S.M. SIKRI, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High court dismissing the appeal of the nine appellants before us. They had been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 325 read with Section 149, I PG and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison- ment for three years each. They were also convicted under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 379, I PC. The appellants were also individually convicted for various offences which it is not necessary to mention.

(2) IN brief the prosecution case was that Anant Prasad Jaiswal, Public Witness 2, Gupteshwar Nath Jaiswal, Public Witness 4, and Baijnath Sahu, PW9, had gone on the morning of 23/03/1962, with a number of labourers, for harvesting the Rabi crop of plot No. 1203 of Khata No. 158. They harvested the crop till about 11-30 a.m. when the accused party turned up, with various other persons, variously armed. They attacked the members of the prosecution party, including Sheokaran Ahir who died. It was further alleged that most of the labourers succeeded in running away but a number of persons were chased and assaulted at three different places.

(3) THE defence of the appellants was that the appellant, Lallan Singh, was in actual possession of plot No. 1203 and that the prosecution party came in a mob to disposses him and actually started looting the crop grown by Lallan Singh and this resulted in the occurrence.

(4) THE Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case. On the question of possession the learned Sessions Judge went through the documents and the oral evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution party was in possession of plot No. 1203. This finding was upheld by the High court.

(5) THE learned counsel for the appellants contends that the finding on the question of possession is vitiated because Ext. 2, a canal parcha, had been misread, and secondly because the High court has wrongly taken into consi- deration Ext. 17, a certified copy of the petition by Ram Charitar Rai, dated October 27, 1919, on the ground that it is more than 30 years old. He says that as held by this court in Harihar Prasad Singh v. Mst. of Munshi Nath Prasad, there is no presumption of genuineness in favour of certified copies of documents under lection 90 of the Evidence Act.

(6) IT seems to us that there is force in the contentions of the learned counsel. Ext. 2 was clearly misread by the High court. The High court observed:

"ON behalf of the prosecution a canal parcha for the Kharif crop of 1961-62 in respect of plot No. 1203 of Khata No. 158 and two plots of Khata Nos. 157 and 149 was also produced. It is admitted that these plots of land are not irrigated by the canal on seven years lease and they are irrigated occasionally."

(7) EXT. 2 is printed in the record and it does not mention plot No. 1203 but instead it mentions plot No. 1208. We first thought that it may be that there was a mistake in printing but P.W. 2 stated in his cross-examination thus:

"PLOT No. 1203 is only sometimes irrigated by canal. It is not with- in SAT-SALA (seven years, lease). Ext. 2 does not relate to SAT-SALA lands. Plot No. 1203 is not mentioned in Ext. 2 the Canal Parcha. . .... I cant say without looking at paperi and searching for it, as to whether there are canal parchas in respect of Plot No. 1203 of Khata No. 158. We have not irrigated Plot No. 1203 bycanal water during the last nine or ten years.

" It is clear from this evidence that Ext. 2 does not relate to Plot No.l203.

(8) THE High court has taken into consideration the certified copy of the petition, Ext. 17. The High court says regarding Ext. 17 :

"IT appears that a petition (certified copy, of which is Ext. 17) was filed in the rent suit aforesaid by Ramcharitar Rai on the 27th October, 1919. The certified copy of this compromise petition was issued on the 12th December, 1919. The record of the rent suit has been destr