Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 9 have been convicted under Sections 326, 379,148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307, 4 years under Section 326, one year under Section 379 and also one year under Section 148 of the Code. Appellant No. 4 has been further convicted under Section 324 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The remaining 12 appellants have been convicted under Sections 379, 147 and 307/149 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Sections 307/149, one year under Section 379 and one year under Section 147 of the Code. Further appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307/149 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. However all the sentence were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants that appellant No. 1, Bijli Singh, appellant No. 6, Lakshman Singh and appellant No. 15, Bhuta Das died during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal against these appellants shall stand abated. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.1982 at about 10 a.m. the accused Bijli Singh (since dead) along with 15 to 20 persons variously armed with came and started looting the maize crop of the informant from his field situated in village Baijnathpur within Belsand P.S. (now Tariani Chowk). One Shila Kumai aged 12 years who was in the field raised hullah. On her hullah the informant followed by Meena Kumari, Nilam Devi, Renu Kumari rushed to the alleged field. As soon as the informant reached in his field accused Bijli Singh ordered his sons Krishnandan Singh, Shambhu Singh, Ravi Shanker Singh and Arun Singh alias Ful Babu to assault the informant. In the meantime, the accused Bharath Singh, Brij Bihari Singh, Lakshman Singh, Dev Narain Singh, Shri Narain Singh, Rana Udai Nandan Singh, Rakesh Singh, Surendra Singh, Devendra Singh, Bhuta Das and Sitaram Singh variously armed with came there from Sisbani. On the order of accused Bijli Singh, the accused Krishnandan Singh hit the informant with Bhala in his chest, Ravi Shanker Singh with Farsa on the head, Shambhu Singh hit with Farsa on his right shoulder. On the order of accused Bijli Singh, the accused Krishnandan Singh hit the informant with Bhala in his chest, Ravi Shanker Singh with Farsa on the head, Shambhu Singh hit with Farsa on his right shoulder. The informant fell down in his maize field. His niece bandaged his wound with her Sari. The accused persons looted away his maize crops and fled away. The occurrence was witnessed by Hari Mohan Singh, Ram Babu Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Awadh Kishore Singh and others. The informant was removed to S.K. Medical College, Muzaffarpur for treatment. The Investigating Officer of this case went to the S.K. Medical College on 18.4.1982 for recording his statement. The informant Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh gave his Fardbeyan (Ext. 1) to the A.S.I., M.M. Khan of Tariyani Chowk P.S. on 18.4.1982 at 8 a.m. On the basis of his Fardbeyan F.I.R. (Ext. 7) was drawn up at Belsand P.S. on 19.4.1982 at 8.30 hours. The police started investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 4. The defence of the appellants is that appellant Ravi Shanker Singh son of appellant Bijli Singh was harvesting his crop of the adjacent plot No. 669, the informant along with his brothers P.Ws. 6 and 7, who were armed, arrived there and they looted the maize crop and assaulted and injured the appellant, Ravi Shanker and appellant Shambhu Singh. Further it has been pleaded that appellants Krishnandan Singh and Deo Narayan Singh were in their schools situated 7 to 10 miles away and were teaching the students at the time of occurrence. Further case of the defence is that there was a case and counter case. A case was filed (Ext. G) by appellant No. 4, Ravi Shanker Singh on 18.4.1982, earlier to the case filed by the prosecution. In this regard learned Counsel for the informant has filed a certified copy of the judgment dated 20.6.1988 of the said counter case which falsified the case of the appellants. 5. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 13 witnesses including P.W. 8 the informant Chandra Shekhar Pd. In this regard learned Counsel for the informant has filed a certified copy of the judgment dated 20.6.1988 of the said counter case which falsified the case of the appellants. 5. The prosecution to prove its case has examined 13 witnesses including P.W. 8 the informant Chandra Shekhar Pd. Singh, P.W. 1, Kamal Das, P.W. 2, Neelam Devi, P.W. 3, Shila Kumari, P.W. 5, Naseer Mian, P.W. 6, Chandramohan Singh and P.W. 7, Hari Mohan Singh are witnesses on the point of occurrence. P.W. 4, Renu Kumar is a tendered witness, P.W. 9 is Dr. Mani Bhushan Verma who had examined the informant and found the injuries on his person. P.Ws. 10 and 12 are formal witnesses P.W. 11, M.M. Khan, A.S.I, of Police is the Investigating Officer of this case, who submitted charge report. P.W. 13 is Dr. Ram Kishore Chaudhary. He is also a formal witness who has proved the bed head ticket (Ext. 9). Out of four defence witness D.W. 3, Ram Chandra Singh, cousin brother of accused Bijli Singh has stated that the crop of the southern plot No. 669 was unlawfully and forcibly harvested by the informant and his brothers. The Investigating Officer, M.M. Khan (P.W. 11) did not find any such loss of crop over the plot aforesaid Dr. R.A. Sharma (D.W. 4) found one incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" X 1/4" on the back of left arm and three bruises on the person of Rabi Shankar Singh, D.W. 4, Dr. Sharma stated that all the injuries were simple and superficial in nature. The alleged defence is not borne out. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the report on which the investigation and prosecution was initiated is a suspicious document as some of the appellants arrived later on and they did not participate in any crime and it is doubtful that the appellant Bijli Singh gave a call to his sons and the nephew to make assault to the informant. The medical evidence shows that only two Farsa assaults were made on the person of the informant. The report was not lodged in the village when the police arrived at 12 noon on the date of the occurrence. The report Ext. 1 was made in the hospital next morning and it was entered in the record of Police Station which is six miles away on the next date. The report was not lodged in the village when the police arrived at 12 noon on the date of the occurrence. The report Ext. 1 was made in the hospital next morning and it was entered in the record of Police Station which is six miles away on the next date. The injured informant gave another statement relating to the occurrence on 18.4.1982. Neither the informant was unconscious nor he was on oxygen. The report Ext. 1 does not seem bona fide. The prosecution evidence shows that seeing the assault over plot No. 671 appellants Deo Narayan Singh, Lakshman Singh, Bharat Singh, Shree Narayan Singh, Brij Bihari Singh, Devendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Rakesh Nandan Singh, Bhuta Das and Sita Ram Singh came variously armed on their land and they remained standing on the boundary of the nearby field. But in the next report the informant has excluded their names. It appears that probably being the sympathisers of the assailant they have been named. Therefore, these aforesaid appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. 7. The informant, his brother P.W. 1 his RW. 3 and P.W. 5 have not stated in their statement before the Investigating Officer that Bijli Singh gave any call to his sons and the nephew to make assault on the informant or the appellant Bijli Singh was present there to participate in the occurrence. According to prosecution case, appellants Krishnandan, Ravi Shanker and Shambhu Singh sons of appellant Bijli Singh and appellant Arun Singh alias Ful Babu nephew of Bijli Singh were the assailants. The informant P.W. 8, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 have not named on oath the presence of Arun Singh amongst the assailants. It is alleged that appellant Krishnandan assaulted with his Bhala on the chest of the informant. No penetrating wound was noticed by the doctor (PW. 9) even though X-ray. It is hypothetical that the Farsa injury would have absolutely overlapped the Bhala injury. The prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant Arun Singh and Krishnandan Singh were the assailants. The injury report Ext. 5 and the deposition of Dr. M.B. Sharma show three incised wounds; one on the head which was 2-1/2" x 1- 1/2" scalp deep and the other two injuries which were on the back and front of the right side of neck. According to P.W. 9, Dr. The injury report Ext. 5 and the deposition of Dr. M.B. Sharma show three incised wounds; one on the head which was 2-1/2" x 1- 1/2" scalp deep and the other two injuries which were on the back and front of the right side of neck. According to P.W. 9, Dr. Sharma these two injuries were caused by one Farsa blow. The prosecution witnesses established that the appellant Rabi Shankar caused Farsa blow on the head of the informant and the appellant Shambhu caused Farsa blow on the right shoulder of the injured informant (P.W. 8). 8. The prosecution has failed to establish the assembly of five or more persons. No crop was recovered by the Investigating Officer which was said to be stolen by the appellants. The prosecution witnesses RW. 1, Kamal Das, RW. 5, Nasir Mian and P.W. 7, Harimohan have stated that the alleged call and acts were to hurt the informant but in the report there is no such allegation. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The incised wound cutting medinal end of clavied sternom was grievous and the injured informant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital on 17th April for medical treatment and was discharged on 25th May according to the bed head ticket Ext. 9. As such appellant Shambhu Singh is found guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Rabi Shankar Singh is held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the occurrence is an old one which took place in the year 1982 and the appellants Shambhu Singh and Rabi Shankar Singh have remained in Jail for three months and 15 days respectively." Therefore, while awarding sentence lenient view may be taken. I feel that the ends of justice will be met if these appellants namely Shambhu Singh and Rabi Shankar Singh are sentenced to pay fine and are not sent to jail again to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Accordingly, appellants Shambhu Singh and Rabi Shanker Singh are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, appellants Shambhu Singh and Rabi Shanker Singh are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of fine if and when realised, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand) shall be paid to the injured informant by way of compensation. In default of payment of fine, the appellants, Shambhu Singh and Rabi Shankar Singh shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The appeal against them is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. So far as appellants Krishnandan Singh, Deo Narayan Singh, Bharat Singh, Shree Narayan Singh, Arun Singh alias Ful Babu, Rana Udai Nandan Singh, Brij Bihari Singh, Devendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Rakesh Nandan Singh and Sita Ram Singh are concerned, they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. The appeal against them is allowed.