JUDGMENT : By the Court: Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel of appellant draws attention of this Court to the order No.8 dated 01.08.2017 and submits that the predecessor Bench of this Court before which the case was listed formulated the following questions of law and directed both the parties to address this Court on the questions of law formulated:- (1) Whether provision of Section 325 of Cr.P.C. is compoundable after the amendment of Cr.P.C. in the year 2005 from the date of its notification? (2) Further, admittedly, the appellants have been convicted u/s 307 of Cr.P.C. so, whether the offence under section 307 of IPC is compoundable offence? (3) Whether this court in view of the subsequent development, compounding of the offences is permissible, although after trial, it is established that the dispute between the parties are civil in nature. 3. So far as the first question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. envisages the composition of offences punishable under the different sections of the Indian Penal Code only and no other acts. Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 325 of Cr.P.C. is not at all a penal provision. Hence, the composition of the said provision of Section 325 Cr.P.C. is irrelevant. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, the first question of law formulated is irrelevant, the same is answered accordingly. 4. So far as the second question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph No.18 as under:- 18. “We may comment, at this stage, that insofar as the judgment in Bhandari is concerned, undoubtedly this Court observed that since offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) CrPC, compounding of the offence was out of question. However, apart from this observation, this aspect is not discussed in detail. “We may comment, at this stage, that insofar as the judgment in Bhandari is concerned, undoubtedly this Court observed that since offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) CrPC, compounding of the offence was out of question. However, apart from this observation, this aspect is not discussed in detail. Moreover, on reading para 12 of the said judgment, it is clear that one finds that the counsel for the appellant in that case had not contested the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but had mainly pleaded for reduction of sentence by projecting mitigating circumstances.” (Emphasis Supplied) And submits that as the law is well settled that after conviction of a person for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, the said offence having not been finding place in Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the said offence is not compoundable, hence there is no doubt that the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC is not compoundable. It is also settled principle of law that a non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded at any stage as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 75 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph Nos.7 and 8:- 7. “In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court was dealing with a situation where the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence. The parties arrived at a compromise at the stage of recording of evidence. A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the proceedings in view of the compromise. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings. This Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the proceedings in view of the compromise. While doing so, this Court laid down certain guidelines. In Guideline (VII), this Court considered a situation where a conviction is recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the matter is at appellate stage. This Court observed that in such cases, a mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. This Court observed that in such cases, a mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. This Court observed that in such cases where charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime, there was no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. The observation of this Court must be read obviously in the context of a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC. It is trite that a non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded at any stage (see Gian Singh v. State of Punjab). However, a compoundable offence can be compounded in view of a compromise, if the court finds it proper to do so even after conviction if the appeal is pending. 8. In the instant case, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo six months’ imprisonment. He is convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months’ imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the appellant and Respondent 2 wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on that ground because the offences involved are non-compoundable. However, in such a situation if the court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet in the interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone. Section 498-A IPC does not prescribe any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry Act prescribes minimum punishment of six months but proviso thereto states that the court may, for adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than six months. Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced to sentence already undergone by him.” 5. In view of these settled principles of law, the second question of law is answered in the negative. 6. So far as the third question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the same is irrelevant. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is self-explanatory and it has been categorically mentioned therein that only the offences which finds place in the said section are compoundable. 6. So far as the third question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the same is irrelevant. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is self-explanatory and it has been categorically mentioned therein that only the offences which finds place in the said section are compoundable. So, the only question to be decided by a court or appellate court when composition of an offence is prayed for, is that whether the concerned penal provision of the Indian Penal Code either finds place in either of the tables mentioned in the Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the next thing to be considered by the court is whether the person signing on behalf of the victim is the person who has been authorized to compound the offence appearing in column-III of the said table and these are the only relevant considerations for composition of the offence and other than the same, the nature of dispute that is whether it is of civil in nature or not certainly is an irrelevant consideration so far as the composition of offence under 320 Cr.P.C. is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that the third question of law is also irrelevant. 7. I find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants as well. Thus the third question of law is irrelevant. I.A. No.4993 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1107 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to compound the offences for which the appellants namely Rupesh Agarwal, Munna Agarwal and Ajay Yadav have been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code vide the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2016 and Order of Sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.456 of 2009. 2. The petition has been jointly signed by the appellants as well as by the informant Sunita Devi and the person to whom hurt was caused i.e. Ramesh Lohar @ Vishwakarma. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the informant Sunita Devi and Ramesh Lohar @ Vishwakarma. 4. 2. The petition has been jointly signed by the appellants as well as by the informant Sunita Devi and the person to whom hurt was caused i.e. Ramesh Lohar @ Vishwakarma. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the informant Sunita Devi and Ramesh Lohar @ Vishwakarma. 4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and the opposite parties that both the parties are longstanding neighbours and in presence of common friends, neighbours and well-wishers, the parties decided to put to rest all the dispute, confusion, bickering and bad blood existing between them by settling all the disputes. It is also jointly submitted that the settlement arrived at between the parties is free from any kind of threat, coercion or greed. Hence, it is submitted that in view of the said development, in the interest of justice leave for composition of the said two offences be granted by this Court and the said offences be compounded. So far as the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is not compoundable in law. So far as the offence punishable under Section 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they are compoundable in law as per Section 320 of the C.r.P.C, with the leave of this court as the composition is sought at the appellate stage. 5. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties concerned and keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the offence under section 325, 341 of the Indian Penal Code be compounded. Accordingly, the leave for composition of the said two offences is granted and the offences punishable under Section 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is compounded. 6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. I.A. No.4992 of 2017 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1297 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to compound the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for which the appellant has been convicted vide the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2016 and Order of Sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in G.R.Case No. 1801 of 2009. 2. This interlocutory application has been signed jointly by the appellant and Rupesh Agarwal. 2. This interlocutory application has been signed jointly by the appellant and Rupesh Agarwal. It is jointly submitted by the parties that both the parties are longstanding neighbours and in presence of common friends, neighbours and well-wishers, the parties have decided to put to rest all the dispute, confusion, bickering and bad blood existing between them by settling all the disputes. It is also jointly submitted that the settlement arrived at between the parties is free from any kind of threat, coercion or greed. Hence, it is submitted that in view of the said development, in the interest of justice leave for composition of the said offence be granted by this Court and the said offences be compounded. The offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable in nature as per the mandate of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. 3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code be compounded. Accordingly, the leave for composition of the said offence is granted and the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is compounded. 4. This interlocutory application is allowed accordingly. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1297 of 2016 1. Since the only offence for which the appellant has been convicted, has been compounded, this appeal is disposed of accordingly. 2. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant is on bail. In view of the composition of the offence the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 3. Let the lower court records be sent back with a copy of this order forthwith. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1107 of 2016 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14th September, 2016 and order of sentence dated 17th September, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.456 of 2009 whereby and where under the learned court below held the appellants guilty for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine, rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine and simple imprisonment for one month respectively. 3. 3. Vide order dated 05.11.2018 in I.A. No.4993 of 2017, the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code have been compounded by this Court. So, the only conviction remains is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of this case as per the written report submitted by the informant is that on 14.06.2009 at 9:30 pm when the informant Sunita Devi was outside her house at the road, she heard the screaming of her husband. The informant with her daughter Sumanta Kumari went running and saw that her husband was lying near the shop of Ashok in the market and has sustained bleeding injuries on his left and right shoulder. The husband of the informant and others informed the informant that the appellant-accused persons of this case along with others, with an intention to kill, assaulted the husband of the informant with sword, bhujali, stick and iron rod and injured him. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Sindri P.S. Case No.36 of 2009 and took up the investigation of the case. After registration of the case, police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation; police submitted police report against the appellant-accused persons. 5. Upon commitment of the case to the court of session charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant-accused persons and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined seven witnesses and also proved the documents which have been marked exhibits. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.2- Ramesh Lohar @ Ramesh Vishwakarma is the alleged victim of the case. He has stated that on 14.06.2009 at 9:30 pm when he reached near sweets shop of Ashok, the appellant-accused Rupesh Agarwal assaulted him with bhujali causing injury on his right shoulder. Munna Agarwal assaulted him with sword on his left shoulder. Rupesh Agarwal assaulted with bhujali on his head and Munna Agarwal assaulted on his left palm with sword resulting in cut injury. Ajay Yadav assaulted on the head of the P.W.2 with a rod. Munna Agarwal assaulted him with sword on his left shoulder. Rupesh Agarwal assaulted with bhujali on his head and Munna Agarwal assaulted on his left palm with sword resulting in cut injury. Ajay Yadav assaulted on the head of the P.W.2 with a rod. Ashok Yadav assaulted below the left knee of the P.W.2 with rod. At this, the P.W.2 screamed, fell down and became senseless. He was treated in P.M.C.H. for about 27-28 days. He regained sense after 24 hours in hospital. The reason for assault is that the appellant-accused Rupesh Agarwal and Ajay Yadav committed rape upon the daughter of the P.W.2 and P.W.2 reported the matter to police. In his cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that he did not mention the reason of quarrel to police. Rupesh Agarwal assaulted on the left shoulder of the P.W.2 with bhujali, Ajay Yadav assaulted on his head with rod and Ashok Agarwal assaulted below the knee with rod. He did not submit the x-ray report to police. Rupesh Agarwal was also admitted in P.M.C.H. For that occurrence, a case is going on in which charge-sheet has been submitted. The length of the sword was two feet. The bhujali was of fourteen/fifteen inch in length. 7. P.W.1- Avinash Prasad has stated that the occurrence took place between 9:30-9:45 pm on 14.06.2009. He was the driver of Rupesh Agarwal. Rupesh sustained injury. He was declared hostile. Even though the prosecution put leading questions to him but he did not support the case of the prosecution. 8. P.W.3- Sumanta Kumari has stated that the occurrence is of 14.06.2009 at 9:30 pm. On hearing the noise and screaming she along with her mother went to the place of occurrence and saw her father (P.W.2) lying there senseless near the sweets shop. The P.W.2 was injured. She came to know that the appellant-accused persons have assaulted the P.W.2 with an intention to kill him. They first took the P.W.2 to their house and thereafter to police station and submitted a written report in the police station and the same was written by the P.W.3 and signed by her mother. She tied the wounds of her father with a piece of cloth. Occasionally, her father used to take liquor and wine. A case has also been instituted against the P.W.2. She tied the wounds of her father with a piece of cloth. Occasionally, her father used to take liquor and wine. A case has also been instituted against the P.W.2. She took about one hour fifteen minutes to reach the police station from the place of occurrence. 9. P.W.4- Sunita Devi is the informant of the case. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 9.00 pm on 14.06.2009. She was standing outside her house at the door. On hearing the screaming from the side of the market, the P.W.4 and P.W.3 went there and found the P.W.2 lying in injured condition at the sweets shop of Ashok. She took the P.W.2 to hospital in a tempo. P.W.2 was sent to Patliputra (P.M.C.H.) by police. She reported the matter to police. P.W.3 wrote a report which was signed by the P.W.4 which was marked Ext.1/1. She has not seen her husband being assaulted with sword at the place of occurrence. There was no prior enmity between the appellant-accused persons and the P.W.4. She did not show the place of occurrence to police. In her cross-examination she has stated that she informed the matter regarding threat to life in police station but police tore the same and threw away. 10. P.W.5- Basant Ram has stated that the endorsement on the written report was of the then officer in-charge of Sindri Police Station- S. S. Tiwari and on being identified by P.W.5, the same was marked Ext.1/2. The formal F.I.R. on being proved by P.W.5 has been marked Ext.2. The P.W.5 took up the investigation of the case on 14.06.2009. He recorded the statement of the informant and the statement of the witnesses. He obtained the injury report. He inspected the place of occurrence and described the same with its boundary. In his cross-examination, the P.W.5 has stated that he also investigated Sindri P.S. Case No.36 of 2009 but he does not remember who the informant of Sindri P.S. Case No.35 of 2009 was. When he was entrusted with Sindri P.S. Case No.35 of 2009, the appellant-accused Rupesh Agarwal was present in the police station. He sent both Rupesh Agarwal and Ramesh Vishwakarma to hospital by issuing requisition. P.W.5 also submitted charge-sheet in Sindri P.S. Case No.35 of 2009. 11. P.W.6- Dr. Vijay Pratap Sinha is a senior resident (Orthopedics Department of P.M.C.H. Dhanbad). When he was entrusted with Sindri P.S. Case No.35 of 2009, the appellant-accused Rupesh Agarwal was present in the police station. He sent both Rupesh Agarwal and Ramesh Vishwakarma to hospital by issuing requisition. P.W.5 also submitted charge-sheet in Sindri P.S. Case No.35 of 2009. 11. P.W.6- Dr. Vijay Pratap Sinha is a senior resident (Orthopedics Department of P.M.C.H. Dhanbad). He has stated that on 15.06.2009, he examined Ramesh Vishwakarma at 2:10 and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Lacerated wound 4” x ½” x bone deep on vertex. (2) Lacerated wound 2” x ½” x muscle deep on forehead left side. (3) Lacerated wound 3” x ½” and 2” x ½” both muscle deep on left deltoid region. (4) Lacerated wound 1” x ½” x muscle deep on left ankle joint. (5) Lacerated wound 4” x ½” x muscle deep on ulnar side of left hand. (6) Lacerated wound 2” x ½” x muscle deep on left maxillary area. (7) Lacerated wound 3” x ½” on lateral part of right elbow joint. He further stated that six out of the said seven injuries except injury No.4 were simple in nature but injury No.4 was grievous in nature. X-ray plate shows fracture of shaft of fibula and medial malleolus as per the radiologist’s report. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were within six hours of examination of the injured. The injury report was in his pen and signature. The injuries sustained by the victim may be possible by lathi and blunt portion of bhujali. The report was not an original one but a photo copy. A person falling in the drain can sustain the injuries as sustained by the P.W.2. 12. P.W.7 - Ajay Kumar proved the injury register dated 3.6.09 to 1.7.09 page No.92 of which relates to Ramesh Vishwakarma son of Janko Vishwakarma. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that the injury report was not written in his presence. In the injury register at page-92 there are three cuttings for which there were no initials. 13. In his defence though the appellant-accused persons did not examine any witness but they have proved the certified copy of the F.I.R. of G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. A, certified copy of the charge-sheet G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. B, certified copy of cognizance order of G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. 13. In his defence though the appellant-accused persons did not examine any witness but they have proved the certified copy of the F.I.R. of G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. A, certified copy of the charge-sheet G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. B, certified copy of cognizance order of G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. C and certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 to P.W. 7 of G.R. Case No.1801/09 marked Ext. D to J. 14. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused persons were recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against them and the appellant-accused persons denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. 15. The learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused persons as already indicated above. 16. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the medical report which has come through the P.W.6 reveals that the injuries inflicted by the accused-appellants were by hard and blunt substance. The prosecution suggested to him that such injuries can be caused by assault with the blunt side of the bhujali. It is further submitted that had the appellants been having the intention to kill, when they were at least three in number armed with sharp cutting weapons, there was no reason for them to assault the deceased with the blunt side of the sharp cutting weapon. So, it is submitted that certainly the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by Mr. Shailesh Kumar that no weapon of offence was seized from the accused-appellants though one of them Rupesh Agarwal was present in the police station immediately after the occurrence and was sent by police only to the hospital after the occurrence. None of the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim was fatal in nature. The injury no.4 only was grievous in nature. The injury sustained by the appellant- Rupesh Agarwal was fracture on the right ankle joint which was allegedly caused to the victim by hitting with an iron rod. None of the injuries allegedly sustained by the victim was fatal in nature. The injury no.4 only was grievous in nature. The injury sustained by the appellant- Rupesh Agarwal was fracture on the right ankle joint which was allegedly caused to the victim by hitting with an iron rod. It is further submitted that had the appellants been having the intention to kill the P.W.2, they could well have killed him but having not done so, certainly this is a case where the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. 17. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the P.W.2 has categorically stated about his being assaulted by the accused-appellant persons and his testimony is corroborated by testimony of the P.W.6 the doctor who has found several injuries on the person of the P.W.2. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and learned court below having rightly been convicted and sentenced the appellants, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to been seen whether the act irrespective of the result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances as mentioned in the said Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, no offence punishable under the Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code could be made out. Since intention precedes the act, such intention has to be gathered from all circumstances as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh versus Sukhbir Singh reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 as under :- “7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under S. 307/149, IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under S. 307/149, IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under S. 307, IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary (to) constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under S. 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but were not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under S. 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under S. 307, IPC.” (Emphasis Supplied) Coming to the facts of the case as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the P.W.6 being the doctor has in no uncertain terms stated that the injuries sustained were caused by hard and blunt substance. The prosecution has taken the opinion from him that the injuries might be possible by lathi and blunt portion of the bhujali. By taking such opinion of the doctor, it appears that the prosecution also admits that the P.W.2 was assaulted by the blunt edge of the alleged weapons used in the assault. The prosecution has taken the opinion from him that the injuries might be possible by lathi and blunt portion of the bhujali. By taking such opinion of the doctor, it appears that the prosecution also admits that the P.W.2 was assaulted by the blunt edge of the alleged weapons used in the assault. P.W.2 himself has not stated categorically that he was assaulted by the appellant-accused persons with an intention to kill. The admitted injuries on the person of the accused-appellant-Rupesh Agarwal have remained unexplained by the prosecution. The reason for the occurrence taking place as stated by the P.W.2 is contradicted by the P.W.4 who has categorically stated in paragraph no.16 of her cross-examination that there was no previous enmity between the parties. Though the appellants three in number were allegedly armed with sharp cutting weapons still they did not use the sharp edge of the weapons for assault of the victim. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the minor offences of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the accused-appellant persons were also convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code which has already been compounded. 19. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the accused-appellant persons be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused-appellant persons namely Rupesh Agarwal, Munna Agarwal and Ajay Yadav are acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14th September, 2016 and order of sentence dated 17th September, 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.456 of 2009 so far as it relates to conviction and sentence of the three appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code has already been compounded. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code has already been compounded. In view of this composition of the said offences and acquittal of the accused-appellant persons of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant-accused persons namely Rupesh Agarwal, Munna Agarwal and Ajay Yadav who are on bail are discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds. 20. In the result this appeal is allowed. 21. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.