ORAL JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellants have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 452/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, three years and five years respectively by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1995. 2. The case has been instituted on the basis of the bayan of one Shivnandan Ravidas on 28.01.1993 at 09:45 AM, stating therein that his father Singheshwar Ravidas was working in West Bengal. His father and his brothers had occupied 22 decimals of GAIR MAZARUA AAM land. When his father came to the village, the three brothers had divided the lands amongst themselves and the informant’s father had built his house etc. over the portion of land allotted to him. During the period when the informant’s father returned to West Bengal to earn his livelihood, the uncles had destroyed the house and harvested the land on which the informant and his father had built their house etc. An objection was raised by the informant and his father, and a panchayat was called. The appellants did not follow the decision of the Panchayat and in the night of 28.01.1993, entered the house of the informant and assaulted them. It is specifically alleged in the First Information Report that the appellants assaulted his father and him with a lathi. It is also alleged that the appellant Hari Kishore Ravidas fired, injuring the informant above his eye. 3. The doctor and the Investigating Officer of this case have not been examined on behalf of the prosecution in this case and as such, the formal First Information Report and the injury report had been marked as exhibits without objection on behalf of the defence. 4. Four witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution, out of which, PWs 2 and 4 are the injured witnesses. PW 4 Shiv Nandan Ravidas, the informant of this case, has stated that he was sleeping when his uncle Jageshwar Ravidas along with his son-in-law Upendra Ravidas and Hari Kishore Ravidas entered the house and on orders issued by Jageshwar Ravidas, fired at the informant. It is admitted by this witness that there was a dispute with respect to the lands for the past two years between his uncles and his father & him. It is admitted by this witness that there was a dispute with respect to the lands for the past two years between his uncles and his father & him. PW 4 states that the appellant no. 1 is 80 years of age. His evidence was recorded in the year 1998. A suggestion was given to him that he is not in a position to see clearly, especially in the night. He denies the suggestion that it was a dark night and as such, he could not have identified the miscreants. 5. PW 2 Bibhisan Das has stated that only two persons entered his house, one was Hari Kishore Ravidas and the other, he could not identify. According to him, they were looking for the informant Shiv Nandan Ravidas and thereafter entered the room of Shiv Nandan Ravidas and fired at him. He is the cousin of Shiv Nandan Ravidas and he admits that there is a land dispute between the parties. At paragraph 5, he specifically states that he could not identify the person who had assaulted him by a lathi because it was a dark night. He also admits that he could not identify those persons who were standing in the courtyard of his house because it was completely dark. 6. From the evidence of PW 2, it would appear that he was only able to identify Hari Kishore Ravidas amongst the miscreants, he has not been able to identify the person who had supposedly assaulted him and he also admits that it was a dark night. The evidence of PW 4, on the other hand, indicates that he was able to identify Hari Kishore Das and Upendra Ravidas, who had assaulted him by lathi. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that Jageshwar Ravidas had fired on him, whereas in the First Information Report, he had stated that Jageshwar was the order giver. Thus, PW 4 has contradicted himself regarding the manner of assault. 7. PW 1 Ratan Das is a hearsay witness. He does not claim to identify any of the miscreants and has stated frankly that PW 4 disclosed the names of these appellants to him. Although, he admits that some miscreants had entered the house of the informant and assaulted him. 8. PW 3 Mahesh Das is similarly a hearsay witness. 7. PW 1 Ratan Das is a hearsay witness. He does not claim to identify any of the miscreants and has stated frankly that PW 4 disclosed the names of these appellants to him. Although, he admits that some miscreants had entered the house of the informant and assaulted him. 8. PW 3 Mahesh Das is similarly a hearsay witness. According to him, the names have been disclosed by Shiv Nandan Ravidas whom he saw in an injured condition when he reached at the place of occurrence. He admits that there is dispute with respect to the lands between the parties. Thus, PWs 1 and 3 are hearsay witnesses and have not identified the accused persons at the place of occurrence. 9. It would appear from the statement of the informant that the involvement of Jageshwar Ravidas becomes doubtful for the reason that he has changed his version with respect to the manner of assault as well as for the reason that Jageshwar Ravidas was an old man and could not have actively participated in the occurrence. The medical evidence indicates that there is no injury by fire-arm as both the injured persons had received simple injuries inflicted by a hard blunt substance. According to the injury report, the eye of Shiv Nandal Ravidas was red including the upper and lower eye-lid. This injury is said to be caused by a hard blunt substance. PW 2 Bibhisan Das had a scratch on the left lower eye-lid. 10. On perusal of the injury report and the manner in which the case has been narrated, this Court finds that in fact it is not a case under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The involvement of appellant no. 1 has already been doubted by this Court and as such, appellant no. 1 Jogeshwar Rabidas @ Jageshwar Das is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 11. As far as appellants Hari Kishore Ravidas and Upendra Ravidas are concerned, it is said that they both had assaulted PWs 2 and 4, however, the medical evidence does not disclose more than one injury each on the two persons who were injured. At most, this case would come under the purview of Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In the circumstances, considering that the appellants have remained in custody for one month, this Court reduces the sentence as period already undergone. At most, this case would come under the purview of Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In the circumstances, considering that the appellants have remained in custody for one month, this Court reduces the sentence as period already undergone. All the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 13. In the result, this appeal so far as appellant no.1 Jogeshwar Rabidas @ Jageshwar Das is concerned is allowed and the appeal so far as appellants Hari Kishore Ravidas and Upendra Ravidas are concerned, is dismissed with the alteration in the sentence.