JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/149, 323 and 147 IPC and sentenced to RI for four years, six months and six months respectively but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 447 IPC. Further the Appellants No. 12, 15 and 17 have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and the rest under Section 147 IPC but no separate sentence has been passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 242/91/7/93 by a judgment dated 28.11.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.1990 while the informant P.W. 9 was ploughing his fields with the tractor the accused persons arrived there and accosted him. An altercation arose on account of the fact that P.W. 9 was ploughing the said fields and then the Appellant No. 15 is said to have hurled a bhala on the informant while the rest assaulted him with lathi and chain and Appellant No. 12 is said to have assaulted P.W. 7 with a bhala on the left knee while others assaulted him with lathi and again Appellant No. 12 is said to have assaulted P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 when they arrive there for rescuing the informant. 3. The prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 have been tendered, P.W. 12 is formal, P.W. 9 is the informant whereas P.W. 10 is the Doctor who examined the injured persons and injury report is exhibited as Exhibit-2 whereas P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 who is the informant are eye witnesses. 4. The defence of the Appellants was that the Appellants belong to the same family as the informant and there was a Title Suit pending between the parties and in fact on the date of occurrence the prosecution party was the aggressor and had assaulted the accused persons. The defence also brought certain documents to prove that there was enmity between the parties as also the existence of the counter-case. 5. The defence also brought certain documents to prove that there was enmity between the parties as also the existence of the counter-case. 5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses i.e. P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 they have no doubt supported their case that they had been assaulted by the accused persons but none of them have given any explanation about the existence of the counter-case which raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the prosecution has brought the true version of the occurrence before the Court. The existence of a Title Suit and civil dispute is admitted by all the witnesses. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to accept that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.11.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S. Tr. No. 242/91/7/93 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.