Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Though appellants were charged on various counts by the trial Court, while Nandlal and Ram Lakhan Singh suffered conviction under Section 148, of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four months each, rest four appellants namely, Birendra Kumar Singh. Surendra Kumar Singh, Narendra Kumar Singh and Hardeo Singh, suffered conviction under Sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months each under each of the two counts. Ram Lakhan Singh suffered conviction also under Section 324, of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four months with a rider that all the sentences in case of those suffering conviction on two counts, shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix appearing from fardbeyan of Manmohan Singh is that at about noon on 15th December, 1982, after Nandalal Singh raised shouts and questioned his authority for ploughing the land, Ram Lakhan Singh dealt blows with garasa on Bhagwan Singh causing injuries on the head, Hardeo Singh dealt blows on forehead of Manmohan Singh with hard blunt substance. Accusation attributed to Birendra Kumar Singh was about dealing blows with lathi on head of Mahendra Singh. Omnibus accusation has been attributed to Hardeo Singh, Surendra Kumar Singh and Narendra Kumar Singh also for assaulting victims. Accusation attributed to Nandalal Singh was also for resorting to firing, while retreating. A police case had been registered on behest of Manmohan Singh, PW 7, pursuant to which investigation followed, in course of which the Police Officer having visited place of occurrence and on collecting evidences, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether ten witnesses who are injured, labourers, doctor, Police Officer and other witnesses. 3. The defence of the appellants had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. The explicit defence of the appellants had been that the occurrence took place over R S Plot Nos. 39 and 40, for which he was held entitled by virtue of execution of two sale deeds by Ram Narayan Pandey and Sri Bhagwan Pandey respectively. The defence of the appellants had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. The explicit defence of the appellants had been that the occurrence took place over R S Plot Nos. 39 and 40, for which he was held entitled by virtue of execution of two sale deeds by Ram Narayan Pandey and Sri Bhagwan Pandey respectively. The defence too examined six witnesses and among them, DW 3, Ram Lakhan Singh, one of the appellants, stated, inter alia, about purchase of disputed land by him, when on 15th December, 1982 Ram Adhar. Komal Singh, Govind, Sri Bhagwan, Mahendra and Manmohan having encircled, dealt blows with hard blunt substance on him and when Nandalal and Hardeo came for rescue, Nandalal too was assaulted, and as for Hardeo it was stated that on exhortation made by Komal and Ramadhari Govind fired shots causing injury on his chest. 4. The trial Court, however, on consideration of evidences available on the record, while negativing plea of innocence, found appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 5. Contentions raised on behalf of the appellants was that since occurrence took place on R.S. Plot Nos. 39, and 40, which had been purchased by Ram Lakhan Singh by virtue of execution of two sale deeds, the appellants were well within their right of private defence of property, to resist action of Manmohan Singh and others who were getting said plots ploughed by the labourers. Yet it is urged that the appellants had also brought on the record, the bed-head ticket which would manifestly suggest that Ram Lakhan Singh had sustained injuries on his person during same transaction. Yet it is urged that the appellants had also brought on the record, the bed-head ticket which would manifestly suggest that Ram Lakhan Singh had sustained injuries on his person during same transaction. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that a police case too had been instituted by Ram Lakhan Singh with regard to the said incident alleging assault on him, Nandalal and Hardeo Singh, and the last argument canvassed at bar was that even considering the prosecution version to be true on its face value, for which there has been no good evidence, occurrence took place as early as in the year 1982 and since more than two decades had elapsed, regard being had to the protracted prosecution for about 22 years and there being land dispute between the parties, in case the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court is upheld by this Court, a lenient view may be taken in awarding sentence. 6. Those who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident happened to be Ramjee Harijan, PW 1, Singhasan Ram, PW 2, Musafir Singh, PW 3 Jan Bahadur Singh, PW 4, Mahindra Singh, PW 5, Bhagwan Singh, PW 6 and Manmohan Singh, PW 7. PWs 2 to 7 stated at trial with sustained consistencies about Ram Lakhan Singh dealing blows with lethal weapon on Bhagwan Singh and Hardeo Singh dealing lathi blow on head of Manmohan Singh. Narrations were made by these witnesses about Birendra Kumar Singh too dealing blows with hard blunt substance. Omnibus accusation has been attributed also to Hardeo Singh, Surendra Singh and Narendra Kumar Singh for assaulting them with hard and blunt substance. As for complicity of Nandalal Singh, though Ramjee Harijan, PW 1, states that he held fire arm, no accusation about resorting to firing was attributed to him. Contrary to accusation attributed to this appellant, evidence of Singhasan, PW 2 was that he held a lathi Similar was the case with Mahindra Singh, PW 5 who though stated about appellant Nandalal Singh holding fire arm, he did not make any attribution about this appellant resorting to firing. Contrary to accusation attributed to this appellant, evidence of Singhasan, PW 2 was that he held a lathi Similar was the case with Mahindra Singh, PW 5 who though stated about appellant Nandalal Singh holding fire arm, he did not make any attribution about this appellant resorting to firing. Among those witnesses who claimed to be ocular, Mahendra Singh, PW 5, Bhagwan Singh, PW 6 and Manmohan Singh PW 7, happened to be the injured witnesses who stated about injuries suffered by the victims at the hands of the appellants in the manner with which they were saddled with these accusations in the earliest version of the prosecution, and the doctor too who clinically examined them had noticed corresponding injuries on their persons. Since they happened to be stamped witnesses, there was no valid reason to discard their testimony. Those who claimed to have witnessed the incident but were not injured witnesses, happened to be Ramjee Harijan, PW 1, Singhasan Ram. PW 2, Musafir Singh, PW 3 and Jang Bahadur Singh, PW 4. However, Ramjee Harijan, PW 1 did not appear to be ocular witness to the assault, as if narration made by this witness was given any consideration, it was Hardeo Singh who had assaulted Bhagwan Singh which is contrary to the prosecution accusation. He also made omnibus accusation without making any specific attribution to individual appellant for assaulting victims, and that apart, among the victims he also named Govind Singh which is not the case of the prosecution. Narration made by this witness has to be rejected for other reason too, as he stated that Manmohan Singh received injury by bhala, which is not the case of the prosecution. The assertions made by this witness, in fact, exclude him from seeing assault, as he stated that shortly after the incident had begun, he had left the place of occurrence. 7. The State had also examined PWs 9 and 10. PW 9 was a formal witness, and as for PW 10 he was Investigating Officer who had registered police case on filing of complaint by Manmohan Singh. 8. 7. The State had also examined PWs 9 and 10. PW 9 was a formal witness, and as for PW 10 he was Investigating Officer who had registered police case on filing of complaint by Manmohan Singh. 8. Though defence of Ram Lakhan Singh was that he too sustained injuries in the same transaction in exercise of his right of private defence of property, barring placing on record one bed-head ticket he did not take pain to call doctor who examined him, and hence Court is yet to gauge about nature of injury allegedly sustained by appellant No. 1, and that apart, it is well crystalised in catena of decisions of Courts that in case accused had sustained injury in same transaction which was not explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case had not to be discredited, in case evidences were direct and witnesses were found trustworthy. 9. However, what disturbs me is the finding of the Court below recorded against Nandalal Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, as though both these appellants were charged under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code, they had suffered conviction under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Needless to emphasise that before recording conviction, the accused must be appraised of the charges with which he is going to be saddled at trial. The inconsistency that has surfaced in evidence of the witnesses about accusation attributed to Nandalal Singh and also the nature of arm held by him, has been discussed in the preceding pages. Since Ram Lakhan Singh has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in that view of the matter I am of the view that no separate finding under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, particularly in view of infirmity that has crept up in evidences, is to be recorded, against him, and similar is the case with appellant Nandalal Singh, and hence so far these two appellants are concerned, the finding recorded under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is accordingly set aside. However, rest findings recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. 10. As has been highlighted at bar the prosecution was launched against appellants in the year 1982 and more than 21 years have since elapsed and since then appellants have suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for 21 years. However, rest findings recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. 10. As has been highlighted at bar the prosecution was launched against appellants in the year 1982 and more than 21 years have since elapsed and since then appellants have suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for 21 years. Taking into consideration this mitigating circumstance and also regard being had to the nature of accusations and also sentence awarded to the appellants, the substantive sentence awarded against Ram Lakhan Singh is altered to sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred). Similarly, the substantive sentence awarded against rest of the appellants is altered to sentence of fine of Rs. 400/- (four hundred) each, and in case of default, appellants would suffer imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. The fine to be deposited with the Court below by appellants within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications.