JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by seven accused person who have been convicted and sentenced along with others, who had been given the benefit of probation of Offenders Act. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the appeal are that a report was lodged at Police Station Tijara on 2-8-80 by one Mamchand alleging that he had purchased a piece of plot on 29-7-80 from Shiv Charan for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused-appellants did not cherish this deed and tried to take forceable possession of the land by show off and as such on the date of occurrence at late night, they came armed with lathis and inflicted injuries on his head. Mukhram and Ratan Lal came to his rescue but they were also beaten. On receipt of the report, case was registered for offence under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 324 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh as the cross-case arising out of the same incident was triable by sessions. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case and accused also exhibited certain documents in defence. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:- Prahalad : For offence U/Sec. 147 IPC : 6 months RI For offence U/Sec. 323 IPC : 6 months RI for offence u/sec. 324 IPC : 2 years RI & a fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof 1 month's RI Nand Lal, Ganesh, Suresh it Revti : for offence u/sec. 147 IPC : six months' RI for offence u/sec. 324 IPC r.w. 149 IPC. : 2 years' RI each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each; indeault of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI for offence u/Sec. 323 IPC : 6 months' RI to each. Smt Somoti & Smt. Shakuntala : For offence u/sec. 147, 324/149 & 323 IPC : But the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act has been extended to both of them. 3. The specific case of accused-persons at trial was that the complainant party is an aggressor and they gave beating to the accused petitioners. In application was also filed to that effect on behalf of the accused-petitioners that they had also sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by them have not been explained by the complainant party. 4. 3. The specific case of accused-persons at trial was that the complainant party is an aggressor and they gave beating to the accused petitioners. In application was also filed to that effect on behalf of the accused-petitioners that they had also sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by them have not been explained by the complainant party. 4. I would have discussed the evidence which is shacking in this case but in view of the fact that learned counsel submits that parties have come to an amicable settlement in all the civil cases, which were pending between them and in fact they are living peacefully, I do not intend to discuss the evidence in detail. The learned counsel, however, has placed on record the certified copy of the compromise arrived at in the property dispute between the parties and the decree made in pursuance of the said compromise. 5. I have also gone through the evidence in the case. The prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries which have been sustained by the accused-persons and the injuries sustained by them can in no case be self inflicted injuries. The appellants have not brought out the genesis of the prosecution case and in these circumstances, they are entitled to benefit of doubt. 6. The result is that this appeal is allowed. Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarbas vide his judgment dated 11.7.85 against the appellants is set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender their bail bonds. *******