JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. Nos.67 of 2001/137 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.1 Budan Murmu @ Budhan Murmu was directed to undergo R.I. of 7 years under section 307 of IPC and appellant Nos.2 and 3 were directed to undergo R.I. of 4 years under sections 307/34 of IPC. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under section 324 of IPC to any of the appellants. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that there was dispute between the parties about cutting down of bamboo trees from the joint land. It is alleged that about two days’ prior to the occurrence, the accused Burhan Murmu cut down and took way two bamboos from the land jointly owned by the informant Sanatan Murmu and the accused persons, then the informant told that he would also cut two bamboo trees. Accordingly, on 09.04.2001 at about 10 AM, the informant went to bamboo bari(yard) and cut down two bamboo trees. In the meantime, the accused Burhan Murmu armed with bow and arrow, Jyoen Murmu armed with knife and lathi and Chandra Shekhar Murmu armed with arrow started scuffling with the informant. It is further alleged that the accused Burhan Murmu shot arrow with intention to kill the informant, which pierced in his stomach resultantly the informant fell down, thereafter Jyoen Murmu assaulted him by lathi and Chandra Shekhar Murmu assaulted him with legs and fists. It is further alleged that when the informant’s brother, namely, Loben Murmu and his nephew, Shivdhan Murmu came to rescue him then they were also assaulted by the accused persons. The informant was brought to hospital where his fardbayan was recorded by the police. On the basis of above information, the FIR being Maheshpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2001 dated 09.04.2001was registered for the offence under sections 323, 324, 307/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the above named accused persons for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. Nos.67 of 2001/137 of 2001 was registered. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.C. Nos.67 of 2001/137 of 2001 was registered. The appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has vehemently argued that admittedly, there was land dispute between the parties and the genesis of occurrence is dispute about cutting down of two bamboo trees from the common land. The appellants have also lodged a case against the informant party of this case for the same day of occurrence. This case was a counter blast to that case. It is further submitted that even if the entire evidence of prosecution be taken to be admitted on its face value, no offence under section 307 of IPC is constituted at all. There was exchange of assault from both sides and the case and counter case were also instituted. It is further submitted that P.W.7 is the doctor, who has examined the injured, Loben Murmu, and found one lacerated wound on the left mandibular region 1” x ¼” X muscle deep and one small abrasion on the right elbow. Both the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. The next injured is the informant, namely, Sanatan Murmu, who has got a single injury opined to be piercing wound on the left side of the abdomen 1 ½” X ½” and the opinion regarding the nature of injury was kept reserved till the further investigation. 4. Further, the informant was treated by the doctor, namely, Goutam Dey Mukherjee (P.W.8) and he has removed the head of arrow from the abdomen. According to the P.W.8, if the said arrow might not have been removed, it might have been fatal that itself is not sufficient to attract the provision of section 307 of IPC. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC is absolutely unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case as proved by the prosecution. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC is absolutely unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case as proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the use of bow and arrow and the nature of injury sustained by the informant attracts the provision of section 324 of IPC and the said injury has been caused by appellant No.1, namely, Burhan Murmu. At best, the case falls under section 324 of IPC for which the appellants have not been separately sentenced. 5. So far as the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, no specific overt act has been attributed against them and the injury sustained by another injured, namely, Loben Murmu was found to simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Even if, those injuries are taken to be caused by appellant Nos.2 and 3, then their case falls under section 323 of IPC and their conviction for under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant has submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellants that they have acted in a concerted manner and in a pre- planned way, armed with lethal weapons attacked the informant only because there was dispute about cutting of two bamboo trees. The injury sustained by the informant was on vital part of the body like abdomen causing injury to the intestine. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely justified under the law. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants, this appeal has no merits and is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival submissions of both parties. 8. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants, this appeal has no merits and is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival submissions of both parties. 8. It appears that the main witness of this case is the injured person-cum-informant (P.W.2), namely, Sanatan Murmu, who has corroborated the contents of his fardbayan and further stated that he was assaulted by the accused persons and he got arrow injury shot by the appellant No.1, Budan Murmu as a result of which, the informant fell down on earth and again he was brutally assaulted by the appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely Joyem Murmu and Chandrashekhar Murmu respectively. He got his primary treatment and thereafter he was brought to Rampur Haat, Hospital, where arrow was removed from the stomach and the injury was found deep to the intestine, which might have been fatal, if the arrow was not removed. The accused persons have intentionally attacked on him in order to cause his death and from saving their skin from this case, they have falsely lodged a counter blast case. P.W.1 Baburam Murmu has also corroborated the prosecution story and stated that on the date and time of occurrence, a scuffle took place between the informant the accused persons in connection with cutting of two bamboo trees and in course of scuffle, the informant, Sanatan Murmu was shoot by arrow by the accused Budan Murmu and then, the informant fell down on earth and the appellant No.2, Jyoen Murmu and P.W. 3, Chandra Shekhar Murmu had assaulted by lathi, legs and fists. P.W.3 Loben Murmu is another injured witness, who has also corroborated the above facts and submitted that when he went to rescue his brother, Sanatan Murmu, then Joyen Murmu(appellant No.2) had given him Kaida blow near his cheek. He also admits that a counter blast case was lodged by the accused persons against him i.e. S.T. No.48 of 2001. P.W.4 Anthony Murmu is the son of the informant, namely, Sanatan Murmu, who has corroborated the prosecution story and submitted that his father was treated at Rampur Hat Hospital, where the arrow was removed from his stomach and the injury was fatal. P.W.5 Binda Murmu has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7, Dr. P.W.4 Anthony Murmu is the son of the informant, namely, Sanatan Murmu, who has corroborated the prosecution story and submitted that his father was treated at Rampur Hat Hospital, where the arrow was removed from his stomach and the injury was fatal. P.W.5 Binda Murmu has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7, Dr. Niman Rasi Topo has examined the injured, Loban Murmu(P.W.3) and found one lacerated would on the left mandibular region 1” X 1/4" X Muscle deep and one small abrasion on the right elbow. The two injuries were opined to be simple in nature by this witness. This witness has also examined the injured-cum-informant, Sanatan Murmu and found one piercing would on the left side of abdomen 1 ½” X ½” and he has not removed the pierced arrow from the abdomen and the opinion regarding nature of injury was kept reserved till further investigation and he has proved the injury report marked as Ext.2/1. P.W.8, Dr. Goutam Dey Mukherjee was posted at Rampur Sub-Divisional Hospital and he has operated the informant and removed the head of arrow from his abdomen, which was pierced in abdomen and inured small intestine. This witness further deposed that had the head of arrow not been removed at that time, it might have been proved fatal and this witness has proved the injury report as Ext.2/2. P.W.6, S.I. Kamaleshwar Mishra was the Investigating Officer of this case and he admits that there is case and counter case between the parties for the same occurrence and he has proved the place of occurrence as well as recording of the fardbayan of the injured person and the statement of witnesses finding sufficient evidence submitted the charge-sheet. 9. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication due to land dispute and it is also pleaded that for the same occurrence, the defence has also lodged criminal case against the informant party for the offence under section 307 of IPC, which is also pending as S.T. No.48 of 2001. However, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence witnesses. 10. However, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence witnesses. 10. It is crystal clear that there was land dispute between the parties and prior to two days of the occurrence, the accused persons have cut down two bamboo trees from the common land jointly owned by the parties, later on the informant also cut down two bamboo trees, which was the root cause for the occurrence. Overall, the incident took place in a sudden manner and there was exchange of assault from both the sides. The informant has sustained only one arrow injury and the nature of injury has not been opined to be grievous in nature or likely to cause death rather the injury appear to be simple in nature caused by arrow. Other appellants, namely, Joyen Murmu and Chandra Shekarr Murmu have only assaulted Loben Murmu by fists and legs and lathi and whose injuries are also simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 11. In the factual aspects of the case, it cannot be inferred that the required intention and knowledge for constituting the offence under section 307 of IPC have been complied with in this case. The nature of injuries, means used and the treatment provided to the informant at best constitute offence under section 324 of IPC against the appellant No.1 alone. The attributability against the appellant Nos.2 and 3 attracts the commission of offence under section 323 of IPC. 12. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has not properly appreciated the materials available on record while convicting the appellants for the offence under sections 307/34 of IPC and passing the sentence for the same. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC is set aside and the conviction of appellant No.1, Budan Murmu for the offence under section 324 of IPC is confirmed. Further, the appellant No.2, Joyen Murmu and appellant No.3, Chandra Shekhar Murmu are found guilty for the offence under section 323 of IPC only. 13. Further, the appellant No.2, Joyen Murmu and appellant No.3, Chandra Shekhar Murmu are found guilty for the offence under section 323 of IPC only. 13. It also appears from the record that the appellants have remained in custody for some period of time and the case is of the year 2001 and now they have undergone the agony of trial over two decades and it would not be feasible to send back the appellant to sustain some period of imprisonment. Therefore, the period of custody as already under gone by the appellants appears to be sufficient punishment for their guilt. 14. In the result, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences under sections 307/34 of IPC is set aside and the appellant No.1, namely, Budan Murmu @ Burhan Murmu is found guilty for the offence under section 324 of IPC and appellant No.2, Joyen Murmu and appellant No.3, Chandra Shekhar Murmu are fond to be guilty for the offence under section 323 of IPC. The appellants are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. 15. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.