Judgment P.K.Deb and Surinder Sarup JJ. 1. The abovenamed two appellants are are two brothers who have been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life by the judgment and order dated 13-7-1989 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in S.T. No. 82 of 1987. Against the said impugned Judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. Admittedly, there was land dispute between the deceased party and the accused person who have got their residence in the same vicinity and admittedly there was litigations and land disputes between the two families. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20-4-1986 at about 9 a.m. one buffalow belonging to the accused persons entered in the Khaliyan of the deceased Trivenni Singh situated at village Kusuwa under Husainabad P. S. and the crops belonging to the deceased persons were being damaged as a result of which accused persons raised objection and started scolding the younger brother of the deceased namely PW 3 Jagganath Singh, who is a lame person. He was also given mild assault from the side of the accused persons at which he raised alarm. Then the deceased Triveni Singh came to the scene and raised objections as to why his brother was being beaten. At this, according to the prosecution, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Triveni Singh with lathi causing injury on his person as a result of which he fell down. After the occurence, injured Triveni Singh was taken to the residence of the doctor of Hussainabad Primary Health Centre for getting him treated there. The doctor gave four stiches on the head injury of the deceased and prescribed medicine. After hearing the occurrence from the wife of the deceased, the doctor asked her to inform the police, but she instead of going to police station insisted on the doctor to carry on treatment but the doctor finding the injured too serious asked her so take him to some equipped hospital. In the night, the wife of the deceased started to go Dehri for admitting her husband to hospital but on the way in the train itself he succumbed to his injurises. Then the deadbody was brought back home and then the police was informed. In the night, the wife of the deceased started to go Dehri for admitting her husband to hospital but on the way in the train itself he succumbed to his injurises. Then the deadbody was brought back home and then the police was informed. As such there was delay in lodging the information and only on the next day of the occurrence, fardbeyan of the wife of the deceased namely, PW 2 was recorded by Hussainabad Police and then investigation started and the accused persons were arrested. During the course of investigation, post-mortem was held over the deadbody of Triveni Singh and then after completion of investigation, charg-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Section 302/34, I.P.C. 3. The defence case is the denial of the prosection story. According to the accused persons, as there was land dispute, they have falsely been implicated in the case, although, as a matter of fact, the deceased sustained injuries due to fall from the roof of the house. 4. For and on behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses have been examined and to prove the dispute and enmity between the parties, two defence witnesses have also been examined. Out of the prosecution witnesses, PWs 1 and 3 are the sons of the deceased, while PW 2 is the wife of the deceased and an informant, in the case they are vital witness and cited as an eye-witness to the occurrence. PW 4 is doctor, who examined Jagganath Singh, who sustained minor injury on his person, while PW 5 Dr. B. Ojha held post-mortem over the deadbody of the deceased Triveni Singh. As per evidence of the PW 5 and the post-mortem, the injuries on the person of the deceased are in the following manner : (1) One stiched wound 4" in length on right parietal region of skull with eccomysis of right upper lid. On dissection blood clot was present underneath the skin of right parietal region of skull, right parietal bone was found fractured, a big humotoma was found in the subddural space right side." Thus, it is found that thre was only one injury on the person of the deceased. PW 6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers in the case. 5 Mr. PW 6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers in the case. 5 Mr. V. P. Singh for and on behalf of the appellants have strene-ously argued to assail the impugned judgment on the ground : (1) that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and as such there was concoction ; (2) that the witnesses examined in the case to support the prosecution case are only the near and dear ones of the deceased and not a single independent witness has been examined in the case ; (3) that the injuries on its own nature cannot be said to be sufficient for causing death but the death must have been occurred due to laches on the part of the informant and also for lack of proper treatment. 6. Mr. S. N. Rajgharia, appearing for and on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment with reference to the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution side. 7. We have thoroughly and closely scrutinised the evidence adduced by PWs 1 to 3, who are the eye-winesses to the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution story in all material particlars. Only because they are the near and dear one of the deceased person, their evidence cannot be thrown out. Moreover, although the occurrence took place in the day hours but the house of the accused and the deceased being in the close neighbourhood and when the occurrence took place as a result of quarrel, there may not be other person at the site of the occurrence. There is also no evidence to the effect that more independent witnesses were there. The assault took place just near the house of the accused persons admittedly, it it also an admitted case that when the deceased went to protest against the beating of PW 3 by accused persons then only in the midst of the quarrel, he was given a blow by one of the accused persons and the way the blow was given and considering the death of the blow and the impact of it as is found from the post-mortem report cannot be said that the blow was given with the intention of committing murder. Admittedly, the blow was given by means of a lathi and even if the prosecution case is held to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt then also the case cannot come within the purview of Section 300 of the I.P.C. and punishment under Section 302, I.P.C. as such. 8. Definitely, there were laches on the part of the informant for not taking proper care for proper treatment of the deceased. With such injuries, the deceased might not have succumbed. 9. Considering all as aspects of the matter, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could be able to prove case their against the accused persons but the same cannot be under Section 302, I.P.C. but only under Section 325 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction passed by the impugned judgment under Section 302/34, I.P.C. against the appellants should come down to Section 325/34, I.P.C. The accused-appellant, during the course of trial and after their arrest were in custody for some time. Accused-appellant No. 1 is found from the record to be in custody about six months while appellant No. 2, three and half months. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we find that the sentence should be imposed in such a way that some compensation can be given to the wife of the deceased, when the deceased was only 47 years of age at the time of the occurrence. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is hereby set aside under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and under Section 325/34 I.P.C. to which the conviction is reduced. The sentence is awarded to the extent of the period of imprisonment which had already been undergone by the accused-appellants and for payment of Rs. 5,000 each in default R.I. for three months each. If the amount of fund is realised or deposited by the accused-appellants before trial judge, the same should be paid to the informant, Shanti Devi by way of compensation. 11. The appeal is thus partly allowed.