JUDGMENT 1. - In a trial under sections 395, 447, 147, 323 and 323 read with 149 Indian Penal Code against fourteen persons by the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, nine persons were acquitted by the judgment dated November 18, 1976 but by that judgment the four appellants Bhanwaru, Bija Ram, Pancha Ram, Sukha Ram and one Bhabhuta Ram (since dead) were convicted for the offences under sections 147, 323/149 and 323 Indian Penal Code. All of them were sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the first count & three months rigorous imprisonment for the second count. Appellant Bhanwaru was sentenced for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code for three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story leading to the trial and conviction of the appellants is, that, there was dispute between complainant Mohan, his mother Geeta and the accused party regarding field Nos. 80 and 81 at village-Sensda. That the fields in question were in possession of Geeta through her father Vishwa Nath. That, on September 25, 1974 when the complainant, and his mother Geeta were cutting the crop of`bajri', the fourteen accused went there and restrained them from cutting the crop. Thereafter all of them caused injuries to the complainant and his mother Geeta (PW 5). According to the case given in the first information report a bullock-cart containing `bajri' fodder worth Rs. 2000/- was taken away by the accused party. That, one watch of the complainant valuing Rs. 120/- was also taken away by them. Police registered a case and after investigation filed the chargesheet against fourteen persons in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta. The learned Magistrate committed them all to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta proceeded with the trial. Eleven witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. The accused in their statements denied the allegations and came with a case that the fields in question were in possession of Bhanwaru and Sukna Ram etc. and that the complainant party was aggressive and caused injuries to Bhabhuta Two witnesses were examined to substantiate the contention that the fields were joint between the complainant and the accused Bhanwaru and the western part of the field was in possession of Bhanwaru etc. One Doctor was examined to prove the injuries of Bhabhuta. and that the complainant party was aggressive and caused injuries to Bhabhuta Two witnesses were examined to substantiate the contention that the fields were joint between the complainant and the accused Bhanwaru and the western part of the field was in possession of Bhanwaru etc. One Doctor was examined to prove the injuries of Bhabhuta. Shanker accused appeared in the witness box to substantiate the defence that litigation is going on regarding the fields and he, Bhanwaru and others were in possession of the fields. The defence plea did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he held that the four appellants along with deceased Bhabhuta Ram had formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to Mohan and Geeta. He, therefore, passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court. 5. I heard Mr. R.N. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the chargesheet against fourteen persons was filed and nine were acquitted, which clearly shows that they had falsely implicated a number of persons. Another ground taken is that the injuries of Bhabhuta Ram have not been explained by the prosecution. Yet another contention is, that the evidence discloses that in western side of the fields Bhanwaru etc. were in the possession and that is the alleged place of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel this clearly shows that the complainant had gone there as a aggressor and caused injuries to Bhabhuta Ram. According to the learned counsel in such circumstances, the case even if any, fell within the ambit of right of private defence of person. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injuries of Bhabhuta Ram were not of serious type and therefore, failure to explain them would not weaken the prosecution case. It has also been contended that the number of injuries caused to Mohan and her mother Geeta show the cruelty of the accused and that when there is no specific evidence about the accused being in possession of the field and litigation is going on, it cannot be said that any right of private defence of person had accrued to the appellants. Thus the learned Public Prosecutor justified the conviction of the appellants. 8. The record shows that there was some dispute between the parties regarding the fields of the father of Geeta. There is no specific evidence to establish as to who was in possession of the field at the relevant time. Nawal Singh (PW 1) Patwari has stated that on half of the khasra Nos. 80 and 81 there was khatedari of Bhanwaru etc. and for the remaining half Geeta was the khatedar. According to the witness is Samvat Year 2031-2032 there is no entry of any crop on these fields, rather it is mentioned that there is dispute about cultivation. 9. The fact of there being `bajri' fodder in the cart and the accused party taking away the same was not believed by the trial court and for that reason, the accused were acquitted for the charge under section 195 Indian Penal Code. In view of the dispute regarding the fields where the incident is said to have been taken place, the learned trial Judge has also not held the accused guilty for the offence under section 447 Indian Penal Code. 10. Much emphasis is laid by the defence counsel on the statement of Phoosa Ram (DW 2) who has stated about Bhanwara being in possession of the western part of these khasras and the Station House Officer stating that incident had taken place on the western part of the field. 11. The Station House Officer has of course stated that he enquired from Phoosa Ram, neighbourer of the field but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, this witness was not put in the witness box from the side. This witness has also stated about there being dispute relating to the fields. But from the statement of this witness alone, it cannot be said that at the relevant time there was any crop of Bhanwaru, Sukha Ram etc. standing on the field where the incident had taken place. 12. So far as the injuries of Bhabhuta Ram are concerned, they are all abrasions of small dimensions and I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that merely on the failure of the prosecution to explain those abrasions, the whole prosecution case cannot be discarded. 13. The evidence of Geeta, Mohan and Ramchandra regarding the injuries clearly proves the accused party giving beating to Mohan and Geeta. 13. The evidence of Geeta, Mohan and Ramchandra regarding the injuries clearly proves the accused party giving beating to Mohan and Geeta. The learned Judge has acquitted nine accused for the reasons that there was specific mention of only these five persons participating in the crime. 14. Dr. Pratap Singh (PW 10) had examined Mohan and Geeta on September 25, 1974 and noted sixteen injuries on the person of Mohan and seven on the person of Geeta. There is specific evidence of Geeta about the injuries on her back being caused by Bhanwaru and the remaining persons causing injuries to her on other parts of the body and also to her son Mohan. Similar is the statement of Mohan. As stated earlier, the prosecution case against the four appellants and deceased Bhabhutaram stands duly proved so far as their causing injuries to Mohan and Geeta is concerned, and therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge, that it was in pursuance of a common object the Geeta and Mohan were given a beating by the present four appellants and deceased Bhabhutaram, calls for no interference. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submitted that the offence relates to the year 1974 and the quarrel even if any had taken place with regard to the disputed fields, hence a lenient view may be taken and the appellants may not be sent behind the bars. The learned Public Prosecutor also in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case does not dispute this prayer. 16. The perusal of the record indicates that there was litigation between the parties regarding the fields.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the number of injuries sustained by Mohan and Geeta while passing the sentence. The injuries to Mohan are of course sixteen in number but seven are bruises of very small dimension, eight are abrasions also of similar small dimensions. The lacerated wound on the left parietal bone above pinna of left ear is 1" x 1/4" x 1/4". Similar is the state of the injuries of Geeta. Hence merely because of the number of injuries it cannot be said that there was any merciless beating by the appellants. 17. In this view of the matter, I do not consider it a case in which substantive sentences should be awarded to the appellants. Similar is the state of the injuries of Geeta. Hence merely because of the number of injuries it cannot be said that there was any merciless beating by the appellants. 17. In this view of the matter, I do not consider it a case in which substantive sentences should be awarded to the appellants. In my opinion ends of justice would meet by imposing fine only. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the substantive sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are sentenced to fine only. All the appellants are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 101/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 147 Indian Penal Code. They are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment under section 323/149 Indian Penal Code. Appellant Bhanwaru is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 101/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code. The appellants are given two months time to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court.Appeal partly allowed.. *******