JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 have been convicted Under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and the Appellant Nos. 1 and 6 have also been convicted Under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Appellant No. 7 has been convicted Under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been convicted Under Section 147 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months under each count by a judgment 7.12.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant PW.7 Ramautar Raut is that on 19.3.1989 when he along with his father and two brothers had gone with a bullock cart to bring some bamboos and they were loading the same, the accused persons variously armed came and asked them as to why they were taking the bamboos and when his father claimed that he had cut the same from his own land, the accused persons assaulted him, his father and two brothers, on account of which they were all injured. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.8 and P.W.11 are formal witnesses, whereas P.W.12 is the doctor, who examined the four injured. P.W.7 is the informant, whereas P.W.6 is his father and P.W.4 and P.W.5 are his two brothers, who were also injured in the transaction. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the witnesses on the point of occurrence, whereas P.W.10 is a hearsay witness. 4. The defence of the Appellants was that they have been falsely implicated on account of the counter case and examined eight witnesses on its behalf to prove the fact that the prosecution party was removing the bamboos from their land and when it was objected to rightfully by the accused persons the informant and his father and brothers assaulted the Appellants Lakhan Raut and Ram Bilachhan Raut and when on hulla the villagers gathered, the prosecution party was assaulted by them on account of their act. 5. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7, I find that even though there was specifically suggested on behalf of the Appellants that the occurrence had taken place in a different manner, there was complete denial of the same, but this denial appears to be not credible in view of the evidence of the defence witnesses, who were equally trustworthy in their narration of the occurrence. The injuries sustained on the person of Lakhan Raut and Ram Bilachhan Raut were no doubt superficial but they were sustained in the same transaction and, therefore, the prosecution was obliged to explain the same and in absence of the same the prosecution case would become suspicious. On this score alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 7.12.1995 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1990 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.