JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. .The Appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have been convicted under Section 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and 6 months, whereas the Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 8 have been convicted under Section 307 and 452 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. of 4 years and 1 year and Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed in that regard by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 1989 by a judgment dated, 30th August, 1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to PW. 6 (the Informant) is that the Accused persons entered into the house of the daughter of the Informant having been variously armed and assaulted a number of persons. 3. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove the charge under Section 307/149 I.P.C. but they were partly disbelieved by the Trial Court and, therefore, the Appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and convicted as stated above. Out of the 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW. 1 is on the point of manner of occurrence. PW. 2 has been declared hostile. PW. 3, PW. 4 and PW. 5, who are sons of the Informant, are also injured in the transaction. PW. 6 is the Informant himself, whereas the PW. 7 is the grandson of the Informant. PW. 8 is the doctor, who examined the injured and found simple injuries sustained by them. PW. 9 and PW. 10 are formal witnesses, whereas PW. 11 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On behalf of the defence four witnesses have been examined. DW. 1 has proved that in fact the house which was in dispute was rightfully owned by the Accused persons and the same is brought on record as Exh. A. DW. 2 is also on the same point. DW. 3 is the doctor, who stated that he had examined Satyadeo Rai and Nandeshwar Rai and found grievous injuries on them. DW. 4 is a formal witness, who has brought on record the counter version. 5. A. DW. 2 is also on the same point. DW. 3 is the doctor, who stated that he had examined Satyadeo Rai and Nandeshwar Rai and found grievous injuries on them. DW. 4 is a formal witness, who has brought on record the counter version. 5. It is an admitted position that for the same occurrence two versions has been given by the parties but the prosecution has failed to explain the same as also injuries sustained by the Accused persons. Further admittedly the house in question was disputed between both the parties and even considering that such an occurrence had taken place, it is difficult to conclude that assault had not taken place in right of private defence of property. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed giving the benefit of doubt to the Appellants and they are acquitted of the charges and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 30th August, 1995 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 1989 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.