JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants, Suraj Choudhary, Kaisar Alam, Pintu Choudhary, Sheo Kumar Choudhary, Sahzad Alam, Babuddin Ansari, Gopalji Choudhary, Rajendra Choudhary, Dharmnath Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, under Section 324 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, under Section 325 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, appellants, Suraj Choudhary, Gopalji Choudhary and Sheo Kumar Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year while remaining, namely, Kaisar Alam, Pintu Choudhary, Sahzad Alam, Babuddin Ansari, Rajendra Choudhary and Dharmnath Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2015 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 357/2004. 2. Samsul Haque (PW-8) gave his Fard-e-beyan on 26.04.2002 at 8.00 AM while he was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Siwan in an injured condition alleging inter alia that while he along with his brother, Manir Ansari (PW-1) and son, Murad Alam, (PW-9) were sleeping at his Bathan in between night of 25/26.04.2002, on 26.04.2002 at about 3.00 AM, his co-villagers, Suraj Choudhary armed with Lathi, Rajendra Choudhary armed with Farsa, Dharmnath Choudhary armed with Chhura, Sheo Choudhary armed with Lathi, Pintu Choudhary armed with Katta (fire arm), Raj Kumar Choudhary, Sanjay Choudhary, both armed with Chhura, Gopal Choudhary, Dewanand Choudhary, both armed with Lathi, Babuddin Ansari armed with Bhala, Kaisar Alam, Sahzad Alam both armed with gun, all of a sudden came at his Bathan and began to uproot whereupon he got awaken. Seeing the same, he raised alarm whereupon, Suraj, Rajendra and Dharmnath ordered to kill. Dharmnath gave a Chhura blow with an intention to kill causing injury over his left hand as well as nose as a result of which, he fell down. Then thereafter, others began to assault with Lathi. On hue and cry, his brother Manir and son Murad came in his rescue and during course thereof, Rajendra gave Farsa blow over his brother Manir causing injury upon him. Then thereafter, others began to assault with Lathi. On hue and cry, his brother Manir and son Murad came in his rescue and during course thereof, Rajendra gave Farsa blow over his brother Manir causing injury upon him. Suraj provoked to kill whereupon Rajendra repeatedly gave Farsa blow, as a result of which, Manir became severely injured. He became senseless. After falling him down, Babuddin gave Bhala blow over Manir with an intention to kill causing injury near his eye. Then thereafter, Babuddin gave Bhala blow over his son, Murad causing injury over his nose. Rest assaulted him with Lathi and Danda. Kaisar and Sahzad fired from gun while Pintu fired from Katta but non sustained injury. Then thereafter, they all took away his belongings, kept in a attaché including cash, wrist watch etc. On hue and cry, the persons of surroundings, namely, Md. Naim Sah, Marif Raza, Laxman Singh, Amar Singh and others came who witnessed the occurrence and also took them to Sadar Hospital, Siwan where they were being treated. 3. The motive for the occurrence has been shown as dispute persisting in between Kaisar and Osijar Choudhary relating to aforesaid Bathan and for that a proceeding under Section 107 CrPC was going on. 4. After recording the Fard-e-beyan, Uchakagaon PS Case No. 39/2002 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet facilitating the trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of the instant appeal. 5. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC is that of complete denial. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that in the background of land dispute, after getting false and frivolous injury report, got this case filed. Though no ocular evidence has been adduced but, documentary evidences under Ext -A series have been exhibited in order to substantiate the same. 6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 11 PWs out of whom PW-1, Manir Alam, PW-2, Serajul Haque, PW-3 Md. Naim Sah, PW-4, Laxman Singh, PW-5, Hiralal Choudhary, PW-6, Ugen Choudhary, PW-7, Nathuni Singh, PW-8, Samsul Haque, PW-9, Murad Alam PW-10, Dr. 6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 11 PWs out of whom PW-1, Manir Alam, PW-2, Serajul Haque, PW-3 Md. Naim Sah, PW-4, Laxman Singh, PW-5, Hiralal Choudhary, PW-6, Ugen Choudhary, PW-7, Nathuni Singh, PW-8, Samsul Haque, PW-9, Murad Alam PW-10, Dr. Shyam Sundar Prasad, PW-11, Deo Narayan Paswan as well as had also exhibited Ext-1, Signature of Informant over Fard-e-beyan, Ext-2 series, injury reports of respective injured, Ext-3 series, supplementary injury report, Ext-4, Fard-e-beyan, Ext-5, endorsement over Fard-e-beyan, Ext-6, formal FIR, Ext-7, C.C. of judgment of Sessions Trial No. 365/98. 7. On the other hand, as stated above, no ocular evidence has been adduced in defence but documentary evidence as Ext-A, C.C. of Sale Deed dated 09.01.97 executed by Amarjit Singh in favour of Babuddin Ansari, Ext-A/1, C.C. of Sale Deed dated 16.04.02 executed by Harihar Singh in favour of Oshihar Chaudhary, Ext-A/2, C.C. of Sale Deed dated 14.05.2007 executed by Khublal Singh in favour of Harihar Singh, Ext-A/3, C.C. of Sale Deed dated 15.03.97 executed by Amarjit Singh in favour of Samsul Haque have been brought up on record in defence. 8. Manifold arguments have been raised on behalf of appellants during course of assailing the judgment impugned. The first and foremost point is that from the Fard-e-beyan itself, it is evident that dispute with regard to Bathan has been admitted by the prosecution. It is needless to say that PWs-1, 2 and 8 are own brothers along with appellant. It has also been admitted that the land over which Bathan stood had been purchased by both of the parties from different persons whose identity have not been disputed as original land holder and his successor. Because of the fact that prosecution party forcibly grabbed the land having been purchased by the accused persons/appellants on account thereof, not only they rather others being his supporters also have been made accused in this case without specifying any kind of activity at their end. 9. Furthermore, It has also been submitted that probability of the case is itself evident from the fact that the PO land lies under, Gopalganj District Town where Sadar Hospital lies, so many renowned doctors are available having their private nursing home, were not at all contacted on the other hand covering a long distance and then coming to Siwan got them admitted at Sadar Hospital, Siwan speaks a lot. In its continuity, it has been submitted that there happens to be allegation at the end of prosecution party that Rajendra Choudhary had given repeated Farsa blows, Babuddin had given Bhala blow, blood had oozen out from respective injuries, while Investigating Officer during inspection of the place of occurrence, had not found any incriminating material in order to suggest nor any commission of occurrence at that very place. That means to say, the objective finding of the Investigating Officer had not substantiated the allegation. In its continuity it has further been submitted that there happens to be allegation at the end of the prosecution that Bathan was being uprooted by the accused persons at such a wee hours but Investigating Officer in its objective finding has not found anything being uprooted. 10. In the aforesaid background as well as in the background of the fact that during course of evidence, PW-8, informant had admitted that they are on litigating terms since before having pendency of so many cases amongst them, some of the sessions trial have been instituted by him as well as by his daughter against appellants, is a circumstance, which suggests that anyhow the appellants should be harassed to such extent that should leave to resist. Now coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has been submitted that majority of the them who happens to be independent one have not supported to the prosecution whereupon, they have been declared hostile. The only witnesses now remain are PWs, 1, 2, 8 and 9 who are brothers as well as son of the informant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, they are interested, inimical witnesses whereupon their evidences should not be accepted as not supported by the independent witnesses. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution case be brushed aside. Appeal be allowed after setting aside the judgment impugned. 12. On the other hand, learned APP while supporting the finding recorded by the learned lower court has submitted that PW-10 had found injuries over person of injured, PW-1, 8 and 9 and during cross-examination the defence could not be able to demolish the finding recorded by the PW-10. So, the injuries over their respective persons are found duly substantiated. 12. On the other hand, learned APP while supporting the finding recorded by the learned lower court has submitted that PW-10 had found injuries over person of injured, PW-1, 8 and 9 and during cross-examination the defence could not be able to demolish the finding recorded by the PW-10. So, the injuries over their respective persons are found duly substantiated. Furthermore, It has also been submitted that the evidences of injured witnesses should not be brushed aside unless and until their evidences are found suffering from blemish including that of inherent infirmities which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not at all persisting. Apart from this, It has also been submitted that enmity is a double edged sword. It may be a case of false implication, simultaneously, it may be a motive for commission of an occurrence. So, the evidences are to be minutely, observed and during course of such exercise, it is manifest that the prosecution has substantiated its case whereupon judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is fit to be confirmed. 13. Before coming to ocular evidence, first of all, the evidence of PW-10 has to be seen. PW-10 was Civil Assistant Surgeon, Siwan on the date of examination of injured witnesses. Where respective injured were admitted and found the following. A. Samsul Haque (PW 8): (i) incised wound in the middle of left forearm size 2”x 1/8” x muscle deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on the nose ½” x ¼”x skin deep. (iii) Lacerated wound on forehead ½”x ¼”x skin deep. (iv) Bruise on right shoulder 1”x½” (v) Bruise on lateral s ide of left thigh 4”x2”. (vi) Bruise on bottuck left side 2”x2” (vii) Bruise on back of right side near scapula region 2-1/2”x ½”. Age of injury within 6 to 8 hours. Nature of injury. Injury no.1 simple caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury No.(iv) (v) (vi) (vii) simple caused by hard and blunt substance. Opinion reserved for injury no. (ii) and (iii) till X-ray report available. After receipt of X-ray report, injury no.(ii) is found grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury No. (iii) is simple caused by hard and blunt substance. B. Murad Alam (PW 9): (i) Lacerated wound on the nasal bridge size 1”x ½” x skin deep. (ii) Bruise on left forearm near wrist joint 2”x½”. After receipt of X-ray report, injury no.(ii) is found grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury No. (iii) is simple caused by hard and blunt substance. B. Murad Alam (PW 9): (i) Lacerated wound on the nasal bridge size 1”x ½” x skin deep. (ii) Bruise on left forearm near wrist joint 2”x½”. (iii) Bruise on lateral side of right thigh size 2”x1” (iv) Bruise on left iliac crest size 1”x1/2”. (v) Bruise on right arm near shoulder joint 2”x1/2”. Age of injury within 6 to 8 hours. Nature of injury. Injury no.3, 4 and 5 are simple caused by hard blunt substance. Opinion reserved for injury no. (i) and (ii) till X-ray report available. After receipt of X-ray report, injury no.(i) and (ii) are found grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Manir Ansari (PW 1): (i) incised wound on right parietal region 2”x1/8”x scalp deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on left occipital parietal region of head ½”x1/2”x scalp deep. (iii) Lacerated wound on cheek on just below right orbit 1”x1/4”x skin deep. (iv) Bruise on left forearm near elbow joint size 2”x1/2” (v) Complain of pain in whole body. Age of injury within 6 to 8 hours. Nature of injury. No.1 simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury no.2, 3, 5 are simple caused by hard blunt substance. Opinion reserved for injury no. 4 till X-ray report available. After receipt of X-ray report, injury no.(4) is found grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 14. During cross-examination, it is evident that PW-10 was not cross-examined on the point of his finding recorded with regard to presence, nature of injuries. That means to say whatever finding relating to presence as well as nature of injuries, that goes out of controversy. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants happens to be right in submitting that PWs-3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution claiming themselves to be an eyewitness to the occurrence and on that very score, some of them were declared hostile. However, PW-3 had stated that he came to know that there was fierce amongst the family members of Samsul Haque over road. It was relating to land. Who assaulted whom, he is not sure. PW-4 had stated that he came to know regarding brawl in between Samsul and Suraj. However, PW-3 had stated that he came to know that there was fierce amongst the family members of Samsul Haque over road. It was relating to land. Who assaulted whom, he is not sure. PW-4 had stated that he came to know regarding brawl in between Samsul and Suraj. However, PW-5, 6 and 7 are concerned, they have not supported even to that extent. Therefore, the case of the prosecution rests upon the evidences of PWs-1, 2, 8 and 9 who apart from being family members are also injured. 16. PW-1 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was engaged in keeping watch over harvested wheat crops at his Bathan. Samsul Haque and his son was also present there. At that very time, Suraj Choudhary, Kaisar Alam, Pintu Choudhary, Sheo Kumar Choudhary, Sahzad Alam, Babuddin Ansari, Gopalji Choudhary, Rajendra Choudhary, Dharmnath Choudhary came. Suraj, Sheo Kumar, Dewanand, Gopalji were armed with Lathi. Rajendra Choudhary was armed with Farsa, Kaisar, Sahzad and Pintu were armed with Katta. They began to assault his brother. He came in rescue whereupon Rajendra gave Farsa blow causing injury over his face below right eye. At that very time, Suraj was provoking whereupon, Rajendra gave repeated blow. Then all of them, assaulted him, his brother and son of his brother. Identified the accused. 17. During course of cross-examination at para-2, he had admitted that both the parties are on litigating terms on account of land dispute. In para-3, he had stated that the document relating to disputed land stood in the name of Babuddin. Total area of disputed land happens to be 42 decimals. They have purchased from Munshi Mian and others. At para-4, he had stated that the house of Babuddin stood over the land which has eastern front. On the other side, he happens to be. He had constructed house in the year 1978-79. He had further stated that Maar-peet took place over the road. In para-5, he had shown boundary of the place of occurrence, West-Babuddin, North-Bachcha Singh, but had not disclosed with regard to southern and eastern boundaries. In para-8, he had stated that he is unable to disclose how many Lathi blows he had sustained. He had further stated that Kaisar had fired causing no injury to any of them. In para-9, he had stated that he sustained two Farsa blows over his head. In para-8, he had stated that he is unable to disclose how many Lathi blows he had sustained. He had further stated that Kaisar had fired causing no injury to any of them. In para-9, he had stated that he sustained two Farsa blows over his head. He was given blows from front side. He had also sustained one Bhala blow. First of all, he was assaulted by Farsa and then by Bhala and when he had fallen down then Lathi blow was given. In para-10, he had stated that four persons were from his side. Altogether 25-30 persons were present. In para-12, he had stated that when he rushed to save his brother, then he was assaulted. In para-13, he had stated that first of all his brother was assaulted. Occurrence took place at 3.00 AM. It was moonlit night. No other source of light was there. Witnesses arrived after assault. There was commotion. In para-15, he had stated that his nephew was also assaulted. In para-17, he had further stated that they (accused persons) have not sustained any injury. In para-22, he had stated that blood had oozen out from his injury. Blood had also oozen out from the injury of Samsul Haque. Then had denied the suggestion that after procuring false injury report, this case has been filed. 18. PW-2 is another brother who during course of examination-in-chief had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was at his own Bathan. After hearing hue and cry coming from Bathan of Samsul, he rushed there and saw Suraj and his men were engaged in uprooting thatched wall which was resisted by Samsul whereupon Babuddin armed with Bhala, Kaisar armed with gun, Sahzad armed with gun, Rajendra with Farsa, Dharmnath with Chhura. Pintu armed with Katta fired causing injury over leg of Samsul. Manir was assaulted by Rajendra with Farsa and Babuddin by Bhala. Rest assaulted with Lathi. Then police came and arrested Babuddin, Kaisar and Sahzad. Identified. In para-2, he had given genealogical table. In para-3, he had stated that he is unable to disclose Khata, Khesra No. of the P.O. land but had disclosed the boundary as North-Bachcha Singh, South-Road, East-Bachcha Singh, West-Babuddin. Then had stated that nothing lies over the aforesaid land. Bungalow of Babuddin lies east to that land. Identified. In para-2, he had given genealogical table. In para-3, he had stated that he is unable to disclose Khata, Khesra No. of the P.O. land but had disclosed the boundary as North-Bachcha Singh, South-Road, East-Bachcha Singh, West-Babuddin. Then had stated that nothing lies over the aforesaid land. Bungalow of Babuddin lies east to that land. In para-4, he admitted that half of the land is under possession of Samusul having his house while other half is under occupation of Babuddin. Babuddin had purchased 19 Dhurs from Parwez. In para-6, he had stated that when he reached there, Mar-peet was going on. In para-7, he had further stated that land has been purchased by Kaisar, son of Babuddin from Amar Singh. In para-9 there happens to be contradiction. In para-12, he again stated that he reached at the place of occurrence while Mar-peet was going on. In para-13, he had disclosed that Manir happens to be his younger brother. In para-16, he had admitted that Babuddin had drawn Title Suit No. 104/1995 against him and further, 4-5 cases are pending in between Samsul and Babuddin. Then had denied the suggestion that whole plot has been purchased by Babuddin and only to deprive him, this case has been filed. 19. PW-8 is the informant. He had deposed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he along with Manir and Murad were sleeping at Bathan. At that very time, his co-villagers, Suraj Choudhary, Rajendra Choudhary, Dharmnath Choudhary, Sheo Kumar Choudhary, Pintu Choudhary, Babuddin Ansari, Kaisar Alam, Sahzad Alam, , Gopalji Choudhary and others after forming of an unlawful assembly armed variously raided his Bathan and began to uproot thatched wall whereupon he woke up and protested their illegal activities whereupon, Suraj, Rajendra and Dharmnath provoked to assault. Dharmnath gave Chhura blow causing injury over his left hand as well as nose. His nasal bone got fractured. His brother and son came in rescue whereupon on an order of Suraj, Rajendra gave repeated Farsa blow causing injury over head of Manir. He fell down then Babuddin gave Bhala blow causing injury below right eye. Suraj assaulted Murad with Lathi as a result of which he sustained fracture of his hand. When he fell down then thereafter, Babuddin gave Bhala blow causing injury over his nose as a result of which, his nasal bone got fractured. He fell down then Babuddin gave Bhala blow causing injury below right eye. Suraj assaulted Murad with Lathi as a result of which he sustained fracture of his hand. When he fell down then thereafter, Babuddin gave Bhala blow causing injury over his nose as a result of which, his nasal bone got fractured. Then thereafter, on an order of Suraj, Kaisar and Sahzad fired from their guns while Pintu fired from his country made pistol. Accused persons also took away attaché having clothes, ring, blanket, cash appertaining to Rs. 55,00/-. Sanjay snatched away wrist watch. Then thereafter, they were taken to Sadar Hospital, Siwan where they were treated. Gave his Fard-e-beyan (exhibited). During cross-examination at para-5, 6 had admitted institution of three cases at his behest out of which in one case his daughter happens to be informant while in remaining cases, he happens to be informant. Then at para-7, there happens to be contradiction over discloser of presence of unlawful assembly at his Bathan. Also with regard to uprooting of thatched wall of the Bathan. At para-8 had shown boundary of the place of occurrence, North-Mango orchard of Bachcha Singh, South- Road, East-Road, West-Bathan of Babuddin. He had further admitted that Babuddin happens to be his full brother. He had further stated that he had purchased Khata No. 89, Khesra No.472, area-1 Kattha 12 ¼ Dhurs whereupon Bathan does not lie. There happens to be brick wall, sheet over its roof. Then had detailed the other building having near mosque. He had further stated that in 1982, he separated from Babuddin. His brother Manir is also separate. His eldest brother happens to be Serajul Haque. Houses of Babuddin and Manir lie in different plot but are amalgamated. North to the house of Manir and Babuddin, his house lies near the mosque. At para-9, there happens to be cross-examination relating to Sessions Trial No. 197/2007. In para- 10, he had shown ignorance with regard to the name of the person having been recorded in Khatian with regard to the land under dispute. Then there happens to be cross-examination on that very score. At para-11, he had stated that PO land happens to be 1 Kattha 18 Dhurs. Again there happens to be some sort of cross-examination on that very score. Para-12 is also regarding the same. Then there happens to be cross-examination on that very score. At para-11, he had stated that PO land happens to be 1 Kattha 18 Dhurs. Again there happens to be some sort of cross-examination on that very score. Para-12 is also regarding the same. In para-13, he had denied the suggestion that on account of land dispute, he used to file false case against accused after going to Siwan and procuring false injury report. He had denied the suggestion that the land under dispute belongs to Khublal who executed sale-deed relating to 19 Dhurs to Harihar Prasad in the year 1960. He had further stated that he knew that after death of Khublal, his son Amarjit had executed sale deed in favour of Babuddin in the year 1997. He had further admitted that after purchase made by Babuddin, he had purchased 1 Kattha 17 Dhurs of land from the aforesaid Amarjit. In para-15, there happens to be cross-examination on the point of occurrence. He had stated that at the time of uprooting thatched wall by accused persons, he had gone to resist. At that very time, his brother and son were sleeping. He sustained single blow over his nose as well as hand. He had also sustained Lathi blow. He had sustained 10-12 Lathi blows. Lathi blows were given after falling down. His brother and son arrived there before his falling. They also fell down after sustaining assault. Even after sustaining injuries they were conscious. Then had denied suggestion that in order to encroach upon the share of Babuddin, this case has been filed. 20. PW-9 is the son of PW-8 who had asserted that on the alleged date and time of occurrence he along with his father and uncle were sleeping at Bathan. At that very time, his co-villagers, Suraj armed with Lathi, Rajendra armed with Farsa, Dharmanth armed with Chhura, Sheo Kumar armed with Lathi, Pintu armed with country made pistol, Gopalji armed with Lathi, Devanand and Sanjay armed with Lathi, Babuddin armed with Bhala, Kaisar and Sahzad armed with gun came at his Bathan after forming an unlawful assembly and began to dismantle the same whereupon they protested. On an order of Suraj, Dharmanath gave Chhura blow over his father who sustained injuries over his left hand as well as nose. His uncle Manir came in rescue who was assaulted by Rajendra with Farsa repeatedly. On an order of Suraj, Dharmanath gave Chhura blow over his father who sustained injuries over his left hand as well as nose. His uncle Manir came in rescue who was assaulted by Rajendra with Farsa repeatedly. Suraj assaulted him with lathi over his left hand as a result of which, he sustained fracture. Babuddin gave Bhala blow causing injury over his nose. Babuddin also gave Bhala blow over Manir causing injury. Kaisar, Sahzad and Pintu fired from their guns but they have had miraculous escape. Accused persons were engaged in uprooting thatched wall. At that very time, Sanjay snatched away wrist watch from his father and Gopal took away suit case containing cash, uniform, blanket etc. Then thereafter, they were taken to hospital where police came, Fard-e-beyan of his father was recorded. Identified the accused. During cross-examination at para-12, he had stated that Gopalganj is at the distance of 13 Kms from his village while Siwan at the distance of 19 Kms. Then had shown ignorance with regard to history of the land under para-14. In para-15, he had disclosed that his father Samsul had purchased land from Amarjit in the year 1977. At para-16, he had stated that at the instance of Babuddin, Amarjit had executed sale deed in their favour. Then at para-17, there happens to be cross-examination relating to occurrence having been committed in between Basistha Pandey and his father. At para-18, 19, 20 there happens to be cross-examination relating to other cases being fought amongst the parties. In para-24, he had shown boundary of the place of occurrence. North-Bathan, pitch road, East-Road, West-Bathan of Babuddin. In para-25, 26, he had admitted that Babuddin and his father happen to be full brother. In para-29, he had stated that the accused persons had fired from the distance of 2-3 metres. In para-30, he had shown distance of other accused persons who assaulted him, 2-3 hands. In para-31, he had stated first of all, his father was assaulted and after falling him, accused persons began to assault him. Gopal had also assaulted his father over his leg, both hands but he is unable to say how may blows were given. In para-32, he had stated that he is unable to say how many blows he had sustained. In para-33, there happens to be cross-examination relating to Manir. Gopal had also assaulted his father over his leg, both hands but he is unable to say how may blows were given. In para-32, he had stated that he is unable to say how many blows he had sustained. In para-33, there happens to be cross-examination relating to Manir. In para-34, he had stated that for the last 13-15 years they are on litigating terms on account of land dispute. 21. PW-11 is the I.O. After receiving Fard-e-beyan, he had instituted a case, formal FIR was drawn up (exhibited all the relevant documents). Took up the investigation. Recorded statement of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence. It happens to be Khesra No. 112, Khata No. 45, Area-1 Kattha 18 Dhurs. At the western side of this land, there happens to be pucca building. Adjacent thereto, there happens to be brick wall, temporary structure wherein one room lies at southern front. Adjacent thereto, there happens to be structure. There happens to be Naad-Khuta for keeping the animals which happens to be the P.O. Then had shown the boundary, East-Road, West-Babuddin, North-Mango orchard of Bachcha Singh and South Road. He had not found anything more at the P.O. Procured injury report. Recorded further statement of informant, statement of injured, tried to apprehend the accused and then, after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he had stated at para-14 that he had made query with regard to the land. He had seen the sale-deed no. 3261 dated 14.12.1998. 22. As stated above, defence has exhibited certain documents which happens to be Ext-A dated 09.01.1997, A/1 dated 16.04.2002, A/2, 14.05.2007, A/3, dated 15.03.1997 relating to the aforesaid land. From the evidence of the witnesses, more or less, all the witnesses have admitted that the same portion of the land had already been purchased by Babuddin before the prosecution party. When the evidence of informant PW-8, para-13 has been gone through, he had admitted that Amarjit had executed sale deed in favour of Babuddin in the year 1997 and then thereafter, he got the sale deed with respect to 1 Kattha 17 Dhurs of land. So, he had purchased the litigation encroaching upon the area which had already been sold away by the vendor Amarjit in favour of Babuddin. So, he had purchased the litigation encroaching upon the area which had already been sold away by the vendor Amarjit in favour of Babuddin. On that very score, PW-1 at para-3 had also stated that the document pertaining the disputed land happens to be in the name of accused, Babuddin. In para-4, he had further admitted that house of Babuddin lies over the aforesaid land. That means to say, presence of Babuddin over same portion of the disputed land happens to be legal one and was since before, though PW-2 as well as PW-9 tried to show ignorance on that very score. When the evidence of the I.O. has been gone through, it is evident that he had not found thatched wall existing over the land nor had found any sign of uprooting and that being so, the earlier part of the version of the prosecution is not at all found substantiated. 23. Now coming over the occurrence, it is apparent that witnesses are consistent so far manner of assault is concerned, coupled with presence of appellants and is found duly supported with the medical evidence. In the aforesaid background the evidences have been minutely gone through to search out whether plea of right of private defence has been pleaded or not and during course thereof, from the evidence of PW-1 weak effort has been done. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that presence of appellant, Babuddin happens to be legally permissible on account of having sale deed in his favour prior to the sale deed in favour of prosecution party to the extent of 19 Dhurs, retaining conviction, the sentence so far inflicted by the learned lower court did not prove its utility and that being so, erasing the substantial sentence having been inflicted by the learned lower court, the same is substituted by way of giving the privilege as provided under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act directing the appellants to execute the bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety to be effective for a year, during midst thereof, will maintain peace and harmony failing which, will present themselves to hear the substantial sentence. 24. 5,000/- with one surety to be effective for a year, during midst thereof, will maintain peace and harmony failing which, will present themselves to hear the substantial sentence. 24. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within six weeks and to facilitate the same, bail being availed by the appellants are extended till then failing which, the learned lower court will be at liberty to proceed against the appellants in accordance with law. In terms thereof, the instant appeal is partly allowed.