JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T. No.363 of 1991, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each with a fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by each u/s 326 read with section 34 of the IPC.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbayan of informant PW-4 Sanatan Karmakar that on 14.01.90, in the evening, he was returning to his home after playing football match and at about 5 pm, the accused persons intercepted him in the village near Bora Dam and assaulted the informant PW – 4 by Bujali (a sharp cutting weapon) and lathi by which the informant sustained the injuries on his head, legs, body and hands. The informant after being injured raised hulla and fell down at some distance. Having heard the hulla, local people like PW – 1, PW - 2 and other persons arrived at the spot, then the accused persons fled away. The informant narrated the incident. On the information by PW – 1 and PW – 2, the father PW – 3 also came at the spot and took the injured son PW – 4 informant to the house. On the next day on 15.01.90 at 3 pm, police recorded the fardbeyan Ext.2 of the informant at P.H.C. Ichagarh. It is stated that about two years ago, there was an altercation between the fathers of the two sides on account of which, the accused persons had strong grudge against the informant family.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant PW – 4, Ichagarh P.S. Case No.01 of 90 was registered against the two accused persons, in which, after due investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet interalia under Sections 307/34 IPC and the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard learned defence counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is bad in law as well as on facts of this case. It is contended that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that before two years of the alleged occurrence, there was an altercation between the father of two sides and on account of which, the informant party had a strong grudge and falsely implicated the accused appellants in this case. It is further contended that the I.O. and the doctor in this case have not been examined, which causes serious prejudice to the appellants and there is no independent witnesses, who had supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses are the family members being the father and mother of the injured. In the aforesaid facts, the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is absolutely illegal and perverse in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 326/34 of IPC and awarded the sentence accordingly as there is no merit in the appeal and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the parties and after going through the records, it is found that the charges levelled against the accused appellants Chandi Singh Munda and Shrawan Singh Munda were that they had assaulted the informant Sanatan Karmakar (PW -4), by which, he was grievously injured. The appellant No.2 Shrawan Singh Munda had used bhujali and the a