Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellants, namely, Rajkeshar Prasad Singh and Satish Kumar alias Koku Singh have been convicted under sections 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment five years under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants namely, Balmiki Singh and Surendra Singh have been convicted under sections under sections 307/149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years. However no separate sentence has been passed under sec. 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.1.1981 at 6 a.m. the accused Rajkeshwar Singh armed with a Garasa, Satish Kumar alias Koku Singh with a Garasa, Shivdani Singh, Surendra Singh and Balmiki Singh armed with lathi came to the machine fitted in the well of the informant Gaukaran Singh ituated in the adjacent south of his Baithaka with a view to draw water with a latha from the well. The machine of the informant was in operation in the well. It has been further stated that the informant protested the accused persons from drawing water with Latha from the well saying that his machine was installed in the well in the year 1967. This led to altercation. All the accused persons began to damage the machine house. The informant protested. It has been further stated that the accused Surendra Singh ordered to kill and thereupon the accused Rajkeshwar Singh gave a Garasa blow on the head of the informant Gaukaran Singh with a view to kill him. The informant fell down and thereafter the accused Shivdani Singh gave a lathi blow on the neck of the informant The informant raised Hulla and thereupon his old father Bhagwat Singh, Bahadur Singh, Ram Singh and Rajo Singh of the village came there and intercepted. Thereafter, the accused Rajkeshwar Singh ordered to kill Bhagwat Singh, the old father of the informant and thereupon the accused Satish Kumar alias Koku Singh gave a garasa blow on the head of Bhagwat Singh who fell down and thereafter, the accused Balmiki Singh gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. The above witnesses and other villagers, witnessed the occurrence and saved the life of the informant and his father. The above witnesses and other villagers, witnessed the occurrence and saved the life of the informant and his father. The informant on 6.1.1981 at 6 A.M. gave his statement to the A.S.I, of police of Nawadah police station in the Sadar Hospital, Nawadah. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The police took up investigation and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of session for trial and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether nine witnesses. P.W. 1 is Uttam Kumar. He is a fornal witness and he has proved the Fardbeyan. P.W. 2 is Gaukaran Singh, the informant. P.W. 3 is Ram Singh. P.W. 4 is Bhagwat Singh. P.W. 5 is Bahadur Singh P.W. 6 is Dr. S.P. Singh who has examined the injured. P.W. 7 is Babulal Singh. He is also a formal witness. P.W. 8 is Vijay Kumar and he is also a formal witness. P.W. 9 Rameshwar Pathak is the I.O. of this case. 5. P.W. 2, Gaukaran Singh, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him the occurrence took place about nine years ago at 6 A.M. He has stated that he was irrigating his land from his, machine fitted in the well situate in the south of his Baithaka. In the meantime, Rajkeshwar Singh and Satish Kumar alias Koku Singh armed with Garasa and Balmiki Singh, Surendra Singh and Shivnandan Singh armed with a lathi came there and told that they would draw water from the well by Latha. This led to altercation. Thereupon the accused Surendra Singh, ordered to assault and the accused Rajkeshwar Singh gave a Garasa blow on his forehead. The accused Surendra Singh, Shivnandan Singh and Balmiki Singh also assaulted with lathi. He has further stated that Ram Singh, Rajo Singh, Bahadur Singh and the informants father Bhagwat. 6. Bhagwat Singh also came there to save him. The accused Satish Kumar assaulted the father of the informant with a Garasa on the head and other accused persons assaulted him with a lathi. He has further stated that Ram Singh, Rajo Singh, Bahadur Singh and the informants father Bhagwat. 6. Bhagwat Singh also came there to save him. The accused Satish Kumar assaulted the father of the informant with a Garasa on the head and other accused persons assaulted him with a lathi. The accused persons damaged the machine. He has further stated that he and his father were removed to Nawadah Hospital for treatment where the police came and his statement was recorded. 7. P.W. 3 is Ram Singh. According to him on 6.1.1981 in the morning he was in his Baithaka and on Hulla he went to the cabin of the informant Gaukaran Singh. He has further stated the accused Rajkeshwar Singh wanted to draw water by a latha from boring well to which the informant did not agree. He has further stated that Rajkeshwar Singh and Satish Singh were armed with a Garasa and Surendra Singh, Sivan Singh and Balmiki Singh gave a Garasa blow on the head. The informant who fell down and thereafter Siwan Singh assaulted him with a lathi. The accused Satish Singh gave a Garasa blow on the head of Bhagwat Singh. The machine house was also damaged. 8. P.W. 4 is Bhagwat Singh, the injured and father of the informant. He has stated that the occurrence took place about nine years ago at 6 A.M. He has stated that the boring motor of his son Gaukaran Singh was in operation in the well. In the meantime, the accused Rajkeshwar Singh, Satish Singh came there and told that they would draw water by a latha from the well and asked the informant to stop the machine. This led to quarrel. The accused Rajkeshwar Singh gave a garasa blow on the head of the informant. The accused Siwan Singh gave a lathi blow on the neck of, the informant. The accused Rajeshwar Singh ordered to assault the old man (father of the informant) and thereupon Satish Singh gave a Garasa blow on his forehead. He has further stated that Balmiki Singh assaulted him with a lathi after he fell down. He has further stated that the accused persons damaged the tiles of the machine house. 9. P.W. 5 is Bahadur Singh. He has further stated that Balmiki Singh assaulted him with a lathi after he fell down. He has further stated that the accused persons damaged the tiles of the machine house. 9. P.W. 5 is Bahadur Singh. He has stated that about nine years ago at 6 A.M. he was in his Baithaka and on Hulla he went to the well where the dispute was going on between Rajkeshwar Singh and Gaukaran Singh. After altercation assault took place. The accused Gaukaran Singh gave a Garasa blow to the informant Gaukaran Singh. The accused Satish Singh gave a Garasa blow to the informant Gaukaran Singh. The accused Satish Singh gave a Garasa blow on the head of Bhagwat Singh. The accused Surendra Singh, Balmiki Singh and Siwan Singh assaulted the informant and his father Bhagwat Singh with a lathi. The accused persons damaged the tiles of the cabin. 10. P.W. 6 is Doctor S.P. Singh, the then C.A.S. of Sadar Hospital. He has examined the informant Gaukaran Singh on 6.1.1981 and found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound 2 1/2" x 1" bone deep cutting about 3 m.m. depth of frontal bone and displacing a piece of bone on the center. 2. Bruise on the back of neck 2" x 1/4" In his opinion, the injury no.1 was grievous in nature caused by a sharp edged weapon, may be both the injuries were simple and injury no. 1 was caused by a sharp weapon, may be by garasa and injury no. 2 by a hard blunt substance, may be by a lathi. 11. On the same day he has examined injured Bhagwat Singh and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" bone deep on the forehead. 2. Bruise 1 1/2" x 1/2" on the lower part of the left leg. In his opinion, both the injuries were simple and injury no.1 was caused by a sharp weapon, may be by a garasa and injury no.2 by a hard blunt substance, may be by a lathi. He has proved his injury reports which has been marked as Exts. 3, 3/1 and 3/2. 12 P.W. 9 is Rameshwar Pathak, I.O. of this case. He has proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan (ext. 2/3). He went to the village Janpura for investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given the vivid description. 13. He has proved his injury reports which has been marked as Exts. 3, 3/1 and 3/2. 12 P.W. 9 is Rameshwar Pathak, I.O. of this case. He has proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan (ext. 2/3). He went to the village Janpura for investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given the vivid description. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that intention and knowledge is necessary ingredients for attracting the offence under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case the appellants has no intention to kill the informant as he has not repeated the blow. As such case under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. At best it attracts the offence punishable under sec. 325 of 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been lastly submitted that the occurrence took place 26 years back and in a spur of moment there was altercation between the parties. 14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the opinion of the medical expert and also the facts of the case, it is clear that the blow given by Garasa on the person of the injured informant was not repeated. The other blow which was found on his person was caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. The injury on the person of the injured, Bhagwat Singh was also caused by Garasa and the same was also not repeated by the accused Satish Kumar, as such it seems that the appellant, Rajkeshwar Prasad and Satish Kumar had no intention to kill the informant and his father, Bhagwat Singh. That apart the occurrence was not premeditated. It occurred after an altercation on drawing the water from well and it occurred after hot discussion between the informant and the accused persons. As such this also goes to show that it was not an intentional assault rather it was voluntarily assault, but with sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa. The injury on the person of the injured informant was grievous in nature as such it attracts the offence under sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The injury on the person of Bhagwat Singh was simple in nature and as such the offence committed by accused Satish Kumar attracts offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the conviction under sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The injury on the person of Bhagwat Singh was simple in nature and as such the offence committed by accused Satish Kumar attracts offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the conviction under sec. 307 of the fndian Penal Code awarded to the appellant, Rajkeshwar Prasad Singh is altered to that of under sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code awarded to appellant Satish Kumar is altered to under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the conviction under sec. 427 of the Indian Penal Code against them is maintained. 15. As far as the appellants, Balmiki Singh and Surendra Singh are concerned, they were having armed with lathi and assaulted the injured informant and his father with lathi and they were accompanying the appellant, Rajkeshwar Prasad Singh and Satish Kumar also. Since as alleged they were the members of unlawful assembly and were armed with lathi, their acts also attracts the offence punishable under sections 324/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, their conviction under sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to under sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Now coming to the question of sentence it appears that appellant, Rajkeshwar Prasad Singh, as per the copy of the voter list which has been marked as Ext.5 was aged about 55 years in the year 1990 and accordingly at present he is aged about 72 years. The occurrence took place in the year 1982 i.e. 26 years back and during this prolonged litigation he has been mentally and physically harassed and punished and he has also remained in custody for some time. As such in my view it would be expedient in the interest if justice, if the sentence is reduced to the period he has already gone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited by him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 17. So far as appellants, Satish Kumar, Balmiki Singh and Surendra Singh are concerned they have also remained in custody for some time and have also been mentally and physically punished and harassed during this prolonged litigation. In default he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 17. So far as appellants, Satish Kumar, Balmiki Singh and Surendra Singh are concerned they have also remained in custody for some time and have also been mentally and physically punished and harassed during this prolonged litigation. Accordingly their sentences are reduced to the period they have already gone in jail with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine they will have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 18. It is made clear that the amount of fine so realized by the appellants the same shall be paid equally to the injured informant and his father, namely, Bhagwat Singh or to his legal heir by way of compensation. 19. "With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.