JUDGMENT Ratnaker Bhengra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the state. 2. As per report received appellant No.7 Gopi Nath Mandal and appellant No.9 Chhoten Pujahar died. Hence, their appeal stands abated. 3. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2001 whereby, the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence under sections 148, 323/149,325/149,326/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months u/s 326/149 IPC, R.I. for 4 years u/s 325/149 IPC, R.I. for 1 year U/s 323/149 IPC and R.I. for 2 years u/s 148 IPC. It was further ordered that 60% of fine deposited shall go to the Gulam Mandal (informant) and Jeevlal Mandal (injured). All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case as per written report of the informant Gulam Mandal PW-5 dated 23.9.2000 is that a case in respect of J.B. No. 16 plot No. 33 having an area of 7 acres 64 decimals was allowed in favour of the informant by the Court of LRDC. On the date of occurrence i.e. 23.9.2000 at 7:00 O''clock in the morning the informant along with his family members and few others was ploughing the said field with bullock in the meantime all the accused persons thirteen in numbers variously armed with lathi, danda, iron rod and bow came to the said field and they abused the informant and others and on protest they assaulted the informant and one Jeevlal Mandal by lahti, rod and bow causing injury to them resulting in a fracture on the right leg of the informant. 5. On the basis of the written report Jasidih P.S. Case No.162 of 2000 was registered and investigation was taken up. After the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against above noted accused appellants. Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused under section 147/148/323/149, 307/149, 504/149 IPC which they denied the charges. After the trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. After the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against above noted accused appellants. Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused under section 147/148/323/149, 307/149, 504/149 IPC which they denied the charges. After the trial, accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. In support of its case ,prosecution had examined altogether nine witnesses and exhibited certain documents i.e. Ext.1 to 12. Defence side also exhibited certain documents i.e. Ext A to Ext. G. 7. Pw-5 Gulam Mandal, the informant stated that he was ploughing his field at plot No. 33, meanwhile all above noted accused persons came there and started abusing them and on protest accused Parmeshwar Mandal assaulted this witness by rod on his right leg causing fracture of leg, accused Gopi Nath Mandal assaulted Jeev Lal Mandal by arrow below his eye causing disfiguration of his face. On hulla, witnesses came there and saved them. During his evidence he had proved his signature in his written report marked as Ext. 1. 8. Pw-9, Jeev Lal Mandal, injured stated that at the time of occurrence he was ploughing plot No. 33 field along with others, meanwhile all above noted accused persons came there and told to stop ploughing the field and on protest all accused persons started assaulting them. Accused Parmeshwar Mandal assaulted Gulam Mandal by rod on his leg causing fracture to it. Accused Gopi nath Mandal assaulted this witness by arrow causing injury below his right eye. 9. P.W.1, Jiv Lal Mandal stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7-8 O''clock in the morning informant was ploughing the plot No. 33. In the meantime, all above noted accused persons armed with lathi, bricks, bow-arrow came there and told the informant to stop ploughing the field and on protest they assaulted informant and Jeev Lal Mandal. 10. P.W.2, Kishan Mandal stated that at the time of occurrence he was working in his field along with others. In the meantime, all above noted accused persons armed with lathi, danda and arrow came there and started abusing them. Accused Parameshwar assaulted Gulam Mandal by lathi on his leg and accused Gopi Nath assaulted Jeev Lal Mandal by arrow near his eye. 11. In the meantime, all above noted accused persons armed with lathi, danda and arrow came there and started abusing them. Accused Parameshwar assaulted Gulam Mandal by lathi on his leg and accused Gopi Nath assaulted Jeev Lal Mandal by arrow near his eye. 11. P.W.-6 Dr.Akhilesh Paratap Singh examined the injured Jeev Lal Mandal PW-9 and found the following injuries on his person:- (i) "Incised wound 1 " x " x muscles deep on right side of face near nose. (ii) Bruise 2" x 1" on front surface of right leg 6" below knee, reddish in colour. Nature: Injury No.1 grievous with permanent disfiguration of face. Injury no.2 simple. Cause of injury: Injury No.1 might has been caused by sharp cutting substance. Injury No.2 might has been caused by hard and blunt substance e.g. lathi. Further PW-6 examined the injured informant PW-5 Gulam Mandal and found following injuries on his person:- (i) Lacerated wound 1 "x "x bone deep on inner side of right leg. X-ray was done on 24.9.2000 which shows fracture of shafts of both bones of the right leg. Nature of injury: Injury no.1 is grievous in nature. Cause of injury:- Injury may be caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi." During his evidence he has proved injury reports of both the injured as Ext.2 and 2/1. 12. P.W.-7, Nitya Nand Kumar is the investigating officer of the case. In course of his evidence he has fully supported the place of occurrence and in the course of investigation he has recorded the statements of all concerned witnesses in the case diary. During his evidence he proved registration of the written-report of the informant as Ext.3, formal FIR as Ext.4, police requisition of the injured as ext.5 and 5/1. 13. P.W.-8, Chatra Dhari Mahto stated that he was ploughing the plot No.33 along with others. In the meantime, all above noted accused persons came there and told to stop ploughing. On protest accused Parmeshwar assaulted Gulam by rod and Gopi Nath Mandal assaulted Jiv Lal MAndal by arrow. On hulla, witnesses came there and saved them. This witness has proved the occurrence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:- 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Jeevlal Mandal has been examined as PW-1. On protest accused Parmeshwar assaulted Gulam by rod and Gopi Nath Mandal assaulted Jiv Lal MAndal by arrow. On hulla, witnesses came there and saved them. This witness has proved the occurrence. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:- 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Jeevlal Mandal has been examined as PW-1. This witness in paragraph no.2 of his crossexamination admitted that he had no knowledge regarding the nature of the land and also admitted that the appellants are raiyats of the said Jamawandi. This witness also admitted that on the said land a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. had been initiated. In para 3 of his cross-examination he further admitted that how much land is being claimed by him or his father he has no knowledge regarding the same nor has he any knowledge regarding the claim made by his uncle nor is he able to give the schedule and description of the land. He also admitted that he had no knowledge that a part of the land had been captured by Pujahars who are co-villagers. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination this witness admitted that there was assault from both the sides. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that Kishan Mandal, PW-2 said in his cross-examination at paragraph no.2 that the appellants have also filed a counter case against them. In paragraph no.3 of his cross-examination this witness admitted that the field was ploughed by the appellants and this is a contradictory statement from the FIR because as per the FIR the prosecution case is that while they were ploughing the field the appellants came. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that Sona Lal Das, PW-3 deposed that they were abused but none of them have got any injury.This witness has further stated that the alleged land was being used for ingress and egress by the villagers and the land was under the possession of the appellant no.9 Chhoten Pujahar and also admitted that the appellant no.1 Paremeshwar Mandal had also filed a criminal case against them. This witness also stated that Parmeshwar Mandal was also injured and was admitted in the hospital for fifteen days. Learned counsel further submitted that Narayan Mandal, PW-4 supported the prosecution case during his examination-in-chief. This witness also stated that Parmeshwar Mandal was also injured and was admitted in the hospital for fifteen days. Learned counsel further submitted that Narayan Mandal, PW-4 supported the prosecution case during his examination-in-chief. But in paragraph no.2 of his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he had not stated before the police that Gopi Nath Mandal had assaulted by arrow and Parmeshwar Mandal had assaulted by iron rod. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that Gulam Mandal(informant), PW-5 in his examination in chief stated that Parameshwar Mandal assaulted him with iron rod on his right leg causing fracture injury and when Jeevlal Mandal came to his rescue then Gopi Nath Mandal assaulted him with arrow on his face, just below the eye causing bleeding injury. But during cross-examination this witness admitted that a criminal case was instituted for the same occurrence by Parameshwar Mandal. This witness admitted that the appellants are claiming the land since long, much prior to the date of occurrence. In paragraph no.3 of his cross-examination he stated that after half an hour of assault the villagers came there. 18. Nitya Nand Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector was examined as PW-7. This witness admitted that the land is a Government land upon which all villagers are using the land for their ingress and egress and later on the settlement has been made in favour of informants. During cross-examination this witness admitted the institution of Jasidih P.S. case no. 162 of 2000 and 163 of 2000 and also admitted that he had filed charge sheet in Jasidih P.S. case No. 163 of 2000. In paragraph no.4 of his cross-examination this witness stated that in the written report the informant had not stated that who assaulted whom through what means and also in the reinstatement of the informant the allegation of assault attributed to the specific appellant was not given. 19. Chhatra Dhari Mahato PW-8 in his cross-examination stated that the land had not been under possession of Pujahars which is contradictory from the other prosecution witnesses. He further stated that the appellants were not claiming the land. In paragraph no.3 of his cross-examination this witness revealed a description of the place of occurrence which is different as reported and stated by other prosecution witnesses. In paragraph no.4, this witness has stated that Gulam Mandal is telling lie but they are in good terms. 20. He further stated that the appellants were not claiming the land. In paragraph no.3 of his cross-examination this witness revealed a description of the place of occurrence which is different as reported and stated by other prosecution witnesses. In paragraph no.4, this witness has stated that Gulam Mandal is telling lie but they are in good terms. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants also cited the case of State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (dead) and others reported in , (2003) 9 SCC 426 and referred to Para 17 to 19 to buttress his case. 21. Lastly counsel for the appellant argued that it is a case of the year 2000 and the appellants have faced much rigours and vigours of trial. Therefore, some consideration may be allowed while passing the judgment. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:- 22. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has argued out this case at length and submitted that this is a clear cut case of assault being made by the appellants on the land on which the informant''s side were ploughing and cultivating. He argued that first and foremost the case in hand i.e. Jasidih P.S. case no. 162 of 2000 is the case which is being considered. It is unfortunate that the counter or cross case was not tried together at the trial stage whereby better appreciation of the evidences could have been done and the Single Judge could have conclude the case. Since we do not have such advantage we have to decide the case on the basis of the material before us i.e. Jasidih P.S. case No. 162 of 2000 in the context of the impugned order before us. The only information regarding the other counter case was the FIR of the counter case at the stage of trial and based on that the present case cannot be decided. That apart from the evidences of this case on hand, also it seems that the appellants do not have a good case even if the counter case was taken into consideration. That apart from the evidences of this case on hand, also it seems that the appellants do not have a good case even if the counter case was taken into consideration. Counsel had pointed out that the case has got two reliable witnesses i.e PW-5 and PW-9 both of them have been assaulted by the appellant and they sustained injures which were proved by PW-6 who is Dr.Akhilelsh Prasad Singh who had given opinion that both of them received grievous injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon or hard and blunt substance. Therefore counsel said that ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, the evidence of injured witnesses are fully reliable and trustworthy and in the case in hand no reason is seen why the evidences of injured witnesses should not be believed. He has also argued that it is the consistent evidence of almost all the witnesses i.e. PW-1,PW- 2,PW-4,PW-5,PW-8 and PW-9 that it was the informant''s side who were ploughing the plot no. 33 and then appellant side came and assaulted them. In the light of such consistent evidence it is not possible to believe that the informant''s side were the aggressor. Even from the evidence of I.O. PW-7 who investigated the place of occurrence and deposed that it was plot no.33 and bandobasti was made in favour of the informant side. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel for the State submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is fit to be fully sustained. FINDINGS: 23. Having heard both counsels having gone through the records of the case and the evidences and in the facts and circumstances I find that at the trial stage, the prosecution had brought on record Ext.8 which is a copy of the order dated 10.10.1991 in Revenue Misc. Case no.46 of 1985-86 in Bhim Hazra Vs. Chintamani Mandal in which the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar concluded that after considering the aforesaid facts it has reached to the conclusion that the concerned Bandobasti should not be cancelled and it would be inappropriate and unconstitutional to do so. Accordingly the proposal of the Circle Officer, Deoghar to cancel the bandobasti was rejected. Chintamani Mandal in which the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar concluded that after considering the aforesaid facts it has reached to the conclusion that the concerned Bandobasti should not be cancelled and it would be inappropriate and unconstitutional to do so. Accordingly the proposal of the Circle Officer, Deoghar to cancel the bandobasti was rejected. Ext.7 which was the order dated 15.12.1993 in Rent Fixation Case No. 6/93-94 in which Nima Mandal was the petitioner, in this it is noted based on the aforesaid fact the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Deoghar for fixation of rent in the name of the applicant Nima Mandal s/o late Bhola Mandal, No.2 Baiju Mandal S/o Late Baju Mandal, No.3 Godo Mandal S/o late Ghanshayam Mandal and No.4 Kishan Mandal S/o Late Saheb Mandal their rent to the tune of Rs. 10/ per acre annually was fixed. Based on these two documents it would appear that the informant side had good title. 24. This is a matter where there is a case and a counter case. The case in hand is Jasidih P.S. case No.162 of 2000 while the counter- case is Jasidih P.S. case No. 163 of 2000. Apparently, in both the cases injury had been inflicted on one or the other persons and therefore it was necessary to determine that who the aggressor party was. Though law as it is says that whenever there is a case and a counter case it should be tried together and the same judge should decide the case consecutively. This does not seem to be the case in the present situation we are dealing with. At the moment we are dealing with Jasidih P.S. case No.162 of 2000 and the prosecution witnesses evidence at the trial stage is before us along with the other records related to the case as well as the impugned order in this case. However, the copy of the fardbeyan and FIR of Jasidih P.S. case No. 163 of 2000 was also exhibited in the trial in this case in the court below. We are considering the evidences in the case arising out of Jasidih P.S. case No.162 of 2000. 25. However, the copy of the fardbeyan and FIR of Jasidih P.S. case No. 163 of 2000 was also exhibited in the trial in this case in the court below. We are considering the evidences in the case arising out of Jasidih P.S. case No.162 of 2000. 25. So apart from the order of the SDO and LRDC as mentioned above which places the informant side at some advantage and in good position we see that as per the evidences and as per the prosecution witnesses in the case on hand the occupation and possession of the said land also seen to be in the informant''s side. Prosecution witnesses PW-5 and PW-9 as well as PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-8 have deposed that the informant''s side were ploughing the land. Informant PW-5 Gulam Mandal in paragraph no.1 deposed that they were ploughing the land when accused came and objected and also began to assault them. PW-9 who is also an injured witness has likewise deposed in similar manner. It is to be noted that PW-5 and PW-9 are injured witnesses and injured witnesses are considered more reliable and trustworthy. Moreover we see no reasons why they should not be believed. Therefore, we have taken much note of their evidence in this regard. 26. So it is seen that apart from injured witnesses PW-5 and Pw-9 other witnesses such as PW-1,PW-2,PW-4 and PW-8 have also supported the version of the informant PW-5 and the injured witnesses PW-9 that they had been ploughing the land, in fact some of these witnesses have deposed that ploughing was done on plot no. 33 and they all said that it was the appellant''s side who have come to the place of occurrence. So it seems by the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses the place of occurrence is proved and appellant''s side who had come there and then instigated to assault. If one goes to the evidence of PW-7, Nitya Nand Kumar is the I.O. of the case he had deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and he has referred to the plot no. 33 of khata no. 16 to be the place of occurrence. He has stated that the said land was used by the villagers for coming and going and the land was formally gairmazarua later on informant side had obtained bandobasti in their name. 33 of khata no. 16 to be the place of occurrence. He has stated that the said land was used by the villagers for coming and going and the land was formally gairmazarua later on informant side had obtained bandobasti in their name. He also deposed that there was mango and other trees planted in the land. By the aforesaid statement of PW-7 it would apparent that fruit bearing trees were planted in the land which would indicate that it was being used for agriculture purposes also. So from the evidence of the PW-7 it appears that the land was in favour of the informant side. Therefore, based on even the evidence of the I.O. with regard to the concerned land his evidence is in favour of the informant side. 27. From the evidence of P.W.-6 Dr.Akhilesh Prasad Singh it is seen that Jeev Lal Mandal PW-9 had sustained following injuries:- (i) Incised wound 1 " x " x muscle deep on right side of face near nose. (ii) Bruise 2" x 1" on front surface of right leg 6" below knee, reddish in colour. It is noted that injury No.1 is grievous with permanent disfiguration of face. Injury no.2 is simple. It has also noted that Injury No.1 might has been caused by sharp cutting substance e.g. arrow. Injury No.2 might has been caused by hard and blunt substance e.g. lathi. 28. Doctor PW-6 also examined the informant PW-5 Gulam Mandal and found following injuries:- Lacerated wound 1 "x "x bone deep on inner side of right leg. X-ray was done on 24.9.2000 which shows fracture of shafts of both bones of the right leg. Doctor has given opinion regarding injuries caused to the informant that this Injury is grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. So from the evidence of doctor It is seen that injuries sustained by PW-5 and Pw-9 are grievous. It is accepted that one person on the side of the accused appellant had been injured but in the light of the evidences regarding ownership and possession of the land which is in favour of the informants'' side it is clear that the accused or appellant were the aggressor in this case. 29. It is accepted that one person on the side of the accused appellant had been injured but in the light of the evidences regarding ownership and possession of the land which is in favour of the informants'' side it is clear that the accused or appellant were the aggressor in this case. 29. Based on my aforesaid reasoning judgment of conviction dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2001 is fully upheld. However, because of the mitigating circumstances prayed for, the sentence is modified to R.I. for two years and 6 months for the offence u/s 326/149, any period already spent in custody to be deducted from the modified sentence. The fine and default clause as imposed by the learned court below requires no interference. As this court has modified sentence u/s 326/149 IPC so there is no need to pass separate sentence under minor offence. Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled. Learned court below is directed to take steps for procuring arrest of the appellants. 30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence.