Crl.A. 293/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY None appears for the appellant. I have heard Smti B Saikia, learned Addl PP, for the State respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-7-2003 p assed by the learned Adhoc Addl Sessions Judge, No.3, Guwahati in Sessions Case No.62(K)/1994 convicting the accused appellant u/s 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R I for another two months. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 5-11-1991 at around 9 p.m. w hile Golok Kalita, watchman of the informant’s pig farm was proceeding towards h is house for dinner, the accused appellant suddenly attacked and assaulted him w ith an iron rod and as a result Golok Kalita sustained severe injuries on his he ad and left hand. Due to assault his left hand got fractured. Having come to kno w about the incident the informant, Naren Kalita, came to the place of occurrenc e and found the victim lying unconscious and he took the victim to the Gauhati M edical College Hospital for treatment. A crime being Hajo PS Case No.177/1991 wa s registered u/s 341/325/307 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant and after observing all the f ormalities, charge was framed u/s 307/325 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty an d stood the trial but he led no evidence in his defence. On completion of the tr ial and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenc ed the accused appellant as mentioned above. 4. The victim Shri Golok Kalita was examined as PW-10. In his examination-i n-chief, he stated that at around 8.30 pm while he was returning home from the p ig farm of the informant Naren Kalita, the accused, who was hiding near the plac e of occurrence before hand, suddenly attacked and assaulted him causing injury on his head and hand. In the cross examination the victim stated that he fell do wn unconscious and he was removed to hospital but he cannot say how and who shif ted him to hospital. The defence cross-examined the victim but it could not demo lish his evidence and it stood proved that the victim was assaulted by the accus ed appellant. 5. Although there is no eye witness to the incident, the evidence of Naren Kalita (PW-1), the informant, who rushed to the place of occurrence immediately supports the fact that the victim was lying on the ground after being assaulted by someone. PW-1 did not see the assailant but he has proved the fact that the v ictim was assaulted by someone and made unconscious and he was shifted to hospit al as he was found seriously injured. The evidence of PW-1 could not be shattere d in the cross examination by the defence. As regards the assailant, the victim has categorically deposed before the learned Trial Court and his evidence having not been demolished, and the evidence of PW-1 being found corroborating the evi dence of PW-10, the learned Trial Court came to a correct finding/conclusion tha t it was the appellant who actually assaulted the victim. 6. Moreover, the evidence of PW-5, the medical officer who examined the inj ured victim, lends support to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-10 that the victim was admitted in hospital in a serious condition for treatment. 7. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and als o the evidence and materials on record, I find the impugned judgment and order n eeds no interference by this court in appeal. The conviction and sentence, as re corded by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order is hereby upheld and affirmed. This appeal fails. 8. It is stated at the Bar that the accused appellant is on bail by virtue of order dated 9-9-2003 passed by this court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 501/2003 whi le suspending execution of the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. 9. The accused appellant Shri Dharmeswar Das shall surrender before the lea rned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati forthwith within a period of 14 (fourteen) days from today failing which the learned CJM shall take appropriate steps in accordance w ith law. 10. The bail bond stands cancelled. The accused appellant shall serve the se ntence. However, he shall get the benefit of set off of the period he has alread y undergone. The appeal stands dismissed.