JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 436 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years Rl whereas all the Appellants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 6 months Rl under each count by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya by a judgment dated, 7th December, 1995 in S.Tr, No. 11 of 1992/660 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12th March, 1990 there was some dispute between the parties on account of slapping of the son of the informant whereafter, the accused persons assaulted the two prosecution and the Appellant No. 1 set fire to his house. 3. The defence of the Appellant was that the occurrence had taken place in a different manner for which a counter-case was instituted by the defence under Sections 307 and 436 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act. 4. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are witnesses on the occurrence whereas PW. 8 is the informant. PW. 9 is the Investigating Officer. PW. 10 is the Doctor and PW. 1 is formal witness. PWs. 2 to 6 and 8 are in addition injured witnesses. 5. The defence examined three witnesses in support of their case out of whom DW. 1 has stated about the counter-case whereas DW. 2 and DW. 3 are formal witnesses on the point of submission of chargesheet and the injury reports of the Doctor who had examined Appellant, Abdul Hassan. DW. 1 specifically stated that on the date of occurrence the prosecution party have surrounded and assaulted them variously whereafter the Appellant, Abdul Hassan fled away towards the house but he was further chased and his house was set to fire. 6. On going through the evidence of the witnesses it is admitted position that they are all three interested and have denied the counter-occurrence in which the accused was assaulted and his house was set to fire. The Investigating Officer also corroborated that there was land dispute between the parties with respect to parti land situated adjacent to mosque. Not a single independent witness has been examined which in my opinion, jn the facts of the case, is fatal to the prosecution. 7. The Investigating Officer also corroborated that there was land dispute between the parties with respect to parti land situated adjacent to mosque. Not a single independent witness has been examined which in my opinion, jn the facts of the case, is fatal to the prosecution. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated, 7th December, 1995 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 11 of 1992/660 of 1990 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.