JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted u/s.307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and appellant no.1 has further been convicted u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three years as also the appellant no.2 has been convicted u/s.325 and sentenced to R.I. for five years whereas appellant no.3 has been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year by a judgment dated 29.7.1997 and 30.7.1997 passed by the 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.107 of 1993/ 590 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.4 Kauleshwar Rajak is that on 6.10.1991 while he was at his paddy fields, he saw the accused persons draining out irrigational water from his field by making a hole in the ridge, at which he attempted to stop them. At this, all the accused persons got enraged and 2 assaulted him. Ram Chandra Yadav is said to have welded a farsa blow, which hit him on his left fore arm, whereas appellant Sanjay Yadav is said to have hit him over his arm and leg and when the informant fell down Prabhu Sao also assaulted him with a lathi. The informant was then removed to the Hospital. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that there was land dispute between the parties. 3. On behalf of the prosecution ten witnesses were examined during trial. Out of whom, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are formal witnesses. P.W.1 Rampati Choudhary even though attempted to depose as an eye witness conceded in his cross examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the informant having fallen down and, therefore, evidently he was not an eye witness. P.W.2 Dhananjay Narain Singh used to reside in the adjacent village and he conceded in his cross examination that he had deposed in favour of the informant in an earlier criminal case. P.W.3 Shyam Sundar Kumar is the son of the informant, whereas P.W.8 Muneshwar Rajak is his brother. 4. From the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8, I find that they have consistently stated that while the informant was standing in his field, he saw the accused persons cutting the ridge of his field and irrigating their lands, to which the informant protested and that the three accused persons variously assaulted him. Dr. 4. From the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8, I find that they have consistently stated that while the informant was standing in his field, he saw the accused persons cutting the ridge of his field and irrigating their lands, to which the informant protested and that the three accused persons variously assaulted him. Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, who deposed as P.W.6, stated that he found two injuries on the person of the informant but while one of them was simple the other was grievous. No doubt he did not fully corroborate the prosecution case since there was an allegation of at least three assaults having been made by the appellants. The background of the land dispute is conceded even on the date of occurrence a dispute had taken place with regard to irrigational facility. 5. On a careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances of the case brought on record by the prosecution, there is no manner of doubt and the appellants had participated in the assault on the informant but the way the occurrence took place in the background of land dispute and altercation between the parties as also that there was no repetition of assault and only two injuries were sustained by the injured, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants u/s.307/34 I.P.C. Hence they are acquitted of the charge u/s.307/34 I.P.C. However, the appellants are convicted u/s.324/34 and 325/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. but the period of sentence is modified to the one they have already undergone during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence.