K. D. SHAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1982 passed by Sri K. C. Jain, the then VIt Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 238 of 1977 (State v. Shakraj and others) whereby appellants Shakhraj, Lakhraj, Ramman, Darbari, Harihar Palkoo and Raj Deo have been convicted under Sections 147, 323/149, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one year R. I. under Section 147, I. P. C. and further one year R. I. under Sections 323/149, I. P. C. ( 2 ) COMPLAINANT, Smt. Sakunti Devi has filed a Criminal Revision No. 709 of 1981 ( (Smt. Sakunti Devi v. Ballu and others) against the acquittal of Ballu and others under Sections 147. 148. 307 and 323. I. P. C. ( 3 ) SINCE both the appeal and revision arises out of cross case, therefore, they could be taken together. ( 4 ) BALLU lodged a First Information Report against Shakhraj, Lakhraj, Ramman Darbari Chander, Harihar, Palkoo and Rajdeo with the allegations that on 14-6-1976 at about 8 a. m. complainant Ballu was ploughing his field. In the meantime, the above said persons came duly armed and they as saulted the complainant his sons Rajaee and Ramraj and wife Batsia. The complainant side also assaulted the accused side in his defence. It is said that the ladies, namely, Sakunti Jotho Ramman and Sakaldeiya Jotho Rakhraj of the accused side assaulted the ladies of the complainant side. It is further said that the ladies of the accused side were also assaulted by the ladies of the complainant side in self-defence. ( 5 ) SMT. Sakunti Devi had also lodged a First Information Report against Ballu Ramapati and others, which was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307, I. P. C. with the allegations that on 14-6-1976 at about 9. 00 a. m. the complainant side assaulted a number of persons on the side of Ballu (here-in-after called as complainant) ( 6 ) THE case of the complainant side was registered under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C at 17. 25 p. m. as Crime No. 106-A of 1976 while the F. I. R. of the accused side was registered as Crime No. 106 of 1976 at 15. 15 p. m. which is earlier in time. 25 p. m. as Crime No. 106-A of 1976 while the F. I. R. of the accused side was registered as Crime No. 106 of 1976 at 15. 15 p. m. which is earlier in time. The case of the complainant side is only under Sections 147/323, I. P. C. where the case of the accused side is under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307, I. P. C. The complainant side is said to be armed with Spear (Ball am) as well. On the complainant side Batasia, Ramai, Ramraj and the complainant have got the injuries and on the accused side Ramman Lekhraj, Darbari, Sakali, Sakunti and Ramraj have got the injuries. The complainant side was prosecuted under Section 307, I. P. C. and the accused side was prosecuted under Sections 147, 323/149, I. P. C. ( 7 ) ON evidence, the complainant side was acquitted. Thereafter, Smt. Sakunti Devi has filed a revision bearing No. 707 of 1981 against their acquittal. The accused was convicted under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C. for which the present appeal has been filed. ( 8 ) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence of any kind to un-lawful assembly. Both the parties alleged that they were ploughing their plots, there was right of self-defence of property. It was argued that in a criminal case, the ownership and right of the parties can not be decided. It is sufficient that they have got a valid right of self-defence of property and their persons. It was argued that in the F. I. R. It is alleged that the complainant side was armed with spear but there is no injury of spear. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the offence under Section 147. I. P. C. is not made out. As regards the offence under Section 323, I. P. C. the appellants Counsel Mr. Amar Saran as well as the complainants Counsel Mr. Ravindra Rai stated that in the Court. both the parties have compromised the matter and they are peacefully living in the village no fruitful purpose shall be served by creating again enmity in the village by sending the accused persons to jail for years. Learned Counsel for the parties pressed that the appeal may be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants may be set aside. Learned Counsel for the parties pressed that the appeal may be allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants may be set aside. As regards the revision, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ravindra Rai did not press the revision in view of the above compromise. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having regards the facts and the circumstances and also considering the arguments the Revision No. 707 of 1981 is hereby dismissed. As regards Appeal No. 853 of 1981 is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C. is hereby set aside. The judgment and order passed in S. T. No. 238 of 1977 (State v. Sakhraj and others) by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges of which they faced the trial. They are on bail, they need not surrender before the Court. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed. . .