JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused in S.C. No. 85/01 challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court III, Tumkur, convicting the appellants of the offence under Sections 447 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and further imposing a fine of Rs. 500/- each for offence under Section 341 IPC and further convicting them for offence under Section 323 IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and further convicting them for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentencing to them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each, with default clauses. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.6.2000 at, about 9 a.m. within the limits of Dandinashivara Police Station, accused 2 and 3 alongwith the deceased A1 in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal trespass by entering into their land bearing Sy. No. 24/1 of Kolghatta village belonging to C.W. 1 M. Shivabasappa and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 read with 34 IPC. 3. It is further alleged that on the said date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention of A2 and A3 alongwith deceased A1 wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC. 4. It is further charged against them that at the aforesaid date, time and place the accused caused voluntary hurt to C.W. 1 thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC. 5. It is further charged against the accused that A1 deceased alongwith A2 and A3 assaulted C.W. 1 with the sickle and caused injuries to him with an intention to cause his death and thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. 6. It is further alleged that on the said date, time and place, the accused have caused grievous hurt to C.W. 1 thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. 7. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to P5 and produced M.Os. 1 to 5. 7. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to P5 and produced M.Os. 1 to 5. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, by the judgment. impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused and to sentence them as hereinabove mentioned. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused. 8. Heard Smt. Nalina for Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raja Suibramanya Bhat, learned HCGP for State. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is A1 who was holding the weapon as per the prosecution case and the allegations are that A2 has held the victim P.W. 1 and A3 has fisted him. Therefore, the act of A2 and A3 will not amount to offence of either under Section 324 or 323 IPC. It is further submitted that the weapon in this case has not been seized from proper place and, therefore, the offence as alleged cannot be held to be proved against A2 and A3. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that A2 and A3 are entitled for order of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that the evidence as tendered by the prosecution through P.Ws. 1 and 2 clearly goes to show that the accused has committed assault by weapon and has caused grievous injuries to P.W. 1. He submits that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court does not call for interference. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. The prosecution in this case is commenced with one Shivabasaiah filing a complaint before the Dandinashivara Police Station on 30.6.2000 at about 11.30 in the night. In his complaint, the complainant has stated that there is dispute between himself and A2 Prabhu, in respect of property in Sy. No. 24/1 of Kologhatta village. There is civil suit pending in the Court since about 4 to 5 years and on 30.6.2000, Friday morning at about 9 a.m., himself and his wife Pushpavathi were doing agricultural work in the land bearing Sy. No. 24/1. At about 11 a.m., on that day, the accused Prabhu and his friends A1 and A3 came near the scene of occurance and A1 and A2 stopped him from doing agricultural work. No. 24/1. At about 11 a.m., on that day, the accused Prabhu and his friends A1 and A3 came near the scene of occurance and A1 and A2 stopped him from doing agricultural work. Thereafter, A3 called him near bund of the field in order to discuss about the matter and, therefore, he came out of the field. At that time, Al and A2 came there, A3 held him from front side tightly and A1 assaulted on his left thigh twice by means of a sickle with an intention to commit his murder. A2 Prabhu was telling that the complainant should be made to die and assaulted on his back 4 to 5 times by hands. When he fell down by screaming one Chandraiah. Mahalaingaiah and his wife Pushpavathi came near him. At that time, the accused threw the weapons there itself and ran away. Thereafter, Chandraiah and Mahalingaiah took him in an auto to Turuvekere Hospital and he was given treatment there. Thereafter, he was shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital. Further he has stated that the accused Bsavaraju and his son Dilip and Prabhu had come and assaulted him in order to kill him. The Police registered the above complaint in Crime No. 35/2000 for offence under Sections 323, 324, 447, 307, 341 read with 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. 12. After appearance of the accused before the Sessions Court, charges were read over to the accused and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. Thereafter, P.W. 1 has deposed before the Court saying that on 30.6.2000 at about 11 a.m., A3 came alongwith Al and A2, and A2 instigated A1 and. A3 to stop him from doing agricultural work. At that time A1 was holding the sickle in his hand, stopped him from cultivating the land. Thereafter, he went up to the field bund where A2 was standing, A1 and A3 accompanied A2. A2 held him tightly and at that time A1 assaulted him by means of sickle on his left thigh. He sustained injuries. A3 lifted his hand and assaulted by means of fist, on him and at that time, P.Ws. 3 and 4 came near the scene of offence. On seeing them accused ran away by throwing weapon on the spot itself. He sustained injuries. A3 lifted his hand and assaulted by means of fist, on him and at that time, P.Ws. 3 and 4 came near the scene of offence. On seeing them accused ran away by throwing weapon on the spot itself. He has identified the complaint given by him and also the weapon used for commission of the offence. This P.W. 1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence and it is suggested that due to the property dispute this false case has been filed. 13. P.W. 2 Pushpavathi is wife of P.W. 1. She has stated that on. the date of offence, her husband P.W. 1 and herself had gone to the field and her husband was doing agricultural work. At that time, the accused came near the scene of occurrence and they prevented her husband from doing work and thereafter, A3 held her husband tightly and A1 and A2 assaulted her husband on his left thigh by means of a sickle. Her husband sat down. At that time Prabhu A2 told other accused as to why they are accused leaving P.W. 1. At that time, she raised cries. P.Ws. 3 and 4 came near the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, accused ran away. Thereafter, P.W. 1 was shifted to the hospital. She has identified the weapon used by the accused for commission of offence on her husband. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that a false case has been filed because of the enmity arising out of the land dispute. It is also suggested that P.W. 1 had sustained injuries while doing agricultural work but the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 2. 14. P.W. 3 Chandraiah has stated that on hearing cries raised by P.Ws. 1 and 2, he went near the scene of occurrence. At that time, the accused threw the sickle and ran away from the spot. P.W. 1 had fallen down and had sustained injuries. Thereafter, they had given first aid to P.W. 1 and shifted the injured to Turuvekere Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Adichunchanagiri. Hospital. It is suggested to P.W. 3 that a false case has been registered by P.W. 1. for which he is supporting. 15. P.W. 4 Mahalingaiah is another witness who reaches the scene of occurrence at the time when the incident was just over. Hospital. It is suggested to P.W. 3 that a false case has been registered by P.W. 1. for which he is supporting. 15. P.W. 4 Mahalingaiah is another witness who reaches the scene of occurrence at the time when the incident was just over. He has stated that he had seen A1 to A3. A3 was holding P.W. 1 from front side and other accused, i.e., A1 and A2 have assaulted P.W. 1 by means of a sickle and P.W. 1 had sustained injuries. He was also present when the Police came to the scene of occurrence on the next day while the Police seized M.O. 1 the sickle and M.Os. 2 to 4 articles from the person of P.W. 1. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that when he was in the Adichunchanagiri Hospital, the Police had visited the hospital and recorded his statement. 16. P.W. 5 K. Shivanna is the PS1 of the concerned Police Station who after the receipt of intimation from the doctor at Adichunchanagiri Hospital had visited the hospital and recorded the complaint of P.W. 1. After coming back to the Police Station, he has registered the same in Crime No. 35/00 which is marked as Ex. P1. Thereafter, he has visited the scene of occurrence, seized the weapon used for the commission of offence, viz., M.O. 1 the sickle, drawn a panchanama and recorded the statement of certain witnesses. This P.W. 5 has been cross-examined by the defence suggesting that no complaint as per Ex. P1 was given to him. However, the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 5. Certain improvements have been brought on record in the evidence of P.W. 5 when he was recalled on 20.7.2004. 17. P.W. 6 Dr. Puttasiddaiah was working as Medical Officer in Adichunchanagiri hospital during the relevant time. He has stated that he has examined the injured Shivabasappa on 30.6.2000 and has issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P5. He has also stated that the injured had suffered cut injury on his left thigh and he has opined that the said injuries are grievous in nature. 18. P.W. 7 Dr. Manjegowda is also a Surgeon at Adichunchanagiri Hospital. He has stated that the injured after being treated in the hospital was in fit condition to give statement and accordingly, at 9 p.m., on that day, the Police have recorded the statement of P.W. 1. 19. 18. P.W. 7 Dr. Manjegowda is also a Surgeon at Adichunchanagiri Hospital. He has stated that the injured after being treated in the hospital was in fit condition to give statement and accordingly, at 9 p.m., on that day, the Police have recorded the statement of P.W. 1. 19. The accused got examined one Shivalingappa as D.W. 1 in order to establish the relationship of the witnesses inter se and the complainant and the accused. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to how A1 and P.W. 1 are related to each other-except for the civil dispute. He further states that Chandraiah and himself are brothers. 20. It is from the above evidence of all these witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty and had convicted them and sentenced them as aforesaid. I have gone through the material on record. It is seen that there is slight discrepancy in the narration of the events by P.W. 1 when he gave the complaint on 30.6.2000 and when he was examined in Court which is four years after date of the incident. P.W. 1 is a villager and, therefore, it is not strange that there is slight discrepancy in narrating the sequence of events. However, he has categorically stated that A1 to A3 had come to assault him and A1 was in possession of weapon, among A2 and A3, one of them held tightly and another had assaulted by hand. However, so far as under Section 447 IPC criminal trespass is concerned, there is no clear and cogent evidence to hold that P.W. 1 was in exclusive possession of the field; having regard to the fact that there was a civil dispute in respect of the said land, each one of them claiming the same as belonging to them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the conviction for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. is not in accordance with the evidence on record. However, so far as the offence under Section 341 is concerned, the version of P.W. 1 that he was held tightly by the A2 and thereafter, the other accused assaulted him, has held proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. However, so far as the offence under Section 341 is concerned, the version of P.W. 1 that he was held tightly by the A2 and thereafter, the other accused assaulted him, has held proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no interference in so far as the finding of guilt of the appellants for offence under Section 341 IPC is called for. 21. In so far as the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, it is very clear that it was A1 who was holding the sickle and the scene of occurrence is a village where agricultural operations are carried on. Therefore, in a village holding sickle in hand is not, a very strange thing and it is part of their agricultural implements. Accused No. 1 was holding the sickle and has used it for committing offence. A1 is dead and the case against him has abated. So far as A2 and A3 are concerned they were not holding any weapons and, therefore, though the common intention is shared by them, by the feet that one of them has held P.W. 1 and the other two have assaulted, the offence under Section 324 read with 34 is made out against A2 and A3. But so far as sentence is concerned, 1 am of the opinion that leniency can be shown against them. A2 was aged about 30 years and A3 was aged 48 years as on the date of offence and now A2 would be 40 years and A3, 58 years and they are in the middle age of their life. Having regard to the fact that they did not carry any weapons, I am inclined to set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them. On the other hand, imposing the sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Appeal against A1 has abated. The order of conviction against A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and the sentence thereon is hereby set aside and A2 and A3 are acquitted of the said offence. 23. The order of conviction for offence under Section 341 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A2 and A3 is confirmed. The order of conviction against A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and the sentence thereon is hereby set aside and A2 and A3 are acquitted of the said offence. 23. The order of conviction for offence under Section 341 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A2 and A3 is confirmed. However, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is set aside, in its place, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the said offence, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A2 and A3 are given, two months time to deposit the fine amount, if they have not already deposited. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation. 24. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused are cancelled. The fine amount, if deposited, in excess what is ordered above, is directed to be refunded to the appellants.