JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that appeal in respect of appellant No.1 viz. Krishna Kishor Mahato has already been abated vide order dated 15.01.2025. 2. Heard Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned amicus curiae appearing for the sole surviving appellant viz. Manmath Mahato as well as Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Addl. P.P.appearing for the State. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.05.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 25.02.1998 at around 09:30 A.M., the informant (Satrughan Rajak) was washing clothes at Bara Bandh Pond in his village, while Kapurwa Devi and other villagers were catching fish. A quarrel erupted between the accused persons (appellant) and Niranjan & Suresh Rajak over the issue of fish rearing in the pond. During the altercation, accused Krishna Kishor (now deceased) allegedly assaulted the informant with a "Farsa" (sharp-edged weapon), causing an injury on his neck. Accused Manmath Mahato (appellant) allegedly instigated Krishna Kishor to commit the assault. After the attack, the accused persons fled away from the scene. The informant ran back home and later, in an injured condition, went to the police outpost to lodge his statement. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, the case was instituted as Chandan Kiyari P.S. Case No.20 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No.01 of 2005 was registered. Charges were framed under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(v) of the S.C. & S.T. Act against the accused which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Charges were framed under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(v) of the S.C. & S.T. Act against the accused which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced: Exhibit Number Description Exhibit 1 Signature of informant on Fardbeyan Exhibit 2 Injury report Exhibit 3 Fardbeyan Exhibit 4 Formal F.I.R. 7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offences under Section 326/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant No.1 viz. Krishna Kishor Mahato has died and his case has been abated vide order dated 15.01.2025 and appellant No.2 viz. Manmath Mahato was held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The prime accused who was awarded five years’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3000/- has been died and the present appellant has been awarded only two years’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-. The present appellant was awarded lesser sentence on the ground that no specific overt act has been attributed against him. There was single blow injury caused to the injured person by the deceased appellant. Prosecution has also not proved the necessary ingredients of Section 34 of the I.P.C. and there is no whisper in the judgment itself that the present appellant has acted in a concerted manner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused and no overt act has also been proved against the appellant, therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and not justified under law. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above contention of learned counsel for the appellant and defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. It appears that the sole injured-cum-informant is P.W.1 viz. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. It appears that the sole injured-cum-informant is P.W.1 viz. Satrughan Rajak has not deposed anything about any assault by the accused appellant to him. In his cross-examination, informant admitted that the accused person Krishna Kishor Mahato (now deceased) holding farsa assaulted him only and no other persons have assaulted him. P.W.-5 Dr. Mahendra Prasad has examined the sole injured-cum-informant P.W.1 viz. Satrughan Rajak and found incised wound over the nap of the neck 2” x 1/6” x 3/4”. The injury was opined to be grievous in nature caused by sharp weapon. 11. From perusal of discussion of aforesaid evidence, it is crystal clear that no specific role has been attributed against the appellant for causing injury to the injured person of this case and there was single blow injury caused by the deceased appellant viz. Krishna Kishor Mahato. This appellant has been roped in this case merely because of his presence at the spot. No animus has also been assigned against him showing his complicity in the alleged offence. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find merits in this appeal which is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 13. I appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, the learned amicus curiae and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned Addl. P.P. 14. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned amicus curiae on submission of bills, as per Notification dated 23.11.2017. 15. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.