JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment whereas the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1989 by the judgment dated 29/23-9-1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a land dispute between the parties and there was some dispute over shifting of paddy on the disputed lands on account of which on 12.10.1986 the accused persons came to the place of occurrence and whereas Bhola Lohar assaulted Kapildeo Hajam with a lathi on his head, Gena Lohar and Babuanand Lohar thereafter assaulted him. 3. Initially the Appellants were charged under Section 307/34 I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 4. The prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses on its behalf out of whom P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 is the doctor who had examined the injured Kapildeo Hajam, P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are on the factum of occurrence. 5. The defence of the Appellants was that in fact the land in question was in possession of the accused persons and on the date of occurrence, the prosecution had attempted to dispossess them and assaulted them on account of which a case was instituted against them. In the counter case i.e. Thakaraha P.S. Case No. 76 of 1987 the injured is one of the accused person. The defence brought on record documents pertaining to the same. The defence also examined 2 witnesses on the same point and has got marked these documents as exhibits. 6. On going through the facts on record, it is clear that on the date of occurrence a quarrel had taken place between the parties. On account of this a free fight had taken place. However, none of the witnesses explained injuries sustained by the Appellants nor did they admitted the fact of counter version in which they were accused. This Court has an impression that the prosecution has not evidently been truthful in its depiction of the occurrence that had taken place on the fateful day. 7. However, none of the witnesses explained injuries sustained by the Appellants nor did they admitted the fact of counter version in which they were accused. This Court has an impression that the prosecution has not evidently been truthful in its depiction of the occurrence that had taken place on the fateful day. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1989 by the judgment dated 29/23-9-1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.