JUDGMENT The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establishes that all the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly and the common object of this assembly was to assault and in prosecution of their common object they had committed the offence of rioting and that in prosecution of their common object they had all assaulted Sutikshan Prasad (P.W. 5) and his son Nohar Prasad causing simple injuries on their person and so it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in holding all the appellants guilty of the offence u/ss 147, and 323/149 IPC and so their convictions on this count calls for no interference in this appeal. The learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence u/s 452 IPC also but, in my opinion, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in this regard is not very reliable because the evidence adduced in this regard does not conclusively establish the fact that the appellants had committed house trespass having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or assaulting any person because both Sutikshan Prasad and his son Nohar Prasad had been assaulted outside the house and then they had entered inside the house and had closed the doors and then they had run away through the other door to Palari. Bhupatram (P.W. 2) had tried to show that he had been assaulted in his Court-yard and that he has received injuries on his head and neck from which bleeding had taken place but version of this witness in this regard has rightly been disbelieved by the learned TriaI Judge (as per para 10 of his judgment). The charge against the appellants u/s 452 IPC was that they had committed house trespass after having made preparation for causing hurt to Bhupatram but the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is respect of this charge is not very reliable and convincing because the learned trial Judge has himself disbelieved the version given by Bhupatram (P.W. 2) about his having been assaulted by the appellants in his court-yard. The reasons given by the learned Judge for holding all the appellants guilty of the charge u/s 452 IPC are not very convincing and, in my opinion, all the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge u/s 452 IPC. The reasons given by the learned Judge for holding all the appellants guilty of the charge u/s 452 IPC are not very convincing and, in my opinion, all the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge u/s 452 IPC. All the appellants have also been convicted for the offence u/s 427/149 IPC. As regard this charge the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution docs not appear to be very reliable and convincing. The version of Bhupatram (P. W.2) and Kali Bai (P.W. 3) regarding mischief having been committed by the appellants by breaking the cycles and doors and also regarding cutting Rakhiya's fruit and lemon does not appear to be very reliable and convincing and besides this, the actual loss caused to the complainant in this regard has not been established because from the version of Kotwar Rungu (P.W. 1) who was informed about the incident it appears that some spokes of the cycles were broken. but the door was not found broken but it was found lying because it was removed from the hook. The cycles alleged to have been damage and also the doors and some stones had been seized by the police during the investigation but the actual loss caused and where the loss was of Rs. 50/- and above has not been proved by the prosecution. There is also no clear evidence as to which of the appellants had caused the damage to the cycles or as to who had removed the doors from the hook. Besides this, the learned trial Judge had not relied upon the versions of Bhupatram (P.W. 2) and Kali Bai (P.W. 3) regarding the appellants having looted the cash and ornaments belonging to them because had the appellants looted the cash and ornaments belonging to the complainant then certainly this, fact ought to have been mentioned to Kotwar (P.W. 1) Rangu to whom the incident had been narrated but he was not informed about the same and this fact was also not informed to the police while lodging the report Ex. P-l. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge was not justified in holding all the appellants guilty of the offence u/s 427/149 IPC and they deserve to be acquitted on this count of the said charge. P-l. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge was not justified in holding all the appellants guilty of the offence u/s 427/149 IPC and they deserve to be acquitted on this count of the said charge. As regards sentence there are mitigating circumstances on record to show that the appellants are not criminals but they are cultivators and that thy crowd had collected to compromise some matter and that compromise talks had taken place for about 5 to 7 minutes as has also come in the version of Bhupendra Narayan Pandey (P.W. 8) but later on some hot words were exchanged and then the alleged incident had taken place. The incident had taken place on 25.10.1981 and more than 10 years have passed since then. Considering all the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it would not be just or proper to send the appellants to undergo their jail sentences awarded u/s 147 and 323/149 IPC after a lapse of over 10 years and in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by imposing a sentence of fine on them in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellants is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants u/s 147 and 323/149 IPC, I set aside the sentence of R.I. for 3 months each and R.I. for 3 months each respectively under the aforesaid sections and instead they are all sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/(Rs. two hundred only) each u/s 147 IPC and in default to undergo S.I. for two months each and they are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rs. three hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 3 months u/s 323/149 IPC. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges u/ss 452 and 427/149 IPC Appeal partly allowed.