JUDGMENT : RAJESH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Special P.P. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.08.2004, passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.160 of 2000, arising out of Rehla P.S. Case No.47 of 1999 (G.R. No.1024 of 1999), whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default clause. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Rehla P.S. Case No.47 of 1999 under Sections 341/ 323/ 324/ 447 I.P.C. The F.I.R has been lodged on the fardbeyan of informant namely, Jasa Yadav (P.W.-5). The brief facts of the case, as stated in the F.I.R., is that on 11.09.1999 at about 08:00 p.m., the accused persons armed with Tangi and Lathi, came at the door of the informant and accused Hori Yadav gave a tangi blow on the informant's head causing bleeding injury and other accused persons gave lathi blows on his body due to which the informant became unconscious and gained his senses in Bishrampur Hospital where he was informed that when Krishna Yadav came for rescue, Panchu Yadav assaulted him on his right hand by lathi. The reason for the occurrence is that some day prior to the occurrence, the buffalo of Panchu Yadav had died and Panchu Yadav suspected that the informant has killed his buffalo by attaching the ghost. On the basis of said allegation, F.I.R has been lodged against the present appellants under Sections 341/323/324/447 I.P.C, the investigation has been done and the charge- sheet has been submitted under Sections 307/323/324/447/34 I.P.C. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed on 12.03.2002 under Sections 447, 323/ 34 and 307/ 34 IPC and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. The defence has examined one witness as D.W.-1. 5. P.W.-1, Asarfi Vishwakarma, has stated that two blows were given on the head of the informant by the accused persons. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. The defence has examined one witness as D.W.-1. 5. P.W.-1, Asarfi Vishwakarma, has stated that two blows were given on the head of the informant by the accused persons. He has not been cross-examined by the defence. 6. P.W.-2, Bhola Mistri, has stated that on alarm he rushed at the door of accused Pachhu Yadav and saw that the family members of the informant and Pachhu Mahto were quarreling. He has stated that he had not seen as to who had been assaulted. He has also not been cross-examined by the defence. 7. P.W.-3, Wazuddin Ansari, has been declared hostile. 8. P.W.-4, Krishna Yadav, is the son of the informant and also an injured witness. He has stated that Hori Yadav had assaulted on the head of his father with a tangi and the remaining accused persons had assaulted him with lathi. In cross-examination, he has stated that none of the villagers rescued from marpit. He has admitted that they are gotias and in counter case, he is also one of the accused. 9. P.W.-5, Jasa Yadav, is the informant of the case. He has stated that total 20 lathi blows and one tangi blow were inflicted upon him. In cross-examination, he has stated that accused Pachhu Yadav is his own uncle and other three accused persons are his sons and they are agnates. He has admitted about the counter case filed by the accused persons against him and others. 10 . P.W.-6, Ashok Kumar Baitha, is a cultivator and a formal witness. He has proved two injury reports marked as Ext.-1 and 1/A. 11. P.W.-7, Dr. Hari Shankar Singh, is a Doctor, who has examined the injury over the informant. He has opined that the head injury upon the informant is grievous in nature. 12. P.W.-8, Manoj Kumar, is Police Constable. He is a formal witness and he has proved the formal F.I.R marked as Ext.-3. 13. D.W.-1, Neyazuddin Ansari, has deposed in support of the case of the defence. 14. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and the materials available on record, has found the appellants guilty under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C, but due to compromise arrived at between the parties, the offence under Sections 447 and 323/34 has been compounded. 13. D.W.-1, Neyazuddin Ansari, has deposed in support of the case of the defence. 14. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and the materials available on record, has found the appellants guilty under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C, but due to compromise arrived at between the parties, the offence under Sections 447 and 323/34 has been compounded. The offence under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C has not been compounded, stating that the offence under the aforesaid Sections are not compoundable in nature. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds :- (a) Even the F.I.R does not disclose any intention to kill and as such the F.I.R has not been lodged under Section 307/ 34 I.P.C, (b) the injury report does not corroborate the oral evidence, as none of the injuries have been caused by deadly weapon, (c) none of the injury is capable of triggering death, (d) there was dispute and free fight between the parties and since it was a neighbourhood dispute, the matter has been compromised between the parties and there was no criminal intent on the one or other side of the parties. 16. Referring to the deposition of P.W.-5, the informant and the medical evidence, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is exaggeration and further, the injury sustained does not support the ocular evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that there is head injury sustained by the informant and there is fracture upon the head and as such the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that :- (i) even the informant parties have not conceived that there was intention to kill and as such the offence under Section 307 I.P.C has not been alleged in the F.I.R., (ii) There is no repetition of blow and even if the allegation is presumed to be true, even then tangi has been used from the blunt side thus, there was no intention to cause death, (iii) There was free fight between the parties as there was quarrel between them, (iv) since there was no intention to kill, the conviction under Section 307/34 IPC is bad in law. The conviction can only be made under Section 325/ 34 IPC as because the injury does not support the use of any dangerous weapon. 19. In view of above discussion, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307/34 IPC is, hereby, set aside and it is converted under Section 325/ 34 IPC. 20. It appears from the impugned judgment that there was compromised between the parties and since the offence under Section 307/ 34 IPC is non-compoundable offence, it has not been compounded. 21. Now, after converting the conviction under Section 325/ 34 IPC, which is compoundable in nature, and since the parties have already compromised the matter, the conviction under Section 325/ 34 IPC stands compounded. 22. With the above modification, the present appeal is, hereby, allowed. 23 . The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond. 24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.