JUDGMENT Rekha Kumari, J. — The appellants called in question the legality of the impugned judgment dated 3.6.1992 rendered by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Ojha 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar in S. Tr. No. 37/86 whereby he has convicted the appellant Upendra Mandal under Sections 148, 325 IPC, appellant Jageshwar Mandal under Section 148, IPC and the appellants Sheo Narain Mandal, Ghanshyam Mandal, Deo Narain Mandal and Ramanand Mandal under Section 147 IPC. The appellant Upendra Mandal was sentenced to undergo RI for five years for the offence under Section 325 IPC and RI for three years under Section 148 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant Jageshwar Mandal was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and the rest of the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 147 IPC. 2. The prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) is as follows : On 28.7.1983 at 5.00 p.m. accused Deo Narain Mandal and Ghanshyam Mandal started ploughing the field of the informant which was protested by him and on this the other accused persons also reached there, among whom the accused Upendra Mandal was holding bhala, accused Jageshwar Mandal, arrow and others, lathi and started assaulting the informant. It is further stated that the brother of the informant and then his wife and sister-in-law came for his rescue but they were also assaulted. The informant was then dragged on to his house and the accused Ghan Shyam Mandal set his house on fire. The accused persons on the intervention of Jiwachh Mandal (PW 1) and Badri Mandal fled away. The informant was taken to the hospital where he was treated and his fardbeyan was recorded on 29.7.1983 at about 7.00 a.m. by the ASI Kishori Singh of Katihar PS. The case was then investigated and the police submitted charge sheet against the above noted six accused persons. 3. The charge under Section 147, IPC was framed against the accused Deo Narain Mandal, Ramanand Mandal, Sheo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal and charge under Section 148 IPC was framed against the accused Upendra Mandal and Jageshwar Mandal. Accused Upendra Mandal was also charged under Section 325, IPC for causing grievous hurt to the informant Lakhan Lal Mandal. 3. The charge under Section 147, IPC was framed against the accused Deo Narain Mandal, Ramanand Mandal, Sheo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal and charge under Section 148 IPC was framed against the accused Upendra Mandal and Jageshwar Mandal. Accused Upendra Mandal was also charged under Section 325, IPC for causing grievous hurt to the informant Lakhan Lal Mandal. Further, the charge under Section 436, IPC was framed against Ghan Shyam Mandal and under Section 436/149, IPC against rest of the five accused the case. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that no occurrence as alleged took place and they have been falsely implicated on account of the land dispute. 5. Altogether 8 witnesses have been examined in this case. Among whom PW 7 Lakhan Lal Mandal is the informant PW 1 Jiwachh Mandal has stated that he did not see the occurrence. He has been declared hostile. PW 2 Ganga Nand Mistry, PW 4, Kamla Prasad Mandal and PW 6 Lakshman Mandal claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 3 Dr. Biswanath Prasad is said to have examined the injured of the case. PW 5 Kishori Singh is the ASI, who had recorded the fardbeyan and PW 8 Din Dayal is the IO of the case. 6. Learned lower Court after considering the evidence of PWs and the documents filed by the parties convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 325, IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above and acquitted them for the offence under Section 436, IPC. 7. The question that falls for determination is whether on facts and the circumstances of this case as revealed from the evidence on record, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is justified and fit to be maintained. 8. According to the learned counsel arguing for the appellants, the Court below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the witnesses who are interested persons, being either related to the informant or inimical against the accused. Learned Court below also failed to take notice of the vital contradictions occurring in the evidence of the witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge further failed to appreciate the points of long standing enmity between the parties. Learned Court below also failed to take notice of the vital contradictions occurring in the evidence of the witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge further failed to appreciate the points of long standing enmity between the parties. Thus, the conclusion of the learned lower Court is without any basis and the judgment is practically unreasoned and fit to be set aside. 9. Before I deal with the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants it will be convenient to take note of the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution. 10. PW 7 has stated in his evidence that on 28.7.1983 at about 5.00 p.m he was sitting in his house when he saw that Deo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal came to his field situated at the back of his house for ploughing. He went and raised protest and thereafter the other accused reached there. Accused Jageshwar Mandal was armed with arrow and Upendra Mandal was having a Dabiya and others were holding lathi. They surrounded him and started assaulting him. His brother Lakshman Mandal (PW 6) came to save him but he was also assaulted with lathi and on this he fled away. Then his wife Sulochana and sister-in-law (wife of PW 6) came to his rescue and they were also assaulted with fists and lathi. Thereafter the accused persons dragged him to back of their house where Deo Narain Mandal asked Ghan Shyam Mandal to set the house on fire. He has stated that the accused Upendra Mandal had given a blow by the blunt ‘portion of Dabiya on his hand on account of which his hand was fractured. 11. This witness has been cross-examined at length but there is nothing material in his evidence to disbelieve him. The fardbeyan (Ext. 2) which was recorded in the hospital itself in the following morning corroborates the evidence of the witnesses in material particulars. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no specific mention of lathi blow by Dabiya by Upendra Mandal on hand which injury has been found to be grievous in nature. But FIR is only a gist of occurrence. So, only because it is not specifically mentioned therein that Upendra Mandal assaulted him on hand causing grievous injury, that cannot be said to be a contradiction. But FIR is only a gist of occurrence. So, only because it is not specifically mentioned therein that Upendra Mandal assaulted him on hand causing grievous injury, that cannot be said to be a contradiction. Then though he is the informant and as such, an interested witness but he is injured and so he is a very competent witness. The evidence of this witness, of course, shows that a dispute is going on between him and the appellants in respect of the PO land and the accused persons have also filed a case relating to the occurrence against them. But these are no grounds to discard the testimony of this witness. 12. PW.2 has stated that on the alleged date at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. he was at Kabaiya chak when he saw that the accused Deo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal ploughing the land of Lakhan Lal Mandal (informant). The informant came and protested whereupon the accused Deo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal started assaulting Lakhan Lal and the other accused (the witness named the accused persons) then came and also started assaulting him with lathi, fists, dabiya. He has stated that Lakshman Mandal went to save his brother but he was also assaulted by the accused persons and then the informant’s wife went and she was also assaulted by them and then Lakhan Lal Mandal was dragged towards the back of the house of the informant. 13. PW. 4 has also deposed in the same line as PW 2. According to him, he was grazing his cattle at some distance from the PO and on hulla he went to the PO. His evidence also is that as the informant protested against ploughing of his land, the assault took place. The witness has specifically stated that the accused Jageshwar Mandal had arrow, Upendra Mandal had Dabiya in their hands and Upendra Mandal gave Dabiya blow on the left hand of the informant, as a result of which his hand was fractured. 14. Thus, the above two witnesses also have corroborated the testimony of the informant. They are, of course, not named in the fardbeyan as witnesses but that is not ground to disbelieve their evidence. According to the IO, (PW 8), PW 2 was examined by him on 31.7.1983 and PW 4 was examined by him on the same day. 14. Thus, the above two witnesses also have corroborated the testimony of the informant. They are, of course, not named in the fardbeyan as witnesses but that is not ground to disbelieve their evidence. According to the IO, (PW 8), PW 2 was examined by him on 31.7.1983 and PW 4 was examined by him on the same day. Therefore, these witnesses were examined by the PO without delay. Though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses and their statements before the IO, the discrepancies are not material to disbelieve them. PW. 2 has admitted that he had filed a case of arson against one Nandlal Mandal but he has denied that he named the accused Deo Narain Mandal as witness in that case. It has been suggested to this witness that as Deo Narain Mandal did not depose in that case, he (witness) deposed against him. But the witness has denied the suggestion. As regards PW. 4 it has been suggested to him that the accused Ramanand Mandal had filed a case under Section 107, Cr PC against him. He, of course, has not denied it and has pleaded ignorance but even if it be assumed that any such case was filed, that alone is not sufficient to discredit the witness. 15. PW. 6 Lakshman Mandal has stated that on the alleged date at 5.00 p.m. he was in his house and to the adjacent west of his house accused Deo Narayan Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal were ploughing his land which was in his possession. His younger brother Lakhan Lal Mandal (Informant) went and protested. In the meantime other accused also reached there (the witness has named the accused persons), among whom accused Jageshwar Mandal was armed with bow and arrow, Upendra Mandal was armed with Dabiya, Sheo Narain Mandal was armed with Ballam and the other accused were armed with lathi. The accused persons caught hold of the informant and started assaulting him and then they took him towards their house and when the informant’s wife came for his rescue she was also assaulted. His evidence also is that the hand of his brother was fractured. In his cross-examination he has stated that the informant had received injury on head also and he had become unconscious. 16. His evidence also is that the hand of his brother was fractured. In his cross-examination he has stated that the informant had received injury on head also and he had become unconscious. 16. Though this witness did not state that he or his wife was also assaulted, his evidence corroborates the testimony of the informant in other respects. He is the brother of the informant and as such, is an interested witness, but his evidence shows that he and the informant live in same Angan separately and the occurrence had taken place on the back of his house. So, he is a natural witness. The evidence of the IO shows that he (PW 6) did not specifically name the accused persons before him and he also did not state as to who were holding which weapon. But these omissions are not so vital as to impeach the credit of this witness. This witness has stated that two accused had ploughed the land for one hour before the occurrence and at that time the informant was not in his house and when he came he (informant) went to protest. He has further stated that as he was ill, he did not go to protest. So, the conduct of this witness is also quite natural. There is nothing else in his evidence to disbelieve him. 17. PW. 3 the doctor has deposed that on 29.7.1983 he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Katihar Sadar Hospital and on that date at 1.00 a.m. he examined Lakhan Lal Mandal (informant) and found the following injuries on his person. (i) X-ray showed fracture of left ulna at the junction of upper two-third and lower one- third. (ii) Swelling with abrasion of left toe. (iii) Many sat marks on the left side of the back below the scapula. 18. The doctor has opined that injury No. 1 was grievous and the other injuries were simple in nature and all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injury was within 12 hours. He has also proved his injury report (Ext. 1). He has further stated that ‘sat marks’ means marks caused on body by sticks etc. The evidence of the doctor, thus, also corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 19. The evidence of the IO (PW. He has also proved his injury report (Ext. 1). He has further stated that ‘sat marks’ means marks caused on body by sticks etc. The evidence of the doctor, thus, also corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 19. The evidence of the IO (PW. 8) shows that in his evidence he has not stated as to whether there was any sign of ploughing at the P.O. Learned Counsel for the appellants hence has urged that the genesis of occurrence has not been proved. But the evidence of PW. 7 is clear that prior to assault the accused had ploughed about 2 kathas of land. This has also been corroborated by the evidence of PW 6. Therefore, only because it was not taken from the IO as to whether he had found any sign of ploughing, the genesis of the occurrence cannot be said to be not proved. 20. The evidence of the informant (PW-7) is that the PO is in Mauza Kabaiya and bears Khata No. 20, Plot No. 342, area 50 decimals. The land originally belonged to his maternal grandfather. His evidence also shows that the accused are the descendants of the brother of his maternal grandfather. The evidence of this witness also is that the PO land was in their possession. But he has admitted that the land was recorded in the name of Kailu Mahaldar, ancestor of the accused in revisional survey. He has further stated that in Chakbandi at the initial stage the accused persons had got all his land of village Karbigahiya recorded in their names boring the homestead land and then they filed appeal before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) in which they received half of the property and against that order the accused has moved the High Court. The witness has also admitted that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC is going on between them and the accused persons and prior to that there was a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. PC. 21. Thus, it is clear that there is litigation between the parties in respect the PO land and both the parties are claiming the land. The prosecution has also filed a copy of the order dated 23.3.1981 of Deputy Director (Chakbandi) (Ext. 6), a copy of the order dated 11.4.1984 of the Addl. Collector, Katihar (Ext. 6/1), Khatiyans (Exts. 7 and 7/1), rent receipts (Ext. The prosecution has also filed a copy of the order dated 23.3.1981 of Deputy Director (Chakbandi) (Ext. 6), a copy of the order dated 11.4.1984 of the Addl. Collector, Katihar (Ext. 6/1), Khatiyans (Exts. 7 and 7/1), rent receipts (Ext. 8), the certified copy of the order dated 16.8.1984 of the Joint Director, Chakbandi, (Ext. 9) certified copy of the Khatiyan (Ext. 10) in support of their possession over the PO land. The accused persons, on the other hand, have filed rent receipts (Ext. A) proved by DW 1 and certified copy of the Khatiyan (Ext. B) in support of their possession over the P.O. land. But whoever be in possession of the land, on mere protest by the informant not to plough the land, the accused had no right to assault him. 22. In this case Badri Mandal named in the fardbeyan as witness and the female members of the house of the informant who are said to have received injuries have not been examined. Learned counsel hence has argued that an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution case. But when the evidence of other PWs prove the prosecution case, it is not necessary to examine the remaining witnesses and no adverse inference can be drawn for their non-examination. 23. Again, Jiwachh Mandal (PW 1) named in the fardbeyan as witness has not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel, hence, has argued that this also demolishes the prosecution case. PW 1 of course has stated that he did not see the occurrence happening, but he has been declared hostile. The evidence of PW 7 also shows that after the occurrence, the daughter of PW 1 was married to the son of the accused Deo Narain Mandal. Therefore, it is natural that he would not speak against the accused appellants. So, if he did not support the prosecution case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case on that ground also. 24. Hence, on a consideration of the evidence above, I also find that the prosecution has been able to prove that on the alleged date and time the accused Deo Narain Mandal and Ghan Shyam Mandal were ploughing the PO land and when the informant protested, the other accused persons also reached there with lathi, bow, arrow, dabiya and assaulted the informant and when his wife came to his rescue she was also assaulted. It has also been proved that the accused Upendra Mandal was armed with dabiya and assaulted with its blunt portion on the hand of the informant and his hand was fractured and that Jageshwar Mandal had gone to the PO with bow and arrow. 25. The learned lower Court thus was justified in holding Upendra Mandal guilty under Sections 148, 325, IPC, Jageshwar Mandal under Section 148. IPC and the remaining appellants under Section 147, IPC. 26. However, as more than 20 years have passed since the date of occurrence, I think that sentences passed against the appellants may be reduced. Accordingly, Upendra Mandal is sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 325, IPC and RI for three months under Section 148, IPC. Both the sentences would run concurrently. The other appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. 27. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant Upendra Mandal would surrender in lower Court forthwith to serve out the sentence, the other appellants must deposit the fine amount within one month from the date of this order. Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******