PRAMATH PATNAIK, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2003, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 277 of 2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, as has been projected by lodging the F.I.R. on the basis of the fard-beyan of Sukri Devi (PW-6) with the allegation that on 31.03.2000, at about 4 P.M. her daughter Munnia Kumari (PW-2) went to wash her clothes in Juhia Pokhar along with Champa, daughter of Nanku Prajapati her neighbour. It has been alleged in the fard-beyan that Champa after wearing Chappal of her daughter went to her house. Her daughter, Munia came back to her house and went to ask for her Chappal from Champa, then Bannu Prajapati, appellant no. 1 began to abuse her and when the informant's son Kallu came back at about 10 P.M., he prevented Bannu Prajapati, appellant no. 1 from abusing Munia, then Mohan, son of Bannu came with Tangi from his house and accused Bannu Prajapati and Mohan after having Tangi in their hands hurled Tangi on her son Kallu with an intention to kill him. Tangi blow hit just behind the head of Kallu resulting in profuse bleeding, as a result of which, he lost his sense. Thereafter, the villagers came to the spot and the matter was pacified. It is further alleged in the fard beyan that during course of the alleged quarrel, one Nanku also sustained injuries with Tangi, which was hurled by the appellant nos. 1 and 2 due to which blood was oozing out from his nose. Thereafter, the villagers took the informant's son Kallu and Nanku to the hospital for their treatment. On the basis of her fard beyan, this case has been registered under Sections 307/326/34 of the I.P.C. and the Police started investigation. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons and the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were put on trial. After closure of prosecution case, the appellants were put to incriminating materials against them and they denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, has examined as many as eight witnesses and on behalf of the defendant, one witness has been examined, namely, Nanku. PW-1, Chanda Devi has deposed that on the date of occurrence, when her sister-in-law Munia went to ask for her chappals, which she left at the pokhar (Pond) to one Champa Devi, the accused persons began to abuse Munia and her family members and when the same was objected by her Bhaisur, the appellants assaulted him with Tangi due to which, he sustained injuries on his neck and head and became unconscious. Thereafter, the Police took him to the Hospital.

PW-2, Munia Devi said to have been a ocular witness of the case, who has deposed that the occurrence took place for Chappal, which was taken by one Champa, which she left near the pond and when she went to her to ask about her Chappals, father of Champa began to abuse her and when her brother had gone there to prevent the accused from abusing, the accused persons being enraged inflicted Tangi blow and he sustained injuries on his head and neck.

PW-3, Shiv Shankar Prasad, is a hearsay witness.

PW-4, Kallu Prajapati (victim) is the son of the informant and the injured. PW-4 in his deposition, has stated that the accused Bannu Prajapati, appellant no. 1 was abusing his sister. He raised objection then Mohan son of Bannu assaulted him with Tangi on his neck from the back side, as a result of which, he sustained injuries.

PW-5, is Ram Fal Prajapati, who is alleged to be the eye-witness of the case, who has pacified, when he saw the appellant no. 1,