Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 160 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 09.07.1996 passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in S.Tr. No. 27/90. ************ 1. Ram Briksha Chauhan, S/o Chotu Chauhan. 2. Ram Chandra Chauhan. 3. Ramanandan Chauhan. Both sons of Ram Briksha Chauhan. …… (Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Aslam Ansari, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants No. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to RI for two and half years and five years respectively whereas appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in S.Tr. No. 27/90 by a judgment dated 09.07.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant is that while he was working in the fields of Chandeshwar Chauhan he saw the accused persons cutting the ridge of the field at which he protested. The accused persons caught hold of him while appellant Ramchandra Chauhan assaulted him with the spade on the head, appellant Ramanandan Chauhan is said to have assaulted him with the lathi. When the informant raised a cry the accused persons fled away. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the Doctor, P.W. 2, 2 Chandeshwar Chauhan is the employer of the informant whereas P.W. 3 is the son of the informant. P.W. 4 is also an eye witness. P.W. 5 is a formal witness and P.W. 6 is a corroborative witness whereas P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. 4. Since the informant died during trial he could not be examined and, therefore, the Court was left with the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. However, from their evidence, I find that admittedly despite there being no intervening circumstance the appellants did not repeat the assault and the manner of occurrence deposed by the witnesses does not reveal that the appellants had intention to cause the death of the informant. Further the Doctor, P.W. 1 also found a single injury on the person of the iformant. 5. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC but convicted under Section 324 IPC and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 6. With the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-