Criminal Appeal No.203 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Barh in Sessions Trial No.813 of 1992] 1. ASHOK SHARMA ALIAS KRISH NANDAN SHARMA 2. JANARDAN SHARMA 3. MURARI SHARMA, ALL SONS OF LATE JAGDISH SHARMA, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SALIMPUR, P.S. BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA (ACCUSED) ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Advocate For the Respondent : Md. Matloob Rab, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant no.1 has been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. whereas all the appellants have been convicted u/s.426 I.P.C. and ordered to furnish probation bond of Rs.2000/- with two sureties of the like amount for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year by the Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Barh in Sessions Trial No.813 of 1992 by a judgment dated 24.7.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution that on 17.8.1991 while the informant was sitting in his office, the accused persons came there and threw away the registers and papers and also abused her. Accused Krishnandan Sharma is said to have assaulted the informant with spade on her head, on account of which she fell - 2 - down. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.5 is the doctor, who examined the informant (P.W.4) and P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.8 is also a doctor, who had done radiology test of the informant. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are corroborative witnesses. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 as also the doctor P.W.5, I find that there is complete support of the prosecution case that the informant had sustained injuries on her head by spade whereas rest of the injuries were on account of fall. The Investigating Officer also found marks of blood and the place of occurrence and the articles scattered in the office. Considering the evidence of these witnesses, it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the period that the appellants have served out during trial shall be sufficient sentence for their conviction and there is no further requirement of furnishing bonds as had been required by the Trial Court. Patna High Court Dated, 19th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )