Dharnidhar Jha, J.

None appears today also on behalf of the appellants. The Court has requested Sri Neeraj Kumar Sanidh who is present in Court room to assist it as amicus curiae.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 14.8.2000 by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger held the present appellant, Arjun Rajak as also Jagdish Rajak, Dularchandra Rajak, Sahadeo Rajak and Dilip Rajak guilty of committing offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be pertinent to note that the present appellant along with the above named four others had been put on trial by the learned Judge by being charged with commission of offences under Sections 307/149, 448, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges except that of under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the convicted persons under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Judge directed each of them to execute a bond of being good conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year or else to appear to receive sentence if they were found wanting on good conduct and behaviour as well.

3. Except the present appellant Arjun Rajak, the other four convicts did not prefer any appeal. As such, a preliminary objection was agitated by the learned amicus curiae as to whether this Court should also examine the vires of the judgment in absence of an appeal filed by convicts other than the present appellant. I propose to answer the issue at the right place.

4. First the facts. On a dispute for flowing drain water, the parties, who were close neighbours, had a fight and it appears from the allegation that the five convicts, armed with lathi, entered inside the aangan of informant, PW 7 not only to assault him but also to assault his other family members like Subodh Rajak (PW 7) and his daughter Savitri Devi (PW 9) and Lalita Kumari (PW 8).

5. It was a one line F.I.R. lodged at the police station to the above effect upon which the investigation was taken up and it ultimately resulted in submission of the charge-sheet which lastly resulted in the impugned judgment. The acquittal of the accused persons under Sections 307 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code was on account of the fact that neither the doctor was examined nor the medical report was produced nor the Investigating Officer was produced for his evidence.

6. What was contended by the learned amicus curiae was that there was a consistency in the evidence of nine witnesses examined by the prosecution that the accused persons came into the aangan of the informant PW 7 and wielded their lathis to inflict blows to the informant and his family members, but what was submitted in that context was that the witnesses have admitted that the accused persons had also filed a case and as may appear from the evidence of Radha Kumari or others they had also been admitted into the hospital for the examination and treatment of their injuries. Submission was that specific and direct questions were put to the witnesses as to had they assaulted the accused persons and they denied to have done so and, thus, they appeared making false statements on one of the most important aspects of the case.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of such appeals in which the terms of imprisonment inflicted upon, as a matter of fact, is within the limit or up to the limit as laid down by Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. I want firstly to point out that Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a right in a person convicted of an offence to appeal against his conviction. In case the trial held by the Sessions Judge or even by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appeal has to be filed before the High Court except if the trial has been held by the Assistant Sessions Judge and a sentence o