Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge III, Buxar in Session Trial No. 149/93. All the appellants were convicted under Section 325, IPC and they were directed to execute bond of Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to maintain peace and to be of good behaviour for one year with all conditions attaching to the bond as mandated under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. The prosecution case originated on the fardbeyan of PW 4, Dhurb Singh, wherein it was alleged that on 23.6.1991, the informant was raising wall on his own land. Suddenly, five accused-appellants came there and protested to the informant in raising the wall. Thereafter there ensued on exchange of hot words between the informant on the one hand and the accused-appellant on the other, which culminated in an occurrence of assault indulged in by the accused- appellants upon the informant. Accused Babban had attempted to assault the informant with RAMI, but while warding off this blow by the informant with a bucket, appellant himself received an injury with RAMI. Then accused Bhim Mahto assaulted the informant with lathi on his head. Accused Bishwamitra Koeri dealt lathi blow on the informants shoulder. Thereafter accused Janardan Koeri hit the informant on his back with brick. 3. The accused had taken the defence of false implication and a counter blast case was also filed. 4. The prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses. PW 6 brought on record X-ray report. (Exhibit 5). He also produced X-ray plates material exhibits I and 1/1. PW 5 was the doctor. He had examined Dhurb Singh on 23.6.1991 at Raghunathpur Primary Health Centre and he found two small wounds measuring 1" x bone deep x 1/2" side by side on the head. Another injury was bruise with swelling on the right shoulder with suspected fracture of outer end of clavicle. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury No. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance. PW 5 described the injury No. 2 as grievous on the basis of the X-ray plate No. 115 as also X-ray report. PW 4 was the informant himself. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury No. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance. PW 5 described the injury No. 2 as grievous on the basis of the X-ray plate No. 115 as also X-ray report. PW 4 was the informant himself. PWs 2 and 3 were so-called eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence and PW 1 was a formal witness who brought on the record, formal FIR, Exhibit I. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of the informant, supported by PWs 2 and 3, held the accused-appellant guilty for the offence under Section 325, IPC although charge was framed under Section 307/34, IPC. In the opinion of the trial Court, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307/34, IPC because if the accused had any intention to murder the informant, they would have easily accomplished their intention, there being no intervening circumstance. 6. The evidence was firstly criticised by the appellants on the ground that the doctor who examined the victim said that his injury No. 2 may because by fall, as well. It was further submitted that the injury No. 1 was of sharp cutting weapon and there was no allegation of using any sharp cutting weapon. So, it appears that the informant sustained this injury somewhere else and not in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However, I am of the opinion the doctor who described the injury No. 1 did not say either in his evidence or in the injury report, exhibit 4, that two small wounds on the front side of the victim was cut injury. So, it appears that the doctor while describing the weapon used by the assailants causing injury No. 1 had inadvertently referred to the means of causing this injury to be sharp cutting weapon. The very fact that there was the counter version of the alleged occurrence indicates that both the parties had gathered at the P.O., at the alleged time, and so their presence was well marked. So there was chance of good probability of the alleged occurrence and when there was evidence supporting the alleged occurrence, there was no escape from .the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellants had subjected the informant to assault as alleged. It was next submitted that no independent witness was examined. So there was chance of good probability of the alleged occurrence and when there was evidence supporting the alleged occurrence, there was no escape from .the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellants had subjected the informant to assault as alleged. It was next submitted that no independent witness was examined. However, I find that PW 3 was not at all related to the informant. Of course, it was suggested by the appellants that the informant had litigation with the accused-Babban. However, he had gone to the P.O. on hearing the alarm. Therefore, it cannot be said that he did not see the occurrence. 7. So far the conviction recorded by the trial Court finding the offence under Section 307/34, IPC not substantiated is concerned, I am of the opinion that the trial Court, of course, did not commit any illegality here. But when the trial Court convicted all the accused-appellants under Section 325, IPC, I think there was some illegality because, when there was charge under Section 307/34, IPC, the conviction should have been recorded under Section 323, IPC as well. So, I think by slight amendment in the order of conviction, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court is modified to the effect that all the accused-appellant shall stand convicted under Sections 323 and 323/34, IPC. The trial Court directed the appellants to furnish bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The bond has already been furnished. This appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the order of conviction and direction to execute bond.