Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. This Government Appeal has been preferred by State of Bihar against a judgment of acquittal dated 30th April, 1987 passed by Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in S.T. Case No. 23/81/11/86 whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 13 have been acquitted of all the charges framed against them including a charge under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. A criminal revision application at the instance of information of the concerned police case i.e. Darbhanga P.S. Case No. 26 dated 13.7.1980 has been heard together with the Government Appeal as it is also directed against the same judgment of acquittal. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 13.7.1980 at about 7 a.m. all the named accused-persons/respondents variously armed with lathi and farsa came over the P.O. land situated in Koth Bandh which lies north-east of the village of the parties with ploughs and bullocks and began ploughing the land of the prosecution party measuring 8 kathas 2-3/4 dhurs appertaining to khata No. 462 and middle part of khasra No. 87. This was seen by the informant Taranand Mishra (P.W. 11) the deceased Jai Shankar Mishra, Jai Bihari Mishra (P.W. 5) and Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) who were sitting at their Bathan. They went to their land and made a protest by raising the question as to why the accused-persons were cultivating the land belonging to the informant party. Upon this Bamdeo Mishra, respondent/accused No. 1 ordered to kill them and thereupon Surendra Mishra respondent/accused No. 12 gave a farsa blow- on the head of the informant causing bleeding injures. Accused No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra gave a lathi blow on the head of the informants nephew Jaishankar Mishra (deceased) as a result of head injuries Jashankar Mishra fell down after becoming unconscious. Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) was assaulted on head with a farsa by respondent/accused No. 13, Baidyanath Mishra. This caused bleeding injury on the head of Devendra Kumar Mishra. The remaining accused-persons assaulted the informant and his brother Jai Bihari Mishra (P.W. 5) with lathis. Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) was assaulted on head with a farsa by respondent/accused No. 13, Baidyanath Mishra. This caused bleeding injury on the head of Devendra Kumar Mishra. The remaining accused-persons assaulted the informant and his brother Jai Bihari Mishra (P.W. 5) with lathis. The occurrence was witnessed by Upendra Mishra (P.W. 2), Ram Kumar Mishra (P.W. 3) and other co-villagers, with the help of witnesses Jai Shankar Mishra was carried on a cot in unconscious State to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for treatment where other injured were also given treatment and at about 4 P.M. Jai Shankar Mishra died due to the head injury. 3. Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 13.7.80 at 5 p.m. by a A.S.I. of Sadar Police Station in male surgical ward of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital and on that basis Sadar P.S. Case No. 26 dated 13.7.80 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. The F.I.R. was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga on 15.7.80. The case was investigated by Shri B.K. Jha, S.I. of Police (P.W. 21) whq submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation. After cognizance and commitment to the Court of Sessions the trial Court started trial. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty to the respective charges and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused-persons, as appeared from the trend of cross-examination and other materials, was denial of the occurrence in the manner alleged and further that they have been falsely implicated in this case as a counter blast of a criminal case instituted by accused No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra against the informant and others. 4. In order to prove the prosecution case as many as 24 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution which include Dr. R.N. Jha (P.W. 1) who has proved the injuries upon the informant and other two injured witnesses P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 and the informant (P.W. 11). The other important witnesses are P.W. 6, Shyam Bihari Mishra who is father of deceased, P.W. 14, Dr. V.C.S. Verma who held autopsy and prepared postmortem report of the deceased, P.w. 19, Dr. R.N. Jha (P.W. 1) who has proved the injuries upon the informant and other two injured witnesses P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 and the informant (P.W. 11). The other important witnesses are P.W. 6, Shyam Bihari Mishra who is father of deceased, P.W. 14, Dr. V.C.S. Verma who held autopsy and prepared postmortem report of the deceased, P.w. 19, Dr. Ravindra Kumar who proved bed head tickets of the deceased as well as of the informant, P.W. 20, an advocate who claims to have delivered possession over the P.O. land to the prosecution party in his duty as an Advocate Pleader Commissioner acting under the orders of the Civil Court and P.W. 2.1, Shri B.K. Jha who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Through formal witnesses the prosecution has brought on record several documents which have been exhibited as Exhibits 2 series, Exhibits 4/17 and 4/18, Exhibits 10, 10/1, 15 and Exhibits 26 to support the prosecution claim that a partition suit bearing No. 16 of 1950 was filed by the informant, his father and two brothers in which judgment and decree was passed in the year 1963. Three appeals by different defendants against final decree were dismissed in 1967 and execution case No. 7/70 was filed for implementation of the final decree. According to prosecution one Krishnadeo Lal Das was appointed as Pleader Commissioner for effecting the delivery of possession but he was obstructed in the year 1973 and for that a Misc. Case No. 15/73 was filed against accused Gajendra Mishra and others. Thereafter another Pleader Commissioner Kamini Mohan Prasad (P.W. 20) was appointed. He effected delivery of possession over the concerned agricultural lands including the land that is part of khasra No. 87 on 26.12.1976. He was also obstructed in executing the delivery of possession with regard to homestead property for which a Misc. Case. No. 1/77 was filed. 5. It is worth noting in this case that on behalf of defence six witnesses have been examined. D. Ws. 1 and 2 are formal witnesses who have proved some documents. D.W. 3, Dr. Gobardhan Singh was posted in State Dispensary, Hayaghat as Medical Officer on 13.7.80 and he has claimed to have examined Bamdeo Mishra, respondent/accused No. 1 at 2.25 p.m. on that date and he found eight bruises and abrasions on his person which were all simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. D.W. 3, Dr. Gobardhan Singh was posted in State Dispensary, Hayaghat as Medical Officer on 13.7.80 and he has claimed to have examined Bamdeo Mishra, respondent/accused No. 1 at 2.25 p.m. on that date and he found eight bruises and abrasions on his person which were all simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. He has also claimed to have examined accused Surendra Kumar Mishra on whose person he found one incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/3" x 1/2" over left above and lateral orbital margin and a bruise 4" x 2" over left side of chest both the injuries were simple and the (i) injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon and (ii) injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. In cross-examination D.W. 3 has given his opinion that the injuries found such as bruises, abrasions and simple incised injury can be manufactured if one submits to it but thereafter he voluntarily stated that in the present case the same is not applicable. D.W. 4 Nandi Ram is a co-villager has claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and according to him accused Bamdeo Mishra forbade the prosecution party from getting his paddy crop grazed by buffalo and from routing out the paddy crop and upon this except Jai Shankar Mishra (deceased) rest five accused including Tara Nand Mishra (informant) assaulted Bamdeo Mishra with lathi and thereafter Jai Shankar Mishra assaulted Surendra Mishra with a gadasa due to which Surendra Mishra fell down. On hulla villagers arrived at whereupon the accused-persons fled away and thereafter there was no marpit But this witness has admitted that earlier he has never given any statement regarding such occurrence, not even in the related criminal case pending in Court at Darbhanga. This witness has further admitted that he is close to the family of accused Bamdeo Mishra and was plough-man of Bamdeo Mishras father though he has denied the suggestion that he is plough man of Bamdeo Mishra. D.Ws. 5 and 6 are formal witnesses. On behalf of defence several documents have been exhibited including Ext. D. formal first information report of the counter-case lodged by accused Bamdeo Mishra and, it is this counter version of the alleged occurrence which is sought to be proved by D.W. 4. Significantly no document has been filed on behalf of the defence to show or claim any title or possession over the concerned P.O. land. 6. D. formal first information report of the counter-case lodged by accused Bamdeo Mishra and, it is this counter version of the alleged occurrence which is sought to be proved by D.W. 4. Significantly no document has been filed on behalf of the defence to show or claim any title or possession over the concerned P.O. land. 6. A particular reference to documents and case of the prosecution with regard to possession over the concerned land became necessary because one of the grounds for acquittal as per impugned judgment under appeal is a contention on bahalf of the respondents that the prosecution party was not in possession over the P.O. land and hence in the facts of the case they may be deemed as aggressor party giving right of private defence to the accused- persons. This contention has been accepted by the learned Court below in Paragraph-20 of the impugned judgment which runs as follows: Thus in view of the discussions made above regarding the facts, circumstances and evidence both documentary and oral produced and adduced on behalf of the parties as well as the authorities cited on their behalf, it is to be concluded that the title did not pass to the prosecution party in pursuance of Exts. 2 series nor the members of the prosecution party could have been put in possession of the P.O. land by the Advocate Commissioner." 7. The learned trial Court after giving the aforesaid finding with regard to title and possession, has examined the prosecution evidence with regard to manner of the alleged occurrence and actual assault. The injuries reports of the injured, the post mortem report and in Paragraph 31 of the judgment proceeded to accept the defence contention that the injury certificates, postmortem examination report, discharge slip. X-ray plate and other exhibits made available through Dr. Anil Kumar Thakur were not helpful to the prosecution case because the prosecution party had manoeuvred those documents. In Paragraph-33 of the judgment the learned trial Court held that the failure on the part of the injured persons to tell the persons who had carried the cot on which Jai Shankar Mishra was brought to hospital about the occurrence can be said to be a circumstance against the prosecution case. In Paragraph-33 of the judgment the learned trial Court held that the failure on the part of the injured persons to tell the persons who had carried the cot on which Jai Shankar Mishra was brought to hospital about the occurrence can be said to be a circumstance against the prosecution case. Such a finding was , given in spite of noticing the contention of the prosecution by the trial Court in the same paragraph that there is nothing on the record to show that the persons who had carried the act on which Jai Shankar Mishra was brought to hospital has witnessed the occurrence. 8. In Paragraph 34 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court had doubted the place of occurrence mainly on account of the details of the P.O. land not being mentioned in the fardbeyan of the informant. This has been done by ignoring the deposition and objective findings of the Investigating Officer. In Paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court found discrepancy with regard to injury on Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) as the injury found by the doctor was lacerated injury and not a cut injury as should have been in case of injury by farsa. This discrepancy was found after rejecting the contention of the prosecution that such injury may result if blunt portion of a farsa is used and such minute details are not necessary to be mentioned in the P.I.R. The evidence of injured Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) and other witnesses is that he was assaulted with blunt portion of the farsa. Thereafter the trial Court noticed certain alleged short comings in course of investigation such as non-mention of order of the Officer Incharge for handing over of investigation to P.W. 21. 9. In paragraph-48 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court has noticed the simple injuries alleged to have been caused to accused Bamdeo Mishra and Surendra Mishra but no finding was given on the rival contentions with regard to this aspect of the defence case. 9. In paragraph-48 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court has noticed the simple injuries alleged to have been caused to accused Bamdeo Mishra and Surendra Mishra but no finding was given on the rival contentions with regard to this aspect of the defence case. Thereafter in Para- graph-49 an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution on the ground that the case was not instituted at the earliest although it was noted that the deceased was only son of his father and was under treatment in the hospital and case was lodged as soon as the police came immediately after death of the injured Jai Shankar Mishra. Finally after noticing relationship between the prosecution witnesses and some evidence of past enmity between the parties the learned trial Court in Paragraph-42 of the impugned judgment held that false implication of the accused-persons cannot be brushed aside altogether. Thereafter in the last paragraph the learned Court below held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case in the manner as alleged by it beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and as such the accused-persons are atleast entitled to get the benefit of doubts. 10. The law in the matter of interference with a judgment of acquittal is well settled. No interference is to be made with a judgment of acquittal if the inferences and findings are reasonable and possible. It is further settled law that even if two views are possible to be taken on the basis of evidence and circumstances, no interference with acquittal should be made unless it is found by the appellate Court that the views taken by the Court below are perverse and not possible to be drawn. 11. In the present case there is delay of few hours in lodging of the fardbeyan but the facts that the deceased was only son of his father (P.W. 6) and he was unconscious due to a head injury and therefore had to be rushed to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for immediate treatment provide sufficient reason to explain the delay Some of the witnesses had also received injuries and in such circumstances there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the prosecution in first taking care of the injured and in reporting the occurrence as soon as the police came to the hospital after the death of. Jaishankar Mishra (deceased). Jaishankar Mishra (deceased). In such circumstances adverse inference drawn by the trial Court is wholly unreasonable and cannot be accepted as a possible view. 12. As noticed earlier, the trial Court has given special importance to question of title and possession of the prosecution party over the P.O. land. While dealing with this issue the learned trial Court has gone into several minute details of civil nature such as right of the vendors to sell the lands concerned vide Exhibits 2 and 2/1, non-redemption of earlier old mortgage by payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 900/- to a third party, the mortgagor and legal impropriety on the part of Advocate Pleader Commissioner in effecting delivery of possession to the vendees, the prosecution party over the lands purchased by them. On a careful consideration of respective cases of the parties and the evidence available on record it becomes clear that the learned trial Court adopted an erroneous approach by giving undue importance to such arguments raised on behalf of the defence. The accused-persons have not claimed any title or possession over the land concerned either by filing documents in their favour or by oral evidence or even by giving any suggestion. It is also not their case that any particular third party was having title and possession over the land concerned. In such circumstances the learned Court below clearly fell into error in ignoring the evidence or title and possession available on record in abundance. There is sufficient oral evidence on point of possession of the prosecution party over the lands concerned as is apparent from depositions of P.W. 5 (Paragraphs 5, 6, 25 and 26 of his deposition), P.W. 6 (Paragraph 13 of his deposition), P.W. 11 (Paragraph 9 of his deposition), P.W. 20 (Paragraph 5 of his deposition) and P.W. 21 (Paragraphs 9 and 11 (Part) of his deposition). It is notable that P.W. 20, Kamini Mohan Prasad is the Advocate Pleader Commissioner who is independent and has fully supported the prosecution case with regard to possession by stating that after measurement etc. On 26.12.76 he executed delivery of possession, inter alia, over plot No. 87 (part) to Shyam Bihari Mishra and Tara Nand Mishra (P. Ws 6 and 11) in lieu of defendant nos. 15 to 26 of the partition suit who were admittedly allotted that land as per final decree in the title suit. On 26.12.76 he executed delivery of possession, inter alia, over plot No. 87 (part) to Shyam Bihari Mishra and Tara Nand Mishra (P. Ws 6 and 11) in lieu of defendant nos. 15 to 26 of the partition suit who were admittedly allotted that land as per final decree in the title suit. Coming to documentary evidence on this point, exhibits 2, 2/1 and 2/2 are sale deals executed in favour of the prosecution party in accordance with law prior to the date of occurrence. There is no material on record to show that those sale deeds were challenged by the concerned persons or were set aside by any Court. Exhibit 15 is Pleader Commissioners report showing delivery of possession in execution of the final decree of partition suit No. 16/50. Exhibits 10 and 10/1 are rent receipts for the lands concerned issued during the pendency of the appeal and Exhibits 26 is corrected khatian. These exhibits though of later date, to a large extent support the prosecution case with regard to title as well as possession over the P.O. land. In contrast as noticed earlier, the accused-persons have not set up any claim of title or possession over the P.O. land nor they have adduced any evidence. In such circumstances the finding given by the learned trial Court in Paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment quoted earlier is misconceived, unwarranted and can not be sustained. In view of the discussion of evidence and circumstance made above it is found that the prosecution party was in possession over the conerned land. 13. A careful persual of the oral evidence with regard to the time, place and manner of occurrence discloses that some occurrence on the alleged time and date of occurrence is rather admitted. So far as place of occurrence is concerned, according to prosecution, the occurrence took place over 8 kathas 2-3/4 dhurs of their land which is middle part of khasra No. 87 in Koth Bandh, on account of attempt by the accused-persons to forcefully cultivate the said land through ploughing. According to defence case, specially the counter case lodged by respondent/accused No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra, the place of occurrence was his land just adjacent west of aforesaid 8 kathas 2-3/4 dhurs of land of the prosecution party. All the relevant prosecution witnesses are consistent that the occurrence took place over the land as said by the prosecution. According to defence case, specially the counter case lodged by respondent/accused No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra, the place of occurrence was his land just adjacent west of aforesaid 8 kathas 2-3/4 dhurs of land of the prosecution party. All the relevant prosecution witnesses are consistent that the occurrence took place over the land as said by the prosecution. According to P.W. 21 the Investigating Officer, also, the occurrence appears to have taken place as per claim of the prosecution. He has clearly deposed that on inspection of the P.O. land he found a ridge between the land of the prosecution party and land of accused Bamdeo Mishra. In the land of the prosecution party he found fresh ploughing as well as marks of trempling. Some blood like marks were also noticed by him but due to intervening rain it was not possible to take sample of the blood for the purpose of exhibit. Since the land of accused No. 1, Bamdeo Mishra, was in the immediate western boundary of the land of prosecution party, the I.O. has claimed to have noticed that there was no mark of grazing of freshly planted paddy crop in that land nor this land had marks of trampling by cattle. So far as evidence of defence witness No. 4 is concerned, no doubt he had deposed to support the defence claim that he saw a different occurrence at about 8 a.m. on a Sunday in the month of Asarh about 6-1/2 years earlier in which he saw Jai Bihari Mishra, Tara Nand Mishra, Devendra Kumar Mishra, Ram Padarath Mishra, Chhedi Mishra and Jaishankar Mishra armed with lathi and gadasa and they were getting the freshly planted paddy crop of Bamdeo Mishra grazed by buffalo. Thus, he has attempted to show that the real place of occurrence was land of Bamdeo Mishra. According to version of D.W. 4 only Bamdeo Mishra and Surendra Mishra the two accused in the present case received injuries in that occurrence and thereafter the witnesses arrived and there was no further marpit and the accused of that case fled away. His version does not mention anything regarding injuries on deceased Jai Shankar Mishra which caused his death on the date of occurrence itself for about injuries to P.Ws 5, 7 and 11 of this case. His version does not mention anything regarding injuries on deceased Jai Shankar Mishra which caused his death on the date of occurrence itself for about injuries to P.Ws 5, 7 and 11 of this case. He has admitted that he never gave his statement regarding the occurrence alleged by him to anybody in the past. He has also admitted that he has no land of his own near the alleged place of occurrence but he claimed to be a bataidar of a land situated nearby but he could not give khata or khasra number of land in his alleged possession as bataidar. He has denied to be the plough man of accused Bamdeo Mishra but has admitted that earlier he was plough man of Bamdeos father, Ram Govind Mishra. The deposition of D.W. 4 does not inspire any credence so as to doubt the place of occurrence as given by the prosecution in this case. 14. So far as the manner of the alleged occurrence is concerned, the same has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the evidence of injured witnesses, P.Ws. 5, 7 and 11. The two witnesses Upendra Mishra (P.W. 2) and Ram Kumar Mishra (P.W. 3) who are mentioned as witnesses in the F.I.R. have also supported the entire prosecution case. Besides that they have stated in cross-examination that the prosecution party had reached the place of occurrence without any arms. A criticism was made regarding P.W. 2 before the trial Court that he is an interested witness because he had also deposed in favour of the prosecution party of this case in connection with a counter-case lodged by accused No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra. That does not affect the credibility of this witness because once he was a witness of the present occurrence, he was bound to be a valuable witness for defence in the counter-case. In the cross-examination of P.W. 3 (in Para 15) it has come that he could not meet the Daroga and Daroga did not record his statement but this appears to be a statement with regard to incident and happenings on the date of the occurrence itself as appears from statement in the preceding Paragraph 14 to the effect that this witness had yet not started ploughing his field when he saw the occurrence. In subsequent paragraphs of cross-examination such as Paragraphs 24 and 25 the defence has pointed out to his earlier statements before the police. Thus, nothing is found in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 to discredit their testimony regarding the assault upon the deceased and other injured persons on the date and time of the alleged occurrence over the concerned land of the prosecution party situated in Koth Bandh. 15. The post-mortem report and evidence of P.W. 14, Dr. V.C.S. Verma show that the deceased had sustained one lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" on middle of head directed antra posterial. On cut the skin scalp tissues were found bruised over middle and posterial part of head. The coronal siture and the satittal siture were found separated with a lined fracture 3" long of the left parietal bone. On opening the skull cap a big epidural haematoma was found pressing over both cerebral hemispheres. The injury was found to be antemortem, grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by hard and blunt object may be a lathi. Death was due to concussion, compression, haemorrhage and shock within 12 to 24 hours, from the time of postmortem examination which was held on 14.7.80 at about 10.45 a.m. In cross-examination P.W. 14, Dr. Verma stated that it was not necessary that the injury No. 1 could have been caused from the back ie. the assailant hitting from the back but that may even be possible and such injury is also possible if a person is hit by mushal (a wooden stick used for husking paddy). The postmortem report and the medical evidence noted above fully supports the ocular evidence ot witnesses regarding assault on deceased Jai Shankar Mishra by accused Bamdeo Mishra with lathi 16. P.W. 1 (Dr. R.N. Jha) of D.M.C.H. has proved injury reports of injured witness Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7), informant, Taranand Mishra (P.W. 11) and Jai Bihari Mishra (P.W. 5) as exhibits 1,1/1 and 1/2. Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) had sustained the following two injuries: (i) lacerated wound on frontal part of scalp 3" x 1/2" x 1/2", caused by hard and blunt substance might be back portion of Jarsd simple in nature. Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) had sustained the following two injuries: (i) lacerated wound on frontal part of scalp 3" x 1/2" x 1/2", caused by hard and blunt substance might be back portion of Jarsd simple in nature. (ii) Bruise mark on the front of right thigh 2" x 1" simple, caused by hard and blunt substance, might have been caused by lathi Informant Taranand Mishra (P.W.11) had sustained the following injuries: (i) Swelling with bruise marks on left elbow joint 3" x 1" caused by hard blunt substance might be lathi Nature of injury simple. (ii) Cut injury on left side scalp 2" x 1/2". Nature simple, caused by sharp cutting weapon might be Jarsa. (iii) Swelling with bruise on the left scapular region 2" x 2" caused by hard blunt substance might be lathi Simple in nature. According to doctor injury No. 1 was X-rayed and as per the X-ray plate it appeared to be fracture of pleacranun. Jai Bihari Mishra (P.W. 5) was found to have sustained the following injuries: (i) Scratch mark 5" long on the left side of the chest. Nature simple. Caused by hard and blunt substance might be lathi (ii) Swelling with bruise mark on the right shoulder joint 5" x 1", caused by hard and blunt substance, might be lathi. Nature simple. 17. From the evidence of P.W. 1 it appears that all the three injured were examined on 13.7.80 and the age of their injuries was within six hours. Taranand Mishra, the informant was examined at about 9.30 A.M. In cross- examination this witness admitted that first he had written about the injuries in the central register maintained in the emergency ward and as per practice he had prepared the injury reports later by copying the same from the central register. The central register and the X-ray plate were not before him. He further admitted with regard to injury No. 1 of the informant, Taranand Mishra that he had not used the word fracture and he did not remember whether such injuries were grievous or not at the time of his ex arnination. Thus, it appears that defence has seriously challenged the nature of injury No. 1 upon the informant, Tara Nand Mishra. Thus, it appears that defence has seriously challenged the nature of injury No. 1 upon the informant, Tara Nand Mishra. Subsequently the X-ray plate was produced and proved but the trial Court noticed several discrepancies and rightly doubted that the X-ray plate may not be of the injury of informant. On this basis, however, the learned trial Court wrongly doubted the entire prosecution case. The challenge was only to nature of the said injury and in view of such challenge and doubt regarding X-ray plate and other documents relating to hospitalisation of the informant, only possible inference is to treat injury No. 1 of the informant to be a simple injury on account of reasonable doubts regarding X-ray and duration of treatment. Even then the manner of the alleged occurrence as given by the witnesses is not at all put under any doubt and the medical evidence and injury reports support the ocular version of the alleged occurrence. 18. Regarding injury No. 1 of Devendra Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) the trial Court accepted the defence criticism that the said injury is at variance with the prosecution case of assault upon Devendra Kumar Mishra on head by farsa. No doubt in fardbeyan the informant has described the weapon of assault as a farsa and not as wooden portion of farsa but subsequently these details were given by the witnesses and consistent evidence of witnesses is that Devendra Kumar Mishra received injury on head with wooden part of farsa. Learned trial Court, in the facts of the case, clearly erred in treating such a factual situation to be a discrepancy in the prosecution case. The first information report is not expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case and much depends upon the circumstances in which the fardbeyan is given by the informant. In a case where the informant himself is an injured and one of the injured, a young man has died due to injuries sustained in the occurrence, omission of such details as to which part of the weapon caused injury cannot be treated as a discrepancy of any significance. Hence it is found that P.Ws. 5, 7 and 11 sustained injuries, though simple in nature as discussed above in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The medical evidence supports the ocular version of the occurrence. 19. Hence it is found that P.Ws. 5, 7 and 11 sustained injuries, though simple in nature as discussed above in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The medical evidence supports the ocular version of the occurrence. 19. Now it falls for consideration as to how far the defence has succeeded in creating a doubt as regards the alleged occurrence on account of defence evidence proving injuries upon accused/respondent Bamdeo Mishra and accused/respondent Surendra Mishra. Those injuries and evidence have already been noticed earlier. It only shows that these two accused were examined by P.W. 3, a Medical Officer in State Dispensary, Hayaghat on 13.7.1980 at 2.25 p.m. and at that time he found them having some simple injuries. The age of the injuries was opined to be within 24 hours. These injured persons were not hospitalised nor they were taken to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for examination or treatment where the deceased and injured prosecution witnesses were being treated. As per prosecution witnesses the deceased and the injured who had gone to protest against ploughing of their land were without any weapons. In such circumstances it will not be prudent to cast a burden upon the prosecution to explain the simple injuries on two of the accused and on this account the prosecution version of the occurrence cannot be rejected in this case. The learned trial Court has also rightly not drawn any such conclusion even after noticing such a submission. In view of findings recorded earlier it has to be further held in this case that the defence plea of action in self defence of person or property is also not available to the accused-persons. Hence it is not necessary to discuss the case laws cited on behalf of the prosecution/appellant such as judgments of Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 852 and in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Ram Bharosi reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1498 : 1999 (1) East Cr C 399 (SC). 20. The learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts in doubting the place of occurrence because the details of the P.O. land were not mentioned in the Jardbeyan of the informant. This was done by ignoring the deposition and objective findings of the Investigating Officer. 20. The learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts in doubting the place of occurrence because the details of the P.O. land were not mentioned in the Jardbeyan of the informant. This was done by ignoring the deposition and objective findings of the Investigating Officer. As discussed earlier the learned trial Court was wrong in drawing adverse inference on account of delay of few hours in lodging of the Jardbeyan. It also committed vital error in not discussing the evidence and circumstances available on record which permit only one finding that the prosecution party was in possession over the concerned land. This aspect has also been discussed earlier in this judgment. Thus, on a careful perusal of entire evidence as well as the broad features and circumstances of this case. I have no option but to hold that the judgment and order of the trial Court acquitting the accused/respondents of all the charges is one which cannot be sustained. These materials do not leave any scope for two views in the matter and the only possible view is to hold that the prosecution has proved the time, place and manner of alleged occurrence beyond any reasonable doubt. 21. In view of aforesaid finding it must now be examined as to what offences have been committed by the accused/respondents. Accused/respondent Bamdeo Mishra gave a lathi blow on the head of Jaishankar Mishra causing an injury which proved fatal and led to death of deceased Jaishankar Mishra in hospital while under going treatment. There is no allegation of any assault upon the deceased by the other accused-persons or by Bamdeo Mishra. At the same time and in the same transaction the intensity of blows given by, other accused-persons upon the injured prosecution witnesses including a blow by lathi portion of farsa by accused Surendra Mishra upon the informants head were responsible only for causing simple injury. In such circumstances it is difficult to hold that the accused -persons intended to cause death of the deceased or to cause such injury as would cause his death. The common intention of the unlawful assembly consisting of accused-persons appears to be taking forceful possession of the P.O. land possibly under the belief that the delivery of possession of the P.O. land to the prosecution party had not been done in a lawful manner. The common intention of the unlawful assembly consisting of accused-persons appears to be taking forceful possession of the P.O. land possibly under the belief that the delivery of possession of the P.O. land to the prosecution party had not been done in a lawful manner. This probability appears from the trend of cross-examination of witnesses and from arguments advanced to show some lacunae in the documents showing delivery of possession to the prosecution party. Hence it is found that all the accused- persons cannot be connected with the offence leading to death of the deceased only on account of allegations of sharing common intention to cause such death hence a common charge against all the accused under Section 302/149 I.P.C. is not found established. Now it has to be seen as to what individual offences have been committed by the accused-persons in the occurrence proved by the prosecution. So far as accused Bamdeo Mishra is concerned, as discussed earlier he caused a single lathi injury on the head of the deceased without any repetition. In the facts of the case it is difficult to hold that such act of his was with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death for he intended to inflict an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. His act was not so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probabilities, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Hence in the facts of the case he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but he is convicted for an offence under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused persons are also accordingly acquitted of charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC. Accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 11 are convicted of charge under Section 147 of the I.P.C. for becoming members of an unlawful assembly in the prosecution of common object of such an assembly viz. in trying to dispossess Taranand Mishra and others from the P.O. land and for the same common object as members of an unlawful assembly accused/respondent Nos. 12 and 13 Surendra Kumar Mishra and Baidyanath Mishra are convicted of charge under Section 148 of the I.P.C. as at that time they were armed with deadly weapon like farsa. in trying to dispossess Taranand Mishra and others from the P.O. land and for the same common object as members of an unlawful assembly accused/respondent Nos. 12 and 13 Surendra Kumar Mishra and Baidyanath Mishra are convicted of charge under Section 148 of the I.P.C. as at that time they were armed with deadly weapon like farsa. All the accused- persons are also found guilty and convicted of charge under Section 447 of the I.P.C. for committing criminal trespass upon the P.O. land under possession of Taranand Mishra and others with intent to forcefully dis- posses them and to intimidate, insult or annoy. In view of discussions regarding injuries to Taranand Mishra as well as Devendra Kumar Mishra, and finding that injuries have to be held as simple, accused/respondents No. 11 Yogendra Mishra is acquitted of charge under Section 325 of the I.P.C, accused/ respondent No. 12 Surendra Mishra is acquitted of charge under Section 307, I.P.C. and accused/respondent No. 13 Baidyanath Mishra is acquitted of charge under Section 324 of the I.P.C. However, accused/respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are found guilty and convicted for offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. for causing hurt by a dangerous weapon like farsa to Taranand Mishra and Devendra Mishra. Accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 namely Chandra Narayan Mishra @ Kanhaiya Mishra, Bhola Mishra, Shailendra Mishra, Amarendra Mishra and Naresh Mishra are convicted of charge under Section 323, I.P.C for voluntarily causing hurt to Jai Bihari Mishra and accused/ respondent No. 11 Yogendra Mishra is also convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to Taranand Mishra. 22. While on question of sentence, it is relevant to note that the occurrence in question took place more than 20 years ago and through-out this long period the accused/respondents have faced agony of criminal trial or appeal against their acquittal. The parties are agnates/close relations and the occurrence is related to land dispute. In such circumstances, specially at this stage, a lenient view is required to be taken in the matter of punishment. Accordingly, accused/respondent No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra is awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused/respondent Nos. Accordingly, accused/respondent No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra is awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year under Part-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused/respondent Nos. 1 to 11 are awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147, I.P.C, accused respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148, I.P.C. For offence under Section 324, I.P.C. accused/respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years and for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and accused/respondent No. 11 are awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 447. I.P.C. all the accused/ respondents are awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences, whereever applicable, shall run concurrently. In the facts of the case, the case of appellant No. 1 Bamdeo Mishra is not found fit for application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Probation of Offenders Act and hence his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to be taken in custody to serve out the sentence imposed upon him. However, in the facts of the case, the cases of other accused-persons are found fit for application of Section 360, Cr PC and hence although their bail bonds are cancelled but instead of sentencing them at once they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is set aside and the respondents 1 to 13 are convicted and sentenced as above. Fine if realized should be paid to the father or family members of the deceased. 23. In view of order passed in Government Appeal no separate order is required to be passed in the criminal revision application and the same is therefore disposed of as infructuous. P.K.DEB, J. 24 I agree. Revision disposed of as infructuous.