Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. Accused-appellants Chandrika Rai and Nawal Rai have been convicted under sections 147 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rl for six months under each sections. They were, however, acquitted for the charge under section 379 IPC. Accused-appellant Paras Rai was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 147 and 148 IPC for six months, each and he was also convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 307 IPC for 5 years. He was also acquitted for the charge under section 379 IPC and as also for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and other appellants were convicted under section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rl for six months. They were acquitted for the charge under sections 323 and 379 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, as per fardbeyan of Bira Yadav (exhibit-1) was that on 17.4.82 at 10 a.m. the accused appellants came to his field bearing plot no. 1245/177 measuring area of one katha ten dhurs and started cutting wheat crops and started carrying the same on a tractor. The informant rushed to his field and protested. Then appellant, Paras Rai who was armed with gun fired at him at the order of Chandrika Rai and Chandrika Rai gave bhala blow to the informant and Nawal Rai assaulted him with lathi. Other accused appellants (all named in the fardbeyan) also assaulted the informant. Witnesses working in nearby field came to the place of occurrence and thereafter accused appellants fled away with wheat crops on the tractor leaving the informant lying injured. 3. The accused appellants took a defence that concerned land belong to them and no occurrence at all took place and they were falsely implicated. 4. The learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bettiah, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above on the evidence of eight witnesses. PW 8 is the informant himself. PW 7 is the doctor, PW 6 was another witness, son of informant, Bira Yadav. PW 5 was a formal witness who brought on record the formal FIR (exhibit 2) and the fardbeyan (exhibt-1) PW 4 was another so called eye witness who admitted at para-3 that the informant Bira Yadav was his uncle collaterally. PW 3 was tendered. PW 2 was another eye witness who admitted in cross-examination at para-2 that Bhola and his own grand father were full brothers. PW 3 was tendered. PW 2 was another eye witness who admitted in cross-examination at para-2 that Bhola and his own grand father were full brothers. Bira Yadav was the son of Bhola. So this witness becomes related to the informant. PW 1 was declared hostile because he failed to support the alleged occurrence. 5. Thus, on record, there was evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 6 besides the informant PW 8 himself and all these witnesses are inter-related. So called independent witnesses PWs 1 and 3 failed to support the prosecution case regarding the alleged occurrence. Now the question is whether the informant was in possession of the disputed land and whether he had sown and grown the crops which were allegedly harvested by the accused- appellants. In this connection, there is evidence of only interested witnesses and no independent witness has been produced in support of the informants claim over the disputed land. Accused-appellants had filed certain documents, exhibit A series (rent receipts), exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D etc. on the basis of which they claimed to be in possession of the disputed land and they also claimed title over the same. So it appears that either the occurrence took place, if at all, it took place in the bonafide exercise of their right by the accused or probability is also that the informant might have filed a concocted case just to set up or establish his disputed claim. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the alleged occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts. I have already stated above that the evidence of interested witnesses was there only to support the alleged occurrence and the claim of the informant over the disputed land. So far the occurrence itself is concerned, the learned trial court acquitted the accused appellants for the charge under section 379 IPC and also for the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act. So part of the alleged occurrence and the charges were disbelieved by the learned trial court. So far as charge under section 307 IPC is concerned, appellant, Paras Rai was convicted and sentenced for the above charge. In this connection, evidence of the doctor gains much importance. PW 7 was the doctor who found as many as 4 injuries upon Bira Yadav. Injury nos. So far as charge under section 307 IPC is concerned, appellant, Paras Rai was convicted and sentenced for the above charge. In this connection, evidence of the doctor gains much importance. PW 7 was the doctor who found as many as 4 injuries upon Bira Yadav. Injury nos. 3 and 4 were allegedly caused by fire arm and both the injuries were on left and right leg of the injured and none of the injuries was on the vital part of the body and they Were not sufficient in order to cause death of the victim. Other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and they were all simple. The doctor said that those injuries on Bira Yadav were caused within 12 hours of his examination. Bira Yadav gave his fardbeyan to the police on 18.4.1982 at 2 P.M. and the formal FIR (exhibit-2) shows that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.3.1982 at 10 A.M. So admittedly, injured was examined after 28 hours of the alleged occurrence and he must have been examined by the doctor after some time after he was examined by the police. So the doctors evidence of injuries sustained by the informant within 12 hours of the examination was apparently a wrong finding and it will throw a genuine doubt regarding the prosecution case with respect to the alleged occurrence in which Bira Yadav sustained alleged injuries. It is also surprising as to why and how Bira Yadav failed to rush to the police station and to the nearest doctor for treatment when he allegedly received injuries at the hands of Paras Rai by gun shot. This circumstance also threw doubt regarding the alleged occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. 6. From the circumstances as stated above, it transpires that whole prosecution story regarding the alleged occurrence is redolent with serious doubts. Therefore, evidence of the interested witnesses are not wholly worthy of reliance. The alleged field was in dispute as stated in the fardbeyan of Bira Yadav. In such circumstance, I think the order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellants does not deserve to be allowed to stand. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside. The appellants shall stand acquitted.