Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 28th July, 1989, passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. In Sessions Trial No. 314 of 1983, by which all Severn appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 353 of the India Penal Code and each of the them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years respectively, with this direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, as mentioned in the written report (Exhibit 4) of Albert Murmu, the then Circle Officer of Koilwar Block, is that on 6-8-1982 at about 1.00 p.m., he along with Shyam Nand Thakur (PW-7), Shyam Bahadur Singh. Anchal Ameen (PW-8) and Karamchari Prakash Narain Singh, along with armed Police went to village Gidha to remove encroachment of S. P. No.2869. Further case of the prosecution was that all the seven appellants were standing on the land in front of Gidha and under orders of Parma Rai, other appellants started assaulting Baleshwar Rai and others who had come there. The Circle Officer also heard the sound of firing and found Baleshwar Rai injured lying on the ground. In order to control the situation the, Circle Officer ordered for blank firing and, thereafter, the persons assembled there and the encroachers fled away, out of whom two persons were arrested by the police. It was also mentioned therein that in course of assault, Parma Rai set fire in his hut. The Circle Officer sent injured Baleshwar Rai to Koilwar Hospital and Parma Rai had also sustained injury. 3. On the basis of written report of the Circle Officer, Koilwar, P. S. Case No. 124 of 1982 was registered under Sections 147. 148, 149, 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the Police, after due investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants, who, after cognizance and commitment, were put on trial and were sentenced, as aforesaid. 4. The defence, as gathered from suggestions put of PWs. and the statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was that they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they were themselves assaulted by Baleshwar Rai and his family members. 5. 4. The defence, as gathered from suggestions put of PWs. and the statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was that they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they were themselves assaulted by Baleshwar Rai and his family members. 5. Prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses in support of its case out of whom (PW-6), Murat Ram, (PW-10), Pashupati Nath Upadhya, are formal witnesses, who proved formal First Information Report (Exhibit 3) and case diary (Exhibit 7). (PW-5) is Dr. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh, who claimed to have examined the injury on the person of Baleshwar Rai and proved injury report (Exhibits 2 and 2/1). (PW-1), Chandrika Rai, (PW-2) Maharaj Rai, (PW-3), Suristha Rai, and (PW-4), Baleshwar Rai, are witnesses who claimed to have seen the alleged occurrence. (PW-4), Baleshwar Rai, was injured also. (PW-7), Sub-Inspector of Police, Shyam Nandan Thakur, (PW-8), Shyam Bahadur Singh, Anchal Ameen, claimed to have gone with (PW-9) Albert Murmu, the Circle Officer of Koilwar Block, to the place of occurrence for removing the encroachment. One defence witnesses was also examined, who is (DW-1), Balwant Prasad who proved injury reports (Exhibits A and B series). 6. (PW-5), Dr. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh, stated to have examined the injuries on the person of Baleshwar Rai (PW-4) on 6-8-1982 and stated to have found the following injuries on his person : "(i) Incised wound with bleeding 3" x 1/2" x bone deep on occipital region. (ii) Incised wound with bleeding 6" x 1" x 1/2" up to 1/4" on thorasic region. (iii) Incised penetrating wound bleeding 1 1/2" x 1" x 4" x laterally towards mid auxiliary lying right side of chest. (iv) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the left scapular region." The doctor opined that injuries No.(i) to (iv) were caused by sharp-cutting weapon, may be by garasa or bhala and he further opined that injuries (i) to (iii) were servere and dangerous to life and injury No. (iv) simple in nature. He proved his injury report (Exhibit 2). He further stated to have sent a supplementary report (Exhibit 2/1) in which it was mentioned that the nature of injuries No. (i) to (iii) on the person of Baleshwar Rai have, now, changed due to following reasons : "(i) Sufferer had developed permanent disfigurement of the head. He proved his injury report (Exhibit 2). He further stated to have sent a supplementary report (Exhibit 2/1) in which it was mentioned that the nature of injuries No. (i) to (iii) on the person of Baleshwar Rai have, now, changed due to following reasons : "(i) Sufferer had developed permanent disfigurement of the head. (ii) Sufferer became unable to follow his ordinary Work and routine life due to injuries sustained on his body on 6-8-1982 more than twenty days." The doctor opined that all three injuries were grievous in nature. 7 The learned advocate for the appellants contended that by submitting supplementary report, the doctor (PW-5) has changed his earlier version that injuries No. (i) to (iii) were dangerous to life as there was massive bleeding. In the supplement-ary affidavit other datas were given for holding those injuries to be grievous. The learned advocate for the appellants challenged the second report (Exhibit 2/1) stating that this report was purposely sent to make sure that the injuries found on Baleshwar Rai must be treated as grievous, as per requirement of the law, that is, Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. He also contended that there was only one injury on the head of Baleshwar Rai that was on occipital region and of size of 3" x 1/2" x bone deep, which could not make disfigurement of the head, except scar mark. Regarding second point mentioned in the supplement-ary report (Exhibit 2/1), he rightly contended that there was no material on the record to show that the patient was unable to follow his ordinary work for more than twenty days. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that aforesaid four injuries, out of which injuries No.(i) to (iii) now be treated as simple in nature and injury No. (iv) is also simple in nature cannot make out a case of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. (PW-1) Chandrika Rai, (PW-2) Maharaj Rai, (PW-3) Surith Rai and (PW-4) Baleshwar Rai, stated about assault on the person of Baleshwar Rai by the appellants but the written report of the Circule Officer did not mention that any of the appellants specifically had any fire arm. 8. (PW-1) Chandrika Rai, (PW-2) Maharaj Rai, (PW-3) Surith Rai and (PW-4) Baleshwar Rai, stated about assault on the person of Baleshwar Rai by the appellants but the written report of the Circule Officer did not mention that any of the appellants specifically had any fire arm. Simply this was mentioned that sound of firing was heard, but (PW-1) Chandrika Rai, and (PW-2) Maharaj Rai stated that Chhotu Rai had fired his pistol, but (PW-3) and (PW-4) stated that Chhotu Rai had a gun, which he fired. Thus, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 regarding alleged firing PWs 7 and 8 had stated nothing about firing by the appellants. 9. (PW-5) Dr. Ram Sharan Prasad Singh, in cross-examination stated about injuries found on the person of appellant Parma Rai, which were all simple in nature, and proved the injury report (Exhibit 8) (PW-5) further stated that all the injuries found on the person of Parma Rai were superfluous in nature and may be manufactured. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the Informant raised a point that injuries found on the person of Parma Rai and others were not explained by the appellants. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that where the injuries were superfluous, no explanation was warranted. 11. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that no case under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable. It was pointed out that in his written report (Exhibit 4) the Circle Officer (PW-9) did not alleged anything that they were either assaulted or obstructed or any criminal force was applied to deter them from discharging the duty PWs. 7 and 8 also did not allege anything that they were obstructed by the appellants in discharge of their duty. (PW-9) clearly stated that one shot was fired by the Police Party in order to control the situation. Regarding removal of the encroachment he stated in paragraph 26 of his deposition that encroachment was not required to be removed as setting fire the encroachment itself was removed. (PW-9) clearly stated that one shot was fired by the Police Party in order to control the situation. Regarding removal of the encroachment he stated in paragraph 26 of his deposition that encroachment was not required to be removed as setting fire the encroachment itself was removed. I agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that in absence of any evidence that Circle Officer and his party were obstructed in performance of their duty or were assaulted conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, and subsequent report (Exhibit 2/1) submitted by (PW-5), regarding reasons for describing injuries on the person of Baleshwar Rai to be grievous was found not correct all injuries on the person of Baleshwar Rai would be treated as simple in nature, caused by sharp-cutting and sharp pointed weapon and, thus, case would be punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code only. 13. Accordingly, conviction of appellants is altered for Section 307/149 to Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Considering that this case was pending for last seventeen years and sword of punishment remained hanging over the heads of the appellants for last seventeen years and one of the appellants, Parma Rai, was aged about seventy years at the time of judgment, that is, ten years before and would be aged about eighty years now and that the appellants had been in custody at the initial stage and also after judgment by the Trial Court. I find that after alteration of the conviction under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, no useful purpose would be served in sending these appellants to jail after seventeen years. In my opinion, a sentence of imprisonment for period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, would meet the ends of justice. Appellants are direct-ed to deposit the fine within three months, failing which the Trial Court would take steps for arrest of the appellents. After deposit of fine the appellants should be discharged from liabilities of bail-bonds. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly dismissed with modification and alteration in conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Appellants are direct-ed to deposit the fine within three months, failing which the Trial Court would take steps for arrest of the appellents. After deposit of fine the appellants should be discharged from liabilities of bail-bonds. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly dismissed with modification and alteration in conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Decided accordingly.