JUDGMENT : All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2003 passed by Sri Shyam Nandan Prasad Verma, Ad hoc District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1994. 2. Prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of Mahesh Singh (PW 6) recorded by S.I. of Dariyarpur P.S. on 18.11.1987 at 11.30 hours at Dariyapur Primary Health Centre, in short, is that on 18.11.1987 at 8.30 A.M. his brother Rajeshwar Singh (PW 5) went to plough the land north to his house purchased from Ram Badan Singh, son of Baidyanath Singh of the same village prior to 2-3 months of the occurrence. Further prosecution case is that the moment ploughing started, all of a sudden accused Mauzi Lal Singh armed with farsa, accused Ravindra Singh armed with farsa and accused Shyamdeo Singh armed with bhala came at the place of occurrence and asked to stop ploughing and informant told them that he had got executed the sale deed of the said land and so why they were objecting to ploughing, whereupon accused Ravindra Singh assaulted the informant by farsa on his head causing bleeding injury. In the meantime, when his brother Kamleshwar Singh intervened in the assault, accused Mauzi Lal Singh assaulted by farsa on his head and accused Shyamdeo Singh assaulted by lathi portion of bhala on his back and panjra and his brother fell down. Further prosecution case is that thereafter accused Braj Kishore Singh armed with lathi, accused Lal Babu Singh armed with sword, accused Arun Singh and accused Krishna Singh both armed with lathi came there and started assaulting with their weapons causing injuries to him and his brother. On alarm raised by them, villagers came there and accused persons fled away and the informant and his brother were brought to Dariyapur hospital for their treatment. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 190 of 1987 was registered against the appellants and other accused persons. Post investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 307/149 IPC and after cognizance for the offence the case has been committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to the file of learned trial judge for trial and disposal. 4. During trial appellants have been charged under Sections 307/149 IPC. Post investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 307/149 IPC and after cognizance for the offence the case has been committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to the file of learned trial judge for trial and disposal. 4. During trial appellants have been charged under Sections 307/149 IPC. 5. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined altogether seven witnesses, they are PW 1 Awadesh Singh, PW 2 Dharamnath Rai, PW 3 Lal Badan Singh, who claim to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence, PW 4 Kamleshwar Pd. Singh, brother of informant and injured, PW 5 Rameshwar Singh, brother of informant, PW 6 Mahesh Pd. Singh, the informant and injured and PW 7 Dr. Amar Nath Jha, who examined the injured persons. I.O. has not been examined in this case. 6. Apart from the above ocular evidence, the following documents have been brought on record on behalf of prosecution as exhibits, they are Ext.1- signature of informant on the fardbeyan and Exts. 2 & 2/1- injury reports. 7. On behalf of defence also three ocular evidences have been examined, they are DW 1 Shankar Pd. Singh, who has proved the plaint of Title Suit No. 77 of 1987, DW 2 Ram Sakal Singh, who has proved the deed of agreement dated 9.6.1987 (Ext.B) and DW 3 Ram Vinod Singh, who has deposed on the point that place of occurrence is the land adjacent to the house of accused Ravindra Singh and out of eight kathas of land one katha and 15 dhurs belonged to the accused persons and for taking possession over the disputed land this false case has been lodged. 8. Learned trial court after conclusion of trial has convicted the appellants under Sections 326/34 IPC and sentenced them as stated above. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that evidence itself shows that a title suit with respect to the place of occurrence was pending in the court of Chapra and accused persons were claiming the land but in spite of that the informant and his brother went to plough the land and, as such, they are aggressors and whatever accused persons done they have done for the purpose of self defence. Further submission is that no case is made out under Sections 326/34 IPC on the basis of evidence available on record as the evidence of Doctor shows that on his own guess he has stated the injury as grievous without any X-ray report. It is also submitted that evidence of PWs 1-3 does not appear that they were eye-witnesses to the occurrence and so far other witnesses, PWs 4, 5 & 6 are concerned, they are family members of the informant and interested witnesses and motive behind the occurrence is enmity between the parties with respect to land dispute between the parties from before and, as such, the conviction of the appellants only on the basis of related and interested witnesses does not inspire confidence, rather learned trial court ought to have got their evidences corroborated by independent witnesses. Further contention of learned counsel is that learned trial court has not considered the above infirmities and inconsistencies and conviction of the appellants under Sections 326/34 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence fit to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that evidence of PWs. 4 and 6, who are injured, clearly shows that it is the appellants 1 and 3, namely, Mauajee Lal Singh and Rabindra Singh, who assaulted them by farsa causing injury on head of their persons and appellant No.2 Shyamdeo Singh assaulted by lathi portion of bhala and the Doctor has found the injuries on their persons as grievous and the evidence of PWs. 4, 5 & 6 is consistent and corroborated by evidence of PW 2, the villager and he has also supported the manner of occurrence, as such, it cannot be said that no independent witness has been examined in this case and, hence, the conviction of the appellants is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 11. 11. In the background of submission of the parties on examination of evidence it appears that PW 6 is the informant in this case and he has stated that at about 8.30 A.M. occurrence took place and he has supported the genesis of occurrence, which according to prosecution is that when they came to plough the land appellants and other accused persons came there and assaulted him and his brother by farsa and lathi portion of bhala on head causing injuries to them and, as such, the evidence of this witness clearly supports the prosecution case so far time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and his evidence has further been corroborated by the evidence of PW 4, who is one of the injured in this case and he has also specifically stated that appellant Mauajee Lal Singh assaulted him by farsa and appellant Shyamdeo Singh assaulted him by lathi portion of bhala and he was also assaulted by appellant Rabindra Singh by farsa and the aforesaid evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW 5, who is present there and further supported by the evidence of PW 2. So far PWs. 1-3 are concerned, they do not appear to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, as such, manner of occurrence is concerned, the prosecution evidence is consistent and the Doctor who has examined the injured and found the following injuries : Kamleshwar Pd. Singh : (i) Incised wound with obvious cut on the parietal bone of the forehead. Grievous in nature. Caused by sharp cutting weapon, (ii) Swelling on the back 2” x 1”, (iii) Swelling on the right back 2” x 1”. Simple. Caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury No.(i) might have caused by Tanga. Mahesh Singh : (i) Incised wound on the head 2½” x ¼” x 1/8”, X-ray of the skull A/P lteral view report showed Hair line crack in the skull bone. Grievous caused by sharp cutting weapon, (ii) Swelling on the left leg 2” x 1” simple caused by hard and blunt substance and injury reports were marked as Ext.2 and 2/1. However, evidence of PW 7, the Doctor, in cross examination shows that he did not advice the injured Kamleshwar Pd. Singh for X-ray and on his own guess he has stated the injury on Kamleshwar Pd. Singh as grievous. However, evidence of PW 7, the Doctor, in cross examination shows that he did not advice the injured Kamleshwar Pd. Singh for X-ray and on his own guess he has stated the injury on Kamleshwar Pd. Singh as grievous. Injury of injured Mahesh Singh was X-rayed and he has found hair line crack but X-ray plate was not brought on record. 12. Considering the evidence of Doctor (PW 7) it appears that finding of PW 7 that the injury on Kamleshwar Pd. Singh grievous and also injury of Mahesh Singh grievous has no basis to stand as in absence of X-ray report of Mahesh Singh and finding injury of Kamleshwar Pd. Singh on guess work, conviction under Sections 326/34 IPC cannot sustain. Evidence also shows that half hour before the occurrence there was hot exchange of words between the parties and thereafter occurrence took place, as such, it cannot be said that they have common intention to cause injury and at best they are liable for their individual act. However, learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and convicted the appellants under Sections 326/34 IPC, which cannot sustain in view of the discussions made above and, as such, the conviction of appellant No.1 Mauajee Lal Singh and appellant No.3 Ravindra Singh is modified to Section 324 IPC and conviction of appellant No.2 Shyamdeo Singh is modified to a conviction under Section 323 IPC. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that occurrence is of the year 1987, 30 long years have already passed and during pendency of this appeal they have remained in custody for eight days and, as such, lenient view may be taken. 14. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and, as such, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each to be deposited in court payable to the injured and in default in payment of fine the appellants are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, this appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.