The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of admonition dated 02.07.2003 passed by 4th Additional sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 256 of 2001 whereby and where under the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and in spite of awarding the sentence the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as set out in the FIR is as under :

The informant Rohan Kole (P.W.6) stated that on 14.12.2000, at about 5 p.m. his cousin-accused Makku Kole came to the house of informant Rohan Kole (P.W. 6) and asked him to flee from that place claiming that he had no right to live there. The informant replied that he was living over the property of his maternal uncle and he was not occupying the property of anyone else, thereupon a dispute arose between both the parties. Then the co-accused Khaku Kole having lathi in his hand, Lakhandeo Kole holding lathi in his hand, Gurucharan Kole holding lathi in his hand and Chhotelal Kole having tangi in his hand came there and Khaku Kole caught the informant and the accused-appellant Makku Kole assaulted with lathi with intent to kill him on his head thereby the informant got injured. The informant further started raising hulla and on hearing hulla Kuldeo Kole (P.W. 4), maternal uncle Ratu Kole (P.W. 1), mother Manuwa Devi (P.W. 2) and bhabhi Sanjhwa Devi (P.W. 3) came to rescue him, then Makku Kole gave a lathi blow on the head of Kuldeo Kole (P.W.4) by which he got injured and Chhotelal Kole assaulted Ratu Kole by Tangi on head, Lakhandeo Kole assaulted the mother of the informant and thereby she sustained injuries on her hand, accused appellant Gurucharan Kole gave a lathi blow on Sanjhwa Devi on her hand. After this the son of Makku Kole namely, Umesh Kole (appellant no. 2) came there armed with lathi and assaulted the informant on his hand and back. On hulla, several people came there and then, the accused persons fled-away.

3. A written report was submitted by informant Rohan Kole (P.W.6) at Mohanpur P.S. and a case was registered there under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and after completing investigation police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons in the court of C.J.M., Deoghar, who took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and Committed this case to the Court of Sessions. Charge has been framed under sections 147, 307/149, 341/149 of IPC. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC and accordingly they were convicted thereunder. Further, it appears that instead of awarding the sentence to the appellants they were directed to be released after due admonition by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge.

4. Heard Mr. Ashok Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmim, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants:-

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of admonition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants were directed to be released after due admonition which cast stigma on their future since one of the appellants was aged about 20 years. Further, it has been pointed out that all the injuries were simple in nature and the prosecution has failed to prove as to who had inflicted the injuries upon the injured persons and also it is contended that there is no X-ray Report nor any X-ray plate, but, the injuries have been caused by the hard and blunt substance and, therefore, the order of conviction and admonition is bad in law and the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidences in the right perspective. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that no specific assault against any one of the appellants as to who had inflicted the injuries on the informant and other