ORAL JUDGMENT Per Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.-This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 8.4.1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada, in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1985/115 of 1986, by which the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Baijnath Paswan, the brother of the deceased is that on the date of occurrence he along with his brother was ploughing the field, when the accused persons came thereupon and the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 assaulted the deceased with Saif, garansa and bhala i.e. all sharp cutting weapons. Thereafter, the rest of the accused persons came and assaulted the witnesses, who were also protesting on behalf of the deceased. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, out of whom PW 1 Suresh Kumar is the cousin of the informant, PW 2 Sitaram Paswan is tendered, PW 3 Pachu Rajwanshi is the labourer of the informant. PW 4 Lalan Paswan is the son of the brother-in-law of the injured Jagdish Paswan as suggested by the defence which he denied. PW 5 Dulari Paswan is the uncle of the deceased. PW 6 Devendra Paswan is the brother of the deceased. PW 7 Jagdish Paswan is also the brother of the deceased. PW 8 Bhagirath Paswan is the son of the deceased. These witnesses have deposed as being eye-witnesses to the occurrence and in addition PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8 have also sustained injuries in the transaction, which is corroborated by PW 10 Dr. Bhagwat Das. PW 9 B.P. Singh is the Doctor, who held the post-mortem examination and found as many as eleven injuries on the person of the deceased. It appears that the deceased had mainly sustained incised wounds on his extremities and the grievous injuries which had been found on the vital parts were caused by hard and blunt substance i.e. contrary to the prosecution case. PW 11, PW 13 and PW 14 are formal witnesses whereas PW 12 Ramchandra Singh is the Investigating Officer. 4. The Defence examined one Daso Bhuiyan as witness No. 1 who stated that Plot No. 2412 under khata No. 391 measuring 2 acres belonged to Dahini Mushaharni who was the mother of the respondents Amrika Mushahar and Mahendra Mushahar. PW 11, PW 13 and PW 14 are formal witnesses whereas PW 12 Ramchandra Singh is the Investigating Officer. 4. The Defence examined one Daso Bhuiyan as witness No. 1 who stated that Plot No. 2412 under khata No. 391 measuring 2 acres belonged to Dahini Mushaharni who was the mother of the respondents Amrika Mushahar and Mahendra Mushahar. He also proved two rent receipts (Exhibits-A and A/1) of the year 1980-81 and 1986-87 in her name. He stated that the informant had derived no lands in the said khata and in fact to pressure the accused persons from vacating the said land, a false case with the aforesaid allegations had been foisted on them so as to achieve their gains. 5. The trial Court considered the following aspects of the case : (i) That no independent witness had been examined to support the case of the prosecution even though a number of witnesses had been named in the charge-sheet for which no explanation had been offered by the prosecution. (ii) On going through the evidence of the witnesses, undisputedly the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as supporting eye-witnesses are relatives of the informant/deceased which was rightly assailed by the defence before the trial Court. It is in this light that the evidence of the witnesses was scrutinized which shall be discussed later on. (iii) The place of occurrence had been disproved by the Investigating Officer inasmuch as he stated that the occurrence in his opinion, had taken place on the land which had not been ploughed which was contrary to the prosecution case. In view of such contradictory evidence, evidently, the place of occurrence had not been fixed by the prosecution which was another serious lacuna in the prosecution case. (iv) The post-mortem examination report also run contrary to the prosecution case inasmuch as the case of the prosecution was that the deceased had been assaulted with Saif, bhala and garansa, but, the serious injuries which had caused the death of the deceased had been caused by hard and blunt substance. This piece of independent vital evidence cannot be rejected in the face of evidence of only interested witnesses. 6. This piece of independent vital evidence cannot be rejected in the face of evidence of only interested witnesses. 6. We find PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 stated that all the accused persons had arrived at the place of occurrence simultaneously whereafter the assault took place which runs contra to the case of the informant whose story right from the start was that only respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 had come initially upon the lands and assaulted the deceased whereafter the rest of the accused persons had arrived. In such circumstances, the evidence no doubt in number is not fit to be relied upon. 7. Undoubtedly, there was land dispute between the parties. In such background, the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses was rightly seriously viewed by the Court below especially when the occurrence is said to have taken place in an open area. 8. Further, the place of occurrence not having been fixed by any of the witnesses, it is difficult for the Court to rely on the prosecution case as to the aggression of the respondents. 9. Moreover, the manner of occurrence has been belied by the sole independent witness i.e. the Doctor who find that the injuries which caused death of the deceased were caused by hard and blunt substance and not by garasa, bhala & Saif. 10. Also, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, who were alleged eye-witnesses, revealed a different manner of occurrence further dealing a death blow on the prosecution case. 11. On going through the evidence, we find that none of the points which led to the acquittal of the respondents can be assailed satisfactorily so as to dislodge the judgment of acquittal. 12. In view of such, the appeal is dismissed with the reasons aforesaid. Appeal dismissed.