Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The first appellant is the son of second appellant. Second appellant Swarath Singh aged 76 years at the time of his conviction in 1989. Both the appellants have been convicted under Secs. 307/ 34, I.P.C. Appellant No. 1 Abhay Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Appellant No. 2 Swarath Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Padarath Singh, the Informant, was the own bother of Swarath Singh. The informant and the appellants were the resident of village Khilwan, P. S. Bidupur in the district of Vaishali. 3. According to the prosecution, the parents of the informant and the appellant Nos. 2 had partitioned the entire property during their life-time but retained a portion of 10 kothas of land for their own maintenance. Appellant Swarath Singh had already sold his share of land and was insisting that their parents should also sell their land and give sale proceeds to him. 4. On 3-9-75 at about 7 a.m. Appellant Swarath Singh repeated his demand of selling land to his mother which was turned down by her. It is alleged that Appellant Abhay Singh became irritated and wanted to assault the mother of Swarath Singh with a knife which was prevented by the informant Padarath Singh. Swarath Singh caught hold of the informant and co accused Abhay Singh gave a knife blow at his back causing bleeding injury to him. 5. According to the medical evidence one incised wound 3" x 2 x deep on the back of left spinal cords theorax region was caused to Padarath Singh. The doctor has found the injury to be the grievous injury. There is consistent evidence of Pardhan Singh and his brother Ram Shobhit Singh. 6. The trial Court has considered the evidence and found that some property was retained by the father of the informant for maintenance. The trial Court has accepted the evidence that the accused-persons demanded the money from the mother of Pardhan Singh after selling the land. The trial Court has found Ruplal Sinha, P.W. 1, an independent witness. He had gone at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. He heard Swarath demanding money from his mother. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the fardbeyan of the informant. The trial Court has found Ruplal Sinha, P.W. 1, an independent witness. He had gone at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. He heard Swarath demanding money from his mother. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution as made out in the fardbeyan of the informant. The evidence of the informant was that his mother was dead so she could not examine. He also produced the knife, material Ext. 1. Ram Shobhit Singh is the own brother of appellant Swarath Singh who has also deposed against him. Shobhit Singh has found to be an independent witness by the trial Court. Other witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence held by the trial Court incompetent. 7. The prosecution case and the evidence cannot be doubted. The only question for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. is proper. The evidence is that one knife blow was given by appellant Abhay Singh on the back of the informant. The doctor has found serious injury because the injury was dangerous to life. This opinion, however, may not be valid. In any view of the matter the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34 is not proper. The appellants should be convicted under Section 325, I.P.C. Appellant No. 1 had remained in custody for 36 days. Appellant No. 2, who did not cause any injury has remained in custody for about 20 days. 8. Since the case is of the year 1975, it would not be proper to send the appellants to jail. Taking a lenient view the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with above modification in sentence.