JUDGMENT By Court,, The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 7.2.2008 passed by Sri Indra Deo Misra, Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2005, by which judgment he found the appellants guilty under Sections 323, 447, 341, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for 1 year each for the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 month S.I. each for the charge under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and 1 month each for the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 5 years each for the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. At the outset it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the informant that they have compromised the matter amicably since they are neighbours living by the side to each other in the same area and there was a private dispute in between them due to breaking of kutcha wall given by the informant for making false boundary. It is further submitted by the appellants that except Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code under which the appellants have been found guilty by the trial court, all other sections are compoundable in nature and it will appear from the evidences that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, in that view of the matter, it is a fit case that the appellants may be acquitted on a compromise. 3. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution has examined six witnesses. P.W.1 is Kalawati Devi, P.W. 2 is Sobhi Devi, P.W.3 is Soni Kumari, P.W.4 is Dr. Pravesh Kumar, P.W.5 is Chando Devi ( informant) and P.W.6 is Sanjeet Jumar, who had turned hostile. 4. It is important to note that I.O. has not been examined in this case nor the F.I.R. has been marked, the prosecution has tried to make out a case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pravesh Kumar, P.W.5 is Chando Devi ( informant) and P.W.6 is Sanjeet Jumar, who had turned hostile. 4. It is important to note that I.O. has not been examined in this case nor the F.I.R. has been marked, the prosecution has tried to make out a case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the informant, Chandeo Devi, in her Fardbeyan, has stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.7.2004 while she was sitting in her house then, both the accused persons, Radhey Shyam Ahir (Yadav) and Bimala Devi entered into the courtyard of her house at 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon and started breaking the kutcha wall and an objection raised by the informant not to remove the same then the appellants having armed with iron rod, started abusing her and with intention to kill her inflicted iron rod upon the head of the informant, she fell down and when her two daughters, namely, Soni and Sobhi came for rescue, they were also assaulted by the appellants. 5. The informant was examined in Court as P.W.5 where she stated that on the date of occurrence when she objected the accused, Radhey Shyam Ahir (Yadav) and his wife, Bimala Devi not to remove the kutcha wall then they assaulted her with iron rod on head thereupon she fell down and thereafter they assaulted her two daughters also. It is further important to note that she does not say that the assault was made to cause her death. 6. The third witness to be considered is the Dr. Pravesh Kumar, he stated that he examined the informant as P.W.5, Chando Devi on 26.7.2004 and found the following injury on her person: (i) lacerated wound over scalp 4”x 1/4” skin deep. (ii) abrasion over left side posterior axilary line 1”x ½” x skin deep (iii)abrasion behind left ear ½” x ¼” x skin deep. The doctor has opined that all injuries were skin deep was caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature. In his cross examination, he also stated that the injuries may be caused by fall on the hard stone and coal. 7. The doctor has opined that all injuries were skin deep was caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature. In his cross examination, he also stated that the injuries may be caused by fall on the hard stone and coal. 7. From the evidences of P.W.2 and that of the injuries as found by P.W.4, it appears that there was no intention to commit the murder of the informant, otherwise if they had rod in their hand, then simple skin deep injuries would not have been caused. 8. P.W.5, in her cross-examination, she has stated in para 15 that there is a hospital in her colony that of B.C.C.L., but in spite of going to the hospital after getting injuries she went to the police station. She also admits in paras 18 & 19 that she went to the hospital on foot and thereafter she again went back to the hospital, which shows that the injuries were not serious in nature nor it was danger to her life. The doctor has also found no abnormality in her bone. 9. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the finding of trial court that the appellants assaulted the informant with an intention to cause her murder has got no basis and as such finding of conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is set aside. Since, other sections are compoundable and the parties have filed a joint compromise petition, the compounding of other sections 323, 447, 341 are accepted and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 10. The above named appellants are on bail, they are discharged from bondage of their bail bond.