DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment dated 19.03.1991 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No.186 of 1988 by which he has convicted two accused persons, namely, Chandrika Sharma and Kapildeo Sharma under Sections 302 IPC but acquitted the Respondents for the charges under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 148 and 379 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Udaykant Bishwas is that he and his father deceased Rajnikant Bishwas were going to plough the land on the evening of 05.04.1987. While they were passing through the land of Rajendra Prasad Sutihar (Respondent no.13) some twenty accused persons variously armed came towards them. His father tried to defend himself by firing with his gun but he was assaulted on account of which he died and the Informant also sustained injury. Some witnesses were also injured in this transaction. 3. During trial the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses out of whom P.Ws.3 ,4 and 12 are the doctors who have either examined the injured persons or conducted the Post Mortem on the two dead bodies. P.Ws.9 and 10 and also P.W.7 are formal witnesses being the witness on the point of inquest and seizure list respectively. P.Ws.1,2,5,6,7,8,9 and 11 are the material witnesses. The informant himself died before beginning of the trial and hence the learned Trial Court accepted the First Information Report under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. 4. The defence of the accused persons was that in fact the occurrence had taken place in another manner whereby the lands of the Respondents was being forcibly ploughed by tractor by the Informant at which they along with brother Chandrika Sharma went to protest. Chandrika Sharma was fired at by Rajnikant Biswas on account of which he died. Several other persons also sustained injuries in this occurrence. A separate case was instituted earlier in time and a separate trial proceeded vide Sessions Trial No.171 of 1988. Four witnesses were also examined in the present case to prove the factum of counter version as also the injuries sustained by the injured and the death of Chandrika Sharma by bringing the Post Mortem Examination Report. 5. After going through the evidence on record of the material witnesses one finds that there was a counter version of the occurrence even which is was well testified by the Defence Witnesses whose evidence is worth reliance. 5. After going through the evidence on record of the material witnesses one finds that there was a counter version of the occurrence even which is was well testified by the Defence Witnesses whose evidence is worth reliance. Also the circumstances of the counter case was well supported by documentary as well as independent witnesses. We also find that the witnesses have exonerated the main accused. Even though the defence had pleaded right of private defence the Court below rejected the same for cogent reasons but accepted the factum of a free fight between the parties, hence no offence under Section 149 Indian Penal Code would be made out. 6. In the context of the evidence of the witnesses, it is an undeniable fact that the manner of occurrence had not taken place as the prosecution had projected it. 7. Further there is cogent evidence to prove that a free fight had taken place in which circumstances it was also essential that the witnesses come out with specific allegations against each of the Respondents, in circumstances when charge under Section 149 IPC was not sustainable. The prosecution not having done so, there is no reason for interference with the judgment of acquittal. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ?