JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by the Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saran, at Chapra by a judgment dated 23.12.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1987/90 of 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant (PW-8) Vanshropan Singh and Vijay Kumar Singh, is that on 30.8.1985 when he was in his house along with his son Priya Ranjan and Pappu Singh and his daughter Lilawati Devi, the accused prsons came there and started assaulting him on account of earlier dispute pending between them in the court. In course of the assault, the Appellant is said to have given a chhura blow in the right side of the stomach of his son Priya Ranjan whereas accused Alakh Singh is said to have given another chhura blow to the right elbow of his son. Accused Kashi Nath Singh is said to have assaulted his daughter with brick-bats over her right leg. Accused Dewendra Singh is said to have given a lathi blow to the Informant but it did not hit him. The lady accused assaulted the lady inmates of the house and informants son on account of which they also sustained injury. The accused persons also committed theft. 3. The defence pleaded not guilty and that they have been variously implicated on account of the fact that the Informant had managed to garb the land which rightfully was of the accused. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-8, Informant, Banshropan Singh. PW-2 Priya Ranjan Singh is the son of the Informant injured whereas PW-3 Lilawati Devi is also the daughter of the Informant who is also injured. PW-5 is the wife of the Informant whereas PW-4 and PW-6 are neighbour of the Informant and alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is named in the First Information Report as a witness but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-7 is the Doctor who examined the two injured whereas PW-9 is a formal witness. The Investigating Officer has not been examined the present case. 5. PW-1 is named in the First Information Report as a witness but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-7 is the Doctor who examined the two injured whereas PW-9 is a formal witness. The Investigating Officer has not been examined the present case. 5. On going through the evidence of PW-2, injured, I find that he has stated that the accused persons entered their house and tried to evict them and when they were prevented, the Appellant is said to have given a chhura blow on his abdomen while the others assaulted him. He admitted that there were money dispute pending between the parties. Similarly, PW-3 the other injured has also stated that the accused persons entered into the house on fateful day and assaulted them variously on account of which she and her brother were injured. PW-8, Informant has fully corroborated the prosecution story as given out by him by way of Fardbeyan, PW-7 is the Doctor who found two injuries on the person of PW-2; one of which was on the abdomen and thus corroborated the prosecution story that the Appellant has pierced a chhura on the stomach of PW-2. The Doctor also found three injuries on the person of Lilawati Devi which were simple but they also corroborated the prosecution case. 6. However, on a fair assessment and a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the manner, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the house of the Informant. It is unsafe to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the same is converted to one under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The period already undergone by him during trial shall be sufficient in the interest of justice. 7. The Appellant is further required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the Informant/his family within four months on receipt of notice from the Trial Court and if he fails to do so, shall suffer further imprisonment of six months. 8. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence.