Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. All the appellants along with Tirthu Jha were tried for the offence punishable under Secs. 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under Sec. 147, IPC. Appellant Chandradev Jha was tried also for the offence punishable under Secs. 307/149 and 148 IPC. Though trial of Tirthu Jha also commenced with the appellants, however, on consideration of his minority, since he was triable by a Court established under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, the proceeding in respect of the said delinquent juvenile was segregated and his case was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing appropriate order under the provisions of Sec. 7 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. 2. The trial Court on appreciation of evidences, found appellant Chandradev Jha guilty under Secs. 307 and 148 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and three years respectively on these counts. Appellants Indradeo Jha, Jai Kumar Thakur and Markandey Mishra too suffered conviction under Secs. 307/149, IPC. They were also found guilty under Sec. 147, IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years, respectively on these counts, with a direction that all these sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Fardbeyan of Jago Thakur (P.W. 3), recorded by Shri S. B. Pandey, Sub-Inspector of Police, in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital on 2nd July, 1979, would, inter alia, allege that on 17th June, 1979, while said Jago Thakur was sowing seeds of paddy in the field with the assistance of the labourers, at about 6 a.m., Indradeo Jha, Jai Kumar Thakur, Tirthu Jha, Markandey Mishra and Chandradeo Jha emerged holding weapons and wooden substances with them. Appellant Chandradeo Jha was suggested to have carried bhala with him and shortly after their arrival. It was alleged, that they intercepted Jago Thakur when Chandradeo Jha forbade Jago from ploughing the field, as it was taken by him on execution of deed of mortgage. It was alleged that Chandradeo Jha thereafter pierced bhala in the abdomen when he dropped to the ground and with these narrations in the Fardbeyan of Jago Thakur, First Information Report was drawn up at Kalyanpur Police Station which is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. It was alleged that Chandradeo Jha thereafter pierced bhala in the abdomen when he dropped to the ground and with these narrations in the Fardbeyan of Jago Thakur, First Information Report was drawn up at Kalyanpur Police Station which is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. Investigation commenced and during pendency of investigation, the I.O. recorded statements of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, obtained injury report in respect of Jago Thakur and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the appellants along with others were put on trial. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence placed on record, as has been stated above, while segregated proceeding of Tirthu Jha for his trial under the Juvenile Justice Act, found the appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner stated above. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses including Jago Thakur, his son, doctor and other witnesses. 4. Now adverting to the evidence placed on record on behalf of the State, one would find that while Tilakdhari Paswan (P.W. 1) was declared hostile to the State, Brij Bihari Paswan (P.W. 2) was a witness, formal in nature and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Binda Prasad Singh (P.W. 5) was also a formal witness who had brought some rent receipts on record. Jago Thakur (P.W. 3) would reiterate the narrations, made in the early version about the appellants along with Tirthu Jha visiting the place of occurrence, when Chandradeo Jha forbade him from sowing seeds on the land, following which he pierced bhala blow in his abdomen. He would state that the he was carried to Laheriasarai Hospital and as his condition continued to be critical, his statement was recorded by the Police Officer after 16-17 days of the incident Ram Sagar Thakur (P.W. 4) would reiterate the assertions made by his father P.W. 3 about his father sustaining injuries with bhala at the hands of Chandradeo Jha when he along with other appellants and Tirthu Jha visited the place of occurrence and forbade his father from sowing sees in the field. Dr. M.M. Rahim (P.W. 6), who examined the injured stated to have noticed incised wound 2"x1/2"x peritoneal cavity deep over the left side of abdomen through which omentum came out. Dr. M.M. Rahim (P.W. 6), who examined the injured stated to have noticed incised wound 2"x1/2"x peritoneal cavity deep over the left side of abdomen through which omentum came out. The doctor stated to have noticed other incised wounds 2-1/4"x1/2"x skin deep over the palmer aspect of left hand and yet there was another injury measuring 2-1/2"x1/2"x3" over the back of left side. The doctor stated to have carried out operation of the wound when he noticed that anterior and posterior wounds were communicating with abdominal cavity. The colon was punctured at spleenic flexer. Colon was further found exteriorised. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 in the opinion of the doctor were grievous in nature while injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Injury No. 1 in the opinion of the doctor was caused by sharp-cutting pointed weapon, while other injuries too were caused by sharp-edged weapon. The injured was taken to the Emergency Ward on 17-6-1979 from were he was discharged on 13-11-1979. The doctor has brought on record injury report and bed-head ticket which are Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively and this document would lend assurance to the assertions made by, the doctor about admission of Jago Thakur on 17-6-1979 at 9,2C p.m. and discharge from the hospital on 13-11-1979. 5. The defence too examined five witnesses including a doctor who claimed to have examined the injuries on the person of Chandradeo Jha and Markandey Mishra. There was one incised wound over right side of chin of lower jaw of Chandradeo Jha, and besides that, there were tender swellings on different parts of the person of Chandradeo Jha. Likewise on the person of Markandey Mishra, the doctor stated to have noticed blood clot and also tenderness on different parts of persons. The appellants also brought on record the deed of mortgage (Exhibit-A) injury reports, one copy of the First Information Report instituted at the behest of Chandradeo Jha. 6. Findings recorded by the trial Court was sought to be impeached by the learned Counsel for the appellants on premises that though Jago Thakur claimed to have sustained injuries on his person while sowing seeds in the field, which he claims to be in his possession for last 10-12 years, as description of the place of occurrence was never brought on the record, the prosecution case suffers from ambiguity on that account in not establishing the (sic) place of occurrence. Learned Counsel would urge that the documents brought on record on the part of the appellant would unerringly suggest that the land in question, on which seeds were being sown by Jago Thakur, had been taken by Chandradeo Jha on suburban and the appellants had all the right to forbid Jago Thakur from ploughing the land. Contentions were raised that as the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined at trial, the prosecution suffered serious infirmity on that count also as it was the I.O. alone who with his objective finding could have established place of occurrence. Yet, it is urged that though assertions were made by Jago Thakur to have sustained injuries on 17-6-1979, it was not before 2-7-1979 that the prosecution was launched against the appellants and belated action of the prosecution in launching prosecution against the appellants would in itself render the entire prosecution case unworthy of credence. About credibility of the witnesses, it was sought to be urged that labourers, who were shown to have accompanied Jago in the field were withheld by the prosecution and the witness who has been introduced by the prosecution to land assurance to the version of the father, was noneelse but the son of the informant whose presence at the place of occurrence was not mentioned in the early version of Jago which he rendered before the Police. Learned Counsel for the State would counter the arguments made on behalf of the appellants. 7. True, it is that the disruption of the place of occurrence was not assigned by the prosecution, however, it was rightly observed by the trial Court that the place of occurrence was the land which was claimed by the appellant Chandradeo Jha said to have been taken by him on mortgage, and hence criticism levelled by the appellants about ambiguity about the place of occurrence was meritless. The evidence of Jago Thakur was reiteration of his early version which he rendered before the Police while he was admitted in the Emergency Ward in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital and no embellishments or distorted version were sought to be introduced by him in his statement which he rendered before the Court, admittedly, after 16-17 days of the incident. The evidence of Jago Thakur was reiteration of his early version which he rendered before the Police while he was admitted in the Emergency Ward in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital and no embellishments or distorted version were sought to be introduced by him in his statement which he rendered before the Court, admittedly, after 16-17 days of the incident. He was quite emphatic in his assertion about sustaining injury by sharp edged-weapon at the hands of Chandradeo Jha, and other appellants having accompanied letter to the place of occurrence. The narration made by Jago Thakur would receive total assurance and corroboration from the evidence of his son whose evidence did not suffer either from Contradiction or any infirmity, and that apart, the findings recorded by the doctor would unerringly suggest corresponding injuries on the person of the injured. True, it is that there were no accusations about Chandradeo Jha dealing repeated blows on the person of the injured, the doctor claimed to have noticed three incised injuries on his person but on that count, the entire prosecution case for non-explanation of the two injuries suffered by the victim cannot be brushed aside. Contentions were raised that the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined by the State and also that the presence of Ram Sagar Thakur at the place of occurrence, has not been explicitly stated in the fardbeyan of his father. Since the defence itself had elicited in cross examination of father the presence of Ram Sagar Thakur at place of occurrence, omission of his name in fardbeyan, would not constitute infirmity in the prosecution case and hence there does not appear to be any plausible reason to discard the evidence of Ram Sagar Thakur (P.W. 4) only on the premises that his name was not transpiring in the early version of his father. Stress was laid by the learned Counsel for the appellants about belated statement of Jago Thakur in launching prosecution against he appellants, but this fact cannot be lost sight of that Jago was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the Hospital on 17-6-1979 and both father and son were narrating in their statements that after the occurrence the informant was taken to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital for treatment and it is in this background that the statement of Jago Thakur was recorded by the Police after lapse of about 16-17 days, after Jago Thakur was admitted it the hospital and, if he was in conscious state, the Police was obliged to record his statement and, if his statement was not recorded for 16-17 days, the prosecution should not be a casualty for the lapses on part of the Investigating Officer. 8. Though the plank of the defence case was that Chandradeo Jha had taken some, part of the land of the place of occurrence on mortgage and for that reason, Jago Thakur had no authority to plough the same but it seems from the evidence placed on record that the entire chunk of land was not taken on suburban. A proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also pending between the parties with respect to the said piece of land. Eve i if considering the appellants version to be true on the face value, there was no good reason to persuade appellant Chandradeo Jha to deal severe blow on Jago Thakur who was quite unarmed. Though injury reports in respect of Chandradeo Jha and Markandey Mishra were also brought on the record and the doctor too was examined, however, this fact cannot be lost sight of that no injuries noticed on the part of these two injured were either grievous in nature or were conspicuous, and that apart, even if these injuries, sustained by the appellants in same transaction were not explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case cannot be considered unworthy of credence for that reason alone and reliance on the same can be placed on a decision of the apex Court of the land in the case of Vijayee Singh and Ors. V/s. State of U.P. -- . 9. However, certain facts deserve consideration. V/s. State of U.P. -- . 9. However, certain facts deserve consideration. Firstly, though Chandradeo Jha was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 307, IPC, neither there was accusation of repetition of blow on the assailant nor there were intervening circumstances to desist the appellant from transiting his design into action. Though Jago, sustained grievous injuries on his person, as has been foundry the doctor, the case of Chandradeo Jha would fall within the ambit of Sec. 326, IPC and in that view of the matter, while setting aside his conviction under Sec. 307, IPC, he is convicted under Sec. 326, IPC and the sentence is reduced to R.I. for four years, however, his conviction and sentence under Sec. 148 is maintained. Though other appellants were shown to have accompanied Chandradeo Jha, yet it is admitted that no over tact was attributed to them, they too were found guilty for the offence under Sections 307/149, IPC for simply their assemblage with appellant Chandradeo Jha at the place of occurrence without there being any evidence of premeditation and follow-up action in furtherance of the common object. Their cases as such would not come within the mischief of Secs. 307/149, IPC and hence while setting aside the finding recorded by the trial Court on that count, they are found guilty under Sec. 147, IPC and it is directed that these appellants should be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a direction to appear before the trial Court to receive sentence when called upon during such period, and in the meantime to keep and be of good behavior. With these modification, this appeal partly succeeds. Bail bonds of appellant Chandradev Jha are cancelled and he is directed to surrender. The trial Court shall also take all coercive steps to take him in custody to serve out the sentence. Follow up action shall be taken in case of other appellants.