) Lacerated wound ½” x ¼” x ¼” on middle portion of parietal region upper part. He has opined that all injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 16. P.W.-7 Dr. Dinesh Prasad Bhandari . This is a formal witness, who has proved the Injury Report prepared by Dr. J.N. Singh. 17. From oral testimony of the witnesses, it appears that scuffle took place between the parties on the minor issue of grazing of field of appellant by the ox of the informant. 16. P.W.-7 Dr. Dinesh Prasad Bhandari . This is a formal witness, who has proved the Injury Report prepared by Dr. J.N. Singh. 17. From oral testimony of the witnesses, it appears that scuffle took place between the parties on the minor issue of grazing of field of appellant by the ox of the informant. In this case, it is also found that I.O. has not been examined, which caused prejudiced to the appellant and the entire material collected during investigation could not be duly proved, neither the place of occurrence has been established nor the fardbeyan has properly been proved, but from the evidence of witnesses, it is proved that informant’s side sustained injuries, which is simple in nature as opined by the doctor, thus, the injuries sustained by the P.W.-1 was not dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the essential ingredients regarding intention and knowledge as required to constitute offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. At best, the case falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is altered and modified to Section 324 of the I.P.C. Thus, the appellant is held guilty for the offence under Sections 324, 341/34 of I.P.C. 19. So far sentence of appellant is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment already undergone by him appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone for the offence punishable under Section 324, 341/34 of the I.P.C., for which he is held guilty. 20. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the conviction and sentence of the appellant as stated above. 21. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties is also discharged. 22. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.