Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 25 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda), in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1982) ------------ CHANDRADEO PRASAD, SON OF RAM BRIKSHA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MADANPUR, P.S. EKANGARSARAI, DISTT. NALANDA. ------- APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan For the State : Mr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1982 by a judgment dated 23.12.1996. 2. The Case of the prosecution according to the Informant Indradeo Prasad is that on 14.6.1979 the Appellant who was his cousin called for a Panchayat since he had not paid a sum of Rs. 300/- to the Informant which had been ordered in an earlier Panchayati. In the said Panchayati, the Appellant again refused to make payment of the said amount and instead assaulted him with a Pasuli on account of which he sustained grievous injury. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom PW-9 is the Doctor whereas PW-10 is the Investigating Officer. PW-8 is the formal witness and PW-3 has been tendered. PW-6 is a hostile witness. Out of the rest of the witnesses, PW-1 is the Informant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 2 whereas PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7 are the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 4. The five eye witnesses have categorically stated that while the Panchayti was on, the Appellant got enraged instead of making payment, and assaulted the Informant with Pasuli. In view of such categorical statement of the five eye witnesses which stood further corroborated by the Doctor’s evidence who has deposed as PW-9, that he had found four injuries on the person of the Informant, three of which were simple and one grievous, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction. However, in my view, in the facts of the case, at best it would a case under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code since there appears to be no material that the intention on the part of the Appellant was to cause the death of the Informant. 5. In the result, even while acquitting the Appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he is convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.