JUDGMENT D.K Sinha, J.-The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.4.2002 recorded by Md. S.M. Alam, Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 525 of 1993 arising out of Barkagaon P. S. Case No. 48 of 1989 against the appellants. ' 2. By the said judgment and order each of the appellants was convicted under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years two years and seven years respectively on each count. The appellant No. 3 Gulab Sao was further held guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from his conviction under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code as aforesaid and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently against each of them. 3. The informant, Shambhu Sharan Das (P.W. 6) narrated in his Fardbeyan that he was a Karamchari, posted at Churchu Block. On 22.4.1989 while he was going to Kuru village in relation to some official work, it was alleged that all the accused (appellants herein) variously armed with deadly weapons surrounded and asked him to accompany them to Village-Napokhurd. Having been scared and finding no way out the informant followed them. The informant further narrated that when he reached near the Pee pal tree at his own Village-Barganiya, the appellant Sona Sao delt stick blow causing injury in his right wrist. In the same transaction the other accused Man Mahadeo, Puran, Bhuneshwar, Sheo Charan, Bodhan and Kundan all started assaulting him with sticks consequently, he fell down sustaining a number of injuries. He further alleged that the appellant Harihar Sao inflicted blow by means of hammer on his hand and leg and that the appellant Gulab Sao when raised the Farsa over head with the intention to commit murder, his wife Niro Devi (P.W. 1) suddenly appeared and stood erect as a shield consequently the blow of Farsa fell on her person causing bleeding injuries from her head. She also fell down on the earth. The appellants then entered into the house of the informant, ransacked the household articles and escaped towards the forest. The occurrence was witnessed by the members of his family, who after their departure, immediately went near the victims and removed both of them to the Barkagaon Hospital for treatment. She also fell down on the earth. The appellants then entered into the house of the informant, ransacked the household articles and escaped towards the forest. The occurrence was witnessed by the members of his family, who after their departure, immediately went near the victims and removed both of them to the Barkagaon Hospital for treatment. Disclosing the genesis of the occurrence, the informant narrated that the State of Bihar had given 0.73 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 249, Plot No.434 to him and his brothers to which the appellants claimed their rights over the said land. Prior to the. alleged occurrence fishing was allowed by the Government at Bargania Tank, as such the employees of the block had been fishing there to which the appellants did not appreciate as the said employees were staying in the house of the informant which caused annoyance and for that they were nursing grudge against him and had given effect to the occurrence. Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at Barkagaon Hospital on 22.4.1989 giving rise to Barkagaon P .S. Case No. 48 of 1989 registered against all the appellants for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/149/307/323/324/341/ 427 of the Indian Penal Code including the co-accused Khedhan Sao who died in course of trial. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused for the alleged offence and were put on sessions trial after framing of charge under the relevant sections of IPC. The defence of the appellants was of false implication on account of long standing land disputes. 5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses the appellants were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. during which each of them was confronted with the materials brought on the record during trial to which they denied their guilt and explained that they were falsely implicated on account of land disputes. The appellants produced D.W. 1 who formally proved certain documents. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that no independent witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution and the witnesses that were produced were the members of the family of the informant, highly interested and partisaned witnesses as such, their testimonies may be discarded. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that no independent witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution and the witnesses that were produced were the members of the family of the informant, highly interested and partisaned witnesses as such, their testimonies may be discarded. The occurrence as presented by the prosecution took place at two places i.e. first near the Peepal tree situated in the vicinity of Village-Barkagaon and another at the dwelling house of the informant, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, not a single independent villager could be produced to support the occurrence with the alleged participation of the appellants and their respective attribution. Mr. Sahani pointed out that investigation of the case was conducted 9Y three Investigating Officers in quick succession but the last Investigating Officer who submitted charge-sheet on his subjective satisfaction abstained from the witness box for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Similarly Dr. R. Jha of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, who had examined the injured Shambhu Sharan Das and issued the discharge slips was not examined and for that the appellants were highly prejudiced for having been denied of opportunity to cross-examine them by putting questions as to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured. Mr. Sahani further submitted that the appellants have suffered the ordeal and rigours of protracted trial of long twenty years with admitted land disputes having rival claims and in this connection the appellants have proved the registered sale deed of the land in question executed in their favour by the vendor on 21.6.1986 Ext.-A, rent receipts Ext.-B and Ext.-B/1,Order sheets of Title Suit No. 32 of 2001 pending before the Munsif, Hazaribagh Ext.-C and the plaint of that suit (Sona Sao and Others vs Bhupal Das Paswan and Others) Ext.-D by producing DW-1 Kamalnath Sao being their sole defence witness. Finally the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution though failed to prove technically that the occurrence was given effect to in prosecution of common object, even then each of the appellants was convicted under Sections 147/148/325 IPC. It was neither the prosecution case nor evidence was adduced that all the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and for that they were held guilty of rioting so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. It was neither the prosecution case nor evidence was adduced that all the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and for that they were held guilty of rioting so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. In this case allegation of using hammer was against the appellant Harihar Sao and 'Farsa' was against the appellant Gulab Sao but neither corresponding injuries were found on the victims nor such allegation could be substantiated in its right prospective even then, all the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and awarded maximum sentence that has been prescribed that too without explaining and recording the reasons. The Trial Court failed to consider these aspects and convicted the appellants which cannot be sustained, as such they may be acquitted. 7. The specific case of the prosecution was that all the accused persons took the informant Shambhu Sharan Das (P.W. 6) to his Village-Barganiya where the appellant Son a Sao delt stick blow causing injury in his right wrist whereas the other accused assaulted him indiscriminately with sticks and in the same transaction it was alleged that the accused Harihar Sao inflicted blow by means of hammer on his hand and leg and that when the accused Gulab Sao raised the Farsa over head with the intention to commit his murder, his wife Niro Devi (P.W. 1) suddenly appeared as a shield in front of her husband as a result of which the blow of Farsa fell on her head causing bleeding injuries and she fell down on the earth. 8. The informant Shambhu Sharan Das was examined by P.W. 8 Dr. Triguna Nand Prasad on 22.4.1989 at the first instance at the Barkagaon State Dispensary who found the following injuries on his person:- (i) Swelling 2" x 1" on left Ankle joint sound heard from the fracture was indicative of fracture of bone. (ii) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on left leg and right leg. He referred to the patient to the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. P.W. 8 proved the injury report of the informant which was in the pen and signature of Dr. R. Jha of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and according to X-ray report there was fracture of right tibia bone lower part. (iii) Swelling 1" x ½ ' radish colour in the right leg. (iv) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on right forearm. P.W. 8 proved the injury report of the informant which was in the pen and signature of Dr. R. Jha of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and according to X-ray report there was fracture of right tibia bone lower part. (iii) Swelling 1" x ½ ' radish colour in the right leg. (iv) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on right forearm. (v) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on right thigh. (vi) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on right forearm. In the opinion of the witness the injury no. (ii) was grievous and the rest were simple in nature all caused by hard and blunt substance within six hours. On the same day P.W. 8 Dr. Triguna Nand Prasad examined Niro Devi W/o Shambhu Sharan Das (informant) at 1.12 p.m. and found the following injuries:- (i) Cut injury 2" x ½ ' x ¼ ' on interior part of head. (ii) Swelling 2" x 1" radish colour on right leg. (iii) Swelling 1" x ½ ' on her right elbow. (iv) Swelling 2" x 1" on left chick. In the opinion of the witness, the injury no. (i) was simple caused by sharp weapon, it may be by Garasa. The rest injuries were simple caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi with the age of injury within six hours. He proved the injury report in his pen and signature which were marked Exts.-5 and 5/1 respectively. The discharge slips of Shambhu Sharan Das issued from the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, were in the pen and signature of Dr. R. Jha was proved and marked Exts.-6 and 7. In the cross-examination the witness opined that the injury no.1 of Niro Devi was possible by Garasa or by any other sharp edged weapon. He denied the suggestion that the report was collusive. The injury reports Exts.-5 and 5/1 indicated that the informant ShambhJ Sharan Das (P.W. 6) and his wife Niro Devi (P.W. 1) were initially examined at Barkagaon State Dispensary and from there Shambhu Sharan Das was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where he remained as in-door patients for twenty days. The report dated 26.4.1989 of the injured Shambhu Sharan (Das) Paswan further indicated that he sustained fracture of tibia bone of the right side, lower part and the injury was found to be grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance (Ext.-5). Ext.-7 is the discharge slip issued by Dr. The report dated 26.4.1989 of the injured Shambhu Sharan (Das) Paswan further indicated that he sustained fracture of tibia bone of the right side, lower part and the injury was found to be grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance (Ext.-5). Ext.-7 is the discharge slip issued by Dr. R. Jha but it has got no bearing of the name of the patient except the registration no. 703.The date of admission of the patient at the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh has been shown as on 23.4.1989 whereas the date of discharge was mentioned as on 13.5.1989. The manner of occurrence as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and the injuries sustained by the informant (P.W. 6) and his wife Niro Devi (P.W. 1) finds corroboration from their injury reports of Exts.-5 and 5/1 respectively. 9. As many as 9 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. 10, P.W. 1 Niro Devi is the wife of the informant and injured witness who testified that she rushed to her husband to protect him from being more assaulted by throwing herself on his body. At that time the appellant Gulab Sao was holding Farsa in his hand whereas the appellant Harihar Sao was holding an iron hammer. Harihar Sao assaulted her husband with hammer on his left leg and the other appellants assaulted him by means of sticks. She further testified that she rushed to save her husband and had almost thrown her body over his body, it was the appellant Gulab Sao who inflicted Farsa blow as a result of which she sustained cut and bleeding injuries in her head. Initially her injuries were examined at Barkagaon State Dispensary and from there she was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. I find that her testimony could not discredited in her cross-examination. She named the appellants who had forcibly taken her husband back to the village near a Pee-pal-tree and she witnessed this part of the occurrence which took place in the village by which her husband was assaulted by the appellants and that she was also assaulted. She was removed to Barkagaon State Dispensary by the brother of her husband and other ladies of her family. 11. P.W. 2 Shakuntala Devi corroborated the occurrence and narrated the specific attribution of the appellant Gulab Sao and Harihar Sao who caused injury with the help of Farsa and Hammer respectively. She was removed to Barkagaon State Dispensary by the brother of her husband and other ladies of her family. 11. P.W. 2 Shakuntala Devi corroborated the occurrence and narrated the specific attribution of the appellant Gulab Sao and Harihar Sao who caused injury with the help of Farsa and Hammer respectively. She firmly deposed that the occurrence took place in her presence within her sight with the attribution of the appellants that other having been armed with sticks assaulted the victims. 12. P.W. 3 Nakul Paswas who happens to be the brother of the informant by supporting the manner of occurrence testified that upon hearing alarm when he went near the pond of village, he witnessed that Gulab Sao was holding a Farsa whereas hammer was in the hands of Harihar Sao and other appellants were armed with sticks. When his sister-in-law Niro Devi came forward to rescue her husband she sustained injuries from the blow of Farsa delt by Gulab Sao which caused bleeding injury on her head. Both the victims were assaulted even thereafter by other appellants with the sticks. 13. P.W. 4 Gopal Das Paswan is another brother of the informant who claimed to be the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and narrated attribution of the appellants in the occurrence and corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses who had deposed in the court with the specific attribution of the appellants. He testified that amongst the appellants to whom he had named during examination-in-chief, the appellant Gulab Sao was holding Farsa whereas Harihar Sao was having hammer in his hand and when Niro Devi came forward to save her husband it was the appellant Gulab Sao who delt with Farsa blow causing cut and bleeding injury on the head of Niro Devi. The other appellants had assaulted his brother Shambhu Sharan Das, as a result of which he fell down, I find that this witness did not allege the attribution of the appellant Harihar Sao against whom other witnesses were consistent that he inflicted blow on the leg of the informant with hammer causing fracture (grievous injury) of tibia bone. 14. P.W. 5 Arjun Das Paswan is also the brother of the informant and he was consistent about the manner of the occurrence with specific attribution of the appellants in the alleged occurrence by which his brother (informant) and brother's wife Niro Devi were assaulted. 14. P.W. 5 Arjun Das Paswan is also the brother of the informant and he was consistent about the manner of the occurrence with specific attribution of the appellants in the alleged occurrence by which his brother (informant) and brother's wife Niro Devi were assaulted. The injured were removed to Barkagaon State Dispensary at the first instance and from there they were referred to' Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. 15. P.W. 6 Shambhu Sharan Das (informant) was examined at length in the witness box. He corroborated his earlier version what he has stated in his Fardbeyan on 22.4.1989 before the police at Barkagaon State Dispensary and testified that the appellants had stopped him while he was going to Village-Kuru in the morning at about 6 a.m. and he was asked to return back to the village where they had proposed a Panchayati. The witness narrated that when he arrived in his Village-Napokhurd situated near a tank very near to his house, all the accused-appellants surrounded him. The appellant Sona Sao commanded the other accused persons to assault him and pursuant to that command all the accused-appellants started assaulting him with the sticks indiscriminately causing injury on the different parts of his body. He further narrated that in the same transaction the appellant Harihar Sao inflicted a hammer blow on the knee of his left leg. When he fell down on the earth his wife came forward to rescue him and when she tried to save him as a shield, the appellant Gulab Sao inflicted farsa blow causing cut injury on her head and there starting profuse bleeding. Upon the alarm there being raised by him other members of his family arrived there, witnessed the occurrence and the accused persons escaped towards his house and caused substantial damage to his house. He proved several documents on the record such as Exts.-8, 9, 10 and 11 related to the criminal proceedings and cases brought about against him and his brothers by the appellants with respect to the land which was settled in his favour by the State of Bihar by issuing parcha being the members of Scheduled Caste but all the appellants were adamant to grab the land. He also proved his fardbeyan Ext.-2 and the Parch a which was granted by the State of Bihar, Ext.-3. He also proved his fardbeyan Ext.-2 and the Parch a which was granted by the State of Bihar, Ext.-3. He explained that after the occurrence did take place in the year 1989, the appellants then brought about series of cases against him by initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and the title suit on the ground that they had purchased the disputed land from the ex-landlord where as his claim was on the basis of Parcha granted by the State of Bihar to him and his brothers. He further testified that he remained at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh as .indoor patient for about 20 days during treatment of his injuries. His wife was treated only at the State Dispensary, Barkagaon. Disclosing the motive of the accused-appellants the informant-victim stated that the accused persons on account of land dispute and that the settlement of the village pond by the Government for 'fishing caused anguish and for that they had given effect to the occurrence with the intention to commit his murder. He admitted in the cross-examination that no injury by means of sharp edged weapons was caused to him and that blow delt by means of stick on his head caused bleeding injury and he became unconscious. He further testified that when he returned back from the hospital after discharge he found that two rooms of his house were damaged which were pacca construction though the fact regarding destruction of rooms was apprised to him at the Sadar Hospital by his wife. He denied the suggestion that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as he had presented in his fardbeyan. 16. P.W. 7 N. Singh was the Officer-in-charge of the Barkagaon Police Station. He registered Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 48 of 1989 on the basis of the statement of the informant Shambhu Sharan Das on 22.4.1989 and investigation of the case was made over by him to P.W 9 Sri Arjun Singh, S.I. of Police. 17. P.W. 9 Arjun Singh admitted that he after taking over charge of investigation of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 48 of 1989 on 22.4.1989 recorded restatement of the informant as well as his wife at the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. He visited the place of occurrence situated towards south of the road which led to the pond popularly known as Barbania Talab. P.W. 9 Arjun Singh admitted that he after taking over charge of investigation of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 48 of 1989 on 22.4.1989 recorded restatement of the informant as well as his wife at the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. He visited the place of occurrence situated towards south of the road which led to the pond popularly known as Barbania Talab. The said road was under construction and located the pee-pal tree at the distance of 20 feets from the pond whereas place of occurrence as pointed out was at the distance of about 15 feets from the said tree. He testified that the house of the informant was situated at the distance of about 50 yards from the first place of occurrence and he found that part of the house in the north eastern side made of bricks with cast roof was damaged but tiled portion of his house situated in the north was found intact though the tiles. were found damaged. As the road was under construction, the witness explained that he could not find blood at the place of occurrence. In course of investigation he was transferred to another place, as such, he made over the charge of investigation to S.I., Gautam. He admitted having not found any shovel or spade at the place of occurrence. He recorded the statement of other witnesses at the hospital. 18, After examination of the prosecution witnesses, all the accused were separately examined and statement of each of them was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P .C. The accused were confronted with the materials that were collected and brought on the record in course of trial to which they denied their guilt and took the defence of their false implication. The appellants produced sole defence witness D.W.1 Kamalnath Sao who proved the registered sale deed dated 21.6.1986 executed in favour of Fuleshwar Sao and Harihar Sao etc. The registered sale deed was marked Ext.-A. He further proved two rent receipts of the said land which were marked Exts.-B and B/1. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that the land in question Ext.-A was settled in his name and in the name of Fuleshwar Sao by Hakumnama issued by the landlord but hesitantly admitted that at the time of execution of the said Hakumnama he was not even born. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that the land in question Ext.-A was settled in his name and in the name of Fuleshwar Sao by Hakumnama issued by the landlord but hesitantly admitted that at the time of execution of the said Hakumnama he was not even born. A proceeding under Sections 144/145 Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the said land between the parties. 19. The informant's case was that while he was going to Kuru village for some official works, all the appellants variously armed with deadly weapons surrounded and asked him to accompany to Villiage-Napokhurd. As they were armed with deadly weapons, the informant having been scared and finding no way out accompanied them. The informant further stated in his substantive evidence that when he reached near the pee pal tree of his own Village-Barganiya, the appellant Son a Sao delt blow with stick causing injury in his right wrist and in the same transaction the other accused (appellants) Man Mahadeo, Puran, Bhuneshwar, Sheo Charan, Bodhan and Kundan started assaulting him with sticks as a result of which he fell down sustaining a number of injuries. He specifically alleged against the appellant Harihar Sao that he inflicted blow with hammer on his hand and leg whereas the appellant Gulab Sao when raised farsa with the intention to commit his murder his wife Niro Devi suddenly appeared and stood erect as a shield of her husband consequently the blow of farsa fell on her head causing bleeding injuries. It was further case of the informant that the appellants entered into the house of the informant, ransacked bricks built portion by damaging it and escaped towards the forest. The victims were first removed to Barkagaon State Dispensary and from there they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for better management of their injuries. At the first instance the informant Shambhu Sharan Das (P.W. 6) was examined by Dr. Triguna Nand Prasad (P.W. 8) on the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 22.4.1989 at Barkagaon State Dispensary and from there he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where Dr. R. Jha found swelling of different dimensions in his right leg, right forearm and right thigh. On the basis of X-ray report of Dr. Triguna Nand Prasad (P.W. 8) on the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 22.4.1989 at Barkagaon State Dispensary and from there he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where Dr. R. Jha found swelling of different dimensions in his right leg, right forearm and right thigh. On the basis of X-ray report of Dr. R. Jha found that the right tibia bone of the informant was fractured at its lower part but other injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and such fracture of tibia bone in the lower part, according to the informant Shambhu Sharan Das was caused by the appellant Harihar Sao by means of hammer whereas other appellants, according to the witness, had inflicted blow with lathi yet, only four injuries on different parts of his body were found. There was allegation against the appellants Man Mahadeo Sao @ Banodi Sao, Sana Sao, Puran Sao, Dhaneshwar Sao, Ghamar Sao and Bodhan Sao that they had assaulted with sticks but only four injuries were found on the persons of the informant and none of the injuries were found to be grievous in nature except the fracture of right tibia bone to which its author was the appellant Harihar Sao. Corresponding injury was found on the person of Niro Devi (P.W. 1), wife of the informant Shambhu Sharan Das having cut injury 2" x 1/2" X ¼ " on the interior part of her head .besides swelling in her right leg, right elbow and left chick. In the opinion of Dr. Triguna Nand Prasad of Barkagaon State Dispensary, cut injury aforesaid though was simple in nature but caused by sharp edged weapon, could be by farsa and her other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like stick within six hours of her examination. The discharge slip indicated that though the informant (P.W. 6) was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, on 23.4.1989 but he was discharged on 13.5.1989 vide registration No. 703 (Ext.7), though his name was not clearly mentioned but were proved on behalf of the prosecution without objection and marked Ext.-6 and Ext.-7. 20. Now the moot question arises under the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the other appellants had shared common object with the appellant Harihar Sao, who had caused fracture of right tibia bone of the informant by striking hammer on his right knee. 20. Now the moot question arises under the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the other appellants had shared common object with the appellant Harihar Sao, who had caused fracture of right tibia bone of the informant by striking hammer on his right knee. The prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were consistent about the place of occurrence that it was near the peepal tree where the appellants except Sona Sao and Harihar Sao, assaulted the informant with the sticks but only four injuries could be found on the person of the informant and the same could not have been caused by blows of seven sticks of the seven appellants, therefore, I find that some colour has been mixed by the informant in his fardbeyan and the other witnesses in their substantive evidence. However, the witnesses are definite and consistent that it was the appellant Harihar Sao who inflicted blow by means of hammer on the knee of the informant whereas Sona Sao inflicted blow with farsa causing cut injury on the head of Niro Devi. I find from the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the witnesses who were none other than the brothers, wife and sister-in law of the informant (P.W. 6) that the informant and his wife both were assaulted but none of the victims could narrate the overt act attributed to the individual appellant armed with sticks. No corresponding injuries caused by sticks at least seven could be found on the person of the victims. The prosecution case appears to be doubtful that all the appellants had concert in prosecution of mind with the common object had given effect to the occurrence. The material prosecution witnesses are consistent that the appellant Harihar Sao had inflicted blow by means of hammer causing corresponding grievous injuries in the tibia of the informant and when his wife Niro Devi came forward to rescue her husband, it was the appellant Gulab Sao who inflicted farsa blow which cause injury in her head and there started bleeding. All the appellants were convicted under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Gulab Sao who was separately, convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were convicted under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Gulab Sao who was separately, convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It was not the case of the informant that all the appellants were armed with deadly weapons by forming unlawful assembly and pursuant to common object they had committed the offence of rioting so as to attract an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. For the reasons discussed above, conviction of the appellants Man Mahadeo Sao @ Banodi Sao, Sona Sao, Puran Sao, Dhaneshwar Sao, Sheo Charan Sao, Ghamar Sao and Bodhan Sao cannot be sustained for the charge under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants had taken defence of long standing land disputes between the parties by explaining that they had acquired title over the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed which was proved and marked Ext.-A whereas part of the said land being Government land was settled by issuing Parcha in favour of the informant and his brothers as they were land less and the members of the Scheduled Caste. A proceeding under Section 144 was drawn on the said land which was disposed of and the title suit that has been brought about by the appellants is subjudice in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh. None of the parties have claimed their right of private defence of the property and it was not the case that there was free fight between two groups in prosecution of common object as such the other appellants are entitled to benefits of doubt. 22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made herein before, I find that conviction of the appellants other than Gulab Sao and Harihar Sao for the offence under Sections 147/148/325 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained under law, as such, they are acquitted in S.T. No. 525 of 1993 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 48 of 1989. I further find that in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as also considering the medical evidence that the appellant Gulab Sao inflicted injury on the head of Niro Devi by using sharp cutting weapon, he was rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. His conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court does not call for interference as such the same is upheld. As regards conviction of the appellant Harihar Sao under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, I find that the allegation stands corroborated by a number of the prosecution witnesses with the corresponding injury in the nature of fracture of right tibia bone of the informant (P.W. 6). The prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length but their credibility could not be discredited and therefore, I find and hold that the appellant Harihar Sao was rightly held guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to prove that duo had common object as erroneously inferred by the trial court to commit offence and the appellants were not convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel that though the appellant Harihar Sao was held guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code but maximum sentence of seven years was awarded without explaining and recording the reasons. For want of specific reasons the trial court erred by awarding sentence to the appellant Harihar Sao and others for seven years imprisonment under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, As the other appellants have been acquitted upholding the conviction of the appellant Harihar Sao under Section 325 IPC, sentence awarded to him to the extent of seven years is modified to rigorous imprisonment of only three years. This criminal appeal is allowed in part in the manner indicated above. The conviction of the appellant Gulab Sao under Section 324 IPC and sentence awarded therein is affirmed and upheld. The other appellants Man Mahadeo Sao @ Banodi Sao, Son a Sao, Puran Sao, Ohaneshwar Sao, Sheo Charan Sao, Ghamar Sao and Bodhan Sao are acquitted and their bail bonds stand discharged. The conviction of the appellant Gulab Sao under Section 324 IPC and sentence awarded therein is affirmed and upheld. The other appellants Man Mahadeo Sao @ Banodi Sao, Son a Sao, Puran Sao, Ohaneshwar Sao, Sheo Charan Sao, Ghamar Sao and Bodhan Sao are acquitted and their bail bonds stand discharged. The Trial Court is directed to take effective steps by issuing process against the appellants Gulab Sao and Harihar Sao in accordance with law as their interim bail is recalled