JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koderma in connection with T.R Case No. 18 of 2009 arising out of Markacho P.S. Case No. 41 of 2003, G.R No. 289 of 2003 whereby and whereunder appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 147/148/323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and further R.I. for two years under Sections 3(iv), 3(v) and 3(xi) of S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as per written report of the informant Arjun Das, PW 7 was that Khata No. 107 Plot No. 2095 and 2193 total area 4.35 decimals was settled to his father late Doman Rabidas and uncle Dhokal Rabidas and others by Anchal Office as Harijan Settlement. The rent receipt has also been issued up till 2003. They reclaimed the land for cultivation. It is further alleged that on 11.6.2003 the informant along with his wife Dulari Devi, brother Duga Das and his wife Rohani Devi and bhabhi Geeta Devi were sowing paddy in the aforesaid land. In the meantime accused Pokhal Mahto armed with sword, Ritu Mahto armed with farsa, Tipan Mahto armed with garasa and other persons armed with lathi, danda came with intention to kill them. Accused Pokhal Mahto gave blow by means of sword upon his left hand causing bleeding injury. Accused Ritu Mahto assaulted to Durga Das and Geeta Devi by means of farsa and they also sustained injury. Accused Tipan Mahto gave Garasa blow upon Rohani Devi and she also sustained Injury. It is further alleged that the accused persons also assaulted the informant and he became unconscious. On hulla the persons who were working near the place of occurrence came then the accused persons fled away by giving threat to the informant to kill them. The accused persons have intention to disposes the informant who are the Harijans. The injured persons were carried to the hospital by the villagers and the informant was brought at police station. 3. On the basis of the written report formal FIR was drawn. Investigation was launched. It concluded, in the charge-sheet, Cognizance was taken. 4. Charges were framed against the appellants and trial was held. The injured persons were carried to the hospital by the villagers and the informant was brought at police station. 3. On the basis of the written report formal FIR was drawn. Investigation was launched. It concluded, in the charge-sheet, Cognizance was taken. 4. Charges were framed against the appellants and trial was held. After the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. Prosecution had examined altogether ten witnesses. PW I Rohini Devi, PW 2 Lakhan Das, PW 3 Geeta Devi, PW 4 Karu Das, PW 5 Dinesh Toppo, PW 6 Shams Tabrez, PW 7 Arjun Das, the informant, PW 8 Dulari Devi, PW 9 Durga Das and PW 10 Shyam Bihari Singh (Formal). 6. The prosecution has also proved Ext. 1, written report, Ext.2, endorsement on the written report, Ext.-3, signature of Dinesh Toppo on the formal FIR, Ext.-4 signature of informant Arjun Das on the written report and Ext-5 to 5/4 injury report of Dulari Devi, Durga Das, Geeta Devi, Arjun Das and Rohani Devi. 7. PW 7 Arjun Das, is the informant of this case deposed that occurrence took place on 11.6.2003 at 7 a.m. He had gone to his field for sowing paddy. The land is situated at village Kadagarh Ambadih. His bhabhi, his wife and both brothers had also gone to his field. At the time Pokhal armed with talwar, Ritu armed with farsa, Tipan armed with garasa came there. Pokhal Mahto assaulted him by sword and he has sustained injury on his left hand and neck. The blood oozed. Ritu assaulted Geeta Devi and Rohini Devi by farsa. They received injury on their head. Tipan assaulted Durga Das by garasa and Durga Das sustained injury, in his leg. Villagers came and they brought the injured to the hospital and lodged the FIR. He put his signature on the Fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.4. In his cross-examination he has also given description of the boundary. He also admitted in this cross-examination that there was land dispute in between the parties prior to the alleged date of occurrence. He has further stated that the judgment of title appeal was passed in his favour. The, land was not settled to the accused persons. Police recorded his statements. Geeta Devi and Durga Das become unconscious. He was not unconscious. 8. PW 1 Rohani Devi deposed that the occurrence took place three years back. He has further stated that the judgment of title appeal was passed in his favour. The, land was not settled to the accused persons. Police recorded his statements. Geeta Devi and Durga Das become unconscious. He was not unconscious. 8. PW 1 Rohani Devi deposed that the occurrence took place three years back. Time was 8 a.m. She was in her field along with Durga Das, Arjun Das, Dulari Devi and Geeta Devi. She was seeding the paddy. The land was settled to them and possession was also with them. At the time of occurrence Ritu Mahto armed with Farsa, Lakhan Mahto armed with sword, Tipan Mahto armed with garasa and rest accused persons armed with Lathi came and started to assault. Ritu Mahto assaulted Durga Das and Geeta Devi by Farsa, Pokhal assaulted Arjun Das by sword and Tipan assaulted her by garasa in her hands. Geeta Devi received injury on her hand and blood was oozing. The accused persons also outraged her modesty and removed the saree. Injured persons were examined at Markacho hospital. This witness has identified the accused persons present in the doc. In her cross-examination she has denied about any title suit pending in between the accused persons and the informant. She has further deposed that the occurrence took place up to 5/6 minutes. 9. PW 8 Dulari Devi deposed that the occurrence took place three and half years back. Time was 7 a.m. She was in her field. Her gotani Geeta Devi, Rohani Devi and her devar, bhaisur and husband were also at the field. Her husband was ploughing the land and Bhaisur was sowing the paddy. They were sprinkling dung in the field. In the meantime Pokhal Mahto, Ritu Mahto and Tipan Mahto and three unknown persons came there. Pokhal Mahto was armed with sword, Ritu was armed with farsa and Tipan was armed with garasa. They came and assaulted them and also abused in filthy language such as Chamar. Ritu Mahto assaulted her husband by Farsa and also assaulted her gotani. The accused persons assaulted her by lathi. Her gotani received injury on her hand, leg and head. The accused persons have assaulted them with intention to kill them. The injury requisition was issued by the police and they were medically examined. She further deposed that the land was in the name of her father-in-law and the rent receipt were being issued. Her gotani received injury on her hand, leg and head. The accused persons have assaulted them with intention to kill them. The injury requisition was issued by the police and they were medically examined. She further deposed that the land was in the name of her father-in-law and the rent receipt were being issued. 10. PW 9 Durga Das deposed that the occurrence took place on 11.6.2003. Time was 7 a.m. He was in his field. His brother Arjun Das, Geeta Devi, Rohani Devi and Dulari Devi were also at the field. They had gone to sow the paddy in the field. Arjun Das was ploughing the field and ladies were sprinkling dung. In the meantime, Pokhal Mahto, Tipan Mahto and Ritu Mahto and some unknown persons came there. They were armed with sword, bhala and Farsa. They assaulted them. Pokhal assaulted him with sword and also assaulted the ladies. He received injury on his right hand and the blood oozed out. He further stated that Government had settled the land to them in the year 1970-71. The land was settled to Doman Das and Dhokal Das. The area of the land was 4.35 acres. The khatas No. is 107. The rent receipts were being issued. The accused persons have no concern with the said land. The accused persons wanted to evict them. They are Harijans and accused persons are Mahto by caste. 11. PW 3 Geeta Devi deposed that occurrence took place on 11.6.2003 at 7 a.m. She had gone to her field. Arjun Das, Durga Das, Rohani Devi and Dulari Devi were also present at the place of occurrence. They were ploughing the land. In the meantime, Ritu Das, Tipan Mahto, Pokhal Mahto and 2 to 4 unknown persons came there and started abusing them and also threatened to kill them. Accused Pokhal Mahto assaulted to Durga Das by sword and Durga Das received injury on his leg. Tipan Mahto assaulted Arvind Das by farsa on his neck and Arvind Das received injury. Tipan Mahto and Ritu also assaulted him by farsa and she received injury on his left hand. She also received injury of farsa on chest and head and blood was oozing. They were medically examined at Markacho hospital and Koderma hospital. The land belonged to them and she said land was settled by Government to her father-in-law. Tipan Mahto and Ritu also assaulted him by farsa and she received injury on his left hand. She also received injury of farsa on chest and head and blood was oozing. They were medically examined at Markacho hospital and Koderma hospital. The land belonged to them and she said land was settled by Government to her father-in-law. The accused persons were claiming the lands and due to that they assaulted them. She had also admitted in her cross-examination that there was land dispute in between the parties. Police had also recorded her statement. 12. PW 2 Lakhan Das deposed that the occurrence took place on 11.6.2003 at 7/8 a.m. He was at his house. He heard hulla and went to the place of occurrence. He saw, that the accused persons were assaulting Durga Das, Arjun Das, Geeta Devi and Rohani Devi. They had gone to sow the paddy. Pokhal, Ritu, Tipan assaulted them. The land was settled to them by Anchal. The khata No. is 107, Plot No. 2095, 2193 area 4.35 acres. The injured persons came to the house and thereafter went to the hospital. In his cross-examination he admitted that there is no land dispute with regard to the suit property and T.S. No. 179 of 1992 is going on in between the parties. Police had also recorded his statement. 13. PW 4 Karu Das deposed that occurrence took place on 11.6.2003 at 7 a.m. He was at his house. He heard hulla and went to the field. Durga Das, Arjun Das, Rohani Devi and Geeta Devi were at the place of occurrence. They were sowing the paddy. He saw that accused Pokhal, Ritu and Tipan assaulted the ladies and men and they had fallen on the field. Pokhal Mahto assaulted his brother by sword and Ritu assaulted by farsa. Tipan Mahto assaulted with garasa. The accused persons also assaulted Geeta Devi by sword and she had received injury on her chest and hands. Durga Das had received injury caused by sword on his hand. Tipan Mahto also assaulted to them with lathi Ritu Mahto also assaulted Rohani Devi. Lakhan Das witnessed the occurrence. Due to land dispute the accused persons assaulted them. He further deposed that they were possessing the land since 1977/78 and the total area of the land is 4.35 acres. The injured persons were brought to police station. Tipan Mahto also assaulted to them with lathi Ritu Mahto also assaulted Rohani Devi. Lakhan Das witnessed the occurrence. Due to land dispute the accused persons assaulted them. He further deposed that they were possessing the land since 1977/78 and the total area of the land is 4.35 acres. The injured persons were brought to police station. He had admitted that prior to the alleged date of occurrence there was land dispute in between the parties. 14. PW 10, Shyam Bihari Singh is the pharmacist of Primary Health Centre, Markacho. On 11.6.2003 he was posted at Markacho PHC. He deposed that these five injury reports relating to the injured Dulari Devi, Durga Das, Geeta Devi, Arjun Das and Rohini Devi are in the writing and signature of Dr. Arjun Prasad of PHC, Markacho which were marked Ext. 5 to 5/4. In his cross-examination he had further stated that Dr. Atjun Prasad was posted until 2006 at PHC, Markacho. He clearly stated that these injury report were prepared in his presence. 15. PW 5 Dinesh Toppo is the I.O of this case, he deposed that on 11.6.2003 he was posted at Markacho Police Station as Officer-in-Charge. On the basis of the written report of Arjun Das, Markacho P.S. case No. 41/03 was registered on 11.6.2003 under Sections 341/323/324/307/354/501, IPC and Section 3(iv), (v), (xi) and Section 4 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. He took up investigation. He prepared injury slip of the injured persons and sent them to the Primary Health Centre, Markacho. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Karu Das. The place of occurrence is the field of informant situated at Ambadih known as Kanhagadha Bariar. He found that the land was ploughed and he has also found the paddy seed was planted in the field. The witnesses told him that the occurrence took place on the said field. The witnesses also told him that the land was given to the accused persons by settlement. He further deposed that he came to hospital and recorded the re-statement of Arjun Das. He also recorded the statement of Durga Das, Rohani Devi, Geeta Devi and Dulari Devi. On the next day he recorded the statement of Karu Das. He has also received the injury report and the same was entered in the case diary. On 13.8.2003 he handed over the investigation to S.D.P.O. Mr. He also recorded the statement of Durga Das, Rohani Devi, Geeta Devi and Dulari Devi. On the next day he recorded the statement of Karu Das. He has also received the injury report and the same was entered in the case diary. On 13.8.2003 he handed over the investigation to S.D.P.O. Mr. Samsh Tabrez who submitted charge-sheet. He proved the written report which was marked Ext.1 and also proved the endorsement on the written report which was marked as Ext. 2. He also proved the formal FIR which was marked as Ext. 3. 16. PW 6 Samsh Tabrez is the police officer who had further investigated the case. He submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 354, IPC and Section 3(iv), (v) and (xi) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but none of these conviction are tenable. Learned counsel claimed that the allegations under the SC/ST Act fails due to major procedural default in investigation. The allegations under Sections 147 and 148, IPC are not made out in law, the allegation of sexual molestation/assault under Section 354, IPC does not stand scrutiny under evidence, and that even Section 323, IPC allegations are not proved. 18. First and foremost regarding allegation under the SC/ST Act appellants counsel argued that Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 reads as follows : "7. Investigating Officer.-(l) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right times within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution the officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the, position of all investigations done by the investigating officer." Appellants' counsel then argued that this rule instructs that. (i) a D.S.P. Level Officer shall investigate and in the shortest possible time and (ii) shall submit the report within thirty days. Appellants' counsel says the investigation was not done by a DSP as per deposition of PW 7 Dinesh Topppo who had deposed that he took up the investigation on his own. In paragraph 6 he said he gave the charge of the investigation on 13.8.2003 to Samsh Tabrez. Counsel for the appellants then referred to the evidence of PW 6, Shams Tabrez, police officer who admitted that the investigation was almost complete. In para 5 he deposed that all the prosecution witnesses had already been examined by the earlier Investigating Officer and he did not record statement of any witness. PW 6 also deposed that he did not inspect the place of occurrence, did not seize any article from anyone, and did not ask for any documents pertaining to land. Finally in para 9 he deposed that he merely submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of the investigation by the earlier I.O. Counsel for the appellants thus said that on the basis of the evidence of PW 5. PW 6 it is clear and evident that the DSP had no role in investigation that the SI or PW 5 had already done the investigation. Hence, Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. 1995 is vitiated and therefore, the offences under Section 3(iv), (v) and (xi) of the Act will not survive. He has relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Nand Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar reported in (2001)2 PLJR 127 . 19. Appellant's counsel has also argued that the offences under Sections 147 and 148. 1995 is vitiated and therefore, the offences under Section 3(iv), (v) and (xi) of the Act will not survive. He has relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Nand Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar reported in (2001)2 PLJR 127 . 19. Appellant's counsel has also argued that the offences under Sections 147 and 148. IPC are not made out from a plain reading of these two sections which reads as under : "147. Punishment for rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine. or with both. 148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.-Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Learned counsel has then referred to Section 141, IPC which defines "unlawful assembly" as consisting of five or more persons. Admittedly. there were only three persons who were present in the place of occurrence. Therefore, offence under Section 148, IPC will not survive. Counsel has further argued that Section 148. IPC also instructs that there must be five or more persons with this unlawful assembly with deadly weapon. No such weapon has been seized and exhibited, hence, on this count also the allegations under Section 148, IPC fails. Counsel for the appellants had then argued that no offence is also made out under Section 354, IPC. He had argued that this is a sheer concoction. Counsel had argued that in the FIR or written report there is no reference to any assault being made that is of a sexual nature. Subsequently, out of the many prosecution witness, only one witness, PW 1 Rohini Devi has referred to such an assault and that also of her sari being pulled. If there was any assault of a sexual nature, all the witnesses, would have deposed about it, particularly, those who were at the place of occurrence. Offence of sexual nature are not taken very lightly and offence pertaining to Section 354, IPC would have been constantly repeated by all the related witnesses or by those present at the place of occurrence. Offence of sexual nature are not taken very lightly and offence pertaining to Section 354, IPC would have been constantly repeated by all the related witnesses or by those present at the place of occurrence. Even so, there is only reference to sari being pulled, and though not admitting it, there is no sexual intent involved and may have been pulled in the scuffle arising to land claimed by both sides. Therefore, on these grounds, appellants' counsel had said Section 354, IPC is not made out. As far as Section 3(xi) is concerned, counsel said on the basis of the arguments made earlier with reference to SC/ST Act, this section is not applicable or does not survive. He has also referred to a judgment passed in the case of Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 215 at para 10 which reads as under : "10. Intention is not the sole criteria of the offence punishable under Section 354, IPC and it can be committed by a person assaulting or using criminal force to any woman, if he knows that by such act the modesty of the woman is likely to be affected. Knowledge and intention are essentially things of the mind and cannot be demonstrated like physical objects. The existence of intention or knowledge has to be culled out from various circumstances in which and upon whom the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed. A victim of molestation and indignation is in the same position as an injured witness and her witness should receive same weight. In the Instant case after careful consideration of the evidence, the trial Court and the High Court have found the accused guilty. As rightly observed by the Courts below Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act which deals with assaults or use of force on any woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to or dishonour or outrage her modesty is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 354, IPC. The only difference between Section 3(l)(xi) and Section 354 is essentially the caste or the tribe to which the victim belongs. If she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Section 3(1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in Section 3(1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also made an offence. Section 448 provides for punishment relating to house trespass. The only difference between Section 3(l)(xi) and Section 354 is essentially the caste or the tribe to which the victim belongs. If she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, Section 3(1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in Section 3(1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also made an offence. Section 448 provides for punishment relating to house trespass. In order to sustain the conviction under Section 448, IPC. It must be found that the intention of the accused was to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. There must be unlawful entry and there must be proof of one or other of the intentions mentioned in Section 441, IPC. In the case at hand evidence clearly establishes the commission of offence punishable under Section 448." 20. Appellants counsel then finally argued that only Section 323, IPC remains and that on the basis of the arguments made so far, even this section does not survive. He had also claimed that there was a dispute between the parties to the land in question and this is the basis for the allegations made under Section 323, IPC. He had further submitted that in the FIR it has come that it was a disputed plot. He had referred to the evidence of PW 7 Arjun Das, the informant and said that in para 10 this witness had said dispute is over 30 years old, and that by Title Appeal documents referred as Ext.X series the appellants had won the case. That PW 9 Durga Das brother of the informant, had also in para 10 of his deposition said that the accused had instituted 4 or 5 cases against them. Then, PW 3 Geeta Devi admitted the dispute in paras 10 and 11 of her evidence. PW 8 Dulari Devi wife of informant had also mentioned the 30-35 years dispute in her evidence. This long festering dispute is claimed by the appellants to be reason for all the allegations including under Section 323. IPC and therefore. it does not deserve to be upheld. Regarding the evidence of PW 10 Shyam Bihari Singh learned counsel had said that he is not the author of the medical or injury report and unless the doctor is examined who prepared the injury report, this injury report needs to be brushed aside. 21. IPC and therefore. it does not deserve to be upheld. Regarding the evidence of PW 10 Shyam Bihari Singh learned counsel had said that he is not the author of the medical or injury report and unless the doctor is examined who prepared the injury report, this injury report needs to be brushed aside. 21. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand had argued that the informant and his family were already working on the land in question when they were attacked by the appellants, who tried to provoke them. Counsel has also argued that in 1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 1950 was passed, and certain 50-57 persons having land have settled the same in their favour. He has also submitted that PW 6 had submitted the charge-sheet. Moreover the cognizance order and framed charges were never challenged. In such situation. merely because PW 5 the I.O. who was an S.I. had conducted the investigation, this technical fault should not become an obstacle for the conviction of the accused. He has also submitted that according to the FIR, there were three ladies and two men who were already present at the place of occurrence when the assault commenced. PW 7 Arjun Das the informant, PW 9 Durga Das, brother of informant, PW 3 Geeta Devi, PW 1 Rohini Devi and PW 8 Dulari Devi, wife of informant and they were all assaulted. Ext. 5 to 5/4 is the injury or medical report of the doctor and the handwriting on the same was recognized by PW 10 who is the pharmacist who works with the concerned doctor and it was most natural for him to identify the handwriting. He is a natural and reliable witness. The injured witnesses are also trustworthy and reliable. Finally he submitted motive was clearly there. Dispute may cut both ways, but in this instance the attacking or assaulting aspect was the dominant and powerful part. The informant's side belongs to weaker sections or from the SC/ST community and assault from their side is unbelievable. Moreover, they were already working on the land when they were assaulted by the appellants. He concluded that the appellants escaped conviction under Section 307, IPC but conviction under Section 323, IPC must be sustained. Findings : 22. The informant's side belongs to weaker sections or from the SC/ST community and assault from their side is unbelievable. Moreover, they were already working on the land when they were assaulted by the appellants. He concluded that the appellants escaped conviction under Section 307, IPC but conviction under Section 323, IPC must be sustained. Findings : 22. Having heard both counsels having gone through the records of the ease and evidences available and in the facts and circumstances the following is concluded : Regarding offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the argument of the counsel for the appellant does carry weight, particularly in the light of the judgment he has cited. For the lack of investigation by D.S.P. he has also relied on Nand Kumar Sinha (Supra). Hence, the allegations under Section SC/ST Act are not sustainable and not upheld. 23. Regarding offence under Sections 147 and 148, IPC from the weight of evidences available, there were only three assailants, hence, no unlawful assembly, and no weapon of assault was seized or exhibited. Hence, both the Sections 147 and 148, IPC are also not upheld. The offence of sexual assault has not been mentioned in the FIR/written report, it seems to be an afterthought in the evidence of PW 1. In spite of the alleged offence being sexual in nature no other witness has mentioned it, not even the family witnesses. Hence, Section 354, IPC is also not upheld. So far as Section 323, IPC is concerned, counsel for the appellants has not been able to disprove the charge. He has only argued regarding inconsistencies in who assaulted whom with what and who was injured and by what weapon, in the last moment these inconsistencies are minor. The assault itself seems to have taken place. All the injured witnesses have been consistent in their evidence about the assault by the appellants and the injury report exhibits 5 to 5/4 proves the ocular version. The evidence of the pharmacist who works along with doctor, and in this case has recognized the hand writing of the doctor cannot be easily brushed aside. Therefore, based on the aforesaid reasonings the appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections 3(iv), (v) and (xi) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 147, 148 IPC and Section 354 IPC. Therefore, based on the aforesaid reasonings the appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections 3(iv), (v) and (xi) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 147, 148 IPC and Section 354 IPC. The judgment of conviction dated 15th December, 2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koderma with regard to Section 323, IPC is hereby upheld, so far as sentence is concerned, the period already undergone by them will suffice. However, as they have caused injuries to the informant and his family, a compensation of consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid to the informant's side within a period of three months, failing which, the appellants will undergo S.I. for three months. 24. Accordingly, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal is partially allowed. Appeal partly allowed.