JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted u/s.307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three years by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.68 of 1993 by a judgment dated 26.4.1996. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5.9.1992 when the informant was returning to his house, the accused persons came there and variously assaulted him. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.4 is tendered witness, P.W.6 is the informant of the case, P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.5 is the doctor, who had found three injuries on the person of the injured, but all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are alleged eye witnesses, who have fully corroborated the prosecution case. 4. The defence on its behalf proved documents to show that the matter had been compromised between the parties. 5. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the doctor, I find that it could not be case u/s.307/34 I.P.C., but at best a case u/s.323 I.P.C. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but with modification in conviction to one u/s.323/34 I.P.C. and they are sentenced to a period already undergone during trial.