Criminal Appeal No.37 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.2.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- II, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No.180 of 1992/ 24 of 1993] 1. SHIV CHARAN RAVIDAS S/O BANSI RAVIDAS 2. JAGDISH RABIDAS S/O DAROGI RAVIDAS 3. SARJU RAVIDAS S/O BANSHI RAVIDAS 4. SANJAY RAVIDAS S/O SARJU RAVIDAS 5. DAROGI RAVIDAS BANSHI RAVIDAS 6. BISHUNDHARI RAVIDAS S/O BANSHI RAVIDAS 7. RAMSARUP RAVIDAS S/O BANSHI RAVIDAS, ALL OF VILLAGE BANDHAN CHHAPRA, P.S. RAJAULI, DISTRICT NAWADAH ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellant nos.1 and 2 have been convicted u/s.307 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and appellant nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to S.I. for six months by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No.180 of 1992/ 24 of 1993 by a judgment dated 9.2.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution that on 13.4.1992 when the informant requested the appellants to remove bundles of crops which were touching his wall, an altercation arose between them and in course of which the appellant nos.1 and 2 are said to have assaulted the informant with lathies on his shoulder, whereas rest assaulted him on non-vital parts. - 2 - 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared hostile. P.W.3, who is the sister of the informant, P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are the father and brother of the informant, have supported the informant, who is P.W.7. P.W.6 and P.W.11 are formal witnesses, whereas P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.8 is the doctor, who examined the injuries on the person of the informant and proved the injury report as Exhibit 3. 4. The defence of the appellants was that they have been implicated on account of previous land dispute and no such occurrence had taken place. 5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer, I find that the occurrence was recorded at the earliest instance and the doctor has supported the injuries found on the person of the informant and his father further corroborating the prosecution case. 6. However, in the facts of the case, it is difficult for this court to sustain the conviction of the appellant nos.1 and 2 u/s.307 I.P.C. and therefore their conviction is also converted to one u/s.323 I.P.C. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but modification in the conviction of appellant nos.1 and 2 and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by all the appellants during trial. Patna High Court Dated, 19th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )