ORAL JUDGMENT Per Dharnidhar Jha, J. This Government appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07. 1991, passed by the learned llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Session Case No.7 of 1985 by which he acquitted the fourteen respondents of various charges, like, that under Sections 147, 148, 447, 326, 307. 323 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was based on the First Information Report of PW 1 Laxman Mandal who stated that on 03.08.1978 at 8 a.m. while the informant along with others. like, PWs 2, 4, 5 etc. was sitting at his kamat, 18 accused persons named in the FIR came there armed with lathi, garasa dabiya, bows and arrows as also 12 pairs of oxen and started tilling the land appertaining to khata No. 871. khesra No. 2079, measuring 1-1/2 bighas also that appertaining to khesra No. 408. measuring 16 kathas and 4 dhurs. The informant along with his father. namely, Udho Mandal (PW 5) and Sant Lal Mandal (PW 2) besides Radho Mandal (PW 9) went on to the field and objected to the tilling of his land upon which respondents Mahabir Mandal carrying a dabiya. Gajadhar Mandal carrying a garasa, Ajo Mian also carrying a garasa and Akin Mian carrying bow and arrows chased PW 1 who entered inside his kamat. All accused persons came chasing and assaulted PW 1 with lathi. It was specifically alleged that PW 1 was assaulted by Israil Mian with lathi and one Most. Genhari Devi (PW 11) was assaulted and injured by Mahabir Mandal and Gajadbar Mandal by blows with dabiya and garasa respectively. PW 11 was also assaulted by Makhan Mandal with Lathi. It was stated that accused Sheo Narayan Chaudhary ordered on which rcsponden1 Mehadi Mian lighted a match stick and set fire to the kamat which was completely gutted. PW 5 Udho Mandal, PW 2 Sant Lal Mandal and PW 9 Radho Mandal were also assaulted by the accused persons with Lathi. Most. Genhari Devi had received injuries on her left scapula, jaw and light foot and at other places by garasa and dabiya. The informant stated that he brought Most. PW 5 Udho Mandal, PW 2 Sant Lal Mandal and PW 9 Radho Mandal were also assaulted by the accused persons with Lathi. Most. Genhari Devi had received injuries on her left scapula, jaw and light foot and at other places by garasa and dabiya. The informant stated that he brought Most. Genhari Devi and other injured to the police station and lodged the FIR The Investigating Officer was not examined but 15 accused persons out of 18 named in the FIR were put on trial and they were acquitted of the charges as just indicated. 3. We have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses who were 13 in number and we find that PW 6 Shankar Mandal did not support the charges while other witnesses supported the prosecution story. What emerges from consideration of the evidence of witnesses like, PWs 1 to 5 and 7 to 1] is that the land which was being tilled by the accused persons had been the subject-matter of dispute between the parties so much so that cases were pending before the appropriate Courts also. There was no decree in favour of either of the sides and it was the bona-fide belief of the parties that they were entitled to possess the land and further in that belief they were litigating between themselves on criminal side of the law also. PW 1 and other witnesses have admitted that there had been criminal cases for loot and harvest of standing crops grown over the disputed land earlier also and cases had been filed by both the sides against each other. What appears from the evidence of PW 3 in• paragraph 7 is that as soon as the accused persons arrived at the disputed field, the informant side who were equally good in number, as may appear from the very number of witnesses, had gone on to the Held to unyoke the oxen and as soon as they attempted to do that there was a free fight between the two sides. PW 3 had stated this fact in paragraph 7 as also that picture emerges from his evidence in paragraphs 17 and 18. PW 4 has admitted the litigation for the properties in paragraph and his evidence also in cross-examination indicates as if there had been a free fight between the parties. PW 3 had stated this fact in paragraph 7 as also that picture emerges from his evidence in paragraphs 17 and 18. PW 4 has admitted the litigation for the properties in paragraph and his evidence also in cross-examination indicates as if there had been a free fight between the parties. However, when it came to PW 7, Jagdish Mandal, he told a different story, as appears from paragraph 5 of his evidence. As per PW 7, it were the prosecution party who had started tilling the land and when the accused persons came and objected to the tilling, there was a free fight. This sequence of the story as narrated by PW 7 is completely contrary to the basic prosecution story. Not only PW 7, yet another witness PW 9 also stated, as may appear from paragraph 6 of his evidence, that the Haseri, i.e., the accused persons came and assembled under a tree and only Sheo Narayan Chaudhary had come to the kamat and the first thing which the Haseri had done was to assault the informant and others which was never the case of the prosecution rather the case of the prosecution was that the accused persons in the form of a Haseri came to the field and started tilling the land which was objected by the informant and his men, upon which there was a free fight between the parties. 4. The evidence of other witnesses also indicates that it was a free fight and the probability which emerges from the evidence is that the accused persons were acting under a bona-fide belief that they had a right to go over the land and as may appear from the evidence of PW 2 in paragraph 4 that the land probably was also in possession of the accused persons. This evidence indicates was if four accused persons were in possession of the land. If this was the evidence indicating that the land-stood in the cultivating possession of the accused persons prior to the date of occurrence, then in our opinion they had a right to till the land and no person had any business to interfere with their tilling of the land. 5. If this was the evidence indicating that the land-stood in the cultivating possession of the accused persons prior to the date of occurrence, then in our opinion they had a right to till the land and no person had any business to interfere with their tilling of the land. 5. It was a simple case of mutual free fight between the parties, as appears from the evidence, and when there is a free fight between the two groups, the law is very dear that there could not be any action in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly as in a case of free fight there is no concept either of an unlawful assembly or persons acting in furtherance of their common intention. Kindly see State of Bihar v. Ishwar Chand Rai & Anr., reported in 2008 (3) E:ast Cr C 16 (Pat) : 2008 (3) PLJR 60 . 6. On perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. what we und is that the learned trial Judge could not be faulted for having acquitted the accused persons of the charges as they could not even be said to have committed trespass because the very definition of the offence of trespass indicates catering unlawfully over others property or remaining over there causing annoyance to the real proprietor of the property. The evidence on record indicates that there was some probability that the accused persons were very much in possession of the property and, as such, that offence was also not made out. 7. After having discussed and considered tile evidence on record, what was find is that the view of the trial Court which was taken in passing the judgment of acquittal is also a probable and reasonable view and as such the judgment of acquittal docs not appear suffering from any perversity. In the result, the Government appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.