Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. Appellant No. 1 bas been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been found guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.2, Mahendra Pratap Singh, has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.00 and appellant No.3, Shyam Bihari Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is that on 30-3-1975 there was a dispute with regard to measurement of land and that both the- prosecution party and the appellants clashed resulting into the injuries. As stated by the prosecution, there appears to be a counter version giving rise to counter case and as a matter of fact appellant Dipnarain was also caused injury by the prosecution side. 3. The learned advocate has mainly confined his argument on the appreciation of the evidence and has specifically criticized the manner in which the learned trial court has come to the conclusion on making comparison of two cases. It appears that as a matter of fact injuries were found on the person of appellant Dipnarain and it also appears that injury found on his person are severe in nature. It will appear that the place of occurrence being the Dalan as stated by the defence has been disbelieved by the trial court only on the ground that the objective findings by Investigating Officer did not support. I am afraid this is not the correct approach of the case. The actual place of occurrence is to be considered on the finding of the evidence and thereafter in order to support reason the objective finding of the I.O. has to be looked into. The learned trial court should have tried to appreciate that unless the evidence of witnesses are considered for fixing of the place of occurrence the objective finding of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to be a successful criteria to find out the place of occurrence. In view of the fact that serious injuries were found on the body of the appellants, it will appear that true manner of assault has not been said. In view of the fact that serious injuries were found on the body of the appellants, it will appear that true manner of assault has not been said. Unfortunately, if that is said to be true, it becomes difficult to find the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them. 4. In the instant case. It is correct that the learned trial court has assessed and then come to the conclusion on a simple comparison of the two cases. But, I am afraid that could not have been a correct procedure for deciding the instant case 10 the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Therefore, it appears that there is severe assault on the person of appellant Dipnarain Singh and in absence of true version of the case the charge levelled against the appellants cannot be said to be brought home and thus they have become entitled-to get benefit of doubt. In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the convictions and sentence passed against the appellants is hereby set aside.