JUDGMENT

Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2006 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2nd Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2003 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof, further undergo S.I. for one month.

3. Chas P. S. Case No. 40 of 1999 has been registered on the fardbeyan of P. W. 4 Radheyshyam Gupta under Sections 341/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the FIR while the informant was at his house, accused persons making allegation of pouring water at their door to the mother of the informant and they assaulted by using lathi, due to which, the informant has sustained serious injury. On earlier occassion also they have assaulted him for which Chas P. S. Case No. 108 of 1998 has been lodged, which is under consideration in the Court.

4. On the basis of statement of the informant, Chas P. S. Case No. 40 of 1999 was registered under Sections 341/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against all these accused persons, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, to which they pleaded not guilty.

6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

7. To substantiate the charges, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P. W. 1- Janki Devi is mother of the informant. She has supported the incident, P. W. 2- Sudama Prasad Gupta is father of the informant. He has also supported the incident claiming himself to be an eye witness. P. W. 4- Radheshyam Gupta is the informant/victim, who has testified the incident. P.W. -3, Ram Swarath Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has supported the allegation against the appellants as disclosed in the FIR. P. W.-5 is the doctor, who has proved the injury on the informant.

Injuries are as follows:-

"1. Lacerated injury of the left eye brow. 2. Small abrasion of the forehead

3. Abrasion of the left shoulder

4. Swelling of left shoulder. 5. Pain over the chest.

He has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature."

P. W. 6 is son of Doctor T. M. Mallick. He has formally proved injury report (Ext.-4).

8. Argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellants that there is previous dispute between the parties and there is no independent witness and false allegation has been levelled against the appellants and as such the allegation itself has to be disbelieved. Only on surmise and conjecture, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Although no deadly weapon has been used as alleged in the crime, the appellants have remained in custody for 16 days. Even if the prosecution story is believed, the appellants deserve to be released by reducing the period of sentence considering the period of litigation as the incident is of the year 1999.

9. Per contra, learned APP has supported the judgment of conviction. It has been argued that testimony of the injured witness is sufficient if it gets corroboration. In the present case, injury has been corroborated by medical evidence.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the record and testimony of the eye witness, it transpires that the informant-P.W.-4 has sustained injury. The appellants are tenant of the informant. There is dispute between the parties and testimony of th