Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.210 OF 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1986) ******* JAGDISH MANDAL, SON OF THAKAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VLLAGE – SAINI, P.S. PHULPARASH (JHANJHARPUR), DISTT. MADHUBANI. ------- APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHANESHWAR MANDAL SON OF KARI MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAINI, P.S. PHULPARASH, DISTT. MADHUBANI. ---------RESPONDENT ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Purushotta Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1986 by a Judgment dated 20.8.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Dhaneshwar Mandal is that while he was sitting in his field on 18.11.1985 at about 8.00 A.M., the accused persons suddenly came there and assaulted the Informant with a brick and Garasa as also lathi. They also committed theft of his wrist watch. The genesis of the occurrence is that a title suit was going on between the Informant and Appellant/accused Thakan Manal on account of which this occurrence took place. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined nine prosecution witnesses out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 are one under the 2 same witness but due to mistake, they have been numbered as two witnesses. The said witnesses are formal in nature. PW-3 is also formal whereas PW-6 is the Informant of the case. PW-7 and PW-9 are the eye witnesses whereas PW-8 is the Doctor who examined the Informant. PW-4 has been declared hostile and PW-5 has been tendered. 4. The defence also examined three witnesses including the accused Thakan Mandal and filed papers to show that there was active enmity between the parties vide Exhibit A to F series. After trial accused Thakan Mandal and Rajeshwar Mandal were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code having caused simple injuries on the person of the injured and given the benefit of Section 360 Cr. P.C. after due admonition. However, the present Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On going through the evidence on record, I find no justification for sustaining the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code since the manner of the occurrence does not suggest that the assault had been made with intent to cause death of the Informant. However, since grievous injury has been caused by the Appellant, he is convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, 24th day of June, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI