JUDGMENT : D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Both the appeals have been preferred arising out of common judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No.298 of 2004 (Koderma P.S. Case No.214 of 2003) by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 147,323,307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year, six months and seven years respectively on each count. However, all the seven appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Koderma P.S. Case No. 214 of 2003 was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant-Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav with the allegation that on 15.06.2003 (Sunday) his neighbour agnates Narayan Yadav along with his nephew Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav and his son Ajay Yadav and Krishna Yadav were making preparation of liquor illegally on his land whereupon the informant opposed their illegal act, which resulted into scuffle and it was alleged that all the accused persons started beating him, his son Sukhdeo Yadav and his wife Bishni Devi. In the same sequence of assault the wife of Narayan Yadav, namely, Jageshwar Devi, wife of Binod Yadav, namely, Bhatni Devi and wife of Kuwar Yadav, namely, Sijni Devi also joined their hand with the assailants by holding ‘Tangi’, ‘Garasa’ and ‘Kudali’ whereas other named accused were holding sticks and Danda. The son of the informant sustained six injuries on his head alleged to be caused by blows of Lathi, Farsa and Tangi and his condition became precarious. The victims were removed to Domchanch Police Outpost where the statement of the informant was recorded and for the better management of the injuries the son of the informant was referred to Sadar Hospital, Koderma. The informant further gathered on 20.06.2007 after five days of the alleged occurrence that the accused persons had broken open the lock of his house and removed all their belongings and had extended threat that the informant and other inmates of his house would be killed in case they would return back. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons. A written report was presented on 20.06.2003 before the Domchanch Police Outpost by the informant which was forwarded to Koderma Police Station on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons. A written report was presented on 20.06.2003 before the Domchanch Police Outpost by the informant which was forwarded to Koderma Police Station on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. The I.O. after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and one Krishna Yadav under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides other Sections. All the eight accused were put on trial including the appellants and on conclusion each of them was convicted as referred to hereinbefore against substantive sentence. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. V.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place on 15.06.2003 at about 4 p.m. and the written report was presented on 20.06.2003 to which an F.I.R. was lodged but the same was received in the Court on 23.06.2003 without plausible explanation to such inordinate delay caused in lodging the F.I.R. and its receipt in the Court. It would be relevant to mention that the informant- Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav, who was an important witness to the alleged occurrence could not be examined in the Court because of his death during pendency of the trial. The conviction recorded against the accused appellants was based upon the evidence of only four witness viz. P.W. 1 Bisni Devi, P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Yadav, P.W. 3 Rajshri Rai, (second) Investigating Officer and P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Murmu, who had examined the injuries of the victims. Mr. Singh further attracted the attention that there were two injuries reports of Bisni Devi issued by P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Murmu, who admitted in his evidence that the first injury report Ext. 1 was proved on behalf of the prosecution whereas another injury report was proved Ext. A by the defence bearing glaring contradictions. The injury report of Sukhdeo Yadav was proved Ext. B and the injury report of the informant Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav was proved Ext. C. Besides these injury reports, no other document could be proved on behalf of the prosecution. It would be relevant to mention, learned Sr. Counsel added that even the Fard Bayan or the F.I.R. could not be proved to substantiate the allegation for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the prosecution case and in that manner the appellants were highly prejudiced for not getting an opportunity to cross-examine the informant. 4. Advancing his argument the learned Sr. Counsel added that even the Fard Bayan or the F.I.R. could not be proved to substantiate the allegation for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the prosecution case and in that manner the appellants were highly prejudiced for not getting an opportunity to cross-examine the informant. 4. Advancing his argument the learned Sr. Counsel submitted on behalf of the appellants that no offence alleged under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code on the evidence adduced could be attracted against any of the appellants in view of the fact that there was no intervening circumstance to prevent the appellants if at all they had intention to commit murder of Sukhdeo Yadav and that the injuries found on his person were dangerous to his life and therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, charge under Section 147 is not made out against any of the appellants. As per prosecution story only four appellants viz. Narayan Yadav, Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav & Ashok Yadav opposed the illegal act when the informant and his son were manufacturing liquor illegally and there held scuffle which was joined by other three ladies appellants and therefore, it could safely be said that the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.998/2009 had not formed any unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the specific case that the four appellants were manufacturing liquor to which the informant opposed and at the later stage they were joined by other three ladies and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 147 I.P.C. cannot be sustained under law. As regards conviction of the appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that when the appellants were convicted under the graver offence under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, their separate conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained under law. The appellants Narayan Yadav, Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav and Ashok Yadav remained in custody for 2,1/2 years whereas the lady appellants were released after detention in their custody for 22 months in total and now they were enjoying the privilege of ad interim bail during pendency of their appeal. 5. Finally, the learned Sr. The appellants Narayan Yadav, Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav and Ashok Yadav remained in custody for 2,1/2 years whereas the lady appellants were released after detention in their custody for 22 months in total and now they were enjoying the privilege of ad interim bail during pendency of their appeal. 5. Finally, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that in the given situation when the offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code could be proved against the appellants, Section 147 could not be attracted and offence under Section 323 could not be made out against any of them, it needed deep consideration of this Court for their acquittal or in alterantive they might be set at liberty after modifying the offence and the punishment awarded to each of them for the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. 6. Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State, who submitted that the P.W. 1 Bisni Devi and Sukhdeo Yadav were consistent in their evidence about the complicity of all the appellants in assaulting them causing a number of injuries who have been rightly convicted under Sections 307/149 and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. It was only because of good fortune that the life of the injured Sukhdeo Yadav, (P.W.2) could be saved in spite of injuries on his vital organs by appropriate medical aid and management of his injuries. P.W. 1 Bisni Devi also consistently testified the occurrence with the participation of the appellants in such assault and the Trial Court was justified in holding the appellants guilty under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code which needed no interference in appeals. 7. P.W. 1 Bisni Devi also consistently testified the occurrence with the participation of the appellants in such assault and the Trial Court was justified in holding the appellants guilty under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code which needed no interference in appeals. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find substance in the argument that there was no intervening circumstance available to prevent the appellants had there been their intention to commit murder of P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Yadav, who had out numbered him and at best, in view of the injuries found on the person of Sukhdeo Yadav, found to be caused by hard and blunt object total 7 in number with the injuries No.1,2 & 3 laceration in nature on the right and back portion of skull and lacerated wound on the left side of occipital region 1/2 cm x 1/3 cm x scalp deep and lacerated wound on upper lip 1.5 cm x1/4 cm x skin deep besides other superficial injuries, to my view the aforesaid injuries found on the person of Sukhdeo Yadav, cannot be put in the category of simple injury but grievous in nature, an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code wherein sentence has been prescribed which can be extended up-to 7 years and fine. Admittedly, the parties were agnates and the occurrence arose on the disputed land which resulted into scuffle and I have held that there was no intention of the appellants to commit murder of Sukhdeo Yadav. I further observe that the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not found to be put in right way and that general and omnibus allegations were put to each of the appellants against the settled requirement of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for that the appellants have been highly prejudiced for not being confronted with incriminating evidence appearing against each of them during course of trial so as to accord an opportunity to each of them to explain, as such they were prejudiced. But the facts cannot be ignored in the backdrop that the prosecution proved the injuries on the persons of the victims, amongst them are the injured witness P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. But the facts cannot be ignored in the backdrop that the prosecution proved the injuries on the persons of the victims, amongst them are the injured witness P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The cummulative effect of the entire facts and circumstances indicates that a lenient view may be taken against the appellants while considering appeal. In the facts and circumstances their conviction under Section 307/149 is modified into one under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code against each of the appellants. I further observe that in the facts and circumstances no offence is made out under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants for the reasons discussed hereinbefore, accordingly, each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them with the fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment each of the appellants shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 8. With such modification in conviction and sentence this appeal is dismissed with regard to Sessions Trial No.298 of 2004 arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No.294 of 2003 with the direction that the fine amount must be deposited within two months of the receipt of the communication of this judgment in the trial court below. Let the appellants of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.998 of 2009 be released forthwith on their deposition of fine. 9. Both the appeals are dismissed.