JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - These twelve appellants have been convicted finder Section 307/149, I.P.C. and also under Section 324/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count and for one year under the second count. Appellants Gayadin, Tulsiram and Lahuri have further been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The other appellants have further been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court has, however, directed the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Appellants Gayadin and Lahuri are teal brothers and Panchu and Ram Nath are their uncles. Ram Naresh alias Napai is a cousin of Gayadin. Appellants Tulsiram, Ramdeo and Ramjag are the sons of Nageshar and the other appellants are their partisans and supporters. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows: A civil litigation had been going on tor some time between complainant Jagdamba and his brother Karya on the one side and Nageshar and some others on the other for a number of years in respect of a field in the village. Jagdamba and Kariya had lost the case both in the trial court and also in the first appellate court but have filed a second appeal which is pending disposal before the High Court. On account of this litigation Tulsiram and his brothers, who are sons of Nageshar, entertained feeling of deep animosity towards Jagdamba and his brother. A day before the occurrence, Jagdamba had ploughed the field which was the subject-matter of litigation between him and Nageshar. This had provided the appellants with an immediate motive for the commission of the crime. 4. On July 25, 1961 at about 9 a.m. when Jagdamba and Kariya were working in their other field, which is situate to the south of Sheo Dutts plot, all these appellants, out of whom Tulsiram and Lahura were armed with spears and Gayadin with a Pharsa while the others were carrying lathis, reached the field exhorting that Jagdamba and Kariya should be assaulted. Seeing this armed assembly advancing towards them, Kariya and Jagdamba ran for their life raising alarm but they were chased and overtaken in the field of Sheo Dutt by the appellants who surrounded them and severely belaboured them with their respective weapons. Seeing this armed assembly advancing towards them, Kariya and Jagdamba ran for their life raising alarm but they were chased and overtaken in the field of Sheo Dutt by the appellants who surrounded them and severely belaboured them with their respective weapons. On the alarm raised by the victims, Katku, Ram Sabad, Rameshwar, Shyam Lal and Tej Bahadur arrived in the field. Shyamlal tried to intervene but he too was beaten by the appellants. The appellants subsequently fled towards the east. 5. Kariya and Jagdamba were escorted to their house from the field where Jagdamba got a report of the incident scribed by Sarpanch Hiralal and lodged the same at police station Bikapur six miles away on July 25, 1961 at 12.45 P.M. In this report he described the essentials of the prosecution story and mentioned the names of all the appellants as the culprits. On the basis of this report a case was registered and investigation followed. 6. Kariya and Jagdamba were medically examined by Dr. D.N. Srivastava (P. W. 3) on July 25, 1961. Kariya had ten injuries on his person, two of which were incised wounds caused by some sharp-edged weapon while the rest had been caused by a lathi. The patient was semi-conscious at the time of his examination and his pupils were dilated. Jagdamba had nine injuries on his person out of which three were caused by some sharp weapon and the rest by some blunt object as a lathi. 7. Shyam Lal who was examined by Dr. Srivastava on July 26, 1961 was found to have three contusions and two incised wounds on his person. All the injuries were simple except the injury No. 3 of Kariya Singh which was found to be grievous. The duration of the injuries synchronised almost with the time of the incident and in the opinion of the Doctor injury No. 3 of Kariya Singh could be dangerous to life. Kariya Singh had remained in hospital as an indoor patient for about 25 days. 8. At the trial, all the appellants had pleaded not guilty to the charges. Appellants Ramdeo, Tulsiram, Ramjag and Gayadin admitted their presence and participation in the occurrence but gave out an entirely different version. The other appellants denied the presence and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Hira Lal Pradhan owing to election rivalries. 9. Appellants Ramdeo, Tulsiram, Ramjag and Gayadin admitted their presence and participation in the occurrence but gave out an entirely different version. The other appellants denied the presence and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Hira Lal Pradhan owing to election rivalries. 9. The defence version of the story is that appellant Ramdeo was working in his field No. 1283, 1284 and 1285 on the day of occurrence and at about 10 or 11 A.M. Kariya, Jagdamba and Tej Bahadur, accompanied by Shyam Lal, came there and started assaulting Ramdeo and pushing him out of his field. On his alarm, his brothers Ramjag and Tulsiram, accompanied by Gayadin, came there and intervened. In short, the case of these four appellants is that they did cause injuries to Jagdamba, Kariya and Shyam Lal in the exercise of their right of defence of person and property. 10. The appellants in their defence have examined three witnesses. Head Constable Jwala Prasad has proved the first information report Ex. Kh. 7. Dr. A.K. Roy Chaudhary (D.W. 2) stated to have medically examined Ramdeo on July 27, 1961 at 5 P.M. and had found two injuries on his body. The injury report prepared by him is Ex. Kha-9. Ram Asrey (D.W. 3) testified to the defence version of the occurrence. 11. The prosecution has examined Jagdamba, Tej Bahadur, Katku, Kariya, Shyam Lal and Ram Sabad in support of its story, all of whom have given an eve-witnesss account of the occurrence. The other evidence produced in the case is only of a formal character. 12. It is the common case of the parties that an incident had taken place on July 25, 1961 in the village in which Kariya, Jagdamba and Shyam Lal had received numerous injuries. There are two conflicting versions of the incident put forward by the prosecution and the defence respectively. The question which requires determination is as to which of the two versions is correct and even if the defence version is found to be false whether the story put forward by the prosecution has been established beyond doubt. 13. In a case of the present nature where the happening of the occurrence is admitted and only the manner of the happening and which of the party was the aggressor is to be determined, the place of occurrence assumes special significance. 13. In a case of the present nature where the happening of the occurrence is admitted and only the manner of the happening and which of the party was the aggressor is to be determined, the place of occurrence assumes special significance. According to the prosecution, Kariya and Jagdamba were chased from their field and overtaken and belaboured in the field of Sheo Dutt, while the defence alleges that the marpit started in plot 1283, 1284 and 1285 when Kariya and Jagdamba, assisted by Tej Bahadur and Shyam Lal, attacked Ramdeo and tried to throw him out of the field. 14. Sub-Inspector Ishwar Deo Sahi (P.W. 10) has stated that he found blood on the ground in the field of Sheo Dutt and that he did not find blood at any other place. His statement in this respect finds corroboration from the Fard Ex. Ka-6 which he prepared about the recovery of the blood-stained earth and also from the testimony of Ram Sabad. The defence also admits that at the time of his visit to the village the Investigating Officer had recovered bloodstained earth from the field of Sheo Dutt. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as the field of Sheo Dutt is very close to the field Nos. 1283, 1284 and 1285, it may be that the quarrel and fight started in plot No. 1283 and others and continued upto the field of Sheo Dutt and, therefore, the recovery of the blood from the aforesaid field does not militate against the defence version of the story. He has also argued that the testimony of Ram Asrey (D.W. 2) indicates that though the marpit had taken place in field No. 1283, 1284 and 1285, Jagdamba and Kariya had moved thereafter to the field of Sheo Dutt and that too explains the presence of blood in that field. I do not find any substance in these arguments. If the occurrence had taken place in plot Nos. 1283, 1284 and 1285, as suggested by the defence, then in view of the large number of bleeding injuries having been i received by the victims, some blood ought to have necessarily fallen in those plots. I do not find any substance in these arguments. If the occurrence had taken place in plot Nos. 1283, 1284 and 1285, as suggested by the defence, then in view of the large number of bleeding injuries having been i received by the victims, some blood ought to have necessarily fallen in those plots. It is also difficult to believe that Kariya and Jagdamba, after receiving so many injuries in these fields, would, instead of hurrying up to their houses, when they were the aggressors, as the defence suggests, have stayed back in the field of Sheo Dutt. The recovery of the blood from the field of Sheo Dutt, in my opinion, conclusively fixes the place of occurrence and is a factor which lends assurance to the veracity of the prosecution story. 16. There is another circumstance which suggests that the version of the incident as put forward by the prosecution is more probable and reliable than the defence version. Kariya, Jagdamba and Shyam Lal have received in all 26 injuries, some of which had been caused by sharp-edged weapon. As against this, appellant Ramdeo is the only person who is alleged to have received two contusions on his right arm which are trivial in nature. If Kriya and Jagdamba were the aggressors and had attacked Ramdeo when he was alone in his field, it is impossible to believe that they could have been able to cause only such minor injuries to Ramdeo, while getting themselves worsted in this incident. The trivial nature of the injuries of Ramdeo, even the genuineness of which is highly doubtful, unmistakably points out that the defence version of the story that it was the party of Kariva which first attacked Ramdeo in his field is wholly false and had been manufactured for the purpose of this case. 17. Shyam Lal has his right hand paralysed since a long time. He has categorically stated that he could not take his food from his right hand. The defence did not cross-examine him on this point. It is difficult to believe that a person whose right hand is paralysed and crippled would have accompanied Jagdamba and his brother to participate in an assault on Ramdeo in order to oust him from the field. It was suggested to Jagdamba that though Shyam Lal had accompanied him he remained standing outside the field. It is difficult to believe that a person whose right hand is paralysed and crippled would have accompanied Jagdamba and his brother to participate in an assault on Ramdeo in order to oust him from the field. It was suggested to Jagdamba that though Shyam Lal had accompanied him he remained standing outside the field. The trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses has remarked that looking to the & physical condition of Shyam Lal, it was difficult to believe that he should have been one of the aggressors and therefore his statement that he received injuries because he attempted to intervene in the marpit to save the victims of the assault is natural and reliable. 18. On the basis of these circumstances, namely, the recovery of the blood-stained earth from the field of Sheo Dutt, the great hiatus between the number and nature of the injuries on the side of the prosecution and the defence and the physical "infirmities of Shyamlal, I have no doubt in my mind that the version put forward by the prosecution which has been supported by three independent and natural witnesses, Tej Bahadur, Katku and Ram Sabad, besides the three victims, Jagdamba, Kriva and Shyam Lal is essentially true. The trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of the eve-witnesses and has given good reasons for holding them to be natural and independent witnesses and I have no reasons to differ with its assessment of their evidence. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even if the prosecution version of the incident is held to be established, the presence and participation of all the appellants in the incident is highly doubtful. His contention is that there could be no motive for the appellants other than Tulsiram, Ramdeo and Ram Jag, with whom alone litigation was going on, to have participated in the occurrence and it is quite likely that the other appellants have been roped in on account of party feelings in the village under the influence of Hira Lal Pradhan who had scribed the first information report. 20. 20. Learned counsel says that the fact that Shyam Lal, who is a resident of the village, could name only Gayadin, Ldhuri and Ram Jag amongst the assailants also suggests that the probability of some persons who had not participated' in the incident having been roped in falsely cannot be ruled out. 21. The physical infirmity of Shyam Lal may be the reason for his inability to name all the twelve appellants at the time of his statement in court. Shyam Lal has, however, clearly asserted that all the twelve appellants who were present before the trial court had participated in the incident but he could name only three of them. 22. There is, however, one circumstance which suggests that the number of assailants may not have been as many as twelve. According to the prosecution, Kariya and Jagdamba ran away from their fields and were overtaken by the rioters 4 or 5 Bighas away in the field of Sheo Dutt. If the assailants were .twelve in number in all probability they would have been able to surround and overtake their victims within a much shorter distance. 23. Hira Lal Pradhan (P.W. 4) admitted that Smt. Rampati, mother of appellant Devi Bux, had contested the election of Pradhan against him. He also admitted that about a year back he had given an application against Devi Bux, Gayadin, Piare and Budhram in respect of a Parti land and fishing. He, however, denied the suggestion that it was at his instance that the names of the appellants except Ramdeo, Ramjag, Tulsiram and Gayadin were mentioned in the report. 24. Thus it is apparent that Hira Lal Pradhan had some reasons to be annoyed with appellants Devi Bux, Piare and Budh Ram. Piare and Budh Ram are real brothers. Brij Mohan is a Dhobi by caste and the other appellants are Kurmis. Except Tulsiram, Ramdeo and Ramjag, the other appellants do not appear to have had any particular motive for participating in the incident. In my opinion, therefore, except appellants Tulsiram, Ramdeo, Ram Jag and Gayadin who admit their presence and participation in the marpit and Lahuri who is a real brother of Gayadin and in all probability, therefore, must have accompanied him and has been specifically named by Shjmm Lal, a wholly reliable and independent witness, the other appellants should be given the benefit of reasonable doubt. It may be that these appellants had also participated in the incident, as has been deposed to by the eye-witnesses, but the rule of caution requires that in view of the circumstances indicated above, they should be given the benefit of doubt. 25. Learned counsel has also argued that the injuries received by the victims were neither individually nor cumulatively of a character which could have endangered their lives and as such none of the appellants were liable to conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. I find no substance in this argument. 26. The number and nature of the injuries received by Kariya and Jagdamba leave no room for doubt that the appellants intended to cause them such bodily injuries which could have resulted in their death. Kariya had received two incised wounds on his left ear and three injuries on his head, one of which was a contusion with a swelling in an area of 6"x3". Under the impact of these head injuries, Kariya had remained semi-conscious for about 4 or 5 days and had to be detained in hospital for medical treatment for about 25 days. In the opinion of Dr. Srivastava, Kariyas injury No. 3, which was on the head, could be dangerous to his life. Jagdamba too had received three injuries on his head and three incised wounds on the other parts of the body. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of those appellants whose participation in the occurrence has been found to be beyond doubt under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is fully justified. 27. The conviction and sentence of appellants Gayadin, Tulsiram, Ramdeo, Ram Jag and Lahuri under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and 324/149 I.P.C. are affirmed. The conviction and sentence of appellants Gayadin, Tulsiram and Lahuri under Section 148 I.P.C. and of Ramdeo and Ram Jag under Section 147 I.P.C. are also maintained. 28. The conviction and sentence of appellants Devi Bux, Brij Mohan, Piare, Panchu, Ramnath, Ram Naresh alias Lapai and Budh Ram are set aside and their appeals are allowed. 29. Gayadin, Tulsiram, Ramdeo, Ram Jag and Lahuri are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled. They must surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. 30. Debi Bux, Brij Mohan, Piare, Budh Ram, Panchu, Ram Nath and Ram Naresh alias Lapai are also on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender.