JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 23.05.2006 passed by Sri Satyendra Kr. Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.271 of 2001 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147 & 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of 500/- for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, further sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put in motion by written report dated 20.07.2000 of P.W.2-Niranjan Yadav upon which, first information report has been registered as Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.86 of 2000 ( G.R. Case No. 321 of 2000) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 326, 307, 447, 504 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegation, on 20.07.2000 at about 5.00 a.m., the informant was ploughing Plot No.108 at his village Banjhiken. At about, 6.00 p.m. Vinod Yadav, Bhudeo Yadav and Amuly Yadav armed with Lathi, Sudarshan Yadav armed with Rod and Bharath Yadav armed with Tangi, came there and raised objection. On protest, the informant, his father namely Haradhan Yadav, his aunt namely Astma Devi and his uncle namely Ramdhan have been assaulted by these appellants. As per the allegation, Bharath Yadav assaulted with Tangi on the head of Ramdhan. Axe blow has been given to the informant, uncle and aunt. Thereafter, the informant and his family members had gone to their house and prepared written report and submitted it to the police station, which is the basis for registration of the present FIR.

4. On the basis of the FIR, investigation has been done and the appellants have been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 307, 447, 504 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance has been taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and charge has been framed under Sections 147 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. On conclusion of the trial, all the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code, against which, present appeal has been filed.

6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether 10 witnesses have been examined. P.W.1-Debal Mahto; P.W.2- Niranjan Yadav is the informant and injured witness; P.W.3- Manbharan Yadav; P.W.4-Narshingh Prasad Yadav; P.W.5 Angrej Mahto; P.W.6-Aklu Mahto; P.W.7-Ramdhan Mahto (injured witness); P.W.8-Astma Devi (injured witness); P.W.9-Dr. Lakshmi Narayan Dagral, who has examined the injured; P.W.10-Dilip Prasad Yadav is an Advocate Clerk and formal witness, who has proved fardbeyan, formal FIR and forwarding report. One charge sheet witness namely Haradhan could not be examined due to death.

7. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of conviction, taking plea that in the present case both the parties are Gotia. Both has been given allotted share in Plot No.108, which is cause for the dispute. Quarrel has been taken place between the parties and both sides have sustained injury. The injuries sustained by Sudarshan Yadav (Appellant no.5) has been testified by P.W.-9. Further, all the injuries sustained by the informant side is simple in nature, which has been testified by the Doctor i.e. P.W.-9. The court below has not recorded the finding that who is the aggressor. Even FIR has not been proved. It has been admitted by the informant (P.W.-2) in his cross-examination that written complaint has been prepared by Sudarshan Yadav, Chaukidar of the village but the said Chaukidar has not been examined.

Alternatively, argument has been advanc