Heard.

1. This order shall dispose criminal Revision filed by the victims as also criminal appeal filed by accused arising out of the judgment and conviction of sentence dated 12.09.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No.4/2002 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:-

Conviction	Sentence
Under Sections 308/34 of IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3000/-, to each accused in default of payment of fine further R.I. for six month.
Under Section 324/34	Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, to each accused in default of payment of fine further R.I. for two month.
Under Section 323/34	Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

2. In an incident relating to assault, FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged on 02.10.2001 by Vishnu Dayal (PW4) stating therein that Vishnu Dayal (PW4) along with his sons Sanjay Kumar and Harish Kumar, his wife Kashi Bai and mother Budhiyarin Bai were assaulted by Tilesh Kumar, Gendsingh and Aswani by using agriculture tool like Kharda and clubs. The injured namely Vishnu Dayal, Harish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Budhiyarin Bai and Kashi Bai were sent for medical examination. On the basis of FIR, the police registered criminal case for alleged commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC, held investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellants. On the basis of material contained in the charge-sheet, learned Trial Court framed charges against each of the appellants alleging commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt, they were put to trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them. All the appellants denied having committed offence and stated that they have been falsely implicated and that the victims, themselves, were the aggressor. In their defence, the appellants examined solitary witness, Nandkishore, DW1.

3. Learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that in the facts and circumstances, the appellants are guilty of commission of offence under Section 308, 324 and 323 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and imposed sentenced as described above.

4. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, while the accused have filed the appeal, the victims have preferred revision seeking conviction of accused under Section 307 of IPC with suitable sentence to be awarded.

5. As far as revision is concerned, there is no appearance made before the Court on behalf of the applicants despite repeated calls.

6. I shall first take up the criminal appeal for consideration.

7. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the story of the prosecution is highly doubtful because of serious contradictions and omissions with regard to genesis of dispute, role played by various accused and also because the ocular testimony is not coherent with the medical evidence. It is submitted that from the circumstances of the case, evidence on record as also from the fact that the appellants also sustained injury, it is injured witnesses who were the assailants and aggressors and the appellants only sought to defend them in exercise of their right of private defence.

8. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the circumstances, in which, the incident happened, the weapon alleged to be used and the nature of injury found on the head of some of the victims, no case for commission of off