Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Appellants, namely, Basant Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Bhasmalli Yadav, Japo Yadav and Ajahlal Yadav have been convicted under sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code out of which appellants, namely, Prakash Yadav and Ajahlal Yadav have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and one year under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Appellant, Shital Yadav has been convicted under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants, namely, Basant Yadav, Bhasmalli Yadav, Shital Yadav and Japo Yadav were directed to be released on execution of a bond of Rs. 5,000.00 for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Appellants, namely, Bhuso Yadav, Basudeo @ Baldeo Yadav, Mahesh Yadav, Nagendra Yadav, Rutto Yadav, Balli Yadav, Jagdish Yadav have been convicted under sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They have been further convicted under sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time and place the accused persons were tending 10 heads of cattle in Rahar crop of the informant. The informant alongwith his brother Ram Bilash Yadav, Arjun and his father Banarsi Yadav protested against the act and requested the accused persons to remove the cattle heads from the field. The informant side also attempted to move the cattle heads towards the pond. In the meantime, all the accused persons arrived variously armed. It has been further alleged that the accused Basant Yadav exhorted other accused persons to kill the four. Apart from exhorting other accused persons he assaulted the informant by means of sword on his neck. Accused Bhasmalli Yadav assaulted him by means of Bhala on his temple. Accused Japo Yadav gave a farsa blow on his right arm and Prakash Yadav also assaulted him by means of Bhala. It has been further alleged that the two brothers of the informant and his father also received injuries and they were also hospitalised with him. The occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses present at the time of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered. It has been further alleged that the two brothers of the informant and his father also received injuries and they were also hospitalised with him. The occurrence was witnessed by the witnesses present at the time of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered. The police started investigation and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against them. Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session and finally the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty , and have stated that they have been falsely implicated to save their skin from the counter case for an occurrence alleged to have been taken place. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 13 witnesses. P.W. 1, Soso Yadav, is the eye witness of the case. P.W. 2, Ganauri Yadav and P.W. 5, Jairam Yadav have been cited as eye witnesses but they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Sushil Prasad Yadav is also an eye witness. P.W. 4, Gopal Yadav is the eye witness. P.W. 6 Ram Bilash Yadav is an injured witness. P.W. 7 , Arjun Yadav and P.W. 8 Banarsi Yadav are the injured witnesses. P.W. 9 Prabhat Chandra Yadav is the informant. P.W. 10, Dr. Kashinath Jha and P.W. 11, Dr. Sakaldeep Choudhary are the Medical Officer who had examined the injured. P.W. 12, Dashrath Choudhary is the formal witness. P.W. 13 Ram Bihari Singh is the I.O. of this case. 5. P.W. 9, Prabhat Chandra Yadav is the informant. He has stated that his son informed that some buffalos are damaging their crop in Satdhari Baihiyat. He went there and stated driving away the buffalos. The buffalos belonged to Basant Yadav. He has further stated that Basant Yadav ordered to kill him and assaulted him by means of sword on his neck. Thereafter the accused Bhasmalli Yadav assaulted him by means of Bhala on his temple and Japo Yadav assaulted him by means Pharsa on his right arm. Prakash Yadav assaulted him with Bhala. He became unconscious. He has further stated that he was taken to Hospital and where he found his brother and father in an injured condition. He has further stated that he regained consciousness in the local Hospital and was referred to Bhagalpur for further treatment. Prakash Yadav assaulted him with Bhala. He became unconscious. He has further stated that he was taken to Hospital and where he found his brother and father in an injured condition. He has further stated that he regained consciousness in the local Hospital and was referred to Bhagalpur for further treatment. In his cross-examination he has stated that the blood fell down near the place of occurrence and rahar crop was also trempled. He did not find any injury on the person of Basant, Bashmalli and Japo and Prakash Yadav. 6. P.W. 6, Ram Bilash Yadav, PW.7, Arjun Yadav are the brothers of the informant and P.W. 8, Banarsi Yadav is his father. All of them had corroborated the informants version. P.W. 6 has stated that accused Jagdish Yadav assaulted him by means of Garasa on the elbow and Ajahlal Yadav assaulted him by means of Pharsa on his left leg. Thereafter he fell down and Mahesh Yadav assaulted him by means of lathi. P.W. 7 has stated that accused Jagdish Yadav assaulted him by means of lathi on his back and Rutto Yadav assaulted him by means of lathi on leg. P.W. 8 has further stated that accused Ajahlal Yadav assaulted him by means of Pharsa on his head and Shital, Nagendra and Baldeo assaulted him by means of lathi. 7. P.W. 1, Soso Yadav, P.W. 3, Sushil Yadav and P.W. 4 Gopal Yadav claims to be the eye witnesses of the case. Out of them P.W. 1 Soso Yadav is named in the F.I.R. They have supported the case as stated by the informant. 8. P.W. 10, is Dr. Kashinath Jha who has examined the injured Ram Bilash Yadav and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Cut of olicranon process of ulna of left hand. (ii) Insized wound 2" x 1" x 1/2" on left forearm. (iii) Lacerated wound 1" x1/2" x12". According to him injury no. 1 and 2 were found to be caused by. sharp cutting weapon such as sword and injury no. (iii) by means of hard and blunt substance. 9 He also examined the injured Arjun Yadav (P.W. 7) and found two lacerated wound. One upon the head measuring 2"x1/2" x1/4" and the other measuring 2" x1/2" x1/4" on the back. 1 and 2 were found to be caused by. sharp cutting weapon such as sword and injury no. (iii) by means of hard and blunt substance. 9 He also examined the injured Arjun Yadav (P.W. 7) and found two lacerated wound. One upon the head measuring 2"x1/2" x1/4" and the other measuring 2" x1/2" x1/4" on the back. He also examined Banarsi Yadav (P.W. 8) and found two insized wounds 3" x1/2" x 1/4" on head one pointing wound 1/2" round was found upon left forearm. 10. P.W. 11, Dr. Sakal Choudhary examined Ram Bilash Yadav and Prakash Yadav on reference from P.W. 10. He found injury no. 2 on the person of Ram Bilash Yadav to be grievous in nature and rest were found to be simple. He found four stitched wounds one lacerated wound and two bruises on the person of Prakash. 11. P.W. 13 is the I.O. of this case. He went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the informant. He again recorded the statement of other witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence and he has given the vivid description of the same. 12. The defence has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 has come out with the counter version of the occurrence and has stated that the occurrence took place on cutting of the ridge. D.W. 2 has stated the same thing. D.W. 3 has proved the different exhibits concerning counter version. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the genesis of occurrence and also failed to explain the injuries on the persons of the appellants. In this view of the matter the case of the prosecution could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt. It has been further submitted that the court below did not properly appreciated that the assembly of appellants was not unlawful. It has been further submitted that the common object of the appellants was only to defend their right over the ridge and also to prevent person or persons from violating their right. It was the prosecution party who started assaulting and they were aggressor. It has been further submitted that according to P.W. 1 occurrence took place at the Rahar field where Rahar crops were of about 1 of 2 feets and other witnesses have also supported this facts. It was the prosecution party who started assaulting and they were aggressor. It has been further submitted that according to P.W. 1 occurrence took place at the Rahar field where Rahar crops were of about 1 of 2 feets and other witnesses have also supported this facts. I.O. (P.W. 13) has clearly stated that no Rahar crop was found tramppled and no blood was found in the field by him. As such the place of occurrence in Rahar field has not been proved. It has been further submitted that from paragraph 12 of the judgment it appears that the court was not clear that which of the two versions be accepted, either the version of the prosecution that there was assault in the Rahar field or the version of the defence that there was a free fight between the parties. As such the judgment of the court below is based on imagination and not on fact. 14. However, from the deposition of the witnesses it appears that there is consistent and corroborative evidence that Ram Bilash Yadav was assaulted by Arjun Yadav and Banarsi Yadav was assaulted by Basant Yadav and they got injuries. P.W. 6, the injured has clearly stated that Jagdish Yadav assaulted him by means of Garasa on his elbow and Ajahlal Yadav assaulted him by means of Pharsa on his left leg and Mahesh Yadav assaulted him by means of lathi on his back and waist. Another injured witness (P.W. 7) has stated that Jagdish Yadav gave a Garasa blow on his head and Rutto Yadav assaulted him by means of lathi on his back. According to P.W. 8 Ajahlal Yadav assaulted him with Farsa on his head. Shital, Nagendra and Baldeo assaulted him by means of lathi. The injury report as well as the evidence of the Doctor also corroborate the injuries on the persons of the injured. As such the prosecution story as far as the manner of assault and also occurrence is concerned has stand proved. The submission of the learned counsel is that P.W. 13 (I.O.) did (sic-not?) find any trampling mark in the Rahar field. In this regard it is apparent from the prosecution story that the occurrence started when the cattle entered in the Rahar field and the person of the informant side went to drag them from the Rahar field. From the deposition of P.W. 4 in paragraph no. In this regard it is apparent from the prosecution story that the occurrence started when the cattle entered in the Rahar field and the person of the informant side went to drag them from the Rahar field. From the deposition of P.W. 4 in paragraph no. 1 it appears that the cattle had just entered when P.W. 6 came there and tried to drag them out, as such there was no mark of grazing of cattle and there was no trempling mark. As far as cutting of ridge is concerned, the P.W. 13 (I.O.) found that a new ridge was made in the field. As such the learned court below has rightly found that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the prosecution has not come with the entire facts of fighting. The court below on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and on notice counter version of the occurrence that there was free fight between the parties due to dispute appeartaining to the land (the place of occurrence) found that the appellants could not be able to make out a case that the injury so received by them was inflicted during the occurrence which is the subject matter of this case. As such right of private defence has not been accepted by the court below. In this view of the matter, the learned court below has rightly convicted the appellants. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 15. Learned court below after considering the age of the appellants, namely, Basant Yadav, Bhasmalli Yadav, Shital Yadav and Japo Yadav had given them benefit of sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they were released on executing a bond of Rs. 5,000.00 for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. However, the court below rejected the benefit of sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the other appellants on the ground that they were aged about 25-40 years and also considering their social back ground and the circumstances of the case. 16. 5,000.00 for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. However, the court below rejected the benefit of sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the other appellants on the ground that they were aged about 25-40 years and also considering their social back ground and the circumstances of the case. 16. However, coming to the fact that there was a case and counter case due to land dispute, I am of the view that it will be expedient in the ends of justice if the same benefit is given to the appellants, namely, Bhuso Yadav, Prakash Yadav, Basudeo alias Baldeo Yadav, Mahesh Yadav, Nagendra Yadav, Rutto Yadav, Balli Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and Ajahlal Yadav and they are directed to be released on entering a bond of Rs. 5,000/ - each and to appear before the court below to receive sentence whenever called during the period of one year. In the meantime, they were directed to keep good behaviour. 17. With the aforesaid observation and modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.