JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Heard Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. In compliance of the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court regarding whereabouts of the appellants it is brought on record that appellant Niranjan yadav has died on 10.08.2020 and appellant Basu Yadav died on 14.12.2023. Since appellants no.1 and 3 have been died during the pendency of this appeal and no substitution application is on record, hence, the appeals related to appellant Niranjan Yadav and Basu Yadav stands abated. Rest of the appellants Jamadar yadav and Subesh Yadav, are re- numbered as appellant nos.1 and 2 respectively. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 152 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants were held guilty and has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under both sections with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 4 . The prosecution case is that on 23.09.2004, there was hot talk erupted between the informant and the main accused Nirajan Yadav (since deceased) at the cattle hut and accused Niranjan Yadav threatened to kill the informant. On the same day, at about 11:00 PM, all the accused persons including these appellants armed with danda, chansua and chheni forcibly entered into the house of the informant by breaking window and caught hold the informant and dragged him towards outside of the house. After hearing hulla, the brother of the informant woke up and came out, he was also caught hold by the accused persons and both of them were brutally assaulted. Informant was assaulted by danda and Chheni on his head, hand and legs and over whole body by appellant Basu Yadav and the brother of the informant was assaulted by Niranjan Yadav and Subesh Yadav. After hearing, hue and cry, the villagers assembled and the appellants fled away. 5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Hiranpur P.S. Case no. 54/2002 was registered under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against accused/appellants. 6 . After hearing, hue and cry, the villagers assembled and the appellants fled away. 5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Hiranpur P.S. Case no. 54/2002 was registered under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against accused/appellants. 6 . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 7. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 8 . The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implications. Further defence is that appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence. 9. After conclusion of trial the learned trial court, after appraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is allegation of assaulting upon the informant and his brother by deadly weapons like sharp weapon Chheni, but the injuries sustained by the informant and his brother are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Therefore, the ingredients of intention and knowledge required for constituting for the offence 307, is absolutely lacking in this case, which has been ignored by the learned trial court. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between the parties and they were under litigating terms which has been reflected in the F.I.R. itself. The place of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution and witnesses have given inconsistent and contradictory testimony in this regard. The place of occurrence is open field and not the house of the informant. Therefore, offence under Section 450 I.P.C. is not attracted in this case. It is further submitted that on the basis of facts proved in this case, the offence under Sections 323 or 324 at best is attracted. The appellants have undergone about four months custody during the trial of the case and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. Therefore, offence under Section 450 I.P.C. is not attracted in this case. It is further submitted that on the basis of facts proved in this case, the offence under Sections 323 or 324 at best is attracted. The appellants have undergone about four months custody during the trial of the case and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. Admittedly, no overt act has been attributed to appellants rather they have convicted with aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and offence under Section 307 and 450 of the IP.C and/or in the alternative the sentences of the appellants may be reduced for the period undergone. 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the injury found on some vital parts of the body which is dangerous to life and the learned trail court has properly considered the evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment and order which suffers from no illegality and infirmities and this appeal being devoid of merits is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the entire record and other materials available on record along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. Brief resume of evidence adduced by prosecution will be helpful in deciding the appeal:- P.W.1 (Dr. Satish Chandra Singh) is the doctor who has examined the injured Hira Yadav and found following injuries.:- (i) A sharp cut injury of 1” x 1/2" x Muscle deep over the left lower hand 2 1/2 the wrist joint. (ii) A sharp cut injury 1/2" x 1/2" x muscle deep over the left temporal region of the head. On the same date and time the doctor has also examined the informant Ajay Yadav and found following injuries:- (i) A lacerated wound of size 2” X 1/2" X skin deep over the forehead. (ii) A swelling of 1” diameter over the left lateral aspect of the chest, above the rib margine. 5’ above the rib margine. (iii) A swelling of 1 1/2 dia over the frontal head. In his cross-examination, he states that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and have been caused by hard and blunt substance. 5’ above the rib margine. (iii) A swelling of 1 1/2 dia over the frontal head. In his cross-examination, he states that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and have been caused by hard and blunt substance. P.W.2 (Sanjay Kr. Yadav) is the brother of the informant and he has stated that after hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of the informant where he saw that all the accused persons assaulting the informant and Hira Yadav. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is the brother of the informant and denied about any land dispute between the parties and also not known that the mother of Niranjan Yadav has filed any case against the informant. P.W.3(Gujri Devi) is the sister-in-law of the informant and she has also stated that the accused persons forcibly entered into her house by breaking the window and took the informant and his brother dragging outside of the house and brutally assaulted and fully supported the evidence of Sanjay Yadav. In her cross-examination, she had admitted that informant is her own brother-in-law and further stated that police recorded her statement at the night of the occurrence and she has shown the broken window to the police who took away the said window. She has further stated that the police have seen the blood stains on the door. But denied about any land dispute between the informant and the accused/appellants and also denied that his Ajay Yadav and Hira Yadav had assaulted Niranjan Yadav by entering into his house. P.W.4 (Mithu Yadav) has also stated that he woke up by listening the cries of P.W.3 (Gujri Devi) and went at her house and found that accused persons were assaulting to Hira Yadav and Ajay Yadav. In his cross-examination, this witness has said that police had recorded his statement at the night of occurrence and he has denied that Ajay and Hira had assaulted to Niranjan Yadav by entering into his house. P.W.5 (Hira Yadav) is the injured and has fully supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief. P.W.6 (Rama Yadav) has also stated that he reached at the place of occurrence after listening hue and cry and found that the accused persons were assaulting to Ajay Yadav and Hira Yadav. In his cross-examination, in which he had identified the accused persons in the flash light of torch. P.W.6 (Rama Yadav) has also stated that he reached at the place of occurrence after listening hue and cry and found that the accused persons were assaulting to Ajay Yadav and Hira Yadav. In his cross-examination, in which he had identified the accused persons in the flash light of torch. P.W.7 (Ajay Yadav) is the informant of this case and has corroborated his previous statement as contained in F.I.R. In his cross-examination, he states that he is on bail in the case lodged by the mother of the Niranjan Yadav. He further states that proceeding under Section 107 of CrP.C. is also going on between the parties. He further states that his statement was recorded on the same day of occurrence in which he has stated that accused Basu and Jamadar Yadav have assaulted Hira Yadav by means of Chheni. This witness has denied any injury sustained by Niranjan Yadav. P.W.8 (Animesh Kr. Gupta) is the I.O. of the case and in his evidence he has given a detailed description of the place of occurrence and stated that the accused-appellants forcibly entered into the house of informant by breaking window which has been seized. He has further given the detailed description of second place of occurrence which is the open field of Hari Saw situated at a distance of 200 yards from the house of informant. It is further admitted by this witness that Niranjan Yadav has sustained injuries due to falling on the stone which has been mentioned in paragraph-3 of the case-diary. 14 . The defence has also adduced several documentary evidences available of record. (i) Exhibit A- Injury report of the injured Hira Yadav (ii) Exhibit 1/a – Injury report of the injured Ajay Yadav. (iii) Exhibit 2- Fard Beyan (iv) Exhibit 3- Formal F.I.R. 15 . I have gone through the entire record of the case in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. The scuffle took place between the parties due to old enmity and the occurrence has taken place in the open field wherein one of the appellant (Niranjan Yadav) has also sustained severe injuries, but he is no more. The injuries sustained by the informant party appear to be simple and muscle deep/skin deep only. The scuffle took place between the parties due to old enmity and the occurrence has taken place in the open field wherein one of the appellant (Niranjan Yadav) has also sustained severe injuries, but he is no more. The injuries sustained by the informant party appear to be simple and muscle deep/skin deep only. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that there was intention or knowledge of the appellants to cause death of the informant party as is required for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Since as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence is the open field. Hence, no offence under Sections 450 of the I.P.C. is made out. 16 . In view of above discussion and reasons, I am of the firm view that the learned trial court has not properly considered the overall aspect of the case. Therefore, conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 450 is hereby, set aside. Rather, at best the offences proved by the prosecution falls under Section 323 and 324 of the I.P.C., for which appellants have already undergone some period of custody during trial of the case and now two decades have been lapsed from the date of occurrence. 17 . Considering the overall aspects of the case, the appellants are sentenced for imprisonment already undergone. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed with alteration in conviction and modification in sentence. 18 . Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of this case, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to Ms. Vandana Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae 19 . Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 20 . Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.