JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 307, 379, 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years, three years and two years respectively and Appellant Nos. 2 to 7 have been convicted under Sections 323, 147 and 307/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, one year and four years respectively by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah, in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1993/185 of 1988 by judgment dated 19th August, 1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Ram Jatan Ram is that on 24.08.1997 at about 8.30 AM when the informant was picking earth worms from the field of Shyam Charan Prasad for fishing, Pragash Yadav slapped him. On this, the informants aunt Cahndo Devi went to save him at which Chhotan Yadav, Bhattu Yadav, Sarju Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Rambriksh Yadav, Suresh Yadav and Gandhari Yadav with lathi in their hands came there. Pragash Yadav allegedly having a Khati in his hand assaulted Chando Devi on her head, whereas, Bhattu Yaddav gave a lathi blow on her left hand and Chhotan Yadav gave a lathi blow on the right hand of Chando Devi. Suresh Yadav allegedly gave a lathi blow on the head of the informant, whereas, Bhattu Yadav gave a lathi blow on the right foot of Arjun. When Brahmdeo Yadav came to intervene, he was also assaulted with lathi by Rambriksh and other accused persons. Theft of certain articles was also allegedly committed. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 Alakhdeo Ram, PW 2 Ramchandra Ram, PW 3 Prabhu Ram, PW 5 Brahamdeo Ram, PW 6 Shyamdeo Ram and PW 7 Chando Devi are the eye witnesses, whereas, PW 8 Shaila Devi has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 10 Ram Jatan Ram is the informant and an eye witness as well. PW 11 is the Investigating Officer and PW 9 is the doctor who examined the four injured. 4. On a close examination of the eye witnesses, I find that they have fully supported the prosecution case regarding the genesis of the occurrence and the assault on the four injured. The Investigating Officer, who has proved the First Information Report, also found that place of occurrence was an open place east to the door of Brahamdeo Ram. 4. On a close examination of the eye witnesses, I find that they have fully supported the prosecution case regarding the genesis of the occurrence and the assault on the four injured. The Investigating Officer, who has proved the First Information Report, also found that place of occurrence was an open place east to the door of Brahamdeo Ram. He also found trampling marks at the place of occurrence which is objective evidence with regard to the occurrence. The Doctor (PW 9) found corroborative injuries on the four injured apart from one injury sustained by Chando Devi (PW 7) which is on non-vital part. All the injuries were simple in nature. 5. On careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution there cannot be any doubt that in fact four injured persons had been assaulted by the Appellants which is further corroborated by the doctors evidence. However, from the manner depicted in the prosecution case, it is difficult to conclude that the Appellants had the intention to commit the murder of any of the injured since the injuries indicate otherwise as also despite there being no intervening circumstances none of the injured had any grievous injury on a vital part. 6. In view of such, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 307 and 307/149 Indian Penal Code is converted to one under Section 324/149 Indian Penal Code and the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial under each count i.e. 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 379 Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence.