JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. This revision application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 18.3.2015 in Cr.App.No.44 of 2012 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar by which he has acquitted the appellants under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code but upheld the conviction under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He, further by the impugned order, modified the sentence and gave benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused and they were directed to execute probation bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each . 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submits that since from the evidence led before the trial court in G.R. No.237 of 2003, the prosecution has failed to prove the case, these petitioners should have been acquitted for the offence under Section 323 or 341 of the Indian Penal Code also, thus, not only the judgment passed in Cr. App. No.44 of 2012 is bad but also the judgment of conviction passed in G.R.No.237 of 2003 is bad and has to be set aside and the petitioners should have been acquitted. 3. A FIR was instituted by one Sunil Kumar Mandal, inter alia, alleging therein that he was taken in adoption by his maternal grandmother as she did not have any son. He further stated that on 9.5.2003 at about 12.00, hours when he was in his house, he came to know that Kamdeo Mandal, Hari Mandal, Bhola Mandal and Ganju Mandal have entered upon his land and have started making some construction. He on receiving the said information, reached the place of occurrence and saw all these persons armed with sharp tools and sticks. On protest, the accused persons abused and assaulted him. The informant raised alarm, as a result of which, his brother, Arjun Mandal reached to his rescue but he was also assaulted by the accused. 4. On the basis of the statement given to the police, a FIR being Palajori P.S. case no.48 of 2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against these three petitioners and one Ganju Mandal. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons, for committing offence under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons, for committing offence under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate on 3.6.2003 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504/3 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons were put on trial. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and documentary evidence is also produced to prove the case. The defence examined one witness and also produced documents in support of their claims. 6. After closure of the evidence, the accused persons were examined under the provision of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all of them denied their involvement in the occurrence. 7. Learned Trial court, on evidence led by the parties, convicted them for committing offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that the sentences are to run concurrently. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Deoghar which was heard and disposed of by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, vide order dated 18.3.2015, which is under challenge in this revision application. 9. The learned Additional Judge after going through the entire record and weighing the evidences adduced by the parties had come to conclusion that conviction of the petitioners under Section 504 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside but upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower appellate court taking into consideration that there is genuine land dispute between the parties and the accused have no criminal antecedent has given them the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the petitioners to execute the bond of Rs.10,000/-for a period of one year. 10. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have filed the instant revision application. 11. 10. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have filed the instant revision application. 11. As indicated earlier that the limited case of the petitioners is that even from the impugned order and the materials available on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, these petitioners should have been acquitted. 12. I have gone through the entire record of the case. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have entered upon the land which was being possessed by the informant and on protest, they have assaulted the informant and his brother. The lower appellate court has acquitted the petitioners for the charge under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code but has upheld the conviction under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint has been defined under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: 14. Wrongful restraint-Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. 15. Explanation-The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence with the meaning of this section. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that on getting information that the petitioners have entered upon the land of the informant and started making some construction. The informant went at the place of occurrence where he was assaulted. In evidence it has come that his brother namely, Arjun Mandal went to save him but he was also assaulted. The witnesses supported the prosecution case and stated that they have seen that the accused persons are assaulting the informant. None of the witnesses have never said that the informant was prevented by these petitioners from proceeding in any direction in which the informant had right to proceed. 17. Thus, from the evidence led by the parties, I find that ingredient of Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code is missing in the instant case. None of the witnesses have never said that the informant was prevented by these petitioners from proceeding in any direction in which the informant had right to proceed. 17. Thus, from the evidence led by the parties, I find that ingredient of Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code is missing in the instant case. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 341 is bad and is liable to be set aside as the same is against any evidence on record. 18. So far as the conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, I find that there is consistent evidence on behalf of the prosecution to prove that the informant and his brother were assaulted by these petitioners. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of the informant's witnesses on the factum of the assault by these petitioners. I find that the conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 19. So far as the sentence is concerned, the lower appellate court has taken into consideration that there is a civil case and genuine land dispute is going on between the parties and thus, have extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners. I find no illegality in the process of sentencing and the sentence also. 20. Thus, in the cumulative effect of what has been discussed above, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, but, the conviction of the accused under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The sentence awarded by the lower appellant court is also upheld. This revision application stands partly allowed. The lower court records of G.R.No.237 of 2003, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Madhupur at Deoghar arising out of Palajori P.S. case no.48 of 2003 be transmitted to the court concerned at the earliest.