Crl.A. 258/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30. 6.2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Barpeta in Sessions Ca se No.43 of 2002 convicting the appellants under sections 147/447/323,IPC. By this impugned judgment various sentences have been inflicted upon the appellants and the maximum sentence being the six months rigorous imprisonment under Secti on 147, IPC. 2. Heard A.M.Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.A.S heikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D.Das, learned additional publ ic prosecutor, Assam. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.11.1991, while the informant and his brothers were harvesting paddy, the appellants protested and attacked the informant and other persons both with sharp and blunt weapons. 5. There was also counter case lodged by the accused persons and th e said counter case was registered as Sessions Case No.79 of 2001 and in the sai d cross case the accused persons have been acquitted, meaning thereby, the case lodged by the appellants herein did not find favour of the court. 6. The evidence also suggests that both the parties are closely rel ated and they are successors of one Lalmamud. It is also evident from the reco rd that both the parties are at loggerhead since several years and series of civ il disputes were also pending at the same time of the incident. However, the fa ct remains that the appellants /accused persons of this case could not produce a ny order from the court either allowing them to occupy the field or restraining the informant and his witnesses to cultivate or harvest any crop from the dispu ted land. 7. Out of eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, I find that P.W.3 is an independent witness and this witness has categorically deposed that at the relevant time he was harvesting crops nearby. P.W.3 has further deposed that he had seen that while prosecution witnesses were reaping paddy the accus ed persons arrived there and protested. In this way, P.W.3 has corroborated the prosecution story that at the relevant time the land was in possession of the p rosecution witnesses. Besides this, P.W.3 has further clarified that the inform ant and other prosecution witnesses were harvesting paddy from their own land. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I find no difficulty to affirm the co nviction of the appellants under Section 147 and 447, IPC. With regard to the co nviction of the appellants under Section 323, IPC, Sri Mazumdar, learned senio r counsel submitted that the appellant Abu Siddik is the son/brother -in-law o f the other accused persons and he is also a teacher by profession. According t o the learned counsel, at the relevant time he had casually visited the place of occurrence. However, this submission is not supported by the statement given b y the appellant Abu Siddik under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. In the said statement, Abu Siddik had taken a plea that on the relevant day and time he was at home and he came to know about the incident only on the next morning, when he visited his father-in-law, Hazarat Ali. Be that as it may, the said accused did not adduce any evidence to prove this alibi. On the other hand, the independent witnesse s (P.W.3) have categorically stated that Abu Siddik had also accompanied other accused persons and this statement could not be impeached in the cross-examinat ion. It is true that Abu Siddik did not assault any person. However, when the sa id accused has been convicted under Section 147/447, he cannot be spared from t he offence U/S 323. In other words, with the aid of Section 149 IPC also his co nviction under Section 323 IPC can be upheld. In other words, the conviction of all the appellants U/S 323 IPC is also hereby affirmed. 9. Shri Mazumdar, learned senior counsel also submitted that having regard to land dispute and relation between the parties the appellant deserves to be released on probation. 10. In my considered opinion, while giving the benefit of releasing a convict on probation the circumstances in which the offence was committed als o has to be taken into consideration. 11. In the case before me, civil suit was pending and the accused pe rsons were also claiming their right and title over the land. Beside this, P.W.3 has also admitted the fact that atleast three accused persons were also assaul ted by the prosecution witnesses. Besides this, the alleged offence was committe d in the year 1991 and on this ground also the sentence of imprisonment can be c onverted into fine. In my considered opinion fine of Rs.1000/- each for offence under Section 147/323 and Rs.500/-each for offence under Section 447, IPC would meet the ends of justice. In other words, each of the appellants are sentenced t o pay a fine of Rs.2500/- (two thousand five hundred) only and in default they s hall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, the maximum concurrent senten ce awarded by the trial court. 12. The appellants are given 2(two) months time for depositing the f ine amount in the trial court and on such deposit, the trial court shall pay 50 % of the amount to the informant and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the treasury. 13. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of. 14. Return the LCR.