JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. 2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed by eight accused persons, out of them, appellant No.4, Hasim Ansari, appellant No.7, Farid Ansari and appellant No.8, Suleman Ansari had died and their appeal was abated vide order dated 03.11.2025. The names of surviving appellants, Wazid Hussain Ansari, Janat Hussain Ansari, Samsudin Ansari, Hafiz Ansari and Hanif Ansari have been renumbered and the appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants. 3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd & 24th April, 2003 in S.T. No.1 of 1992 (Trial No.278 of 2002) arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.159 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. Case No.735 of 1990 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder, the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Janat Hussain were directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence under section 148 of IPC and R.I. for 10 years for the offence under sections 326/149 of IPC. The original appellant No.3 to 8 have been found guilty for the offence under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 20.12.1990 at about 10:00 am, the informant, Md. Noor Mohammad Mian along with Jaharuddin Mian was going to Nagar Untari Bazar and as he reached near the house of Sulaiman Mian, all the accused persons, Wazid Husain, Suleman Mian, Hasim Mia, Jannat Husain, Hafiz Mian, Samsuddin Mian, Hanif Mian and Farid Mian have surrounded him and Wazid Husain and Janat Husain caught hold of informant and chopped off his right hand by giving tangi blows. It is further alleged that, Wazid Hussain again gave tangi blow on the neck of the informant with intention to kill him but the same blow was warded off and caused deep cut injury above the wrist of left hand. It is further alleged that other accused persons also hit the informant from the blunt portion of the tangi. The motive behind the occurrence is land dispute between the parties. It is further alleged that other accused persons also hit the informant from the blunt portion of the tangi. The motive behind the occurrence is land dispute between the parties. On the basis of above fardbayan, FIR was registered against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 326 and 307 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T No.1 of 1992 was registered. The appellants have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. Learned trial court has framed charges for the offences under sections 148, 326 and 307 of IPC against the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Janat Hussain and the rest of the appellants have been charged for the offences under sections 147, 323, 307/149 of IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Sariun Nisha P.W.2- Shamim Mian P.W.3-Javed Ali P.W.4-Noor Mohammad (Informant-cum-victim) P.W.5-Md. Fajle Karim P.W.6-Sahabuddin P.W.7-Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh P.W.8-Surendra Prasad 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced:- Ext.1:-Signature of P.W.3 on production cum seizure list Ext.1/1:-signature of P.W.5 on production-cum-seizure list. Ext.6:-Injury report Ext.7:-Signature of Sahabuddin on fardbayan Ext.7/1:-Fardbayan Ext.8:-Seizure list 8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. Submission on behalf of appellants 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the ocular witnesses examined by the prosecution are not eye- witnesses of the occurrence rather they have heard about the incident from others and have claimed that they have seen fleeing away the accused persons after assaulting the informant. The sole eye-witness of the occurrence is P.W.4, the informant-cum-injured, who has also given contradictory statement regarding specific overt act to the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Janat Hussain in assaulting him. The testimony of the informant does not find corroboration from his injury report, which shows that the informant has sustained single injury on his person. The sole eye-witness of the occurrence is P.W.4, the informant-cum-injured, who has also given contradictory statement regarding specific overt act to the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Janat Hussain in assaulting him. The testimony of the informant does not find corroboration from his injury report, which shows that the informant has sustained single injury on his person. The rest of the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC alone and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and they have already completed their sentences during pendency of this appeal. No specific overt act was attributed against the rest of the appellants and there is no iota of evidence showing the formation of unlawful assembly and as to what was the common object of this assembly, has been dealt with by the learned trial court. Therefore, the conviction of the rest of the appellants for the offence under section 147 of IPC is also not sustainable. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution in proper perspective and has given undue weightage to the evidence of the informant alone. The sentence imposed upon the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Janat Hussain is also excessive and disproportionate to their guilt. As such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under section 326 of IPC is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of respondent 10. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there are serious allegation against the appellant Nos.1 and 2, who intercepted the informant in the mid-way, while he was proceeding to Nagar Untari Bazar and both of them have caused injuries by sharp cutting weapon and right hand has been chopped and severed from the wrist, which finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.7, who has proved the injury report of the informant. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the informant, which finds corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, who has medically examined him. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the informant, which finds corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, who has medically examined him. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 have committed ghastly offence by chopping and severing the hand from the wrist, which has permanently disabled the informant by one hand, which can never be compensated and he is bound to suffer his future life without support of one hand along with palm. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant Nos.1 and 2 does not require any interference or any leniency in the matter of sentence by this Court. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffer from any error of law, calling for any interference by way of this appeal? 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall materials available on record. First of all, we have to apprise with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It appears that altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case along with other documentary evidence. The most important witness of the fact is that the informant-cum-injured of this case, namely, Md. Noor Mohammad Mian (P.W.4). He has corroborated the contents of his fardbayan and further deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 10:00 am, he was going to Nagar Untari market and when he reached near the house of Suleman Mian (since deceased), he saw Wazid Hussain, Janat Hussain, Asim Ansari, Samsuddin Ansari, Hafiz Ansari, Hanif Ansari, Farid Mian and Suleman Mian. Wazid Mian and Jannat Mian holding tangi and rest of the accused persons were bearing lathis. All the above accused persons surrounded him. He has further deposed that Wazid Hussain and Janat Hussain caught hold of him and bow down his body and with intention to kill, Wazid Hussain chopped his right hand. He has further deposed that Wazid and Janat further started assaulting him by tangi on his neck, which he warded off and sustained injuries on left hand also and upper side of his left eye. He has further deposed that Wazid and Janat further started assaulting him by tangi on his neck, which he warded off and sustained injuries on left hand also and upper side of his left eye. He has further deposed that the co-villagers, Sahabuddin, Sakur Mian, Md. Kareem, Karamat Mian, Jahiruddin and his wife, Khairun Nisha came to rescue him and he was brought to police station on a jeep and his severed part of hand was produced at the police station by his wife and Jahiruddin. He was sent to hospital for medical treatment by the police and his statement was also recorded in the hospital. He has proved his left thumb impression over fardbayan. He has also produced the photographs of his severed hand before the court, which was taken by the police. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the accused persons are gotiya (agnates) and partition has taken place about 20-25 years ago and all are separate in mess, residence and cultivation. He has also reiterated that for chopping his right hand, 3-4 tangi blows were given and twice blows were given to his left hand. There is nothing in his cross-examination to contradict or rebut his aforesaid testimony. P.W.7-Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh has proved the injury report of the informant (P.W.4) was examined by late Dr. Harendra Thakur posted as In-charge, M.O., P.H.C., Nagar Untari on 20.12.1990 and found following injuries:- (i) Right hand forearm chopped of 6” away from the elbow joint cutting through both radius and ulna and muscles of forearm and vessels huge bleeding and clot was found. Opinion:- the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon as tangi and the injury was grievous in nature and dangerous for life. (ii) Bleeding injuries on two places on left forearm (a) sharp cut ¼” x skin deep four inch away from wrist joint (b) sharp cut ½” x skin deep 5” away from wrist joint. (iii) Huge swelling on right eye and lateral to the axes and compression caused by hard blunt substance and grievous in nature. Age of injuries within one hour. This witness is acquainted with the handwriting of the then Dr. Harendra Thakur and proved the injury report marked as Ext.6. P.W.1-Sairun Nisha is the wife of the informant. (iii) Huge swelling on right eye and lateral to the axes and compression caused by hard blunt substance and grievous in nature. Age of injuries within one hour. This witness is acquainted with the handwriting of the then Dr. Harendra Thakur and proved the injury report marked as Ext.6. P.W.1-Sairun Nisha is the wife of the informant. This witness has claimed to see the occurrence from her house, which is situated at a distance of 150 yards from the place of the occurrence. She went to the place of occurrence and brought her husband to police station and thereafter to the hospital. She has stated that while her husband was going to Nagar Untari Market, all the accused persons, namely, Wazid Mian, Janat Mian, Hasim Mian, Samsuddin Mian, Hafiz Mian, Hanif Mian, Farid Mian and Suleman Mian surrounded him and chopped his hand by tangi. She further deposed that Wazid Mian and Janat Mian have given tangi blow chopping the hand of her husband from the wrist. In her cross-examination, she also reiterates that she has seen the occurrence from her house. Thereafter, she went to the place of occurrence, which was situated at the distance of 150 yards her house. She also admits that when the assault was given to her husband, she was at her home and as she heard hulla like bachao bachao, then she rushed towards the place of occurrence. There is nothing else in her cross-examination to rebut her aforesaid contentions. P.W.2-Samim Mian is a local villager and after hearing hullah, he went towards the place of occurrence and saw that the hand of Noor Mohammad Mian was chopped and he has also sustained injuries on his forehead and left hand. This witness further deposed that he saw the accused persons, namely, Samsu Mian, Janat Mian, Asif Mian, Wazid Mian, and Hafiz Mian fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The above testimony of this witness has not been rebutted in his cross-examination. P.W.3-Javed Ali is a witness of production-cum-seizure list. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence about 2:00 pm, the police has prepared production- cum-seizure list of blood-stained gamcha, full-shirt and full pant of Noor Md. Mian, which was produced before the police by this witness and production-cum-seizure list was prepared, which has been signed by him marked as Ext.1. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence about 2:00 pm, the police has prepared production- cum-seizure list of blood-stained gamcha, full-shirt and full pant of Noor Md. Mian, which was produced before the police by this witness and production-cum-seizure list was prepared, which has been signed by him marked as Ext.1. P.W.5-Fajle Karim is also a witness of production-cum-seizure list of the blood stained clothe of the informant and he has proved the signature as Ext.1/1 P.W.6-Sahabuddin is a hearsay witness of the occurrence, has no personal knowledge but he has seen stated that he has not heard the name of accused Wazid Mian as an assailant. P.W.8-Surendra Prasad is an advocate clerk and is a common witness. He has proved the fardbayan and formal FIR list in the handwriting of the then Officer-in-Charge, Nagar Untari P.S., Saryu Prasad Singh, which has been marked as Ext.7 and Ext.7/1. He has further proved seizure list in the handwriting of the then officer-in-charge marked as Ext.8. 14. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspect of the factual background of the case, it appears that except P.W.4, the injured-cum-informant, no other witness appears to be an eye-witness of the occurrence rather some of them had reached at the place of occurrence after happening of the events and some have heard about the occurrence and saw the injured informant and the accused persons fleeing away. It appears that the star witness of the cases is the informant-cum-injured, who has been examined as P.W.4, and his evidence clearly goes to show that he has attributed the specific overt act only against appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain and appellant No.2, Jannat Hussain of catching hold of him and other accused persons were surrounding with lathi. He has specifically stated that Wazid Hussain, appellant No.1 chopped his hand by tangi and further stated that Janat Hussain, appellant No.2 assaulted him by handy lock of tangi on forehead and upper side of left eye. Both of them also aimed to give tangi blows twice on his neck, which were warded off and caused injuries on forehead and left eye. The informant has not stated about any previous enmity with the appellants nor he has attributed any motive for assaulting him and intended to take away his life. Both of them also aimed to give tangi blows twice on his neck, which were warded off and caused injuries on forehead and left eye. The informant has not stated about any previous enmity with the appellants nor he has attributed any motive for assaulting him and intended to take away his life. The above testimony of the injured further found corroboration from the evidence of P.W.7, who has proved the injury report, therefore, the testimony of the informant, P.W.4 cannot be doubted or disbelieved as regards the specific role attributed to the appellant Nos.1 and 2, who appears to have common intention to cause grievous injuries to the informant and have also voluntarily caused such grievous injuries by chopping the hand from the wrist of the informant. 15. We further find that learned trial court has not dealt with any common object as defined under section 141 of Indian Penal code for forming an unlawful assembly. Although, the prosecution has named more than five accused persons in commission of alleged offence but no finding has been recorded as to what was the common object of the assembly to hold it to be unlawful assembly. Therefore, conviction with aid of sections 147, 148, 149 of IPC appears absolutely unwarranted in the facts proved in this case. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 148 and 149 of the IPC is set aside but their conviction for the offence under section 326 of IPC is upheld and confirmed. 17. So far as punishment of the surviving appellant No.3 to 5, namely, Samsudin Ansari, Hafiz Ansari, Hanif Ansari respectively is concerned, their conviction and sentence for the offence under section 147 of IPC is hereby set aside. The surviving appellant Nos.3 to 5 are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellants to the extent mentioned above. 19. The surviving appellant Nos.3 to 5 are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellants to the extent mentioned above. 19. So far as the appellant No.1, Wazid Hussain Ansari and appellant No.2 Janat Hussain Ansari are concerned, their order for suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal is vacated and they are directed to appear before the concerned trial court to receive the sentence awarded to them and to undergo the remaining period of sentence for the offence under section 326 of I.P.C. The period of imprisonment already undergone by them in this case shall be set off. 20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.