JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and further Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 also have been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to RI for three years as also under Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced to RI for three years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S. Tr. No. 43/84/14/89 by a judgment dated 20/23.04.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to one Jageshwar Dayal is that on 19.11.1982 one Kedar Nath Singh supervising the paddy crops in the field of one Raman Prasad 20-25 persons variously armed came there and assaulted the said Kedar Nath Singh. When the informant heard of this he also went there and tried to pacify the matter but allegedly one Ram Chandra Singh fired with double barrel gun on the chest of the informant while Appellant Harakh Narain Yadav hit on the face of the informant and one Ram Lagan Singh fired on the stomach of the informant. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses whereas the defence examined four witnesses on its behalf to demonstrate that in fact the paddy crops had been grown by the Appellants and on the date of occurrence they were in possession of the said fields and the prosecution party had come to oust the accused in which transaction the present occurrence had taken place. Doctor, Mahendra Nath Goswami, P.W. 10 had also examined five of the Appellants and had found injuries on their person. Out of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 10 is the Doctor who examined Ram Swarup Singh, Sidheshwar Prasad, Chandeshwar Kumar, Raghunandan Singh, Raghuni Singh, Raghunandan Yadav and Jageshwar Dayal and found various injuries on their person. P.W. 6 has been tendered whereas P Ws 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are eye witnesses to the occurrence out of which P Ws 7, 8, 11 and 14 are injured witnesses. 4. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 have all unanimously disclosed as to how the occurrence had taken place. 4. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 have all unanimously disclosed as to how the occurrence had taken place. However, in view of cogent evidence adduced on their behalf, in my opinion, the defence has succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt about the possession of the informant of the crops for which the occurrence has taken place and, therefore, in my opinion, the Appellants can not be convicted under Section 148 IPC. In the result, they are acquitted of the charges under Section 148 IPC. As for their conviction under Section 324 IPC and 27 Arms Act is concerned the same is maintained but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.