Shailendra Singh, J. – Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned APP for the State are present and they are heard.

2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite notice having been served upon the close relative of the said respondent No.2.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2021 and 01.12.2021 respectively passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Bettiah, West Champaran in Session Trial Case No.654 of 2016 (arising out of Bettiah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 559 of 2015) whereby and where-under the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short IPC) and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 of IPC and in default of making payment the appellants will be liable for simple imprisonment for one month, and under Section 341 of IPC they have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of making payment of fine the appellants will be liable for the simple imprisonment for five days and under Section 504 of IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of making payment of fine, the appellants will be liable for additional imprisonment for two months and under Section 506 of IPC they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, the appellants will be liable for additional imprisonment for two months and under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of making fine, the appellants will be liable for additional imprisonment for six months and all the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

4. The substance of the prosecution story is that as per the fardbeyan of the informant, on 01.09.2015 at about 2:00 pm the informant reached near the bank of a canal while returning from work then accused persons, who are here appellants and they were armed with weapons and waiting for the informant, started abusing the informant by calling his caste name and when informant objected their abusing then the accused Satish Prasad told the statement that, kill the “Chamar” by showing knife in his hand, thereafter the accused Bhikham Prasad and Sukhadi Prasad started assaulting the informant by means of lathi and iron rod respectively due to which the informant sustained injuries and his bones got fractured. Informant further alleged that, during the occurrence the accused Mohan Prasad and Satish Prasad snatched a cash of Rs.5000/- and a mobile phone from his pocket and thereafter the accused persons fled away after seeing the informant becoming unconscious but threatened to kill him if he would go to the police. In the fardbeyan, the informant mentioned the reason of incident as previous enmity.

5. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at a hospital on that basis Bettiah (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.559 of 2015 was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 379, 504 and 506/34 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act which set the criminal law in motion. After the investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants/accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506/34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and thereafter the learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the alleged offences for which the charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter the charges were framed against the appellants/ accused persons to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial o