JUDGMENT : By way of the present appeal, appellants seek to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2003, passed by Shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Adhoc Dist. & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 1st Addl. Fast Track Court, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 437/95/448/02 by which the appellant- Vishwanath Singh was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the “IPC”) and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and appellants – Yogendra Singh and Munilal Singh stood convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. Prosecution case as narrated by informant – Raghubir Singh (P.W. 4) in short is that on 14.09.91 at about 10. A.M., nephew of the informant, namely, Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) was cleaning sahan in front of his house by uprooting the grass then appellant - Munilal Singh came there armed with Bhala and asked Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) not to remove the grass, this led to wordy altercation between the two and on hearing the hulla informant (P.W. 4) and his brother Mahabir Singh (P.W. 5) came there and asked them not to quarrel. Thereafter other appellants, namely, Yogendra Singh armed with Bhala, Viswanath Singh armed with lathi and co-accused Sheo Sagar Singh armed with bhala came there and appellant – Yogendra Singh assaulted on the head of Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) by bhala and appellant Vishwanath Singh assaulted him by means of lathi. Mahabir Singh (P.W. 5) was assaulted by appellant Vishwanath Singh by lathi and by co-accused Sheo Sagar Singh, by bhala. Appellant Munilal Singh inflicted bhala blow in the abdomen of informant and appellant Yogendra Singh assaulted the informant by lathi. Thereafter the injured persons were brought to the Nautan Hospital. On the basis of the above fardbeyan of informant Nautan P.S. Case No. 49/91 was registered against the appellants. 3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to the file of Shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Adhoc Dist. & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 1st Addl. Fast Track Court, Siwan, for trial and disposal. 4. To prove its charges, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. 3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to the file of Shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Adhoc Dist. & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 1st Addl. Fast Track Court, Siwan, for trial and disposal. 4. To prove its charges, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. They are;- P.W. 1- Nabi Hasan, claims to be an eye witness of the case, P.W. 2 – Uchhai Choudhary, also claims to be an eye witness, P.W. 3 – Faujdar Malik, P.W. 4- Raghubir Singh, (informant), P.W. 5- Mahabir Singh (injured) P.W. 6- Surendra Singh (injured), P.W. 7- Shiv Jatan Prasad, a formal witness, who proved formal F.I.R and the injury report (Ext. 2, 2/1 and 2/2) and P.W. 8- Mathura Sharma, who is also a formal witness, who proved the case diary (Ext. 3). In this case I.O. and doctor have not been examined. Apart from that following documents have been brought on record and marked as : Ext. 1 - Formal F.I.R, Ext. 2, 2/1 and 2/2 – injury reports, Ext. 3 – Case diary and Ext. 4 – fardbeyan. 5. Defence of the accused persons as per trend of cross-examination as well as from statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is of false implication and also that this case is counter blast of Nautan P.S. Case No. 48/91, in which one Sheo Sagar Singh, was killed by the informant side and only to save their skin from that particular case, present case has been lodged. 6. Learned trial after conclusion of trial conviction appellant Viswanath Singh under Section 323 of the IPC and appellants – Yogendra Singh and Munilal Singh under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced them in the manner as stated above. 7. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants that evidence of P.W. 4 (informant) in cross-examination, itself shows that there was a counter case also in which brother of one of the appellants was killed and in that case accused persons been convicted. It has also been admitted by this witness in the very occurrence, simple injuries were sustained by the informant (P.W. 4) and Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) as well as Mahabir Singh (P.W. 5). It has also been admitted by this witness in the very occurrence, simple injuries were sustained by the informant (P.W. 4) and Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) as well as Mahabir Singh (P.W. 5). Further submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that admittedly in this case, there was land dispute between the parties and this case is counter blast of Nautan P.S. Case No. 48/91, in which some of the persons of prosecution side were held guilty under Section 304 of the IPC. It has also been contended that in this case neither I.O. nor doctor has been examined, which has caused great prejudice to the defence and the trial court without considering all these infirmities have convicted the appellants in very mechanical way, which is out and out erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State defended the finding of guilt recorded by learned Trial Court and submitted that there are consistent evidence of witnesses with regard to assault on the injured and their evidence also found corroboration from the injury report and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and conviction of appellants is just and proper. 9. Heard rival contention of the parties. It appears that P.W. -4 is the informant in this case and he has supported the prosecution case with regard to assault on the injured. However, from perusal of evidence of this witness, it appears that he has admitted that there was case and counter case between the parties and for the same occurrence, two cases were filed one by the informant side and another by the appellant’s side and in the said occurrence one of the persons of the appellant’s side had also died and further he had also admitted that the injuries caused to the informant’s side in the said occurrence, were simple in nature. It also appears from the F.I.R that there was hot exchange of words between the parties before the occurrence and, therefore, the trial court has rightly not convicted the appellants under Section 307 or 307/34 of the IPC. It also appears that this is a case of free fight between the parties, in which both sides sustained injuries and one of the persons of the appellant’s side also lost his life. It also appears that this is a case of free fight between the parties, in which both sides sustained injuries and one of the persons of the appellant’s side also lost his life. Evidence of P.W. 4 further shows that he was assaulted by Appellant Munilal Singh in his abdomen by bhala and there is general allegation of assault against the Vishwanath Singh, who assaulted informant and his brother by lathi and from the injury report it appears, that informant (P.W. 4) by the assault from sustained incise wound 1/2” x 1/2” x 1" on the right side of abdomen caused by sharp cutting weapon, which according to informant inflicted by Munilal Singh and the said injury was found to be simple in nature and beside that injury two swellings were found on the person of informant (P.W.4), which according to him was inflicted by appellant Vishwanath Singh. 10. Other injured Mahabir Singh (P.W. 5) has stated that he was assaulted by co-accused Sheo Sagar Singh by bhala and by Vishwanath Singh by lathi and the injuries caused to him were incise would 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/2" on the left s ide of abdoemen, the said injury was purported to be simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. 11. So far injured Surendra Singh (P.W. 6) is concerned, he has stated about assault by Sheo Sagar Singh by bhala on his head and rest assaulted him by lathi and his injury report shows that he sustained wound 2”x ¼”x1 deep on the right side of head caused by sharp cutting weapon and the injury was simple in nature and beside the said injury a swelling was also found on his person. 12. From perusal of evidence of other witnesses, it appears that they are not the eye-witness of the occurrence and in the present case P.W. 4, 5 and 6 are injured themselves and they are the best witness to say about the injuries caused to their person due to assault on them. It also appears from the evidence available on record that co-accused Sheo Sagar Singh has not been made accused in this case as he had sustained injuries on the said occurrence and had died. It also appears from the evidence available on record that co-accused Sheo Sagar Singh has not been made accused in this case as he had sustained injuries on the said occurrence and had died. So far injured Raghubir Singh (P.W. 4) is concerned, he was assaulted by bhala by appellanat Munilal Singh and by Vishwanath Singh by lathi and all the injuries caused to him was superficial and so far injuries caused to other persons are concerned, they were also found to be simple in nature. 13. Considering the entire discussions made above, it appears that there was land dispute between the parties and on the alleged date of occurrence, there was exchange of hot words, which took ugly turn and there was free fight between the parties, in which persons of the prosecution side sustained injuries. Further in this case I.O. has not been examined so as to prove the manner and place of occurrence. It is also an admitted fact that there was case and counter case between the parties with respect to the said occurrence and one person of the appellant’s side also sustained injury and died, which has been admitted by informant (P.W. 4) in his evidence. It is also noticed that all the injuries caused to the informant’s side were found to be simple in nature. In such a situation, possibility cannot be ruled out that prosecution side received injuries in their self defence. Further the case is of the year 1991 and 27 years have elapsed since then and therefore no purpose will be served to sent the appellants to jail to serve the sentences and the appellants certainly deserve the lenient view. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2003, passed by Shri Anant Prasad Srivastava, Adhoc Dist. & Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, 1st Addl. Fast Track Court, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 437/95, 448/02, is set aside. 15. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds.