Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. There were seven appellants in this appeal, who were charged and tried for an offence under Secs. 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur and by Judgment delivered on 17th April, 1989, the trial Court convicted appellant No. 1 Rama Nand Rai and appellant No. 3 Ayodhya Rai under Secs. 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the aforesaid appellants have died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence the appeal abates against them. 2. So far as remaining appellants are concerned, appellant No. 2 Saryug Rai has been convicted under Secs. 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 147, Indian Penal Code. Appellants Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been convicted under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellants No. 4, 5 and 7 have also been convicted under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded to appellants No. 1 and 3 to 7 either under Sec. 147 or 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution was that on 30.7.1984 the appellants entered the house of the informant Dinesh Rai and assaulted his brother Chandeshwar Rai. The appellants were armed with Farsa, Khanti, Sword, Bhala etc. When the informant rushed to his house, he found his brother Chandeshwar Rai lying at the Dalan in injured and unconscious condition. On seeing the informant, the appellants started abusing him. The injured was taken to Hospital. Injured Chandeshwar Rai had received bhala and farsa injuries and these injuries are subscribed to Rama Nand Rai and Ayodhya Rai. 4. Admittedly both the parties are pattidars and there is evidence that they were involved in litigations both civil and criminal. The occurrence took place due to dispute regarding the land on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. Even the genesis of the occurrence is that the occurrence took place for the demolition of the wall. 5. 4. Admittedly both the parties are pattidars and there is evidence that they were involved in litigations both civil and criminal. The occurrence took place due to dispute regarding the land on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. Even the genesis of the occurrence is that the occurrence took place for the demolition of the wall. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the trial Court has not given due weight to the fact that two of the appellants had also received injuries in the said occurrence and one of the injury was caused by sharp-cutting weapon. There is no explanation by the prosecution for the injuries on these appellants. 6. In my opinion, learned trial Judge fell in error in so lightly discarding the evidence of the defence. In any view of the matter, no case against the appellants for their conviction under Sec. 307 or 148, I.P.C. is made out. 7. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellants No. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. They are discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds. This appeal has abated so far as appellants No. 1 and 3 are concerned.