JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 1441973 of Sri R.P. Pandeya, Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, convicting appellants Ram Lachhan and Ram Chandra under Section 379 I.P.C. and Section 325/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to six months' R.I. under the former and three years' R.I. under the latter. The appellants were also convicted under section 323/34 I.P.C., but no separate sentence was imposed. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellants along with six others viz., Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal were tried for forming an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder of Sheo Mani and causing grievous hurt to Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1). The appellants and others were also charged under Section 147 and 302/149 I.P.C. but were acquitted. All the .accused and the complainants in this case belong to village Anjorpur, police station Narhi in the district of Ballia. The prosecution story in brief was as follows : On 2nd Feb., 1971, Sheo Bachan P.W. 1 who is the complainant in the case, along with his brother Sheo Mani deceased who was going to keep a watch over their field and at about 2 P.M. they reached their field. They found Ram Lachhan and Ram Chandra appellants uprooting crop of a portion of their field. Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) and Sheo Mani arrested Ram Chandra and Ram Lachhan appellants for uprooting pea crop. The appellants tried to get themselves released, but Sheo Bachan and Sheo Mani did not allow them to do so. The tussle between the two appellants on the one hand, and Sheo Bachan and Sheo Mani on the other, attracted the attention of Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras and Ram Daras as also Sheo Mangal, who came armed with lathis with avowed object of getting the appellants released. When the complainant and his brother did not allow the appellants to be released, the aforesaid six persons at the exhortation of Sheo Balak assaulted Sho Bachan (P. W. 1) and Sheo Mani deceased with their respective lathis and out of them Girja delivered a fatal blow on Sheo Mani deceased. The incident was seen by witnesses including Ram Nath (P. W. 2) and Muneshar (P. W. 3). The First Information Report Ex. The incident was seen by witnesses including Ram Nath (P. W. 2) and Muneshar (P. W. 3). The First Information Report Ex. Ka6 of the incident was lodged by Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) at the police station Narhi district Ballia on the very day of the incident at 3.20 P. M. The police station was three miles away from the scene of the incident. A case was registered against the two appellants and six others viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal and after the completion of the investigation all the eight persons including the two appellants were challenged. Both the appellants and six other accused viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that it was complainant's side which committed trespass on the field of the eight accused and uprooted their crop and whatever injuries were caused to the complainant's side" was caused by the eight accused in exercise of their right of selfdefence. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its story including three eyewitnesses. The appellants and six other accused produced no defence. The court below after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) and Sheo Mani deceased had arrested the appellants while they were committing theft. The other six persons viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal found both the appellants in confienment and, therefore, they went there armed with lathis in order to get the appellants released who were in wrongful confinement. The court below on this finding held that the six persons viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal, in these circumstances, committed no offence and they were accordingly acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the two appellants guilty and convicted them as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have now come in appeal before me. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that their conviction is not warranted by the testimony on record. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the two appellants guilty and convicted them as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have now come in appeal before me. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that their conviction is not warranted by the testimony on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and after going through the record, I have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 379 Indian Penal Code cannot be interfered with, while their conviction under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to stand. The medical evidence on record discloses the following antemortem injuries on the dead body of Sheo Mani deceased : 1. Abraded contusion, 2" x 1" on the back of right forearm in middle. 2. Contused swelling 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" on nose; of and right side of forehead. On internal examination transverse fracture of both the parietal bone from right to left was detected. The medical evidence further show that Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) received the following injuries : 1. Traumatic painful swelling 2" in diameter on head right side, just above the right ear. 2. Contusion, red in colour 2 1/2" x 1" on outer surface of right arm extending from shoulder joint downwards. 3. Abrasion 4" x 1/4" along with back of the right forearm, 1" above the wrist joint. 4. Traumatic swelling painful on touch, 7 1/2" x 10 1/4" around the right forearm, (sic)" below the right elbow joint. 5. Traumatic swelling 4" x 3" on back of right hand including right thumb index finger and middle finger. 6. Abrasion 1/10" in diameter on back of metacarpolhallengial joint of middle finger right hand. 7. Traumatic swelling 3" x 2" on the back of left below joint. 8. Traumatic swelling throughout the neck of left hand including all the five finger of left hand. The prosecution version of the story was narrated by Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) who also proved the First Information Report Ex. Ka./6. His testimony was corroborated by Ram Nath (P. W. 2) and Muneshwar (P. W. 3). As already held above, the court below has come to the conclusion that six persons viz. The prosecution version of the story was narrated by Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) who also proved the First Information Report Ex. Ka./6. His testimony was corroborated by Ram Nath (P. W. 2) and Muneshwar (P. W. 3). As already held above, the court below has come to the conclusion that six persons viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal went to the scene of the occurrence under the impression that the appellants were under confinement and they were, therefore, justified is securing their release even at the cost of inflicting injuries or death. The State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal and the finding of the court below has, therefore, become final. Even if the prosecution version is believed, the entire case of prosecution, was that after the appellants had committed theft by uprooting the pea crop of the complainant and both the appellants were arrested, the six acquitted persons came in order to secure the release of the appellants without any right to inflict any injury. There is no case of the prosecution that the appellants invited the other six assailants. The present appellants cannot, therefore, be held responsible for any act of either commission or omission which could be attributed to those six acquitted persons viz. Sheo Balak, Sitaram, Girja, Sheo Daras, Ram Daras and Sheo Mangal. In this view of the matter, the appellants were wrongly convicted under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. There is, however, overwhelming evidence on record that both the appellants were arrested while committing theft of pea crop of the complainant and his brother and this finding of the court below was not seriously challenged before me. Both the appellants were, therefore, rightly convicted under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of six months' R.I,, in the circumstances of the case, leading to death of Sheo Mani cannot be regarded as excessive. Learned counsel for the State drew my attention to the admissions made by Ram Chandra appellant under Section 342 Cr. P. C., that he caused injuries in selfdefence. The conviction of the appellants has to be based on the prosecution evidence and there was no prosecution case that any injury was caused either to Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) or to Sheo Mani deceased by any of the appellants. P. C., that he caused injuries in selfdefence. The conviction of the appellants has to be based on the prosecution evidence and there was no prosecution case that any injury was caused either to Sheo Bachan (P. W. 1) or to Sheo Mani deceased by any of the appellants. No doubt, Ram Chandra made an admission, but if that admission is to be taken into consideration, it is to be taken as a whole and not in parts. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The. conviction and sentences of the appellants under Sections 325/34 I. P. C. and 323/34 I. P. C. are set aside. The conviction and sentences of the appellants under Section 379 Indian Penal Code are confirmed. The appellants are on bail. They must surrender forthwith to serve out their sentence.