The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 325, affirming the trial court's findings based on consistent witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.)

Heard Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-VII, Purnea in connection with Sessions Trial No. 634 of 2004/T.R. No. 141/2006, arising out of Kaswa Case No. 49 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, though the appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code but he had been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, keeping in view the old age and the fact that appellant is not habitual offender and it was the first offence committed by him and on his furnishing bond of Rs. 5000/- with his undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year.

3. The prosecution case as made out from the fardbyan (Ext.3) of the informant Kapildeo Pandit in brief, is that the wife of the informant namely Sarla Devi had got a land on settlement from the Government of Bihar which was being ploughed by the appellant/Gudar Mandal on 17.4.2003 at 8 A.M. and when the informant made protest, the appellant started abusing him and ran to assault him, but the informant fled away. It is further alleged that on the same day i.e. 17.04.2003, in the evening at about 7 P.M. when the informant was going to market, all of a sudden, the appellant came having armed with Garasa in his hand and gave Garasa blow on his head, as a result of which, the informant fell down. When the appellant wanted to gave repeated Garasa blow, he was obstructed by an unknown truck driver. It is also alleged that the appellant and his son also assaulted the informant with lathi, as a result of which, he stained fracture injury on his right hand. When the wife of the informant came to his rescue, she too was assaulted by the appellant Gudar Mandal, his wife and son Narayan Mandai. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by so many persons.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Kasba P.S. Case No. 49 of 2003 was registered against the appellant and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. During the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

6. P.W. 1 Kapildeo Pandit is the informant of the case and one of the injured. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that at the relevant time, while he was going to market, wife and son of the appellant Gudar Mandal dragged him from the road and assaulted him with Farsa on his head. On hulla, his family members reached there. They also sustained injury at the hands of the informant. Thereafter, the informant was taken to the hospital for treatment. According to him, the cause of incident is land dispute.

7. P.W. 2, Sarla Devi happens to be the wife of the informant. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that her husband was assaulted at the hands of the accused while he was going to market. This witness also alleged that accused/appellant also assaulted her. She too has admitted that there is land dispute between her husband and the appellant. She has denied the defence suggestion that this case has been filed only with a view to grab the land of the accused.

8. P.W. 3 Ram Bachan Singh is one of the I.O. of the case. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Ext-1. According to him, his predecessor, (I.O of the case) had visited the P.O. and recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he after perusing the case diary, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant/Gudar Mandal Under Sections 341,323,325,307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. P.W. 4, Lakhan Kumar is the son of the informant who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the alleged day and time of occ