Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.56 OF 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.1996 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 916 of 1994) ------------ 1. MAHESHWAR SINGH, SON OF HIT NARAYAN SINGH 2. KAMTA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM PARIKSHAN SINGH 3. BRAJESHWAR SINGH, SON OF RAM KEWAL SINGH 4. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF BRAJESHWAR SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOHRA, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA. -----------APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MURLI DHAR SHARMA, SON OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOHRA, P.S. NAUVATPUR, DISTT. PATNA. ------ INFORMANT RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ------------RESPONDENT ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Kumar N. Pratap, Adv. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants No. 1 to 3 have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which simple imprisonment for six months whereas the Appellant No. 4 has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six years as also a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which simple imprisonment for a year in addition to their conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code for which they have sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 916 of 1994 by a Judgment dated 30.3.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that an altercation arose between the Informant, Murlidhar Sharma and the accused persons over harvesting of their paddy by the labourers at which 2 Appellant No. 4 is said to have assaulted the Informant with Garasa on his head whereas rest of the Appellants are said to have assaulted with lathi on account of which he was severely injured. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7 are the alleged eye witnesses and PW-4 is the Informant. PW-5 is the Doctor who examined the injured informant and PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. During trial, PW-3 and PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile and, therefore, the case was mainly based on evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-7. From the evidence of these witnesses, I find that they have consistently supported the fact that the accused persons have assaulted the Informant but from their evidence, it is difficult to conclude positively that the intention of the accused persons was to cause the death of the injured informant. 4. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed but the conviction is converted to one under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence is modified to one that has already been undergone by them during trial. 5. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 20th June, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.