JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- The appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, vide judgment dated 18.8.1998 and 24.12.1998 under Sections 147, 325 and 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and have been ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Being aggrieved, the accused persons have preferred the present appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that one Jeet Ram was owner of 15 bighas of Land situate in village Sadvar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. One and a half bighas out of the said land was purchased by Mollu Ram and he further sold it to Khatri Ram. The remaining half of the land of Jeet Ram was purchased by accused Amar Singh and others about 10 or 12 years before the occurrence. A boundary dispute between Khatri Ram and Amar Singh cropped up because the former suspected that some part of the land purchased by him had been occupied by accused Amar Singh. Said Khatri Ram had even instituted a civil Suit in this regard against Amar Singh and others. In the month of May, 1996 some quarrel also took place between them for which Kanwar Singh (PW-2), Kalyan Singh (PW-13) and Bir Singh (PW-1) were being prosecuted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, on a complaint lodged by accused Amar Singh. On 13.6.1996 around 4 p.m. Bir Singh (PW-1), Kanwar Singh (PW-2) and Kalyan Singh (PW-13) were sowing maize crop in the land purchased by Khatri Ram. At that time accused persons along with a few other persons of the village after forming unlawful assembly with the object of resisting PW-1 and others from sowing the maize crop and causing hurt to them came on the spot. Accused Jagat Singh was armed with a Khukhri (Ext.M-1), accused Amar Singh was armed with iron rod (Ext.M4) and the other accused were carrying lathis (Exts.M-5 to M-8). Accused Jagat Singh inflicted two Khukhri blows on the shoulder of Bir Singh whereas other accused persons inflicted lathi blows on the shoulder of PW-1. Accused Jagat Singh gave Khukhri blow on PW-2 also. PW-13 was also given lathi and khukhri blows by the accused persons. Accused Jagat Singh inflicted two Khukhri blows on the shoulder of Bir Singh whereas other accused persons inflicted lathi blows on the shoulder of PW-1. Accused Jagat Singh gave Khukhri blow on PW-2 also. PW-13 was also given lathi and khukhri blows by the accused persons. Injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 were removed to Civil Hospital Paonta by Mallo Devi (PW-3), wife of Khatri Ram. In the said Hospital PW-2 and PW-3 were medically examined by Dr. Subesh Pandey (PW-8), who issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. P-20 in respect of injuries sustained by PW-2 and Medico Legal Certificate Ext.P-21 in respect of injuries sustained by Kalyan Singh. Kanwar Singh was found to have an incised wound on occipital region, a lacerated wound on his right shoulder joint and a contusion on his back extending from right scapula to 5th Thoracic vertibral region. As per the medical opinion, these injuries were simple in nature having been caused within a probable duration of six hours. However, on a further reference PW-8 opined that the incised wound was serious in nature and dangerous to life and could have been caused with Khukhri Ext. M-1. 3. PW-13 was found to have sustained various injuries, including lacerated wounds contusions and abrasions on different parts of his body with a probable duration of within six hours and were found capable of being caused by danda and iron rod. On x-ray examination of PW-13 Dr. G. Narang (PW-6) opined that front temporal region right side of Kalyan Singh was fractured. Fracture of mid shaft of right humerus was also detected. 4. PW-1 was medically examined by Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal (PW-9). He was found to have sustained two incised wounds of occipital region and on the back of chest and various other lacerated wounds, bruises and contusion as per the medical certificate Ext.P-23 issued by PW-9. The injuries found on his person were found simple and having been caused within a probable duration of six hours. The incised wound on his person was found capable of being caused with Khukhri Ext. M-l and the other injuries were found capable of being caused withdandas. On receipt of the information of admission of PW-1 and PW-13 in the Civil Hospital at Paonta. O.P. Yadav. S.H.O. Police Station, Paonta Sahib (PW-IO) reached the hospital and recorded statement Ext. P-22 of Kalyan Singh on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ext. M-l and the other injuries were found capable of being caused withdandas. On receipt of the information of admission of PW-1 and PW-13 in the Civil Hospital at Paonta. O.P. Yadav. S.H.O. Police Station, Paonta Sahib (PW-IO) reached the hospital and recorded statement Ext. P-22 of Kalyan Singh on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ext. P-28 was recorded at Police Station, Paota Sahib, under Sections 147,148,149,442, 324 and 323IPC. A.S.I. Chander Singh (PW-12) conducted the investigation in the case. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. P-29, recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused persons onl5.6.1996. He took in possession shirt Ext.M-2 and vest Ext.M-3 which PW-1 was wearing at the time of occurrence vide memo Ext.P-1. He also took in possession the blood stained shirt Ext.M-9 and vest Ext.P-10 of PW-2 vide memo Ext.P-1. Pursuant to disclosure statement made by accused Jagat Singh Ext.P-15 Khukhri (Ext.M-1 was recovered and taken in possession vide memo Ext.P-7. On the basis of a disclosure statement Ext.P-13 made by accused Amar Singh iron rod Ext.M-4 was recovered and taken in possession vide memo Ext. P-4. The wooden sticks Exts. M-5 to M-8 were also taken in possession by him at the instance of accused Sunder Singh, Balbir Singh Dhanbir Singh and Khazan Singh vide memos Exts.P-5 to P-8. On being satisfied of the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 147,148,447,307,324,323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Paonta Sahib, accordingly submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons. 5. The accused person came to be tried on a charge under Sections 147,148,447,307,324,323/149 IPC, To prove the charge against them, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. 6. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused Amar Singh, Jagat Singh and Balbir Singh denied their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence. The other accused persons did not dispute there presence or the spot at the time of the occurrence but their defence is that Khatri Ram used to interfere with the land in possession of the Amar Singh and others. On 12.6.1996 PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 were called by Khatri Ram from Shilai to dispossess Amar Singh from the land in possession. They broke and dismantled the dol (boundary) in between the lands of Amar Singh and Khatri Ram. On 12.6.1996 PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 were called by Khatri Ram from Shilai to dispossess Amar Singh from the land in possession. They broke and dismantled the dol (boundary) in between the lands of Amar Singh and Khatri Ram. On 13.6.1996 they also damaged and dismantled a shed and thrashing floor of Amar Singh. They denied having caused any hurt to Bir Singh, Kalyan Singh and Kanwar Singh and claimed that they were resisting the taking of forcible possession in which PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 caused hurt to one Chanan Singh (DW-4). In support of their defence, the accused examined seven witnesses. 7. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated August 18, 1998 held the accused persons guilty of the commission of the offences under Sections 147,325 read with Section 149,324 read with Section 149 and Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and accordingly convicted them. However, instead of sentencing them to any punishment at once he directed their release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during the period of two years from the date of execution of bonds and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused were further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- each as compensation to the injured persons. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1998 against the aforesaid order in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court remitted the case of the trial court for decision afresh holding that before releasing the accused persons on probation the trial court had not called for the report of the Probation Officer but without making any observations on the merits of the case. After remand the learned Sessions Judge called for the report and recommendations of the District Probation Officer and finally passed the impugned order releasing the accused persons on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the present appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 10. Hence, the present appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 10. There is no dispute that some sort of quarrel took place on the spot regarding a land dispute on 13.6.1996. According to the prosecution, in the said dispute, the appellants were the assailants and caused injuries to Bir Singh (PW-1), Kan war Singh (PW-2) and Kalyan Singh (PW-13) when they were sowing maize crop in the land of Khatri Ram. Presence of accused Khazan Singh, Balbir Singh and Sunder Singh on the spot at the material time is also not in dispute. However, their case is that along with a few other persons they had gone to the spot to request the aforesaid injured not to take illegal possession of their land and one Chanan Singh, who was accompanying them, was beaten up by them. Accused Jagat Singh, Amar Singh and Dhanbir Singh have denied their presence on the spot at the relevant time. 11. PW-1 Bir Singh has fully supported the prosecution version. He has stated that on 13.6.1996 along with Kalyan Singh (PW-13) and Kanwar Singh (PW-2) he was present in the house of his uncle Khatri Ram. Many persons, including the accused persons, came there. Accused Jagat Singh was armed with a Khukhri. Accused Amar Singh was armed with an iron rod whereas other accused persons were armed with lathis and they caused injuries to him, PW-2 and PW-13. Jagat Singh had inflicted two Khukhri blows on his head and the back of his shoulder. His statement is duly supported by PW-2 on material particulars. PW-2 has further stated that he sustained injury with the khukhri on his head and with the lathi blow s on his back and other parts of the body and injuries were sustained by PW-1 and PW-13 also. PW-13 also supported their version on material particulars. He has further stated that accused Jagat Singh, Khazan Singh and Sunder Singh gave him lathi and Khukhri blows whereby he sustained injuries on his head, arm, ear and back. He has furter stated that because of the beatings by the accused persons, PW-1 and PW-2 also sustained injuries. 12. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses are further corroborated by medical evidence regarding their having sustained the injuries. He has furter stated that because of the beatings by the accused persons, PW-1 and PW-2 also sustained injuries. 12. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses are further corroborated by medical evidence regarding their having sustained the injuries. PW-2 and PW-13 were medically examined by Dr. Subesh Pandey (PW-8) on the date of occurrence. On examination of PW-2, he found one incised wound on his occipital region, lacerated wound on right shoulder joint and a contusion on the back having been caused within a probable duration of six hours of the examination. As per his opinion, the incised wound aforesaid could be caused with a khukhri Ext. M-l, and the remaining two injuries could be caused by lathis Ext.M-5 to Ext. M-8. 13. On examination of PW-13, he found as many as ten injuries on his person, three of which were lacerated wounds, four were contusions, two abrasions and swelling with tenderness of right upper limb. Out of these injuries, two were grievous and others were simple and were caused within six hours of the medical examination with some blunt weapon. As per the opinion of PW-8 (?) these injuries were capable of being caused by dandas and iron rod. 14. PW-1 was medically examined by Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal (PW-9) on 13.6.1996 i.e. the date of occurrence at 9.30 p.m. On his examination one incised wound on his occipital region, a cut lacerated wound behind pina of right ear, a cut lacerated wound on the margin of pina of right ear and incised wound in the back of chest on the right side, eight bruises on different parts of his body and pain in the teeth were found with probable duration of within six hours of the medical examination. Out of the aforesaid injuries, two could be caused with Khukhri Ext.M-1 and the remaining with dandas. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the version of the aforesaid witnesses regarding the injuries having been sustained by them with the weapons of offences alleged to have been used against them. 15. Mallo Devi (PW-3) has also partially supported the verion of the aforesaid witnesses. The recoveries of Ext. M-l Khukhri, iron rod Ext.M-4 and dandas Ext. M-5 to Ext.M-8 on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused recorded by PW-12, whose statement on this count remains unchallenged in the cross-examination, further corroborate the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. 16. Mallo Devi (PW-3) has also partially supported the verion of the aforesaid witnesses. The recoveries of Ext. M-l Khukhri, iron rod Ext.M-4 and dandas Ext. M-5 to Ext.M-8 on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused recorded by PW-12, whose statement on this count remains unchallenged in the cross-examination, further corroborate the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. 16. Though accused Jagat Singh, Amar Singh and Dhanvir Singh claimed that they were not present on the spot but their plea of alibi is not proved. The plea of alibi contemplates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the seen of occurrence by reason of his presence at some other place. The plea of alibi, therefore, can succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place of occurrence. Indisputably, the plea of alibi has to be proved by the accused. In the case in hand, so far as the accused Jagat Singh and Dhanbir Singh are concerned, there is not even an iota of evidence to show that at the time of occurrence they were at a place other than the place of occurrence. It has though been suggested to the material prosecution witnesses that they were not at the scene of occurrence but such suggestion has been denied by the witnesses. A suggestion denied by the witness is no evidence. On the contrary, in view of the statement of the aforesaid PWs, their presence on the spot is established. 17. Accused Amar Singh had led evidence to prove that at the time of occurrence he was at Paonta. To prove this plea, he has led evidence. However, such evidence is unreliable and not trustworthy. What is intended to be proved by that evidence is that about two years before Khatri Ram, Kalyan Singh, Partap Singh, Kanwar Singh, Mallo Devi and 15 or 16 other persons came to his house in the morning and demolished the boundary between his land and that of Khatri Ram. They further dismantled his small hut and thrashing floor. He, therefore, went to Paonta Sahib to lodge a report. They further dismantled his small hut and thrashing floor. He, therefore, went to Paonta Sahib to lodge a report. His further case is that Khatri Ram, Partap Singh, Kanwar Singh and Dhani Ram gave him and his wife beatings whereby he sustained injuries on his leg, therefore, he again went to Paonta Sahib where Inder Singh (Pradhan) met him who accompanied him to S.D.M., Paonta Sahib, where he submitted a written complaint Ext.D-1 and that on 13.6.1996 he was not present in his village. It is, however, admitted by him that it takes about one or two hours to reach his village from Paonta Sahib and bus service is available. 18. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that at the first instance accused Amar Singh had gone to Paonta Sahib on 12.6.1996. He returned back in the evening and on the next morning when his Khalyan and hut were demolished he again went to Paonta Sahib to lodge the report Ext.D-1. A perusal of Ext.D-1 reveals that it was not presented to the S.D.M. as is the case of the accused but was presented to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to this report, the boundary of his field was demolished by Khatri Ram, Bir Singh, Partap Singh and Dhani Ram on 12.6.1996 and he lodged report thereof on the same day. In the evening on 12.6.1996 when he reached his village his residential but was non existent, thrashing floor was demolished and his family members were missing. Therefore, he lodged complaint Ext.D-1 in the earlier part of the day. This version is belied by the statement of Chanan Singh (DW-4) who has stated that he had seen Amar Singh in injured condition on 12.6.1996 whereas according to Amar Singh himself (DW-6) he and his wife were beaten up and injured on 13.6.1996 when he went to Paonta Sahib to lodge complaint Ext.D-1. According to DW-4, the hut of Amar Singh was demolished on 13.6.1996 in he absence of Amar Singh when he had already gone to Paonta Sahib to lodge report Ext.D-1. However, as per the contents of Ext.D-1, this hut had been demolished on 12.6.1996 and Amar Singh had left for Paonta Sahib in the early hours to report about it vide Ext.D-1. However, as per the contents of Ext.D-1, this hut had been demolished on 12.6.1996 and Amar Singh had left for Paonta Sahib in the early hours to report about it vide Ext.D-1. In view of these contradictions, learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the unreliable and contradictory defence version as narrated by the defence witnesses. The fact, thus, remains that the accused Jagat Singh, Amar Singh and Dhanbir Singh had failed to prove their plea of alibi. On the contrary, their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence and their taking part in the occurrence is duly proved in view of the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW- 13. 19. The accused persons have been convicted under Sections 147,325,324 IPC read with Section 149IPC by the learned trial Judge after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the order convicting the accused persons does not call for any interference by this Court. In so far the sentence is concerned, the learned trial Judge has already taken a lenient view in the matter and has extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused persons. 20. As a result, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed