Judgment Mandhata Singh, J.-Supplementary affidavit at Flag-X on behalf of appellants has been filed stating therein that appellant nos. 1 and 4 namely Rup Narain Rai and Durga Rai have already died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence their names should be deleted. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. 2. Prosecution case initiated on Fardbeyan of one Radha Kishun Rai, in brief, is that on 11.4.1993 at about 12.00 noon measurement of a disputed land was going on by Amin. The same was being explained by the Amin to the informant. In the meantime accused appellants Durga Rai, Ramesh Rai, Awadhesh Rai, Lal Babu Rai, Dhodi Rai, Dharam Rai, Rup Narain Rai, Ram Bilas Rai, Janak Rai, Yogi Rai and Dular Rai variously armed with Lathi, Farsa, spear and Khanti came there. Of them Ramesh Rai assaulted the informant by means of Farsa. Janak Rai assaulted him by means of Khanti. Informant's wife Sundri Devi, father Banarsi Rai and sons Satyendra Rai and Brajendra Rai came there to save him. They were also brutally assaulted by accused appellants. For Durga Rai, it is said that he took a box kept on Machan of informant. Alarm was raised, villagers gathered and saved injured persons. 3. The trial is ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellants for the offence under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In all ten witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. They are P.W. 1 Satyendra Rai, P.W. 2 Brajendra Rai, P. W. 3 Balmiki Rai, P.W. 4 Banarsi Rai, P.W. 5 Sundri Devi, P.W. 6 Ramdeo Rai, P.W. 7 Radha Kishun Rai informant of the case, P.W. 8 Sheo Ram I.O. of the case, P.W. 9 Dr. Manohar Thakur who has examined the injuries of Banarsi Rai, Sundri Devi and Brajendra Rai, P.W. 10 Dr. Mushtaque who has examined informant of the case. 5. Four witnesses are examined on behalf of defence also. They are D.W. 1 Dr. Mushtaque, D.W. 2 Vishwanath Prasad, D.W. 3 Rajeshwar Tiwari X-Ray Technician and D.W. 4 Ram Raj Rai. 6. Of prosecution witnesses, P.W. 6 is tendered for cross-examination and has stated nothing concerning incident in his cross-examination. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 7 are injured witnesses. Their injuries are found simple most of them caused by hard and blunt substance. Mushtaque, D.W. 2 Vishwanath Prasad, D.W. 3 Rajeshwar Tiwari X-Ray Technician and D.W. 4 Ram Raj Rai. 6. Of prosecution witnesses, P.W. 6 is tendered for cross-examination and has stated nothing concerning incident in his cross-examination. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 7 are injured witnesses. Their injuries are found simple most of them caused by hard and blunt substance. Three of the injuries of Banarsi Rai and that two of Sundari Devi are found caused by sharp cutting weapon and one of Banarsi Rai caused by Bhala. This much is relevant for nature of injuries and weapon used basing which intention can be gathered. 7. From the side of accused persons, four have been shown injured. They are Suresh Rai, Dharam Rai, Awadhesh Rai and Ramesh Rai. Injuries of Suresh Rai have been found grievous also. In the above context submission on behalf of accused appellants is that injuries to accused appellants are not explained by the prosecution which should be taken for doubting the prosecution case in the manner stated by it. 8. Incident if any, took place on the point of measurement of a disputed plot can be said sudden provocation and there was free fighting. For the act of informant party, Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 153/93 also was lodged that finds corroboration by injuries to four of the accused persons and none of the injuries is found grievous. So, conclusion regarding intention to kill does not appear at all and with application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code that liability is extended to all the accused appellants which is not liable to sustain and specifically it is said that if act of any of the accused appellants is taken into consideration it might be a case of Section 324 of the Indian Per al Code as Farsa and Bhala were also used in the incident and if Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is made applicable then that liability can be extended to all the accused appellants. To that extent I am also convinced. 9. To that extent I am also convinced. 9. On the point of sentence referring above circumstance, it is submitted that incident took place in the year 1993, accused appellants faced ordeal of trial and thereafter waited for result of appeal for a period of near about 19 years and sent to Jail also for some months and Chapra Mufassil Case No. 153/93 ended in acquittal due to compromise only which was arrived at in between the parties but the trial was there on behalf of informant party and said trial remained pending for such a long period, lenient view should be taken by the Court. On this point also I am convinced with the submission made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. 10. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction for the offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code is converted into one (maintained for the offence) under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and on the point of sentence the period undergone by accused appellants is observed sufficient. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 11 are already on bail, so, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 11. Let a copy of judgment alongwith lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.