Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th May, 1989 passed by 6th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 1983/93-1987 arising out of Basantpur P.S. Case No. 134 dated 12-7-1982. Out of the five appellants, appellant No. 3 Surendra Raut has been convicted under Secs. 307 and 148 of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for seven years and one year respectively. Appellant No. 1 Jagannath Raut has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 307/114 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and one year respectively. Appellant No. 4 Lakhichand Raut has been convicted for the offence under Secs. 325 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentence to undergo R.I. for three years and one year respectively. Appellant Nos. 2 and 5 Sipahi Raut and Harendra Raut have been convicted for the offence punishable under Secs. 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each on both the counts. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was a land bearing R.S. plot No. 433 appertaining to Khata No. 520 area 1 Bigha 11 katha 7 dhurs situated in village Nagawa. The informant Ramsubhag Raut (P.W. 8) and the accused-persons who are cousins had share in the above land. The informant had eastern portion in his share and the accused in the western portion. There was a ridge (dandar) in the plot demarcating their shares. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 12-7-1982, the informant had grown ladies finger (Bhindi) in the land of his share. On this day at about 8.00 a.m., the informant along with his sons was weeding out the grass in his field. All of a sudden, all the accused-appellant variously armed with, came and began to demolish the dandar of the field. The informant protested and there was exchange of hot words between them. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Sahid Mian P.W. 3, Punadeo Tiwari (P.W. 1), Ramjeevan Raut (P.W. 4), Chandrika Pd. Yadav (P.W. 5) and Atmand Dubey (P.W. 6) and others came and tried to pacify the accused-persons. Accused-appellant Surendra Raut gave order, thereupon, appellant Jagannath Raut brought farsa and assaulted Ravindra Pd. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Sahid Mian P.W. 3, Punadeo Tiwari (P.W. 1), Ramjeevan Raut (P.W. 4), Chandrika Pd. Yadav (P.W. 5) and Atmand Dubey (P.W. 6) and others came and tried to pacify the accused-persons. Accused-appellant Surendra Raut gave order, thereupon, appellant Jagannath Raut brought farsa and assaulted Ravindra Pd. Yadav died during the trial on his chest, head, fingers and other part of the body causing grievous injuries. It is further alleged that he also assaulted Sahid Mian with farsa on his head causing injury causing injury danagerous to his life. Accused Lakhichand Raut assaulted the informant with lathi causing fracture of right forearm. It is further alleged that accused Jagannath Raut also assaulted him on his shoulder. Accused Harendra Raut assaulted Chandrika Rai with Kudal causing injury on his finger. Accused Lakhichand Raut also assaulted him with lathi and accused Sipahi Raut assaulted Rameshwar Rai (P.W. 2) with lathi, causing injuries. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that after the occurrence, all the injured were brought to Basantpur stated dispensary for treatment. The S.I. Basantpur P.S. recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext. II). All the injured were examined, and the injury reports have been marked Ext.- 7 to 7/4. The informant was also X-Rayed by Dr. Rameshwar Tiwari, P.W. 11 and his X-Ray plates have been marked Ext.-9 to 9/1 and his report is Ext.-10, On the basis of the X-Ray report, the doctor gave supplementary injury reports, which have been marked Ext.-6 and 6/1, After the cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 5. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses, out of which P.W. 1 Punyadeo Tiwary, P.W. 2 Rameshwar Rai, P.W. 3 Sahid Mian, P.W. 4 Ramjeewan Raut, P.W. 5 Chandrika Pd. Yadav, P.W. 8 Ramsubhag Raut (informant) and P.W. 11 Radha Mohan Singh are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 6 Atmanand Dubey was tendered for cross-examination and P.W. 7 Sachidanand Pd. is a formal witness who has proved protest petition as Ext.-1 P.W. 9 Jamir Akhtar is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 10 Dr. Rajeshwar Tiwary is the radiologist who held two X-rays on the injuries of the informant. On behalf of the defence, D.W. 1 Dr. Anil Kumar has been examined who has proved the injury report of Jajiya Devi, Jagannath Rai, Surendra Rai and Kesari Devi. Rajeshwar Tiwary is the radiologist who held two X-rays on the injuries of the informant. On behalf of the defence, D.W. 1 Dr. Anil Kumar has been examined who has proved the injury report of Jajiya Devi, Jagannath Rai, Surendra Rai and Kesari Devi. These injury reports have been marked of Ext-E to E/3. The main contention made on behalf of the appellant is that prosecution has filed to prove the genesis of the occurrence nor it has proved the same beyond all reasonable doubts. Admittedly, the parties are cousins and the land originally belong to the ancestors of the parties. In view of the admitted land dispute between the parties the parties the prosecution has failed to prove that the land in question exclusively belong to him on the date of occurrence. In reply to this contention, the learned A.P.P. submitted that genesis of the occurrence was demolition of the dandar (Ali) as mentioned in the fardbeyan and supported by all P.Ws. including the informant. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-persons tried to shift the dandar in the field for which there was a protest on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter the occurrence took place. Therefore, the genesis of the occurrence has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The I.O. (P.W. 9) visited the place of occurrence in course of investigation of the case and has given the detail description of the place of occurrence in paragraph 3 of his evidence. He stated that at the place of occurrence he found a new dandar being constructed after shifting the old dandar by 1 1/2 lands. He further stated that the alleged occurrence took place near this dandar. He had not found any blood mark at this place, but assigned the reason that soon after the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 to 5 and S to 11 have stated that occurrence took place when the accused-persons were demolishing the dandar in the Bhindi field, which is in possession of the informant. Therefore, the genesis of the occurrence and also the place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that there was counter-case instituted by the accused-persons and this case is a counterblast of the said counter-case. Therefore, the genesis of the occurrence and also the place of occurrence has been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that there was counter-case instituted by the accused-persons and this case is a counterblast of the said counter-case. It was further submitted that in paragraph 18 of his judgment, the trial Court has based the finding of connection against the appellants on the fact that in the counter-case the accused-persons were acquitted. It was submitted that each case should be judged 011 its own merit. There was no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to convict the appellants before the trial Court. In reply, the learned A.P.P. submitted that in paragraph 18 of the judgment the trial Court has only mentioned that in the counter-case the accused-persons had been acquitted. It is wrong to say that the judgment, of the trial Court is based on the acquittal in the counter-case. The F.I.R. of the counter-case and injury reports Ext-B and E series were filed on behalf of the accused-persons in support of their counter-case. Ext-B shows that a complaint was lodged before the C.J..M. after 24 hours of the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 12-7-1982. The accused-persons did not go to the police station nor any reason has been assigned for the same. The accused-persons were examined by the doctor after 24 hours as is evidence from Ext-E series. The doctor has found simple injuries on their person. On the other hand, instant case was lodged before the police just after the occurrence and injured persons were examined within six hours. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that it is the admitted fact that there was case and counter-case for the same occurrence. This fact also proved that some occurrence took place on this date, in which both the parties were involved and there were injuries on both sides. There was simple injuries on the accused-persons as Ext-E series show: Therefore, it was not mandatory on the part of the prosecution to cause such injuries on the accused-persons. 7. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that all the accused-persons were charged under Secs. 307/149 of the I.P.C. but others have been acquitted and only accused Surendra Raut has been convicted under Secs. 307 and 148 of the I.P.C. and accused Jagannath Raut has been convicted under Secs. 7. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that all the accused-persons were charged under Secs. 307/149 of the I.P.C. but others have been acquitted and only accused Surendra Raut has been convicted under Secs. 307 and 148 of the I.P.C. and accused Jagannath Raut has been convicted under Secs. 307/114 and 147 of the I.P.C. There was no charge under Secs. 307 and 114 of the I.P.C. against accused-appellant Surendra Raut and Jagannath Raut respectively. Therefore, they could not have been convicted for the offence under Secs. 307 and 114 of the I.P.C. in reply the learned A.P.P. has submitted that both these appellants along with other accused-persons were charged under Secs. 307 and 149 of the I.P.C. The trial Court has found that only accused-appellant Surendra Raut was involved in giving Farsa blow to Ravidra Pd. Yadav who had several injuries on his vital part and in the opinion of the doctor, it was dangerous to life. The trial Court has found no evidence that other accused-persons had any intention to kill Ravindra Pd. Yadav and that with intention they have performed and unlawful assembly and one of the accused namely Surendra Raut Assaulted Ravindra Pd. Yadav by means of Farsa causing injury on his vital parts including head and chest. On this ground, other accused-persons were acquitted. Therefore, if there is charge under Secs. 307 and 114 of the I.P.C. against several accused-persons and one of them may be convicted under Sec. 307 of the I.P.C. and others may be acquitted under Secs. 307 and 149 of the I.P.C. Similarly, when several accused-persons have been charged under Secs. 307, 149, 307 and 147 and 148 of the I.P.C. one of them may be convicted under Secs. 307/114 of the I.P.C. Such conviction has not caused any prejudice to the accused. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the evidence on record, I find substance in the contentions made on behalf of the learned A.P.P. The judgment of the trial Court has not been influenced in any way because of that in the counter-case, the prosecution party of this case were acquitted. The trial Court has dealt with the evidence accused in this case and after considering the evidence carefully has convicted the appellants as indicated above. The trial Court has dealt with the evidence accused in this case and after considering the evidence carefully has convicted the appellants as indicated above. The trial Court has also dealt with Ext.-B and E series which are complaint petition and injury reports of the counter-case and there is no illegality in dealing with these exhibits, when it was marked exhibit at the instance of the accused-persons. I do not find any illegality, in the conviction of the appellant Surendra Raut under Sec. 307 of the I.P.C. when he along with other accused was charged with under Secs. 307 and 149 of the I.P.C. I also find substance in the above contention of the learned A.P.P. that when appellant Jagannath Raut was charged under Secs. 307 and 149 of the I.P.C., they could have been convicted under Secs. 307/114 of the I.P.C. and such conviction has not caused any prejudice to him. The trial Court has put the question to accused-appellant Jagannath Raut, in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., that at his order other accused including Surendra Raut has assaulted Ravindra Pd. Yadav by means of farsa with an intention to kill. Therefore, there was no prejudice caused to appellant Jagannath Raut when he was convicted under Secs. 307/114 of the I.P.C. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that P.W. 3 Sahid Mian and P.W. 11 Radha Mohan Singh have not supported the prosecution case. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that on their exarnination-in-chief, in support the prosecution case, stated that accused-persons had damaged dandar and they have encroached upon the land of Ramsubhag Raut and when he protested the occurrence of assault took place. In cross-examination, he stated that the land situated in the south of the road in which the informant and the accused-persons had their share and they cultivate separately. He further stated that about one Bigha this land situated in the east, is in the possession of the accused-persons. It is further admitted that a counter-case has been instituted against complaint Surendra Singh. Therefore, considering his evidence carefully, I do not find the evidence is hostile to the prosecution case. He further stated that about one Bigha this land situated in the east, is in the possession of the accused-persons. It is further admitted that a counter-case has been instituted against complaint Surendra Singh. Therefore, considering his evidence carefully, I do not find the evidence is hostile to the prosecution case. Similarly, after scrutinising the evidence of P.W. 11 Radha Mohan Singh, I find that the witness has supported the prosecution case and has stated that when accused-persons were damaging the dandar, he also protested but accused-persons did not listen and when the informant intervened he was assaulted at the hands of the accused-persons. In paragraph 6 of the evidence, he admitted that on the date of occurrence, there was assaulted in which both sides had received injuried which took place as the land is situated in the south of the road. Therefore, I do not find much substance to the argument of the appellants that P.Ws. 3 and 11 have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination. 9. From the above discussion and after scrutinising the evidence on record, I find that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that conviction of the appellants under Secs. 307/114 of the I.P.C. is not in accordance with law because there is lack of evidence on the record to show that accused-persons had intention to kill and with that intention they assaulted Ravindra Pd. Yadav and Sahid Mian. There was five injuries on the person of injured Ravindra Pd. Yadav and most of them were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. Injury Nos. 1 and 5 have been found to be grievous in nature. On the person of Sahid Mian the doctor has found three injuries and injury No. 1 was found to be grievous caused by sharp-cutting weapons. None of the injuries caused on either of the injured were found to be on vital part. This is indicative of the fact that appellants had no intention to kill them. No intervening circumstance prevented them from causing injuries on the vital part, if they had intention to kill. Therefore, from the facts, circumstances and injuries received on the person of the two injured referred to above, it is conclusive not proved that the appellants had intention to kill or with that intention they had inflicted injuries on them. No intervening circumstance prevented them from causing injuries on the vital part, if they had intention to kill. Therefore, from the facts, circumstances and injuries received on the person of the two injured referred to above, it is conclusive not proved that the appellants had intention to kill or with that intention they had inflicted injuries on them. Considering the nature of the injuries accused-appellants Surendra Raut may be convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. and accused Jagannath Raut under Secs. 307/114 of the I.P.C. It was further submitted that period of sentence imposed against each of the appellants is excessive and they are facing the agony of trial since the year 1982 i.e. 17 long years. 11. In reply the learned A.P.P. submitted that from the nature of the injuries found on both the injured it can be gathered that the appellant had no intention to cause death, but their intention was to cause grievous hurt by means of dangerous weapon. 12. Considering the submissions of both the parties as well as nature of offence, the injury reports the fact that appellants are facing the agony of criminal trial for long period, the Conviction of appellant Surendra Raut under Sec. 307 of the I.P.C. is converted to one under Sec. 326, I.P.C. However, his conviction under Sec. 148 of the I.P.C. is maintained; He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Sec. 326 of the I.P.C. and one year under Sec. 148 of the I.P.C. The conviction of appellant Jagannath Raut under Sections 307/114 of the I. P.C. is converted into one under Secs. 326 and 114 of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to R.I. for three years. He is further sentenced to six months R.I. under Sec. 147 of the I.P.C. The period of sentence of appellant Lakhichand Raut under Sec. 325 of the I.P.C. is reduced from three years to one years R.I. and six months R.I. under Sec. 147 of the I.P.C. However, the conviction and sentence of appellant Sipahi Raut and Harendra Raut of under Secs. 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. is maintained. The sentences shall ran concurrently. 13. With this modification in the judgment and order of the trial Court, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.