Criminal Appeal No. (SJ) 13 of 1993 ----- Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.1992 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in S. T. No.207/83. ----- 1. Ramji Ram. 2. Laxman Ram, sons of Jai Karan Ram, 3. Bipatu Ram son of Hira Ram. 4. Jodha Ram son of Ramji Ram. 5. Lila Ram son of Rogi Ram All residents of village- Dihara, Police Station and District-Bhabhua …… Appellants Versus The State Of Bihar ……..Respondents ----- For the appellants : M/s Mahesh Pd. No.2, Rewati Kant Raman, Advocates For the informant : Mr. Gopal Sharan, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. N. Prasad, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble Justice (Mrs.) Sheema Ali Khan ------ S. A. Khan, J. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.1992 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in S.T. No.207 of 1983 by which they have been convicted under sections 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and five years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Rogi Ram, who is now dead and his name has been struck off from the memo of appeal, has been convicted under sections 147, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and five years under section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that the informant and the appellant no.1 are own brothers. 2 3. The prosecution case is that there was quarrel and exchange of abuses between the wife of appellant no.1 and the informant and on account of which the informant and appellant’s brothers all armed with Bhala, lathi etc. came to the place of occurrence and assaulted each other on 6.4.83. There is case and counter case. In the counter case, the informant and others have been acquitted. However, the appellants have been convicted as noted above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the injuries are all simple in nature except that injury no. IV and VI inflicted on the person of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the injury report has been prepared by the doctor in collusion with the prosecution. Injury no. IV is incised wound on the vertex 2-1/4” x ½” x bone deep. Skull bone was found cut 1/8” x 1/8”. Injury no.6 indicates that it was on the left middle finger, left ring finger and left little finger of the left hand and it was cut from the bone joint. As far as injury no.6 is concerned, it was inflicted by the appellant no.5. The main thrust of the argument is that no offence under section 307of the Indian Penal Code would be made out in this case as there was no intention on behalf of the appellants to cause death of his own brother, rather, the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment as the egos of both the parties were hurt on account of exchange of hot words between the wives of the two brothers. 5. In this Cr. Appeal, I.A. No.113 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of both the parties in which they have stated that relationship between both the brothers and the family members have healed over a period of time and they are all living happily together and, as such, they want to compromise the case. It has further been stated in the interlocutory application that the occurrence took place twenty five years ago and any adverse order would lead to further tension between the family members. 3 6. In any event, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that utmost offence under section 323 and 334 of the Indian Penal Code are made out in this case in view of the allegations in the first information report. 7. Since this court has found that no case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants, this court allows the I.A. No.113 of 2008 and records that the parties have compromised the matter and restored good relationship with each other. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd December, 1992, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No.207 of 1983 is set aside on the basis of compromise and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail and, as such, they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 8. In the result, this Cr. Appeal is allowed. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 30th April, 2009. NAFR / JA/-