The assembly was not unlawful due to the genuine belief of property ownership, but grievous injuries met the standards for conviction under appropriate sections.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

These Criminal Appeals arise out of a common Judgment of Conviction dated 12^th December, 2006 and Order of Sentence dated 21^st December, 2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.324 of 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Giridih by which appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 148 , 341, 323, 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No separate sentence has been awarded for offence under Section 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. The Prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of Jahimuddin Ansari is that on 22.11.2003, at around 9:00 A.M., he, his father Ramjan Mian, and his mother Soohra Khatoon were harvesting paddy in their field when a group of men from the same village suddenly attacked them. They were armed with lathi, sword, farsa. Jahimuddin and his father were badly assaulted and his father became unconscious. His mother was also assaulted with lathi. The fight started because the accused claimed title over the land, while informant’s family also claimed title. During the assault, the attackers also looted valuables like a silver necklace, a gold earring and a Titan watch.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the statements given by prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other. P.W. 4 has turned hostile who stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence. P.W. 6 in his statement has mentioned that no Panchayati was ever held for the land dispute. It is their case that the land belongs to the appellants and the informant forcibly tried to dispossess them. There is genuine land dispute also.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants, forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, attacked the informant and his family members. He further submits that the oral and documentary evidence presented clearly proves the charges against all the accused. He further submits that the doctor's testimony supports the charges. Statement of Doctor who is P.W. 9 clearly shows that the injury sustained is grievous in nature.

5. Altogether eleven prosecution witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined, namely, P.W. 1 Md. Jamal Ansari, P.W. 2 Soghara Khatoon, P.W. 3 Manir Mian, P.W. 4 Samsuddin Ansari, P.W. 5 Md. Yaseen, P.W. 6 Md. Jahimuddin Ansari (Informant), P.W. 7 Sakila Khatoon, P.W. 8 Ramzan Mian, P.W. 9 Dr. Ruben Hembrum, P.W. 10 Suryadev Paswan and P.W. 11 Khurshid Anwar.

P.W. 1 Md. Jamal Ansari is an eyewitness to the occurrence. He states that the accused persons reached the field where informant and his parents were working. The accused started assaulting them with lathi, sword and spear. Due to assault the hand of Ramjan Mian was broken. They also assaulted informant and his mother. After assault villagers came there running.

P.W. 2 Soghara Khatoon is the wife of P.W. 8 Ramzan Mian and mother of P.W. 6 Md. Jahimuddin Ansari. She stated on the same line as that of P.W.6 and P.W.8 during her examination-in-chief. She stated her son was attacked first, then she was assaul