JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal has been preferred by the aforesaid four appellants against the Judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2003, passed in S.T. No.214 of 1996 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 447, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant, Subhan Mian has been convicted under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. All the convicts have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the convicts have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, each convict will undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The convict, Subhan Mian has been awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. Since Criminal appeal preferred by Subhan Mian has been abated after his death and as such, the instant Criminal appeal is pressed on behalf of three appellants, Allauddin Ansari, Sahim Ansari and Kayum Ansari, who have been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has raised the legal question in this Criminal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from perusal of framing charge, it is apparent that charge under Sections 447/34, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against all the four original accused including Subhan Mian and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, the same was specially against Subhan Mian. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the convict, Subhan Mian died, as such, his conviction passed by the learned trial court is abated. So far as rest of the convicts/appellants, Allauddin Ansari, Sahim Ansari and Kayum Ansari are concerned, they have not been charged under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the convict, Subhan Mian died, as such, his conviction passed by the learned trial court is abated. So far as rest of the convicts/appellants, Allauddin Ansari, Sahim Ansari and Kayum Ansari are concerned, they have not been charged under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. He has further submitted, that learned trial court has acquitted all the accused from charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as it would be apparent from perusal of Para-28, at internal page 14, of the impugned judgment to the effect, that no finding with respect to Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code has been awarded by the learned trial court and also conviction of the appellants under Section 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as the place of occurrence, is an open field and as per the finding of the learned trial court itself recorded in Para-25 at Page 11 of the impugned judgment, the place of occurrence, is a disputed piece of open land (paddy field) and as such, application of Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to criminal tress-pass is concerned, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Hon'ble Court has observed vide order dated 20.04.1988 in Criminal Revision No.1 of 1988 [R], that the land dispute is prevailing in between the parties and as such, without proving that the alleged land was in possession of the prosecution parties, the conviction of the appellants under Section 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that no charge under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the appellants, as the trial court has already acquitted the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, in absence of any charge under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, no purpose can be derived by framing charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and granting them benefit of doubt as recorded in Para-28 at internal page 14 of the impugned judgment and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, is bad in law and is fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that in the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 02.06.2003 and 03.12.2003 with respect to injury caused upon them and in view of the judgment reported in [2008 (1) East Cr C 188 (SC)], Ajay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, the conviction passed against accused in failure to explain, what he was never asked during statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is bad in law. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment as reported in AIR 1953 SC 468 , Hate Singh, Bhagat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel relying on the aforesaid judgments, has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and is fit to be set aside on these legal questions itself. 9. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has tried to justify the impugned judgment on the legal question. Learned counsel for the State has raised no dispute on the materials on record. 10. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that charge was framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in which all the accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the State has raised no dispute on the materials on record. 10. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that charge was framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in which all the accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court. No finding with respect to Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code was given by the learned trial court even though, the charge was framed and no charge under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed by the learned trial court and as such, separate conviction, in absence of any charge when the accused persons have been acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. This Court is also agreeing with the, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that charge under Sections 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved in the present case, as the long standing land dispute was prevailing between the parties which will be apparent from the order dated 20.04.1988 passed in Cr. Revision No.01 of 1988 [R] passed by this Court, coupled with the fact that the informant has admitted, in his fardbeyan itself that litigation is still pending in the Court with respect to the land dispute as such, until and unless the prosecution comes up with a case that land belongs to him which is in exclusive possession of him, no case of criminal tress-pass is made out. 11. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is well-founded. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the convictions of the appellants, Allauddin Ansari, Sahim Ansari and Kayum Ansari under Sections 447/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. are non-sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, for the aforesaid discussions made herein-above, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 13. Consequently, the appellants, Allauddin Ansari, Sahim Ansari and Kayum Ansari are on bail, as such, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 14. Let L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned and a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned at once.