JUDGMENT : 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2018 passed by Sri Jhula Nand Jha, F.T.C. 2 Supaul in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2017 and pleased to convict the petitioners under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergone S.I. for three months under Section 376(b) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case initiated on the written report of Arbind Jha (P.W.4) filed to the Officer I/C Kishanpur Police Station is that on 10.6.2016 at about 3.10 P.M. he was called on the Darwaza of Paltu Jha and when he reached there all the accused persons namely, Raj Kumar Jha Santosh Jha, Kumod Jha, Amod Jha and Naramada Devi wife of petitioner no.1 were sitting there and all of them started assaulting him, he became badly injured and he was taken to the Health Centre by the villagers. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Kishanpur P.S.Case No.134 of 2016 was registered under Section 341, 323, 448, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and the other accused persons. 4. On the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet, cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 448, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and the offences under Section 307/34 of the IPC is triable by the sessions, the case was ultimately committed to the court of Sessions which ultimately came to the file of Sri Jhula Nand Jha, F.T.C. 2 Supaul for trial and disposal. 5. During the trial the charges were framed under Section 341, 323, 448, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and 3 other accused persons. 6. To substantiate the prosecution case, six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, they are P.W.1 Priti Kumari, P.W.2 Kaleshwr Mukhiya, P.W.3 Kalpana Devi, P.W.4 Arvind Jha informant, P.W.5 Dr. Shashi Bhaskar Pd. and P.W.6 Gonda Ram I.O. of the case. 7. The defence of the petitioner and other accused persons is of denial of the occurrence and of false implication. 8. On behalf of the defence also following documents have been filed – Ext. A order in complaint petition no.483C of 2016, Ext. B Certified cop of the compliant petition of 483C of 2016, Ext. 7. The defence of the petitioner and other accused persons is of denial of the occurrence and of false implication. 8. On behalf of the defence also following documents have been filed – Ext. A order in complaint petition no.483C of 2016, Ext. B Certified cop of the compliant petition of 483C of 2016, Ext. C certified copy of compromise petition filed in Complaint Case No.483C of 2016 in order to say that the case has been lodged by the petitioner no.1 against the informant and others and that has been disposed of on the basis of compromise petition. 9. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial though has not found the appellant and other accused persons have been found guilty under Sections 341, 323, 448, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and the petitioners were found guilty under Section 323 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder, however acquitted the other accused persons from all the charges levelled against them and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision application has been filed as no appeal is maintainable under Section 376(b) of the Cr.P.C. and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court has failed to consider that prosecution story is that the petitioners and other accused persons assaulted the informant brutally and there is no story of assault by any weapon, however, in the evidence they have developed the prosecution story and come with an evidence that the petitioner no.2 was armed with Kulhari and Kumod and Amod with lathi and Naramada Devi armed with Dabiya and abatement of Naramada Devi, Santosh Jha assaulted by Kulhari due to which it causes injury on his neck and similarly the witnesses have also stated so. Further earliest prosecution story as mentioned in the written report, there is mentioning that the accused persons including the petitioners were armed with any weapon and neither Santosh Jha assaulted by Axe nor there was any story that the petitioner no.1 put Gamcha on the neck of the informant as stated by P.W.3 and there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence from the earliest version and even the Doctor (P.W.5) has stated that the injury on the neck may be caused by fall on the ground. Further submission is that evidence of the I.O. in para 11 discloses that no blood stain was found on the place of occurrence and his evidence in para 12 discloses that Arbind Jha and other witnesses have only stated about the assault by fists and slaps and Priti Kumari (P.W.1) has also not stated about the assault by Dabiya before him but in spite of all the aforesaid contradictions and omissions, the petitioners have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. has justified the judgment of the guilt stating that the witnesses have started about the assault and the Doctor has also found injuries on the person of the informant as such conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 of the IPC is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Having heard both sides, the prosecution case as per the written report is that the accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the informant causing injury and he was taken to the hospital. P.W.4 who is the informant in this case has also stated about the assault, no doubt he has come with another story that he was assaulted by Axe on neck by the petitioner no.2 and the petitioner no.2 pulled him by putting Gamcha around his neck and such detailed story has to be mentioned in the written report, however, P.W. 4 has stated about the assault to him and other witnesses have also stated about the assault to the informant by the petitioners. No doubt there appears some exaggeration from the earliest statement, however, the evidence of P.W.4 and other witnesses discloses about the assault to the petitioners and the Doctor has found injury on his neck, which was not dangerous to life and considering the same, the learned trial court has convicted the petitioners under Section 323 of the IPC only and acquitted them from the charges under Section 307 and other Sections of the I.P.C. 13. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the evidence of P.W.4 at para 6 shows that there was compromise in between the parties in this case as well as case and counter case and the case filed by petitioners’ side was disposed of on the basis of the compromise and further P.W.4 has identified his signature on the compromise but in spite of the considering the same, the petitioners have not been given benefit of probation of Offender Act and sentenced to R.I. for three months. It is further submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for more than 1 ½ months and as such taking lenient view, the sentences may be reduced to the period undergone in custody. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances as staged above and earlier there was compromise between the parties, the sentences of the petitioners under Section 323 of the IPC is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 15. In view of discussions made above, I find no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the trial court of conviction and hence the same is affirmed, with above modification in sentence. 16. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed with above modification in sentence.