JUDGMENT : Appellant Sunil Yadav has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three years, additionally vide judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 28.07.2015 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No.421 of 2001/63 of 2015. 2. PW-6, Birendra Yadav, gave his fard-bayan on 16.01.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. while he along with his brother Amrendra Yadav were undergoing treatment at State Dispensary Kumar-Khand alleging inter alia that during course of weeding of his maize crop, his elder brother Rajendra Yadav came and protested, whereupon an altercation took place. During course thereof, he was joined by his sons Sunil Yadav armed with spade, Anil Yadav armed with farsa and Suman Yadav armed with lathi. On an order of Rajendra Yadav, Sunil Yadav gave spade blow over head of Amrendra Yadav causing severe injury. He was assaulted with farsa by Sunil Yadav causing injury over his head. Then thereafter, they both were assaulted by lathi, brutally as a result of which, they both became unconscious. They were lifted to hospital by their villagers where they remained unconscious for two days. His brother is still senseless. Nirmal Yadav and Fulendra Prasad Yadav stood as F.I.R. attesting witness. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-bayan, Banmankhi (Jankinagar) P. S. Case No.23 of 2000 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of chargesheet, facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal. 4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. Neither ocular nor documentary evidence has been adduced in defence, though on the point of compromise, which subsequently been existed in between the parties, two DWs have been examined. 5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether eight PWs, who are PW-1 Ghana Yadav, PW-2 Bilat Yadav, PW-3 Fulendra Prasad Yadav, PW-4 Amrendra Yadav, PW-5 Ratan Yadav, PW-6 Birendra Yadav, PW-7 Dr. 5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether eight PWs, who are PW-1 Ghana Yadav, PW-2 Bilat Yadav, PW-3 Fulendra Prasad Yadav, PW-4 Amrendra Yadav, PW-5 Ratan Yadav, PW-6 Birendra Yadav, PW-7 Dr. Bindeshwari Prasad Shah and PW-8 Tribhuvan Bhagat, the I.O. Side by side, had also exhibited signature of PW-3 over F.I.R. as Exhibit-1, signature of informant over fard-bayan as Exhibit-1/1, injury report of injured Amrendra Yadav as Exhibit-2, injury report of injured Birendra Yadav as Exhibit-2/1. Defence had also examined two DWs, who are DW-1 Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, son of the informant and DW-2 Ashok Yadav. 6. After hearing rival submission as well as from perusal of the judgment impugned coupled with the materials available on the record, it is evident that inter se relationship amongst the parties are duly admitted. Dispute relating to partition of the land is also found admitted. At an initial stage while the dispute was continuing, parties have contested. Subsequently, as it is evident that the case has been compromised and on that very score, witnesses were recalled, but they were not cross-examined in a way as was expected to demolish or to attract the case within ambit of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The aforesaid event is visualizing from the judgment impugned. In the aforesaid background, the aforesaid deficiency still persists, whereupon the judgment impugned could not be interfered with. 7. That being so, maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned lower Court, considering the evidence available on the record and further, honouring the wish of the parties, who are none else rather own family members coupled with motive, land dispute relating to partition and further, the occurrence took place in spur of moment, the sentence is modified and reduced as the period already undergone and in terms thereof, instant appeal is disposed of. Appellant is on bail, hence is discharged from its liability.