JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Garhwa by which the appellants Raj Bali Bind and Santosh Bind have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 323 and 324 of IPC respectively corresponding to Garhwa P.S. Case No. 187 of 2001, G.R. Case No.758 of 2001 vide Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2003 and the appellant no. 1 Raj Bali Bind was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only) to be given to the informant Sihvapati Bind and if the fine is not paid, the accused-appellant Raj Bali Bind to undergo further imprisonment for three months under section 323 of IPC and the appellant no. 2 Santosh Bind is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) to be given to the informant Sivpati Bind and if the fine is not paid, the accused-appellant Santosh Bind to undergo further imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC .

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of Shivpati Bind- P.W. 6, which has been recorded on 29.10.2001 and this FIR has been lodged. It is said that on 29.10.2001 in the evening Karmu Bhuian came to his house as he used to work as a labourer and the informant had some dues amounting to Rs. 800/- and for that the informant asked to refund the money. There was a talk going on in between the informant and the said Karmu Bhuian, in the mean time Raj Bali Bind came their and took Karmu Bhuian to his house. The informant-P.W.6, objected and said to the accused appellant no.1 not to do so and on this the accused persons came armed with Lathi, Iron road, etc. and started assaulting informant and his wife Sumitri Devi due to assault the informant and his wife sustained injuries. In the mean time upon Hulla the neighbours arrived and the accused persons fled away and thereafter his son Narad and other co-villagers came and took him and his wife to hospital where they had gone under treatment.

3. On the basis of the statement of Shiv Pati Bind P.W. 6, a formal FIR was drawn, the investigation of the case commenced, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellants Raj Bali Bind and Santosh Bind along with one Ram Parvesh. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned trial court framed the charges against them for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 307/34 of IPC and after concluding the trial the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed which is under challenge.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants

There was a land disputed between the parties and the case and counter case was there and the learned trial court did not appreciate these facts.

There is no legal evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged crime.

Oral evidences and medical evidences are contradictory to each other and they cannot be relied upon.

And without appreciating the evidences, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed in absence of legal evidences, which are fit to be set aside.

Arguments on behalf of the State:-

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial court after appreciating the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, in a holistic manner has rightly held that the appellant no.1 Raj Bali Bind was held guilty u/s 323 of IPC and the accused appellant Santosh Bind was held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and thus there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The testimony of the injured victim P.W. 6 Shivpati Bind and another injured victim P.W. 5- Sumitri Devi along with deposition of P.W. 8 Dr. R.N.S. Diwakar by which it is established that t