JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The eight Appellants along with two others (since acquitted) were tried in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for having committed offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is as follows: There was land dispute between Chudamani Barik (Appellant No. 1) and Abhi Jal (P.W. 2), Sadhu Jal (P.W. 8). Khedu Lohar (P.W. 10), Pbulbabu Jal (P.W. 11), Batu Jal (P.W. 12) and Shyam Kumar Jal (P.W. 13) and two others. Appellants Narayan Barik, Sbiblal Barik, Jogeswar Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik, Subal Barik and Laxman Barik and accused persons Gadadhar Barik (since acquitted) an d Sauda Barik (since acquitted) are all agents of Appellant Chudamani Bank and Appellant Netranand Barik is his son. It is alleged that in the early morning of 10-6-1976 P.Ws. 7 & 8 and deceased Dusasan Jal were going to plough Khalimal land with bullocks and ploughs. While they were passing through the Dharsa (village road) of village Bukramunda the accused persons being armed' with lathis, badis, tabal, tangi, barchi and arrows suddenly came out of the amari bushes, which were on the either side of the dharsa, and attacked and assaulted them. Deceased Dusasan succumbed to the injuries sustained during the assault and P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 also received injuries. P.W. 7 lodged information at the police-station and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. 2. The defence plea is that while Appellants Netrananda Barik, Shibalal Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik, and Narayan Barik were going along the Dharsa with paddy seeds and eight bullocks to sow paddy in the Mahulpalli land, over which there was dispute, P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and two others, who are the accused persons in the counter case (S.T. No. 26(S) of 1977 which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 232/77) surrounded them and inflicted injuries on them. In order to protect themselves they brandished stick, bhar and tangia. According to the defence version the aforesaid witnesses and two others were the aggressors. The further case of the defence is that except Appellants Netrananda Barik, Shiblal Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik and Narayan Barik the other accused persons were not present at the time of occurrence and they did not take any part in the occurrence. 3. According to the prosecution, there was motive for the assault. The further case of the defence is that except Appellants Netrananda Barik, Shiblal Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik and Narayan Barik the other accused persons were not present at the time of occurrence and they did not take any part in the occurrence. 3. According to the prosecution, there was motive for the assault. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 5 that there was dispute over Mahupali land between accused Chudamani on one side and P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and two others on the other and there was ill feeling between the parties. The other accused persons supported the cause of Chudamani. The ill feeling between the parties provided motive for the occurrence. 4. In older to prove the case the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and one witness was examined by the defence. Several documents have also been exhibited by both the sides. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the six injured persons (P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13) and two others and the accused persons came prepared being fully armed with deadly weapons to fight with each other and there was a free fight between them. In course of the fight the deceased succumbed to the injuries received by him and P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and Appellants Netranand Barik. Shiblal Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik and Narayan Barik also received injuries. The learned Sessions Judge held Appellant Chudamani Batik guilty under Sections 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and three months respectively and directed the sentences to run concurrently. He held Appellants Narayan Barik and Shiblal Barik guilty u/s 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for two years. Appellants Jogeswar Barik. Luxman Barik, Netranand Barik, Bhubaneswar Barik and Subal Barik were convicted u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. In the counter case, where P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and two others were the accused persons, Khedu Lohar (P.W. 10) was held guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to under go R.I. for six months. The Appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence. In the counter case, where P.Ws. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and two others were the accused persons, Khedu Lohar (P.W. 10) was held guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to under go R.I. for six months. The Appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence. This appeal and Criminal Appeal No. 232/77 were heard together and Criminal Appeal No. 232/77 has been disposed of by a separate judgment. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, raised the following points for consideration: 1. That in the inquest report (Ext. 15) the names of the accused persons have not been mentioned. 2. That the injuries on the accused persons have not been explained by the prosecution. 3. That the prosecution witnesses have developed the story from stage to stage and there is variance in their evidence and the place of occurrence has been shifted. 4. That the explanation offered by the accused persons should have been accepted. 5. That all the prosecution witnesses are inimical to the accused persons and their evidence should not have been believed. That in any view of the matter the Appellant are entitled to acquittal. 6. Regarding the first contention Mr. Mohapatra relied on a decision reported in Balaka Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab. In the reported case the names of four accused persons out of nine were missing in the body of the inquest report and the omission was not explained, and so they were acquitted by the High Court. It was held that the case against the other five accused persons had also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the manner in which the F.I.R. and the inquest report had been made threw considerable doubt on the complicity of these five accused persons in the crime. In the present case the, names of the accused persons have not been mentioned in the inquest report. But in column-7 of the report the 'words...Mudala mane' (all the accused persons) have been mentioned. The learned Standing Counsel' appearing for the State submitted that the above reported case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case the, names of the accused persons have not been mentioned in the inquest report. But in column-7 of the report the 'words...Mudala mane' (all the accused persons) have been mentioned. The learned Standing Counsel' appearing for the State submitted that the above reported case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the reported case the F.I.R. was lodged much after the inquest report was drawn up by the I.O. So the non-mention of the names of the accused persons was held to be fatal in the facts and circumstances of that case. But in the present case in the F.I.R. the names of all the accused persons have been mentioned. After receiving the F.I.R. the I O. went to the spot to hold inquest over the dead body and instead of mentioning the names of all the accused persons he has mentioned Mudala mane' (all the accused persons). Learned Standing Counselcited a decision reported in Pedda Narayana and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh where in it has been held: ...The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings u/s 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report.... The High Court has thus rightly explained that the omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all justified in rejecting the prosecution case in view of this alleged infirmity. There is full force in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel. As already stated, the names of all the accused persons have been mentioned in the F.I.R. and the omission of the names of the accused persons in the inquest report (Ext. 15) is in no way adverse to the prosecution case. 7. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the injuries on Appellants Narayan Barik.. Shiblal Batik, Netranand Barik and Bhubaneswar Barik have not been explained by the prosecution and as such the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Lakshmi Singh and Ors. 7. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the injuries on Appellants Narayan Barik.. Shiblal Batik, Netranand Barik and Bhubaneswar Barik have not been explained by the prosecution and as such the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1977 C.A.R. 28. in reply learned Standing Counsel relied on a decision reported in Onkarnath Singh and Others Vs. The State of U.P. wherein it has been held: The entire prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard simply because the prosecution witnesses do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. The question as to what is the effect of the non-explanation is a question of fact and not of law. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinise their evidence with care.... In view of the above decision it is the duty of the Courtsto scrutinise the evidence most carefully and come to a finding and it is not that the entire prosecution case should be discarded simply because the injuries on the accused persons have not been explained. 8. The next contention of Mr. Mohapatra is that the prosecution witnesses have developed the case from stage to stage and there is variance in their statement and the place of occurrence has been shifted. He submitted that P.W. 7 in his examination in Court has stated that he has not seen as to who dealt the blow on the deceased. He has also stated that he has not seen as to who assaulted Sadhu and others. He has further stated that he became unconscious and again stated that immediately after the assault he ran away and lodged the F.I.R. P.W. 10 has stated that be has not seen the assault on Sadhu. He has stated that P.Ws. 11, 12 and 13 came to the spot after he came. Again he has stated that he saw them for the first time in the hospital and they had not come to the spot. The place of occurrence bas also been changed by the witnesses. Earlier it was Hated that the occurrence was on the village Dharsa. Subsequently it was changed to the land in Pankamal. Again he has stated that he saw them for the first time in the hospital and they had not come to the spot. The place of occurrence bas also been changed by the witnesses. Earlier it was Hated that the occurrence was on the village Dharsa. Subsequently it was changed to the land in Pankamal. No doubt there are some discrepancies in the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses. But those have been thoroughly considered by the learned Sessions Judge. He has considered the case against each of the accused persons and has come to the finding. As disclosed from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 14) the spot of both the case and the counter case is the same which is in village Batramunda. According to P.W. 14 the spot is village Dharsa and the adjoining paddy field. The dead body of the deceased was lying on the eastern side of the Dharsa at a distance of about 86 from the Dharsa. So the place of occurrence has not been materially changed so as to affect the prosecution case. 9. There is no doubt that there was a dispute between the accused persons and the witnesses over Mahulpali land and there was a 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding between tbe accused and P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 and others. Appellant Chudamani was successful in that proceeding and his possession over the land was declared. So it is argued by Mr. Mohapatra that the prosecution party were the aggressors. But the learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that both parties came prepared for a fight and the occurrence took place and both parties were injured in course of the fight. Thus he convicted the Appellants for the acts committed by them and also convicted P.W. 10 in the counter case for causing injury to Appellant Netrananda Barik. 10. Appellant Chudamani Barik has been held guilty u/s 323, Indian Penal Code for assaulting P.W. 8. He has also been found guilty u/s 326, Indian Penal Code for assaulting the deceased on his head. The witnesses to speak about the above facts are P.Ws. 8. 10, 11, 12 and 13. No doubt these persons are the accused persons in the counter case. But simply for this reason their evidence should not be discarded. He has also been found guilty u/s 326, Indian Penal Code for assaulting the deceased on his head. The witnesses to speak about the above facts are P.Ws. 8. 10, 11, 12 and 13. No doubt these persons are the accused persons in the counter case. But simply for this reason their evidence should not be discarded. The only thing to be done is to scrutinise their evidence thoroughly. Similarly Appellant Narayan Barik and Sbiblal Barik have been found guilty u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. From the evidence of P.Ws. 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 it is disclosed that Appellant Narayan dealt a Lathi blow on the left leg of Dusasan causing fracture and Appellant Shiblal Barik assaulted on the face of the deceased. Appellant Jogeswar Bank inflicted injury on P.W. 7 with the handle of a barchi and tabali. The learned Sessions Judge has found him guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code. Appellant Laxman Bank has been found guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code for having caused injury to P.W. 8 with a tabali. P.Ws. 8 and 12 have stated about the assault by this accused on P.W.8. Appellant Netranand Barik has been found guilty for having caused injury to P.W. 12. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the witnesses to prove the fact. Appellant Bhubaneswar Barik has been found guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code for having dealt a blow by a barchi on the hand of P.W. 7. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 12 speak about this. After a careful consideration of the evidence on record and hearing the argument of the counsel for both sides and in the facts and circumstances of the case I see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the guilt of the above named accused-Appellants. Appellant Subal Barik has been found guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code for causing cur injury on the finger of P.W. 12. P.Ws. 12 and 13 prove this fact. The learned trial Court has accepted their evidence. But it is argued by Mr. Mohapatra that there is no mention in the F.I.R. about the injury caused by this accused. There is considerable force in this argument of Mr. Mohapatra and I am inclined to hold that this Appellant is en titled to benefit of doubt. 11. The learned trial Court has accepted their evidence. But it is argued by Mr. Mohapatra that there is no mention in the F.I.R. about the injury caused by this accused. There is considerable force in this argument of Mr. Mohapatra and I am inclined to hold that this Appellant is en titled to benefit of doubt. 11. After hearing the argument of the counsel for both sides and considering the entire evidence on record I uphold the conviction and sentence of Appellant Chudamani Barik under Sections 326 and 323, Indian Penal Code. I also uphold the conviction and sentence of Appellants Narayan Batik and Shiblal Barik u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. In case of Appellants Jogeswar Barik, Laxman Barik, Netranand Bank and Bhubaneswar Barik, their conviction u/s 324, Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is reduced to R I. for three months instead of six months. The appeal is against Subal Barik is allowed and he is acquitted. 12. In the result, therefore, the appeal as against Appellant Subal Batik is allowed and he is acquitted. The appeal as against the other Appellants IS dismissed with the modification as indicated above. Final Result : Dismissed