JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 148, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for five years and three years respectively by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S. Tr. No. 289/99 by judgment and order dated 7/8.6.2000. 2. The case of the informant is that at about 14.3.1993 at about 1 p.m. when she was going to work she saw the accused uprooting the standing gram crops. When she protested at this action he started abusing her and ran towards her with a lathi with an intent to assault her. In the meanwhile, the remaining accused persons also reached there variously armed whereafter the appellant gave a farsa blow on the head of the informant with intention to kill her causing injury on her head while the other co-accused persons assaulted her with lathi. She was then removed to the Hospital where she instituted present First Information Report. 3. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned above whereas the rest of the accused were released on Probation of Offenders Act. 4. During the course of trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW 1, Rameshwar Ram who is injured as well as son of the informant stated that the occurrence has taken place four years ago. On the date of occurrence when his mother protested at the act accused Khaderan Paswan of uprooting the standing gram crops and she raised alarm the accused rushed towards the fields and appellant gave a farsa blow on the head of his mother whereas the rest assaulted with a danda. He was assaulted in this transaction. 5. PW 2, the informant Jagmania Devi has supported her case given out in the First Information Report. 6. PW 3, Kalawati Devi stated that informant is her mother-in-law and supported the case. PW 4, Dinesh Ram is also the son of the informant who supports the version of his mother. 7. PW 5, Umesh Ram is son of the informant who stated that they rushed the place of occurrence on the cries of her alarm and saw the accused persons assaulting him. 8. PW 6 and PW 7 are the Doctors. PW 6 examined Jagmania Devi and found three injuries on her person all of which were simple in nature. PW 7, Dr. Raj Kumar Prasad examined PW 1 and found two simple injuries on his person. 9. 8. PW 6 and PW 7 are the Doctors. PW 6 examined Jagmania Devi and found three injuries on her person all of which were simple in nature. PW 7, Dr. Raj Kumar Prasad examined PW 1 and found two simple injuries on his person. 9. The counsel for the appellant submits that in the nature of offence evidently no offence under Section 307, IPC is made out and at best a case under Section 323, IPC. 10. I am inclined to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant since it appears that the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution witness the assault took place on the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. 11. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307, IPC is converted to under Section 323, IPC and sentence is reduced to one already undergone by the appellant under each count. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence. Appeal dismissed.