Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 89 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.6.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 1981/ 90 of 1990 by the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra. ****** RAM LAGAN SINGH S/O ROOP LAL SINGH R/O VILLAGE- AWARI, POST & POLICE STATION MARHOWRAH, DISTRICT- SARAN ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Adv. For the State : P. Mehta APP. 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, 323 and 448 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 6 months and 3 months respectively by the judgment dated 17.6.1995 passed by learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 1981/ 90 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.12.1979 at about 4:30 p.m. a dispute arises between the parties over laying of paddy straw on the tiled roof of the disputed house in course of which the appellant is said to have injured two persons. 3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of whom P.W.1, P.W.6 are formal in nature whereas P.W.4 and 7 are tendered and P.W. 2,3 and 5 are material witnesses who all belong to the same family whereas P.W.8 is the doctor who examined two injured and the P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. 4. Admitted position is that the parties are agnates between themselves and there was dispute over a minor matter which led to the present occurrence. From the manner of occurrence as narrated by the eye-witnesses, it does not appear to be a case of 307 I.P.C. Moreover, the doctor also found simple injuries on the person of the two injured. 5. In view of such, accepting the prosecution case that an assault was made by the appellants on the prosecution side, the conviction is altered to one under Section 323 I.P.C. from 307 I.P.C. However, conviction under Section 448 I.P.C. is maintained. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but with modification in the conviction as stated above and the sentence to period already undergone by the appellant as sufficient under the two counts. 7. With the aforesaid modifications the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 18th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.