Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.68 OF 1996 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 and 2.4.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.597 of 1990] 1. Kanhaiya Singh 2. Sitaram Singh 3. Bishwanath Singh, All sons of Prithvi Singh 4. Balram Singh @ Baliram Singh, Son of Kanhaiya Singh, All residents of Village Derhgaon, P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas (Accused) …………………….. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Birendra Kumar Singh son of Gupteshwar Singh, resident of Vill. & P.O. Derhgaon, P.S. Dawath, Distt. Rohtas …. (Informant) ………….. Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. Ishwari Singh, Advocate Mr. P.K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant no.2 has been convicted u/ss.307, 447 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for three and half years, one year and one year respectively, whereas the appellant nos.1, 3 and 4 have been convicted u/s.307/34, 447 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for two and half years, one year and one year respectively by a judgment dated 30.3.1996 and 2.4.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.597 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Birendra Kumar Singh (P.W.3) is that on 29.1.1990 at 6 P.M. 2 when he and his family members were sitting at the Darwaja and chatting, the accused persons came there and appellant no.1 is said to have exhorted the rest to shoot the informant, at which the appellant no.2 fired at the informant, on account of which he was injured and became unconscious, whereafter the accused persons ran away. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3 is the informant and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are his own brothers, whereas P.W.4 is his father. These are the eye witnesses. P.W.5 is the doctor and P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the Investigating Officers, whereas P.W.9 is the Compounder. 4. On going through the evidence of the eye witnesses and the doctor, undoubtedly there is no scope for disbelieving the prosecution case that in fact the appellant no.2 while in company of the rest of the appellant had assaulted the informant and caused injury on him. However, from the evidence of the doctor, I find that the injuries were simple in nature as also the manner of occurrence depicted by the prosecution witnesses suggest that the intention of the appellant no.2 was not to cause the death of the informant. 5. In view of such, the conviction of the appellants is maintained u/s.447 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, whereas they are acquitted of the charges u/s.307 and 307/34 I.P.C. instead the appellant no.2 is convicted u/s.324 I.P.C. whereas the rest of the appellants u/s.324/34 I.P.C. Under all the three counts the period 3 already undergone by the appellants during trial shall be sufficient punishment. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications. Patna High Court Dated, 29th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )