JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.7.2001 and sentence order dated 26.7.2001 passed by Sri Prakash Chandra Jaiswal learned Addl. Sessions Judge V. Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions trial No. 543 of 1989 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant No.5 namely, Surya Nandan Choudhary @ Suryanandan Choudhary and appellant No.6, namely Ghura Choudhary for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas rest appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous. imprisonment for seven years for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. However all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Kailash Choudhary gave his fardbeyan to ASI of Sanjhouli police station at the dispensary of Dr. Karamchand Prasad Singh (PW 4) on 16.3.1987 at 10.45 a.m. to this effect that on the same day at about 8.45 a.m. he was washing his mouth sitting in his dalan. In the meantime appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary opened four to five rounds fire from their respective guns from Mahua tree situated towards east side of his dalan and the aforesaid firings hit at his chest and forehead. He further stated that PW 3. Rajendra Singh was sweeping his dalan which was situated towards west of his dalan. The aforesaid PW 3. Rajendra Singh also sustained bullet injury on his knee by the above stated firings of the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary. He further stated that PW 3. Rajendra Singh was sweeping his dalan which was situated towards west of his dalan. The aforesaid PW 3. Rajendra Singh also sustained bullet injury on his knee by the above stated firings of the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary. He further stated that the appellants Siya Ram Choudhary, Vokil Choudhary, Babban Choudhary and others were standing near the above stated appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary having lathis in their hands and furthermore some persons were also standing in the lane but he could not see their faces. The reason behind the alleged occurrence is said to be a quarrel which had taken place between the children of Nand Kishore Choudhary and the appellants on the point of overthrowing mud and water. After the aforesaid occurrence he went to the clinic of Dr. Karamchand Prasad Singh (PW 4) by bicycle whereas another injured Rajendra Singh followed him. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Sanjhouli P.S. case No. 15/1987 for the offences under Sections 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, on the same day i.e. 16.3.1987 formal first information report for the above stated offences was drawn up against the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary, Ghura Choudhary, Siya Ram Choudhary, Vokil Choudhary, Babban Choudhary and others. Formal first information report and fardbeyan of the informant Kailash Choudhary was dispatched to the concerned Court on 16.3.1987 but the same was put up before the concerned Court on 20.3.1987 i.e. after four days of recording fardbeyan and preparation of formal first information report. 4. The matter was investigated by Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary, Ghura Choudhary, Siya Ram Choudhary, Vokil Choudhary, Babban Choudhary. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual way. 5. All the above stated five charge-sheeted appellants were put on trial and on 11.3.1992 they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 6. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual way. 5. All the above stated five charge-sheeted appellants were put on trial and on 11.3.1992 they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 6. In course of trial two prosecution witnesses were examined and after that a petition under Section 319 of the Cr PC was filed to summon the appellants Rameshwar Choudhary, Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary and Gupteshwar Choudhary and subsequently the above stated appellants were summoned under Section 319 of the Cr PC to face trial along with other appellants. 7. Again on 9.2.1993 appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 148 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act whereas rest appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149 and 147 of the IPC. 8. In course of trial altogether six prosecution witnesses were examined and the prosecution also got exhibited signature of the informant Kailash Choudhary on fardbeyan as exhibit 1, injury report of Kailash Choudhary as exhibit 2, injury report of injured Rajendra Singh as exhibit 2/1, paras 1 to 19 of the case diary as exhibit 3 fardbeyan as exhibit 4, paras 40 to 48 of the case diary as exhibit 5. 9. The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC. The appellants did not adduce any oral evidence but they got exhibited certified copy of judgment dated 15.5.1997 passed in sessions trial No. 345/1989 as exhibit A, certified copy of deposition of one Chaitra Kumar Singh recorded in sessions trial No. 345/89 as exhibit B, certified copy of FIR of Sanjhouli P.S. case No. 14/1987 as exhibit C and requisition of police as well as report of ballistic expert as exhibit D. 10. Although no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants as stated above but from perusal of the trends of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC coupled with documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants it appears that defence of the appellants was total denial of the prosecution story as well as their false implication in the case on account of counter case lodged by them against the prosecution party. 11. The learned trial Court having considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as stated above. 12. While assailing the impugned judgment and sentence order learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and sentence order erroneously without appreciating the materials available on record. He further stated that it has come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that there were several houses between Mahua tree and dalan of the informant Kailash Choudhary and therefore it was not possible for the informant to see the assailants as it was the prosecution case itself that so-called firing was made from Mahua tree. He further submitted that in course of investigation licencee guns of the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary were seized and they were examined by ballistic expert who reported that no firing had been made from the aforesaid guns and therefore the aforesaid ballistic expert report demolished the entire prosecution story. He further submitted that prior to institution of Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 15/1987 appellant Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary lodged Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 against the informant and several other persons and in the aforesaid case the appellant Ghura Choudhary and some others were shown as witnesses. He further contended that so-called injured Rajendra Singh and other accused persons of Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 were put on trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI. Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions trial No. 345/1989 and accused persons of the aforesaid Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 were convicted by learned Addl. He further contended that so-called injured Rajendra Singh and other accused persons of Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 were put on trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI. Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions trial No. 345/1989 and accused persons of the aforesaid Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 were convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions trial No. 345/1989 which is evident from perusal of exhibit A. He further contended that appellants Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary and some others sustained injury in the above stated Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 and just after registration of Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 prosecution party brought this false case against the appellants but the learned trial Court did not consider the aforesaid fact while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order. He further submitted that according to the prosecution case itself fardbeyan of the informant Kailash Choudhary was prepared on 16.3.1987 and on the same day formal FIR was drawn up and dispatched to the concerned Court but the aforesaid formal FIR and fardbeyan were put up before the concerned Court on 20.3.1987 and no explanation of the aforesaid delay was brought on record by the prosecution and furthermore. Investigating Officer was also not examined by the prosecution and therefore the appellants could not get an opportunity to ask from the Investigating Officer about the above stated delay in dispatching first information report. He further submitted that PW 4 was a private practitioner and Kailash Choudhary himself admitted that after alleged occurrence he went straightway to the clinic of PW 4 and the informant did not choose to go to State hospital. Furthermore PW 4 admitted in his evidence that his relation with the informant Kailash Choudhary was very cordial and furthermore witnesses made contradictory statements not only in respect of the manner of occurrence but also in respect of injuries sustained by injured persons of this case and therefore in the above stated background no reliance can safely be placed on the prosecution case but the learned trial Court did not consider the matter in right perspective and committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. 13. On the other hand learned Addl. 13. On the other hand learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that PW 3 being injured supported the prosecution story and specifically stated that he sustained injury by the firings made by the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary and the aforesaid statement of PW 3 is corroborated by other witnesses and furthermore. PW 4 found gun shot injury on the person of PW 3 as well as the informant Kailash Choudhary and therefore the prosecution proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. 14. PW 1, Ram Suresh Choudhary is co-villager of the appellants and this witness claimed himself to be eye-witness of alleged occurrence. This witness stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he was at his field and he heard the noise which was coming out from gall situated east of dalan of one Shivraj Sah. The aforesaid noise was being raised by the appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary, Ghura Choudhary, Gupteshwar Choudhary, Siya Ram Choudhary, Vokil Choudhary, Babban Choudhary, Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary. He further stated that having heard the aforesaid noise he went towards dalan of Shivraj Sah. He also stated that there was a Mahua tree towards north of dalan of Shivraj Sah. He further stated that appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary opened four to five rounds fire with their respective licencee guns and the aforesaid firings hit on the chest and forehead of Kailash Choudhary as well as on the left thigh of PW 3 Rajendra Singh. He further stated that rest appellants namely Vokil Choudhary, Siya Ram Choudhary, Babban Choudhary, Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary having lathis in their hands were standing in gali near the above stated two appellants. He further stated that the appellants were raising alarm "Maro Maro". He further stated that when he reached there appellants fled away from there and after that he went to the dalan of Kailash Choudhary. 15. PW 2. Sheorhand Choudhary also claimed himself to be eye-witness of alleged occurrence and stated that he was standing near Mahua tree from before the alleged occurrence and the aforesaid Mahua tree was situated towards east of dalan of injured Kailash Choudhary. 15. PW 2. Sheorhand Choudhary also claimed himself to be eye-witness of alleged occurrence and stated that he was standing near Mahua tree from before the alleged occurrence and the aforesaid Mahua tree was situated towards east of dalan of injured Kailash Choudhary. This witness further stated that all the appellants along with several co-villagers were standing near Mahua tree and at that time appellants Ghura Choudhary and Surya Nandan Choudhary were armed with guns whereas rest appellants were carrying lathis. This witness further stated that the appellants Ghura Choudhary and Surya Nandan Choudhary opened fire which hit to Rajendra Singh and Kailash Choudhary. This witness further stated that at the time of alleged occurrence Kailash Choudhary was washing his mouth towards east side of his dalan. This witness stated that all appellants were raising alarm to assault. This witness also stated about genesis of the occurrence saying that a childish quarrel had taken place between children of both families on the point of throwing of mud on the occasion of Holi festival. This witness stated that injured Kailash Choudhary died after two years of the alleged occurrence. 16. PW 3 Rajendra Singh is injured of this case and this witness stated that on the alleged date of occurrence while he was throwing garbage he saw the appellants standing near Mahua tree and at that time appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary were armed with guns whereas rest appellants were carrying lathis. Furthermore this witness stated that appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Chaudhary opened four to five rounds fire from Mahua tree and the aforesaid firings hit to him as well as Kailash Choudhary. This witness stated that he sustained fire-arm injury on his left thigh whereas Kailash Choudhary sustained fire-arm injury on his chest and forehead. He further stated that after occurrence Kailash Choudhary was taken to clinic of Dr. Karamchand by Singhashan, Jagdev and Rupchand on bicycle whereas he followed the aforesaid persons. He further stated that he gave his statement before police in the dispensary of Dr. Karamchand. This witness premed signature of injured Kailash Choudhary as exhibit 2. 17. PW 4. Dr. Karamchand Prasad Singh stated that on 16.3.1987, he examined injuries of injured Kailash Chaudhary and found gun shot injury in front of the chest 4cm rounded size and gun shot injury in mid of frontal bone size 2cm x 4cm. Karamchand. This witness premed signature of injured Kailash Choudhary as exhibit 2. 17. PW 4. Dr. Karamchand Prasad Singh stated that on 16.3.1987, he examined injuries of injured Kailash Chaudhary and found gun shot injury in front of the chest 4cm rounded size and gun shot injury in mid of frontal bone size 2cm x 4cm. This witness further said that injury No. 1 of injured Kailash Choudhary was simple in nature whereas injury No. 2 was grievous and both the injuries were caused by fire-arms. This witness proved injury report of Kailash Chaudhary as exhibit 2. He further stated that on the same day he examined injury of PW 3. Rajendra Singh and found gun shot injury over medial aspect of left thigh size 4cm x 1/2" and the aforesaid injury was simple in nature and caused by fire-arms. This witness proved injury report of Rajendra Singh as exhibit 2/1. On being cross-examined this witness stated that he had not mentioned depth of injures of injured Kailash Chaudhary nor he mentioned specific place of the chest where Kailash Choudhary sustained injury. He further stated that Kailash Choudhary was known to him from before and after 16.3.1987. Kailash Choudhary used to sit in his clinic. 18. On perusal of the above stated evidence it is clear that PWs 1, 2 and 3 have supported the occurrence and PW 4 found injuries on the persons of PW 3 and injured Kailash Choudhary after alleged occurrence. 19. The first contention has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants that according to the prosecution case firing was made from Mahua tree and there were several houses between dalan of Kailash Choudhary as well as Mahua tree and therefore it was not possible for Kailash Choudhary as well as PW 3 to see the persons who had made filings. 20. Now let us examine the materials available on the record to Judge this fact as to whether Mahua tree was visible from dalan of the informant Kailash Choudhary or not. 21. Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case• and admittedly no sketch map was prepared by Investigating Officer in course of investigation but on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses topography of place of occurrence may conjure up by this Court. 22. 21. Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case• and admittedly no sketch map was prepared by Investigating Officer in course of investigation but on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses topography of place of occurrence may conjure up by this Court. 22. PW 1 stated that he was at his field and having heard noise he proceeded towards dalan of Shivraj Sah. This witness further stated that Mahua tree is adjacent north to the dalan of Shivraj Sah and this witness was north to the aforesaid Mahua tree. This witness further stated that there was a lane running north to south towards west of dalan of injured Kailash Choudhary and furthermore this witness stated that there is sehan towards east side of dalan of Shivraj Sah and open land towards north of dalan of Shivraj Sah and towards west side of dalan of Shivraj Sah there is house of Keshwar Sah and towards west of house of Keshwar Sah there is dalan and sehan of injured Kailash Choudhary. This witness further stated that dalan of PW 3 Rajendra Singh is towards west to the dalan of injured Kailash Choudhary. This witness further stated that distance between dolan of Kailash Choudhary and Mahua tree is about 50 feet. This witness further stated that when he saw the appellants; he was standing north side of the aforesaid Mahua tree. He further stated that exit of dolan of Kailash Choudhary is towards north side whereas exit of dolan of PW 3. Rajendra Singh is towards east side and this witness further stated that injured PW 3 was throwing garbage towards north side. 23. PW 3 stated at para 17 of his cross-examination that there was no lane in east side of dolan of Kailash Choudhary and dalan of Shivraj Sah is situated towards east side of dolan of Keshwar Sah and furthermore he stated at para 18 of . his cross-examination that there was open land adjacent east to dalan of injured Kailash Chaudhary and the aforesaid open land is used as lane which is running towards north and south and there is Janani kita of Shivraj Sah towards east side of the aforesaid lane. 24. his cross-examination that there was open land adjacent east to dalan of injured Kailash Chaudhary and the aforesaid open land is used as lane which is running towards north and south and there is Janani kita of Shivraj Sah towards east side of the aforesaid lane. 24. The above stated witnesses clearly stated topography of the place of occurrence and from perusal of the aforesaid evidence it is clear that there was no obstruction to see dalan of inured Kailash Chaudhary and injured PW 3 from Mahua tree and. therefore. I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that dolans of injured Kailash Chaudhary and PW 3 were not visible from Mahua tree. 25. The exhibit D, the report of Sergeant Major reveals that the seized guns of appellants Surya Nandan Chaudhary and Chura Chaudhry were effective but no fire was made from the said guns. The learned trial Judge has dealt with exhibit D at para 15 of the impugned judgment and I do not find any ground to differ with the finding of learned trial Judge. 26. No doubt, Sanjhouli P.S. Case No. 14/1987 was lodged by one of the appellants and in the aforesaid case. PW 3 and some other were convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI Rohtas at Sasaram but admittedly, the aforesaid Sanjhouli P.S, Case No. 14/1987 was lodged for the occurrence which had taken place in the field of the informant Surendra Kumar Singh at 8.30 a.m. and a suggestion was also given on behalf of the appellants to PW 1 to this effect that the appellants had sustained injuries in the occurrence which had taken place in the field of Gram. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid materials, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court rightly held that injuries sustained by the appellants cannot be said to be sustained by them in the same transaction and the prosecution was not bound to explain the injury sustained by the appellants. 27. Admittedly, the present case was registered on 16.3.1987 and formal FIR as well as other relevant documents were put up before the concerned Court on 20.3.1987. 27. Admittedly, the present case was registered on 16.3.1987 and formal FIR as well as other relevant documents were put up before the concerned Court on 20.3.1987. No doubt, there is delay of four days in sending the first information report and other documents to the concerned Court but it has already been set at rest by Apex Court of this country that delay in sending the first information report is not always fatal and, therefore, even if there is delay of four days in sending the first information report, then also, it does not make the prosecution case doubtful, particularly, in the circumstance when no prejudice has been caused to appellants. 28. Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution in course of trial but there is nothing on record to show this fact that non-examination of Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the appellants and, therefore, in my view, non-examination of the Investigating Officer is also not fatal for prosecution case. 29. Admittedly, appellants Ghura Choudhary and Surya Nandan Choudhary have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 148 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act whereas rest appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149, 147 of-the IPC. 30. Now, let us examine as to whether the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is attracted against appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary or not. 31. No doubt PWs 1, 2 and 3 stated that at the time of alleged occurrence appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary opened four to five rounds fire and the aforesaid fire hit to PW 3 as well as injured Kailash Choudhary. PW 1 has admitted at para 8 of his cross-examination that distance between Mahua tree and dalan of injured Kailash Chaudhary was about 50 feet and firing was made from near Mahua tree. PW 1 has admitted at para 8 of his cross-examination that distance between Mahua tree and dalan of injured Kailash Chaudhary was about 50 feet and firing was made from near Mahua tree. Therefore it is clear that the aforesaid firing was made from the distance of 50 feet and therefore the aforesaid circumstance indicates that appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary had no intention to commit murder of injured Kailash Choudhary and Rajendra Singh rather they only wanted to cause hurt to the injured Kailash Choudhary and Rajendra Singh and therefore in my view the learned trial Court has committed error in convicting appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. 32. PW 4 found one grievous injury on the person of injured Kailash Choudhary and also opined that the aforesaid grievous injury was dangerous to life but according to exhibit 2 the aforesaid grievous injury was in mid of frontal bone size 2cm x 4cm and PW 4 himself admitted at para 6 of his cross-examination that he had not given depth of the aforesaid injury. Admittedly PW 4 did not advise for x-ray of the aforesaid injury nor any pellet was found inside the aforesaid wound. Furthermore it is an admitted position that PW 4 did not find any fracture on the forehead of injured Kailash Choudhary and furthermore. PW 4 did not give any reason as to why the aforesaid injury was dangerous to life. The grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows :- Grievous hurt.-The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous''':- First.-Emasculation. Secondly.-Permanent privation, of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly.-Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.-Destruction• or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly:-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 33. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section it is explicit clear that the injury sustained by injured Kailash Choudhary does not come under the ambit of Section 320 of the IPC and therefore. 33. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section it is explicit clear that the injury sustained by injured Kailash Choudhary does not come under the ambit of Section 320 of the IPC and therefore. I find that injured Kailash Choudhary had not sustained any grievous injury. 34. Therefore in the aforesaid circumstance appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary at best could have been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. 35. So far as rest appellants are concerned. it is stated that they were standing near Mahua tree having lathis in their hands and they were raising slogan to assault but PW 2 admitted that not only the above stated appellants but several co-villagers were also standing near Mahua tree at the time of alleged occurrence and therefore only on this ground that appellants except appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary were present near Mahua tree at the rime of alleged occurrence it cannot be said that they had common object to assault injured Kailash, Choudhary and Rajendra Singh. 36. PW 2 stated that appellants were raising alarm, Dharo Maro? whereas PW 1 stated that appellants were raising noise but injured PW 3 has stated nothing specific against the appellants except appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary and therefore only or the basis of statement of PW 2 it can not be said that appellants except appellant Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary had common object to assault the injured PW 3 and injured Kailash Choudhary, particularly in the circumstance when other villagers had also assembled near Malum tree and therefore in my view appellants except appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary are entitled to get benefit of doubt and accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in respect of the appellants except appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary are hereby set aside. 37. As I have already discussed that appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary could not have been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and at best they could have been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and. therefore in place of Section 307 of the IPC appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary are convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 38. therefore in place of Section 307 of the IPC appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary are convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 38. So far as conviction of appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Ghura Choudhary for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act are concerned the same are hereby confirmed. 39. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in respect of the appellants Siya Ram Choudhary, Rameshwar Choudhary, Vokil Choudhary @ Vakil Choudhary, Babban Choudhary, Kanhaiya @ Surendra Choudhary and Gupteshwar Choudhary are hereby set aside. The aforesaid appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 40. So far as the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in respect if appellants Surya Nandan Choudhary and Chura Choudhary are concerned, the name are, hereby, confirmed with modification to the extent as stated above. Since hey are also on bail. their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below within a month to serve out their remaining sentences, failing which the learned Court below shall take all possible steps to procure the attendance of above stated two appellants so that they could be sent behind the bar o serve their sentences. The period already mdergone by them will be set off. 41. In the aforesaid manner, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.