Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 206 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ************ 1. Upendra Pandey. 2. Deo Kant Pandey. Both sons of Ram Nandan Pandey. 3. Ram Swarath Pandey, S/o Ram Sharan Pandey. All R/o Village-Lakshmipur, P.S.-Sakari, District- Madhubani. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants No. 1 and 3 have been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years whereas the appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year. They have also been convicted under Section 323 IPC but no separate sentence has been passed in this regard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 116/1985/31/86 by a judgment dated 21.09.1995. 2. The prosecution case is that on account of land dispute on the fateful date i.e. 18.05.1984 when the accused persons were cutting away soil from the fields of the informant he protested at which the appellant No. 2 is said to have assaulted the brother of the informant with spade which cut his right knee and a watch was stolen by the accused persons who further assaulted with lathi, fists and slaps on account of which two persons were injured. 2 3. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 is the informant and P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the relatives of the informant and supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 is the Doctor who found one injury on the person of Shardanand Pandey which he opined was grievous in nature as also one injury on the person of Shyamanand Pandey apart from certain burises there were all opined to be simple in nature. The Investigating Officer has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants were charged under Section 307 IPC but the Trial Court was of the opinion that the assault was not intended to cause the death of the two injured and therefore they were convicted under Section 326 IPC. 4. On going through the material witnesses, I find that they are completely trustworthy and have proved the manner of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt. The Doctor has also corroborated the prosecution case. 5. In the result the appeal is dismissed but sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 6. The appeal is dismissed with the modification as aforesaid. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 28th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-