JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the state in these appeals. 2. All the above appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22nd January, 2010 and order of sentence dated 27th January 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTCIII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 566 of 2006 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under sections 148, 452, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years under Sections 148, 452, 326, 307/ 149 of the IPC and further directed them to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbayan of the informant Mahabir Chauhan or P.W.5 dated 29.12.2005 is that the informant had retired from TISCO three years ago and was living with his family at his house. Prior to Deepawali on 23.10.2005 there was a quarrel between him and his neighbour Ram Prasad Dusadh due to some dispute between the children of both the families. Informant further stated that there was some dispute from earlier between the parties regarding drain and for this the accused Ram Prasad Dusadh and his family members was threatening to kill the informant. Informant further stated that on 28/29.12.2005 Manju Devi wife of Hulas Chauhan and the daughter-in-law of the informant, woke him at about 12.45 a.m.-1 a.m. and told him that the door of the courtyard was open and the son of the informant namely Hulas Chauhan was not at the house. On this information they went in search of Hulas and saw blood socked cloth of Hulas on the north of the door near the guava tree. Informant further stated that on searching Hulas they found Hulas Chauhan in the field of Bhatu Nonia, in an injured condition. Hulas was in a pool of blood in an unconcious state and had an injury in his abdomen and thigh and blood was oozing out. Informant further stated that on searching Hulas they found Hulas Chauhan in the field of Bhatu Nonia, in an injured condition. Hulas was in a pool of blood in an unconcious state and had an injury in his abdomen and thigh and blood was oozing out. They brought him in the courtyard where Hulas said that when he came out to the courtyard to urinate, then 45 persons scaled the wall of the courtyard through the said guava tree and caught hold of him and took him outside the courtyard by opening the door and brought him near the guava tree then the accused persons put ganji (banyan) in his mouth. Informant further stated that there were Ram Prasad Dusadh, Ram Ratan Dusadh, Shanker Dusadh, Binod Dusadh, Dhirendra Dusadh, Manoj, Dinesh and Arbind and 4-5 other unknown persons were standing. All the accused persons were armed with sabbal (iron rod) and lathis. It has further been alleged that Ram Prasad told to kill Hulas whereupon all the accused persons assaulted Hulas by sabbal and lathis and thinking him dead they threw him in the bush. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being Jogta P.S. case no. 136 of 2005 was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 452 of IPC against the accused persons. After investigation police submitted the chargesheet and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 452 and 307 of the IPC. The trial was held, witnesses were examined and at the conclusion of the trial, accused persons or the appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had altogether examined in all the ten witnesses out of whom P.W.5 Mahabir Chauhan is the informant of the case; P.W.-1 Indrajeet Chauhan is the brother of the injured, P.W.-2 Amrika Chauhan is the uncle of the injured Hulas Chauhan; P.W.-3 Manju Devi is the wife of the injured Hulas and daughter in law of the informant, P.W.-4 Hulas Chauhan is the injured himself; P.W.-7 is doctor Aman Srivastava who examined the injured; P.W.-8 Bhola Chauhan was declared hostile, P.W.-9 Akhilesh Prasad Mandal is the investigating officer of the case. 6. 6. P.W.-4 Hulas Chauhan is the victim and injured in this case. He has stated that on 28/29.12.05 at about 12 to 12.30 a.m. in the night he was sleeping with his wife and children. He woke up to urinate. His wife asked him where he was going on which he said that he was going to the toilet. He came in the courtyard and as soon as he sat to urinate 3 to 4 persons jumped the boundary from east and came inside the courtyard and took him out of the courtyard. He identified Manoj Dusadh as one of them. He was assaulted and taken out of the courtyard where he saw six persons armed with weapons. He saw Ram Ratan Dusadh armed with sabbal, Ram Prasad Dusadh carrying kulhari. He has also stated that Shankar Dusadh was carrying gun, Vinod, Arbind, Dinesh and Dhirender were armed with lathi. P.W.4 further stated that these persons caught hold of him and took him behind the house of Bhuneshwar Chauhan and there he was pressed upon the wall by the accused persons. Accused Ram Prasad and Ram Ratan had inserted sabbal in his stomach 2-3 times due to which he sustained injuries on his stomach and his backbone was also fractured. He became unconscious and when he regained consciousness he found himself in K.M. Memorial Hospital, Chas. He was treated in the hospital for 10 days, but his treatment continued almost for two months. He has proved his signature on the medical report which was marked as Ext.1. When he raised hulla his wife and brother Indrajeet Chauhan came there and saw the incident. P.W.4 further deposed that this case was instituted on the statement of his father Mahabir Chauhan who suffered paralytic stroke in the year 2008. He has proved the signature of his father on the fardbayan which was marked as Ext.2. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that prior to this incident accused persons had instituted a case against them two months before the occurrence. He has also stated that he has become permanently disabled after this incident. 7. P.W.-7 is Dr. Aman Srivastava who had examined the injured Hulas Chauhan and found following injuries on his person. 1. Three stab wounds were found over abdomen the discription of which are as follows:- I. Epigastric region 2” long, protrusion of omentum. II. Rt. hypochondrium 2” long muscle deep. 7. P.W.-7 is Dr. Aman Srivastava who had examined the injured Hulas Chauhan and found following injuries on his person. 1. Three stab wounds were found over abdomen the discription of which are as follows:- I. Epigastric region 2” long, protrusion of omentum. II. Rt. hypochondrium 2” long muscle deep. III. Rt. iliac fossa 1½” long parietal region. Intra operative finding (on laparotomy). 2. Four perforation in ilium of small bowel. 3. Two injury in mesentery. 4. Fracture of right hip bone. Doctor opined that the injuries were grievous and it was caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon/object. P.W.7 proved the injury report which was marked as Ext.3. 8. P.W.-9 Akhilesh Prasad Mandal is the investigating officer of this case. He has stated that on 29.12.2005 at 1.15 am he received telephonic information that Hulas Chauhan was assaulted with khanti and was injured by the accused persons. Investigating Officer has proved the fardbayan of the informant which was marked as Ext.4. Investigating Officer further proved the registration and the formal FIR which was marked as Ext.4/1 and 4/2 respectively. Investigating Officer has stated the place of occurrence to be the house and courtyard of the informant. During investigation, he seized one khanti and blood stained clothes of the injured from the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list which was marked as Ext.5. 9. P.W.-1 Indrajeet Chauhan is the brother of the injured. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the incident took place in the night of 28/29.12.2005 at about 12:45 a.m. On hulla he woke up and came to know that Hulash Chauhan was not present in the house. He went outside and heard the cries and saw Hulas was being assaulted by the accused persons. Ram Ratan, Ram Prasad, Manoj Dusadh, Dinesh Dusadh, Dhirendra Dusadh and Shankar Dusadh (total eight persons) behind the house of Bhuneshwar Chauhan. Ram Ratan Dusadh was armed with “sabbal” (iron rod) and the other accused persons were armed with lathi. He saw Ram Ratan assaulting Hulas Chauhan with sabbal and other accused persons were caught holding of Hulas Chauhan and Hulas Chauhan was assaulted on the thigh and back. He was told to go away otherwise he will be killed. P.W.1 further stated that Hulas abdomen was ripped apart and intestine had come out and towel was tied and Hulas was taken to the hospital. 10. He was told to go away otherwise he will be killed. P.W.1 further stated that Hulas abdomen was ripped apart and intestine had come out and towel was tied and Hulas was taken to the hospital. 10. P.W.2 Amrika Chauhan is the uncle of the injured Hulas Chauhan. He has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12.30 to 12.45 a.m. in the night he was sleeping in his house and on hulla he woke up and came out. He saw two to four persons were drawing out Hulas from the bushes. His nephew Hulas had sustained injuries on his abdomen and they took Hulas to the hospital. P.W.2 also stated that his nephew stayed in the hospital for almost a month. 11. P.W.3 Manju Devi is the wife of the injured Hulas Chauhan. She has stated in her evidence that in the night of 28/29.12.2005 at about 12 to 12:15 a.m. her husband went out to urinate and after 1520 minutes when her husband did not return, she went out to look for him. She saw the door of the bathroom, which was outside the house was open. She went outside and saw the blood stained shirt of her husband near the guava tree. She became very nervous and went forward, she saw her husband was caught hold by two persons behind the house of Bhuneshwar Nonia and eight to ten persons armed with sabbal, lathi, axe and other weapons were there. Two persons had pressed him on the wall and Ram Ratan Dusadh assaulted her husband with sabbal and inflicted injuries in his abdomen due to which his intestine came out. She raised hulla and rushed back to her house and informed her father-in-law and bhaisur. Her bhaisur Indrajeet Chauhan rushed out but he was threatened by the accused persons. In the meantime the accused persons assaulted her husband and fled away after throwing him in the bush. She has stated that on hulla her uncle, aunt and 20-25 persons from the neighborhood assembled. P.W.3 further stated that her husband was carried from the bushes by her dewar, bhaisur, uncle etc and was taken for treatment to Central Hospital, Dhanbad from where he was taken to K.M. Memorial Hospital, Bokaro. P.W.3 further stated that her husband’s abdomen was ripped out and the intestine had come out. P.W.3 further stated that her husband was carried from the bushes by her dewar, bhaisur, uncle etc and was taken for treatment to Central Hospital, Dhanbad from where he was taken to K.M. Memorial Hospital, Bokaro. P.W.3 further stated that her husband’s abdomen was ripped out and the intestine had come out. She further stated that her husband had also sustained hip fracture. She also stated that some quarrel had taken place between the children earlier and the accused persons had threatened her family members. 12. P.W.-5 Mahabir Chauhan is the informant of this case. He had deposed that his mind does not work. In this regard learned court below noted that this witness was not in a position to answer any questions. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:- 13. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in these appeals submitted that as per the FIR, the alleged occurrence was disclosed to the informant by Hulas Chauhan, who is the son of the informant and there is no eye witness to the occurrence except Hulas Chauhan. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the FIR it has come that no specific role has been attributed to any of the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that in the evidences of P.W.-I Indrajeet Chauhan and that of P.W.-3 Manju Devi, who claimed themselves to be an eye witness, are contrary to the version of the FIR lodged by the informant. Learned court below failed to appreciate that there is vital contradictions between the depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below erred in not appreciating the fact that P.W.-2 Amrika Chauhan, who is uncle of the injured P.W.-4 Hulas Chauhan, has specifically deposed in Para-3 that the injured has not disclosed the name of any of the persons who had assaulted him. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution witness including the informant (P.W.-4), P.W.-3 wife of the injured, and P.W.-1 brother of the injured have specifically deposed that there was enmity between the parties. P.W.-3 has deposed that Ram Prasad Dusadh had also lodged a case against the informant-party one months prior to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution witness including the informant (P.W.-4), P.W.-3 wife of the injured, and P.W.-1 brother of the injured have specifically deposed that there was enmity between the parties. P.W.-3 has deposed that Ram Prasad Dusadh had also lodged a case against the informant-party one months prior to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the statement of P.W.-4 also gets controverted from the fact that the investigating officer of the case in Para-18 of his deposition stated that he took the statement of P.W.-4 two and half months after the date of occurrence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the allegation is based on a previous enmity between the parties and points out that even just before the incident i.e. the day before Diwali also there was altercation and therefore, the allegations are based on this background. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that a compromise has taken place between the parties and he has referred to the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3308 of 2020, I.A. No. 3309 of 2020 and I.A. No. 3310 of 2020 to indicate the compromise between the parties. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab (AIRONLINE 2019 SC 675) and submitted without admitting the guilt of the appellants that in case of conviction, lenient view may be taken by this court in sentencing. 16. Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned Amicus Curiae appearing in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 180 of 2010 submitted that he would like to supplement the arguments of Mr. Sunil Singh which he fully endorsed but says that the case of these appellants stand on a better footing and there is no specific assault or injury attributed to any of these accused persons or appellants. Moreover, it does not appear from the evidence that they were armed with any dangerous weapons. Learned counsel further submitted that even from the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 no case can be made out against the appellants. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:- 17. Mr. P.K. Appu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 180 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 300 of 2010 submitted that the case is fully made out against the appellants. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:- 17. Mr. P.K. Appu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 180 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 300 of 2010 submitted that the case is fully made out against the appellants. As per the evidence of the injured witness P.W.-4 Hulas Chauhan, he had sustained injuries on his person and, therefore, he is a fully a credible witness and stands on a higher and better footing than an ordinary witness. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that injured or P.W.4 evidence is supported by the evidence of Doctor or P.W.7 who, had examined the injured and indicated the injuries as aforesaid. The doctor or P.W.7 also gave an opinion that injuries were grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon. So the conviction and sentence imposed by the leaned trial court below needs to be sustained. 18. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 255 of 2010 has endorsed the arguments of learned counsel for the State given in the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 180 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) 300 of 2010. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT 19. Mr. Pratyush Lala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has submitted that he has filed the vakalatnama and says that the I.A. No. 3308 of 2020, I.A. No. 3309 of 2020 and I.A. No. 3310 of 2020 is in view of the compromise made between the parties including the injured person i.e. Hulas Chauhan as well as the appellants and therefore, supports the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. FINDINGS 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the records of the case, I find that from the evidence of P.W.4, who is the injured eye witness has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence when he went out in the courtyard to urinate, at about 12 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. in the night then 3-4 accused persons came into his house scaling the wall of his house. They caught hold of him, put cloth in his mouth and took him outside the courtyard assaulting him. He identified accused Manoj Prasad. Outside the house other accused persons or the appellants were present, who were variously armed with weapons. They caught hold of him, put cloth in his mouth and took him outside the courtyard assaulting him. He identified accused Manoj Prasad. Outside the house other accused persons or the appellants were present, who were variously armed with weapons. Ram Ratan Dusadh was armed with sabbal and Ram Prasad was armed with an axe and thereafter, accused persons or the appellants herein caught hold of the injured and Ram Prasad and Ram Ratan inserted sabbal two-three times in the abdomen of P.W.4 or Hulas Chauhan. Injured P.W.4 further deposed that he sustained injury on the left side of the stomach and his backbone was broken. P.W.1 Indrajeet Chauhan and P.W.3 Manju Devi both have stated in their evidences that appellants had caught hold of the injured Hulas and appellant Ram Ratan Prasad had assaulted the injured with sabbal in his abdomen due to which his intestine came out. P.W.7 or the doctor had also found injuries on the person of injured Hulas Chauhan: 1. Three stab wounds were found over abdomen which were as follows- (i) Epigastric region 2” long, protrusion of omentum. (ii) Rt. hypochondrium 2” long muscledeep. (iii) Rt. iliac fossa 1½” long parietal region. Intra operative finding (on laparotomy). 2. Four perforation in ilium of small bowel. 3. Two injury in mesentery. 4. Fracture of right hip bone. Doctor opined that injuries were grievous and caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon/object. Doctor has proved the injury report of Hulas Chauhan which was marked as Ext.-3. Hence, ocular evidence of the injured P.W.4 is also corroborated by the evidences of P.W1 and P.W.3 and which in-turn is also corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor or P.W.7 by the injury report Ext.-3. Investigating officer or P.W.9 of this case has proved the place of occurrence to be the house and the courtyard of the injured. 21. Hence, from the evidence of injured P.W.4 himself and the evidence of eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 and from the evidence of the doctor P.W.7, I find that the appellants variously armed with weapons assaulted the injured P.W.4 and had an intention to kill P.W.4 or Hulas Chauhan which is reflected in the injury report Ext.-3. Hence, prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants under sections 148, 452, 326, 307/149 IPC. 22. I have gone through I.A. no. 3308 of 2020, I.A. no. 3309 of 2020 and I.A. no. Hence, prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants under sections 148, 452, 326, 307/149 IPC. 22. I have gone through I.A. no. 3308 of 2020, I.A. no. 3309 of 2020 and I.A. no. 3310 of 2020 which are compromise petitions filed in these appeals by and between the injured P.W.4 Hulas Chauhan and the appellants side. On perusal of all these interlocutory applications, I find that both the injured P.W.4 or Hulas Chauhan and the appellants herein have compromised the matter and have stated that they will live peacefully in future. 23. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22-01-2010 passed by the learned court below in S.T. case no. 566 of 2006 is sustained and upheld. But regarding sentence noting the submissions made by the counsels for the appellants including the learned counsel for the informant, and judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in Manjit Singh (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 noted that though section 307 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence and no compromise can be granted to record the compromise between the parties but in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstances which the court may keep in mind in considering the quantum of sentence. Hence, in the fact and circumstances the sentence imposed by the learned lower court is however modified. Appellants will undergo sentence of one year each SI and any period already spent by the appellants in custody, will be set off against the newly imposed sentence of one year. However, the appellants are directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each to the injured Hulas Chauhan within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and in default of payment of aforesaid compensation amount appellants will further undergo a period of three months simple imprisonment each. The aforesaid compensation amount may be deposited in the learned court below. As, the compensation amount has been ordered to be paid by this court, the fine amount of Rupees 5000/-each as imposed by the learned court below in the impugned judgment becomes redundant and is set-aside. Appellants bail bond stands cancelled. 24. Accordingly, these criminal appeals are dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence and I.A. no. 3308 of 2020, I.A. no. 3309 of 2020 and I.A. no. 3310 of 2020 also stands disposed of.