Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 175 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Kedar Manjhi, S/o Shamu Manjhi. 2. Shamu Manjhi, S/o Shital Manjhi. Both are resident of Village-Jamanpura, P.S.-Rasulpur, District-Saran. ……………..(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR------(Respondent) ************ For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Anirudh Kr. Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Gopal Shankar, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman, APP. ************ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted by judgment dated 26.05.1994 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.Tr. No. 99/91 by which appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for 10 years and 3 years respectively wheras the appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 years. The case of the prosecution is that on minor matter the accused persons assaulted P.Ws. 2 and 5, the two brothers. . The prosecution to prove its case examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the son of the informant whereas P.W. 2 is the brother of the informant, P.W. 3 is the Doctor who examined injured, P.W. 4 is the cousin of the informant, P.W. 5 is the informant himself and P.W. 6 is a formal witness and P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. 2 It is an admitted position that P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 were injured in the transaction but the submission is that in the facts of the case it does not appear to be punishable under Section 307 IPC since from the manner of occurrence it does not appear that the intention of the accused was to commit murder of either of the two injured. The further submission is that no independent witness has been examined even though the occurrence is said to have taken place in an open field and in full public view. On going through the evidence on record, I am inclined to agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants but since the evidence of the Doctor is cogent on the point that the two injured had in fact sustained injuries in that transaction the fact that such an occurrence had taken place can not be denied. In view of such, the conviction of the appellants is converted to one under Section 326 IPC and they are sentenced to the period already undergone but shall be required to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to the informant and the injured/ their family within eight weeks from the receipt of notice in this regard from the Trial Court and in case they fail to do so they shall be sentenced to RI for a period of three months each. With these modifications, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 31st March, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-