Sandeep Kumar, J.—Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant for quashing the judgment and conviction order dated 8.5.2019 and 15.05.2019 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Case No. 103 of 2011 / CIS No. 1817 of 2014 arising out of G.R. No. 263 of 2010 / Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of further three months.

3. As per the prosecution case, because of land dispute between the parties, the appellant along with others is said to have assaulted the informant and his family members. It is alleged that the appellant has assaulted the informant on his head with Dabiya and other members who were accompanying the appellant have assaulted the informant and his family members with Lathi and Danda (stick).

4. Upon submission of a written report by the informant about the aforesaid occurrence, a criminal case was instituted as Sonbarasa P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the named accused persons and accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and other accused persons and trial commenced against all of them. During the trial, one Acche Lal Sah died and the case against him was dropped.

5. During the trial, 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined and their names are mentioned below:—

P.W. 1- Tej Narayan Sah

P.W. 2- Rajendra Sah

P.W. 3- Ram Vishwas Yadav @ Vishwas Yadav

P.W. 4- Anita Devi @ Lalita Devi

P.W. 5- Ram Chandra Sah (Informant).

P.W. 6- Amerika Paswan, I.O.

P.W. -7 Guru Dayal Sinha, Doctor.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the present FIR is nothing but a counter blast of the FIR which has been filed by the appellant side bearing Sonbarasa P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010. He further submits that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is admitted land dispute between the parties and the informant has given contradictory statements before the trial Court. First the informant has said that the appellant has assaulted the informant by Dabiya and other accused persons with Lathi-Danda (stick) but the doctor has reported that three sharp cut injuries were found which does not support the case of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there are contradictions between the statement of the informant and the statement and injury report of the doctor and therefore it appears that the injury report is doubtful. The doctor has given statement that the injury is not bone deep and therefore they are simple in nature.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the time of lodging the FIR was 1 P.M. on 9.2.2010 and the time of examination of injury of Ram Chandra Sah is 9.2.2010 at 11:55 A.M. but the witnesses have said that they first lodged the FIR and thereafter they went for examination themselves from the doctor which, in itself, is contradictory.

10. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution side has failed to prove the manner of occurrence as well as the place of occurrence as no eye witness is there of the said occurrence and all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses.

11. In conclusion of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated and because of the admitted land dispute between the parties, this false case has been lodged by the prosecution side just to save themsel