Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal dated 28.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Rajmahal, in S.C. Case No. 160 of 1988, whereby the private respondents have been acquitted of the charges under sections 379, 149, 307, 325 of the Indian Penal Code for which they had faced the trial.

3. The impugned Judgment shows that this is purely a case of land dispute between the parties. The prosecution side claiming the title and possession over the land were ploughing the land which was objected by the defence side and the occurrence had taken place in which the persons from the prosecution side had been assaulted and injured.

4. The defence is the denial of charge and according to the defence case the land belong to the defence side and the prosecution side were the aggressors, due to which the occurrence had taken place in which persons from both the sides were injured.

5. Though the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but it is apparent from the impugned Judgment that the defence has proved