JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28th August, 2002 and order of sentence dated 29th August, 2002 passed by Shri Janak Kumar Nath Tiwary, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 77 of 1993, by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he does not want to enter into the merit of the case, It is apparent from the bare reading of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the informant when he was examined as P.W. 5 that he received only a single blow in the back portion of his neck and saw this appellant with a Balua in his and. The informant also admitted in para 7, in his cross-examination, that he has got a land dispute with the accused-appellant. He further submitted that the doctors P.Ws. 7 & 8, who examined the informant, has stated that they found only single injury on the scale just over the neck, which was simple in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied in a judgment reported in 1992 Cr. Law. Journal Page 609 in the case of Ramesh vs. State of U.P. in which learned Supreme Court in a similar case converted the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code to that of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3,0001- as fine and the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned counsel for the State has got no objection to the same if the rule of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applied to the facts of the case. 5. In that view of the matter, I done propose to decide the appeal as a matter of law, but agree with the learned counsel for the appellant and it appears from the evidence of P.W. 5, the informant that of received only single blow from behind am when he turned back saw the appellant with a Balua in his hand. He also admitted in para 12, in his cross-examination, that it was dark at the time of occurrence and he had identified the accused-appellant in the light of torch. He also admitted in para 12, in his cross-examination, that it was dark at the time of occurrence and he had identified the accused-appellant in the light of torch. He also admitted in para 7, in his cross-examination, that he has got a land dispute with the accused-appellant, but doctors- P.Ws. 7 & 8 both have found only single injury just above the neck on the occipital region, which was simple in nature. 6. In 'that view of the matter, applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is converted to that of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and since the appellant has remained in custody for about 5 months during trial and after conviction sentenced him the period already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default in making the payment he will further undergo S.1. for 6 months. If the fine is deposited the same will be paid to the informant P.W. 5 as compensation. 7. The appellant is directed to deposit a fine within 1 month, otherwise the learned trial court is directed to issue nonbailable warrant of arrest against him for serving out the sentence. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.