Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 209 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Nagendra Singh, S/o Ram Lakhan Singh. 2. Ramji Singh, S/o Ram Lakhan Singh. 3. Ram Lakhan Singh, S/o Raghunandan Singh. 4. Madho Singh, S/o Banwari Singh. 5. Krishna Singh, S/o Madho Singh. All R/o Village-Dharampur, P.S.-Koilwar, District-Bhojpur. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Amrendra Bihari Saran, Adv. For the Informant : Ms Aparna Bharti, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha-II, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants No. 1, 2 and 5 have been convicted under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to RI for seven years and four years respectively whereas the appellants No. 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 307/149 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years by a judgment dated 29.06.1994 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in S.Tr. No. 13 of 1986. The prosecution case is that on 15.11.1984 the accused persons came upon the fields of the informant appellants No. 1 and 3 fired at the informant whereas appellants No. 2 and 5 also fired at the informant’s brother and nephew but it did not hit them. 2 The prosecution to prove its case examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 is the informant whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are eye witnesses and P.W. 7 is the Doctor who examined the injured informant. Admittedly the occurrence took place in open filed and the dispute was on account of land which both the parties were claiming. The Doctor, P.W. 7 who examined the injured found a single injury on the person of the informant and the final injury report as to the nature of injury was not brought on record. The Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. Considering that the informant has sustained a single injury on his person and even though there was no intervening circumstance the shot was not repeated it would be difficult for the Court to conclude that intention of the appellants was to cause the death of the injured. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants is converted to one under Section 325 IPC and they are sentenced to the period already undergone. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 8th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-