Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 47 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Umesh Pandit, S/o Sidhu Pandit. 2. Shridhari Pandit, S/o Chattu Pandit. 3. Sidhu Pandit, S/o Jiya Lal Pandit. 4. Laxaman Pandit, S/o Ram Pandit. All are R/o Suliandabad, P.S.-Saharsa, P.O.-Saharsa, District-Saharsa. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for six months by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Case No. 40/86 by a judgment dated 28.02.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.1985 a minor altercation took place between the brother of the informant and the accused persons on account of which appellant Umesh Pandit assaulted him with the lathi on the head and thereafter also gave a dagger blow on the right chest and then the rest of the accused persons assaulted him with lathi. Initially the appellants were charged under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC but they were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses out of whom P.W. 4 is the informant, P.W. 3 is 2 the injured brother of the informant. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are on the factum of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the injured Kushilal Pandit, P.W. 4 and Deo Narain Pandit P.W. 3 who happened to be brother of the informant. 4. On behalf of the defence one witness was examined who happened to be a Doctor. He stated that on 05.07.1985 he had examined Sridhari Pandit appellant No. 2. The defence also exhibited certain documents of the counter- case instituted by one Ramjee Pandit. The Investigating Officer was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. However, on going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that they have fully supported the factum of the occurrence and the manner in which the assault had taken place on the two injured. The Doctor also further found corresponding injuries on the person of the two injured. 6. In view of such, I am inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants. The appeal is dismissed. However, sentence already undergone by them during trial will be sufficient in the ends of justice. 7. The appeal is dismissed with modification as aforesaid. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 3rd May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-