JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years whereas the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years as also under Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced to RI for three years by a judgment dated 14.07.1994 passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in S. Tr. No. 273 of 1992/65 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.1991 at about 4 P.M. a dispute arose between the informant and Appellant No. 1 on account of transfer of the tractor in his name in course of which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 fired at him and while they were fleeing away Appellant No. 3 was caught with the arms. The reason for dispute was that the informant and the Appellants had jointly purchased the new tractor but when differences cropped up between them on account of maintaining proper accounts the tractor came in exclusive possession of the informant which led to the present occurrence. 3. The prosecution in all examined thirteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.W. 4 is tendered, P.W. 13 is formal, P.W. 8 is the informant of the case, P.W. 9 is also formal, P.W. 10 is the Doctor who examined the injured, P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 12 is the Doctor who conducted the radiological test of the informant. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P .W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the material witnesses who are on the factum of occurrence. 4. From the narrative of the story given by these material witnesses it is apparent that the occurrence took place after an altercation ensued between the parties for the transfer of tractor and even though there was no intervening circumstance, neither the Appellant No. 2 nor Appellant No. 3 repeated the fire, under the circumstances, it is difficult to hold the Appellants guilty under Section 307 IPC. 5. Since both the doctors confirmed the injuries on the person of the informant thus corroborating the prosecution case, in my opinion, at best it would be a case of Section 324 IPC since both the injuries were simple in nature. 6. 5. Since both the doctors confirmed the injuries on the person of the informant thus corroborating the prosecution case, in my opinion, at best it would be a case of Section 324 IPC since both the injuries were simple in nature. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the Appellants is converted to one under Section 324 IPC and they are sentenced to a period already undergone. The conviction of the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 27 Arms Act is however confirmed but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence as noted above. 8. The material exhibit which is still lying in this regard despite the order dated 26.04.1995 shall be returned to the Trial Court immediately to avoid any further complications.