Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.125 OF 1995 **** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15th July, 1995, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No.112 of 1990. **** 1. UMESH SINGH son of Langat Singh, 2. Bhagwanti Devi w/o Umesh Singh, & 3. Shankar Singh son of Umesh Singh, all resident of village- Muraubatpur, Police Station- Desari, District- Vaisahli …Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent **** For the appellants : Mr. Ram Sagar Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. C. Jawahar, A.P.P. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ***** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant no.1 has been convicted under section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, whereas, appellant nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code but released on Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond of Rs.2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of one year by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No.112 of 1990 by his judgment dated 15.07.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the informant’s son Nunu Singh was returning from school, he plucked 2-3 leaves of some crop from the field of Umesh Singh at which they came out and assaulted him. When the informant learnt of it and questioned them about this occurrence the accused persona assaulted him with farsa as also his son, who was injured. - 2 - 3. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are co-villagers of the informant and eye witnesses. P.W.6 is injured and son of the informant, whereas, P.W.7 is the informant himself. Neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined. However, injury reports have been proved through some formal witnesses as Ext.3 and 3/1. 4. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, there is no manner of doubt that the appellants had in fact assaulted the two injured but since the injuries have not been proved by the prosecution, it is difficult to uphold conviction of the appellant no.1 under section 307 Indian Penal Code. 5. In view of such, conviction of the appellant no.1 is converted to one under section 323 Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him during trial. With regard to appellant nos. 2 and 3, their conviction and sentence is not disturbed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification. (Anjana Prakash,J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-