JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 8.6.1992, passed by Shri D.N. Barai, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1987, convicting the appellants under Sections 307, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting them under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting them under Sections 307, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a total fine of Rs. 4,500/- each on all counts to be paid to the victims. 2. The FIR in question was lodged on 24.10.1984 stating inter alia; that the informant, Abhimanya Dhar Dubey (PW 1 now deceased) filed a petition before the SDO against the appellant for not allowing him to irrigate his fields from Ahar (Pond). On 24.10.1984. the Circle Officer visited the place of occurrence to enquire into the said petition and after he returned, the informant along with his wife (PW 4) and son (PW 2) went to his khalihan for paying wages to the labourers. While they were returning home and they reached near the door of the appellants, both the appellants abused them and started assaulting the informant. When PWs 2 and 4 tried to save the informant, they were also assaulted. Appellant No. 2 Girja Shankar snatched writ watch from PW 2. On hearing "hulla", PWs 7 and 8 reached there and witnessed the occurrence. PWs 1, 2 and 4 were sent to hospital by the co-villagers. The doctor, Ranjan Kumar (PW 3) examined them and found injuries on PWs 1,2. and 4. PW 7 has been declared hostile and PW 8 has been tendered. 3. From the evidence of injured witness PWs 1, 2 and 4 and the medical evidence of two doctors PWs 3 and 5, it is clear that all the injuries on PWs 1, 2 and 4 were by lathi on legs and hands due to the dispute between the parties regarding the irrigation of their lands. Both the legs and right forearm of PW 1 were fractured. Apart from these, three grievous injuries he had two simple injuries. PW 2 had a grievous injury of elbow fracture and 12 simple injuries. P.W4 had two simple injuries. 4. Both the legs and right forearm of PW 1 were fractured. Apart from these, three grievous injuries he had two simple injuries. PW 2 had a grievous injury of elbow fracture and 12 simple injuries. P.W4 had two simple injuries. 4. The question is whether there was intention to kill the informant or not. Mr. Tripathy submitted that admittedly, the injuries were caused when the informant party reached near the door of the appellants; the injuries were caused by latht the injuries were not on the vital parts of the body. 5. Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for the informant, submitted that PWs 2 and 4 tried to save the informant from the appellants otherwise he would have been killed. He referred to certain paragraphs of evidence of PWs 1 and 2. He submitted that the injuries were also aimed at vital parts of the body such as head which the informant party tried to save. Even then repeated injuries were caused and appellants left saying that the informant has died. 6. It is clear that appellants mercilessly and repeatedly caused injuries on PWs 1, 2 and 4. Appellant No. 1, who is said to be a police officer, was not supposed to take law in his hands. However, it is difficult to hold that the appellants had intention to kill the informant, inasmuch as they could have inflicted further injuries on vital parts of the body also, even after PWs 2 and 4 tried to save PW 1. 7. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 323 and 325, IPC is maintained and they are acquitted of the charges under Section 307, IPC. 8. On the question of sentence, Mr. Tripathy submitted that this occurrence is of the year 1984 and the appellants have already suffered this case for such a long time. He further submitted that the parties are agnates, and that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants again to jail. He further referred to the earlier orders under which an attempt was made for settlement of the matter between the parties though it failed. He further referred to the order dated 10.5.2006 saying that Rs. 1 lac is lying with him which was deposited by the appellants for payment of compensation, if the same was acceptable by the informant party. Mr. He further referred to the order dated 10.5.2006 saying that Rs. 1 lac is lying with him which was deposited by the appellants for payment of compensation, if the same was acceptable by the informant party. Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for the informant, submitted that the appellants made the life of informant and his family miserable and he became a crippled man after three fractures of both legs and hands. He further submitted that the appellants do not deserve any sympathy. 9. In the circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice will be met if the appellants jointly deposit a sum of Rs. 2 (Two) lacs, in the Court below as fine/compensation, within one month from today, failing which the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. If such amount is deposited within time, they will be discharged from their bail bonds. As the informant is now dead, his son namely Ashok Kumar Dhar Dubey (PW 2) and wife of the informant namely Fulmati Devi (PW 4), will be entitled to withdraw the said amount. 10. With the aforesaid modifications in the conviction and sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.