JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1 . Heard learned counsel for appellants Ms. Chandana Kumari as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava. 2. Since these appeals arises out of common judgment and order of conviction and sentence, hence are being heard and disposed of by common judgment. 3 . It appears from the record that these appeals so far the appellants Jagdish Mahto, Khago Mahto, Chaman Mahto and Babu Mahto @ Yadav in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 471 of 2006 and Basudeo Mahto in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 506 of 2006 are concerned, have been abated vide order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court. 4 . These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27 th March, 2007 and sentence dated 29 th March, 2006 for the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 146 of 1998 passed by learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of five years along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per F.I.R. lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant stating inter alia that on 25.10.1996 at about 06:00 A.M., in the morning, accused persons along with others armed with lathi, tangi, iron rod reached at the paddy field of the informant and tried to harvest the paddy crop, meanwhile informant along with other members reached at the spot and upon protest, accused persons started abusing in filthy language to the informant and others. Upon the instigation of Jagdish Mahto (since deceased), other accused persons attacked on the informant party by lathi, tangi, bricks, stones and iron rod and started assaulting the informant party. On raising alarm by the informant party, the co-villagers assembled there and tried to pacify the matter and saved the informant party. Upon the instigation of Jagdish Mahto (since deceased), other accused persons attacked on the informant party by lathi, tangi, bricks, stones and iron rod and started assaulting the informant party. On raising alarm by the informant party, the co-villagers assembled there and tried to pacify the matter and saved the informant party. On the basis of above fardbeyan an F.I.R. was registered as Barkatha P.S. Case No. 56/96 and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued and submitted that there were case and counter-case due to land dispute between the parties. In the instant case altogether 25 persons were put for trial in S.T. Case No. 146/1998 and out of them 11 accused persons were acquitted and only 14 accused persons were convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. and all were directed to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307 along with a fine of Rs.500/- and S.I. for a period of six months for the offence under sections 147, 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. It is further submitted that there was exchange of assault from both parties without any intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence of under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Informant party have sustained simple injuries while from the side of the appellants party one person was murdered in the said occurrence. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely not warranted under law in the proved facts and circumstances, which is liable to be set aside. For the rest of the offences, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo only six months imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- each. It is further submitted that during trail of the case, they have already remained in custody about one month and odd days and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. 7. For the rest of the offences, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo only six months imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- each. It is further submitted that during trail of the case, they have already remained in custody about one month and odd days and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the materials available on record and has rightly concluded about guilt of the appellants. It further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 8. For better appreciation of rival contentions of the parties, brief appraisal of evidence led by the prosecution is required to be discussed here:- P.W.6:-Dwarka Sao is the most important witness and informant of this case. According to his evidence that the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly with other co-accused persons armed with lathi, tangi, bricks and iron rod reached in the field of paddy crops and started cultivating his field and upon protest the informant party was brutally assaulted by the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the murder charge of the main accused namely Prayag Mahto is going on against him and also admits that there is land dispute between them. He further admits that the land belongs to him and he has the copy of the order of the competent court related to this land, but he has not shown the copy of the decree to the police. P.W.1:- Ram Prasad Paswan is the eye witness of this case, according to his evidence, he saw 26 persons armed with lethal weapons were assaulting the informant party. He further stated that he has identified the injured, Prayag Sao who sustained head and leg injuries. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was a land dispute between the parties and denied the suggestion that he is giving false statement against the appellants. P.W.2:- Basudeo Yadav is also an eye witness of this case. He admits that he has seen 26 persons were going towards the field of the informant, who were armed with lathi, tangi, bricks and iron rods and assault took place between both the parties. P.W.2:- Basudeo Yadav is also an eye witness of this case. He admits that he has seen 26 persons were going towards the field of the informant, who were armed with lathi, tangi, bricks and iron rods and assault took place between both the parties. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that there was land dispute between the parties and also admitted that the accused Prayag Mahto was also injured in the aforesaid incident and became unconscious at the place of occurrence. P.W.3:- Dulari Yadav , is also an eye witness of the occurrence, and supported the statements given by the P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.7 Ajadi Rami, is the investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant which is marked as Exhibit 3. In the course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence and has recorded the statement of the witnesses. The injured persons were sent to hospital for medical treatment. He further admitted that accused Prayag Mahto was also injured in the incident and total twelve members of the prosecution were injured and hospitalized. After conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet. P.W.5 Dr. Bindra Ram, was posted as C.A.S. at Primary Heath Centre, Barkatha and examined the injured persons and found following injuries:- Injury to Prayag Sonar:- Two lacerated wounds on the head- 2 1/2” 1/2” x 1/4" and 1” x 1/2” x 1/4" and two swellings on the right leg 6” x 2” and 6” x 3”. The injuries are caused by hard and blunt object. Injury to Dwarka Sao:- Two lacerated wounds on the head (2-1/2” x 1/2" x 1/4") and (3” x 1/2” x 1/4”)swelling on the forearm (4” x 2”), ankle (4”x2”), and leg (4” x 2”). The injuries are simple in nature and cause by hard and blunt object. Injury to Ramchandra Sao:- i. A lacerated wound on the anterior head measuring 1 x 1/2" x 1/4". ii. A lacerated would on the right index finger measuring 1/2” x 1/4" x1/6”. iii. Swelling on the right middle finger measuring 1/2" x 1/4". All the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. 9 . In view of genesis of occurrence and injuries of the injured persons, the required intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is lacking in this case. iii. Swelling on the right middle finger measuring 1/2" x 1/4". All the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. 9 . In view of genesis of occurrence and injuries of the injured persons, the required intention or knowledge for constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is lacking in this case. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not warranted under law. So far, the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 323 are concerned, the appellants have been directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment, out of which they have already served one month and some odd days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that appellants have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction in relation to conviction of the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and conviction under Sections 147, 148 and 323 is upheld with reduction of sentence to the extent period already undergone by the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in sentence as stated above. 10 . Appellants are on bail, as such they are discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 11 . Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 12 . Pending I.As, if any stands disposed of.