Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 100 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 08/09.04.1997 passed by Sri William Minz, Assistant Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 670 of 1992. ************ 1. Ramji Rai, S/o Askrit Rai. 2. Daya Nidhi Rai. 3. Badan Rai. Both sons of Dhudh Nath Rai. All resident of Village-Suremanpur, Police Station-Shahpur, District-Bhojpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years whereas appellant No. 3 has further been convicted under Section 326 IPC and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to RI for seven years and one year respectively by the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 670 of 1992 by a judgment dated 08/09.04.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant is that on 01.01.1992 at about 7 A.M. a hot exchange of words took place between the parties over money transaction. Later when the informant was returning to his house suddenly the Appellants came there and chased him whereafter the appellant No. 3 fired at him which hit one Angad Rai who was standing 2 at his door. The rest of the two appellants were allegedly instigating appellant No. 3. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, Angad Rai is the injured whereas P.W. 4, Barmeshwar Rai is the informant. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the injured whereas P.W. 6 is a formal witness who has proved the case diary. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are eye witnesses who were close relative of the informant. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 1, Angad Rai I find that he has stated that while he was standing at his door suddenly he saw the accused persons chasing Barmeshwar Rai the informant whereafter the appellant No. 3 fired at the informant but it did not hit the informant and instead hit him causing grievous injury on his left eye and the other parts of the body. P.W. 2 the brother of the informant has also supported the factum of the occurrence that the appellant No. 3 has fired but that fire did not hit the informant and instead P.W. 1, Angad Rai was injured. P.W. 3 is the father of P.W. 1 and he has also deposed as an eye-witness as to how P.W. 1 had sustained injuries. The evidence of P.W. 4 Barmeshwar Rai is also consistent with the prosecution case that the appellant No. 3 had caused injuries on P.W. 1. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined P.W. 1 on the fateful day and opined that the injury on the eye was grievous in nature. However from the evidence of the 3 witnesses it is evident that if at all, the appellants had the intention to cause the death of the informant and not P.W. 1, Angad Rai who was injured in the transaction which injury was grievous in nature. 5. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 307 IPC. The conviction of the appellant No. 3 u/s 326 IPC is maintained whereas appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted under Section 326/34 IPC. The conviction of the appellant No. 3 under Section 27 Arms Act is also maintained. 6. However, considering the occurrence took place 19 years ago the substantive sentence is modified to the period already undergone during trial. The appellants are further required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each to the victim/his family within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Trial Court and in case they fail to do so they shall be imprisoned for a period of six months. 7. With these modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 5th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-