JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 and 323 IPC and sentenced to RI for six years and one year respectively and no separate sentence has been passed under Section 324 IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S. Tr. No. 6/87/140/91 by a judgment dated 25.11.1995. 2. The prosecution case according to Ram Chabila Gond is that on 02.09.1983 when the accused persons were found to be obstructing the passage which was being used by the ladies of the village they being enraged assaulted the injured. The Appellants are said to have assaulted with Bhala whereas the rest of the accused assaulted the other villagers who intervened with lathis. 3. The defence of the accused was that the manner of occurrence as described by the prosecution was not correct and in fact the occurrence had taken place in a different manner for which another ferdbeyan has been given which is Exhibit-A. The further evidence was that in fact the prosecution party was the aggressor and the accused had assaulted the prosecution in right of private defence of property. 4. The prosecution in all examined six witneses out of whom P.W. 5 is the Doctor who had treated Bacha Gond, Ram Chabila Gond and Sheo Deni. P.W. 6 is formal whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are the injured witnesses. P.W. 3 is the informant, Ram Chabila Gond. 5. It appears from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that P.W. 1 was the cousin of the informant and the rest of the witnesses except Sitaram Pandey were his other family members. From whose evidence, I find that they have specifically denied the counter-version which gives this Court an impression that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the occurrence before the Court. The injury reports of the three injured also appear to have been given in three different hand-writings giving rise to suspicion about the authenticity of the same. In the manner of the occurrence described by the prosecution it does not appear to be a case under Section 307 IPC and in view of counter-version a reasonable doubt has been created in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the prosecution case. 6. In the manner of the occurrence described by the prosecution it does not appear to be a case under Section 307 IPC and in view of counter-version a reasonable doubt has been created in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the prosecution case. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 25.11.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S. Tr. No. 6/87/140/91 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.