J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-9-83 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi upholding the conviction of the revisionists under Sections 323/149, 324/149, 307/149,147,148, IPC by reduc ing the sentence under Section 323/149, IPC from one year to six months recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi. 2. Shorn of necessary details the prosecution case is that the revisionists on 22-6-77 at about 10-11 Oclock formed an unlawful assembly at the door of Mukund Shankar and assaulted Daya Shankar and Vijay Shankar with lathi and Prabha Shankar and Vijay Shankar with Ballam, The prosecution case is that the informant Mukund Shankar and accused persons are collaterals and they were on litigating, terms for a period of 16-17 years. On the eventful day Mukund Shankar and his brother Prabha Shankar, Hriday Shankar and cousin Vijay Shankar were levelling earth on western Sahan of their Ahata. In the meanwhile the accused persons ar rived, Batuk Nath and Ram Krishna had Ballam whereas other accused had lathi. On the exhortation of Baikunth Nath the accused persons fell upon and caused in juries. Ram Krishna and Baikunth Nath with intention to commit murder inflicted Ballam injury to Prabha Shankar. Hriday Shankar and Vijay Shankar sustained lathi injuries. Vijay Shankar also sustained Bal lam injuries. It is alleged that Hriday Shankar wielded lathi in defence. 3. After the escape of the assailants Prabha Shankar, Hriday Shankar and Vijay Shankar were carried to Gyanpur hospital while they were medically ex amined and admitted as indoor patient. Prabha Shankar who had received two in cised wounds and penetrating wound in the abdomen was referred to Varanasi. Vijay Shankar had suffered an incised wound and an abrasion. Hriday Shankar h id received two contusions. 4. After the registration of the case investigation followed. After observing formalities of investigation the Investigat ing Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 5. The defence case was that on the eventful day the injured Mukund Shankar, Prabha Shankar, Hriday Shankar, Vijay Shankar, Brahmadeo was placing earth at the door of Batuk Nath and on his protest they armed with lathi and ballam started assaulting Batuk Nath. Shambhu Nath from the accused side also suffered in juries. They were medically examined. Batuk Nath had received an incised wound whereas Shambhu Nath had suffered three contusions. 6. Shambhu Nath from the accused side also suffered in juries. They were medically examined. Batuk Nath had received an incised wound whereas Shambhu Nath had suffered three contusions. 6. The prosecution examined Mukund Shankar (PW-1), Prabha Shankar (PW-2), Hriday Shankar (PW-3), Ram Singar (PW-4), Dr. N. D. Burman (PW-5), S. I. Ram Chandar Singh (PW-6), S. I. Mohammad Zuha Khan (PW-7), Dr. P. K. Tandon (PW-8), Constable Moiz Ahmad (PW-9 ). The accused adduced no evidence. 7. On appraisal of the evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. He, therefore, convicted all the accused persons and sentenced to rigorous im prisonment for various periods. 8. Felt aggrieved the accused preferred the appeal which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur. The appellate Court found that the Assis tant Sessions Judge has rightly held that the accused committed the crime in the manner and fashion as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, modified the finding regarding place of occurrence recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge. He also modified the sentence as aforesaid. Felt aggrieved the appellants have preferred this revision. 9. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AG A, 10. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the incident had taken place at the door of the accused and the appellate Court committed il legality in modifying the finding recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. He contended that according to Assistant Sessions Judge the marpit had taken place in an area of 9200 paces from the door of Batuk Nath to the door of the complainant Mukund Shankar. 11. After having gone through the judgments passed by the trial Court and appellate Court I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned valid reasons for modifying the finding regarding place of occurrence. This find ing is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and does not suffer from any error. 12. The learned Counsel then con tended that the accused side had also received injures which could not be ex plained by the prosecution and, therefore, there is probability of the defence version being true. This contention is also devoid of force. 12. The learned Counsel then con tended that the accused side had also received injures which could not be ex plained by the prosecution and, therefore, there is probability of the defence version being true. This contention is also devoid of force. The injuries caused on the ac cused side were explained by the prosecu tion witnesses and there is no doubt that the accused received the injuries in the manner and fashion as stated by the eye witnesses. 13. The learned Counsel then con tended that the Court below committed error in convicting the accused under Sec tion 307/149, IPC. A perusal of the injury reports and evidence of Dr. P. K. Tandon shows that the abdominal injury caused to Prabha Shankar was serious in nature and had resulted in affecting the intestine. The prosecution has led evidence to show that the said injury was caused by Batuk Nath by spear. The accused Batuk no doubt committed offence punishable under Section 307, IPC in causing spear injury to Prabha Shankar. 14. The fact remains to be examined whether the common object of the unlaw ful assembly was to commit murder. It is true that the assailants were armed with spear and lathi but from the nature and location of the injuries and manner of assault does not show that the common object of the assembly was to commit mur der. It appears that during the marpit one of the assailants namely Baikunth Nath gave a spear blow on the abdomen of Prab ha Shankar. In my opinion, the other ac cused cannot be convicted under Section 307/149, IPC. 15. The incident had taken place about 23 years before. This revision has remained pending since about 17 years. The Marpit took place for asserting posses sion over a small piece of land. 16. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and submission of the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that sentence of fine in lieu of sentence of imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. 17. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of accused other than Baikunth Nath is altered from 307/149 to 324/149, IPC. The revisionist Baikunth Nath is con victed under Section 307, IPC. The convic tion of the accused under Sections 323/149,147 and 148, IPC as recorded by the Courts below is maintained. 18. 17. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of accused other than Baikunth Nath is altered from 307/149 to 324/149, IPC. The revisionist Baikunth Nath is con victed under Section 307, IPC. The convic tion of the accused under Sections 323/149,147 and 148, IPC as recorded by the Courts below is maintained. 18. All the accused are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to fine as detailed below:- 19. The revisionist Baikunth Nath is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5,000 for offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. All the revisionist are sentenced to undergo fine of Rs. 2,000 under Sections 324/149, IPC Rs. 1,000 under Section 323/149, IPC. The revisionist Batuk Nath and Ram Krishna are sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,500 under Section 148, IPC while other accused are sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 147, IPC. In default of payment of fine the accused Batuk Nath will undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 307, IPC and six months under Section 148, IPC. The accused Ram Krish na will undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 148, IPC. All the revisionists shall undergo six months simple imprisonment under Sections 324/149, IPC and three months under Sec tion 323/149, IPC. The revisionist other than Batuk Nath and Ram Krishna will undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 147, IPC. Order accordingly. .