Judgment SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J. 1. Government Appeal No. 49 of 1993 was filed against the judgment dated 19th July, 1993 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1990/12 of 1992 whereby the opposite parties were acquitted from the charges under sec. 148 and 307/34 of the indian Penal Code 2. According to the prosecution on 27th January, 1988 the informant of the case Sri Ram Chaudhary was digging his field from Khesra No. 2355 under khta no. 212 area 9 Kathas and 10 dhurs of village Ajaibganj under Bhagwan Bazar P.S. for that land several suit was pending between the informant and the defence. In the morning at about 8.30 AM the accused Laxman Sah having Bhala and other accused persons having lathi in their hands and by forming unlawful assembly came over the field. Laxman Sah inflicated bhala blow causing injury over the right eye brow of Sri Ram Chaudhary. Ramji Sah assaulted him with lathi causing injury near the left elbow, Bharat Sah assaulted also with lathi causing injury in the right thigh, Binod Sah caused injury on the back with lathi. Sri Ram Chaudhary fell down on the ground. On hulla and cry Kapil Chaudhary, Laungi Devi and Bhagirathi Devi and Buneshwar Chaduahry came. Kapil Chaudhary was assaulted by Bharat Sah by lathi as a result thereof he received injury in his knee. Kapur Chand Sah inflicted lathi on the left leg and Satrughan Sah also assaulted lathi on the waste. Laungi Devi was assaulted by Kapurchand Sah which caused injury on her right rib head, back and arm. Assault by Sathrugah Sah caused injury on the left thigh. Bhagirthi Devi was also assaulted by Kapur Chand Sah with lathi on left elbow. Bharat Sah assaulted Bhuneshwar Chaudahry on left arm with lathi and Binod Sah assaulted him on left leg. After the assault Mustard plant was uprooted. On cry Md. Nazir, Raghunath Rai, Mogan Chaudhary, Ram Isahwar Rai and Sukhdeo Rai came and witnessed the occurrence. The injured were brought to Bhagwan Bazar police station where statement of Sri Ram Chaudhary was recorded by Ranbir Singh and the FIR was lodged and the investigation was taken up. The injured persons were treated. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Nazir, Raghunath Rai, Mogan Chaudhary, Ram Isahwar Rai and Sukhdeo Rai came and witnessed the occurrence. The injured were brought to Bhagwan Bazar police station where statement of Sri Ram Chaudhary was recorded by Ranbir Singh and the FIR was lodged and the investigation was taken up. The injured persons were treated. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were explained to the accused persons. They pleaded their innocence and trial proceeded. 3. The defence of the accused persons was that the prosecution party had come upon the lands of the defence with a view to dispossess them from the land and when resistance was made they were assaulted. No occurrence of assault of prosecution party was made. Besides the prosecution the defence has also examined witnesses. 4. In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined 9 witness. The informant Sri Ram Chaudhary PW 5 is one of the victim. PW 1 is Kapil Chaudhary. He is the father of the informant PW 5. PW 2 Laungi Devi is the mother of the informant PW 5. Bhagirthi Devi PW 3 is the aunt of PW 5 where as Bhuneshwar Chaudhary PW 4 is the brother of the PW 5. Besides these family members Md. Nazir PW 6 has been examined as witness. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sinha who has examined the injured has been examined as PW 7 and another doctor PW 8 Dr. Rajehswar Tiwary has conducted the X-ray of the injured Sri ram Chaduahry and Kapil Chaudhary. He has proved his report (Ext-3 series) PW 9 Sri Ram Manjhi was the Investigating Officer. Two sale deeds as Ext-2 series, injury report of the victim as Ext-4 series, X-ray plates as Ext-3 series and report Ext-3 series were produced on behalf of the prosecution. 5. PW 5 is the informant whp in his evidence has stated that when he was digging his field plot no. 2355 then accused Laxman Sah armed with Bhala, Ramji Sah, Satrughan Sah, Bharat Sah, Kapurchand Sah and Binod Sah armed with lathi came over the land and started indiscriminate assault as a result thereof the informant was injured and on his cry his family members came. They were assaulted by the accused persons. After they were injured they were brought to the hospital where they were treated. They were assaulted by the accused persons. After they were injured they were brought to the hospital where they were treated. Other witnesses who are all family members of the informant have supported the version of the informant and they have stated that on the date and time of occurrence the, accused persons have come over the lands and they have made indiscriminate assault as a result of which the informant and his family members were grievously injured. The injury report has been brought on the record by the Doctor PW 7 who has stated that there was injury. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer who has examined the place of occurrence and he has found the land dug and he also found that trampling marks, some wheat crops was found damaged and Mustard paints were uprooted. He in his cross examination he has not given length and widths of the place of occurrence. 6. The occurrence has been claimed by both the sides namely, i.e. by the prosecution party as well as by the accused persons. Assertion of the accused is that the land belongs to them and it was in their actual possession. Therefore, the defence of the accused was that they were not the aggressor rather whatever occurrence has occurred it has occurred while the accused persons were protecting their own property which was the crops and land. Both the sides have produced documentary evidence to show that the land was their own. PW 4 in his para 2 of his cross examination has stated that the occurrence took place at 2 Kathas and 8 dhurs which the accused persons have purchased. Thus one of the witness of the prosecution has admitted that the P.O. land was in possession of the accused persons wnich they have acquired by virtue of purchase. It means the witnesses were digging the land which was never in their possession to which they have no title. The informant Sri Ram Chaudhary himself has admitted that the accused came there and assaulted and the land belongs to them. Therefore, the case which has come from the prosecution version is also that the land over which the occurrence occurred was claimed by the defence. Once it is found that if some transgression were made in course of right of private defence, then it cannot be said that the party were the aggressor. Therefore, the case which has come from the prosecution version is also that the land over which the occurrence occurred was claimed by the defence. Once it is found that if some transgression were made in course of right of private defence, then it cannot be said that the party were the aggressor. Vide detailed judgment the trial court has considered the plea and has found the defence version logible and by a reasoned judgment acquitted the accused persons. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the opposite parties who have come here after being noticed. 7. This is a case in which opposite parties have claimed their land and the trial court by a reasoned judgment has acquitted the accused persons who are the opposite parties here. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.