JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - The six accused-Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 16th November, 1956 of Sri A.R. Guru, Sessions Judge of Cuttack, convicting Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 (Banambar Sahu and Fakir Sahu) u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. He has also convicted them u/s 148, Indian Penal Code, bot not passed any sperate sentence. The other four Appellants have been convicted u/s 148, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. The prosecution case is that Gobardhan Mohapatra (P.W. 13) was the Sarabarkar of moozas Tentulia, Keotipatna and Charimarhia in the Subdivision of Banki. The sarabarakari rights were abolished in the year 1950, but nevertheless the Government allowed the Sarabarkar to cultivate some lands in Khas. Accordingly Gobardhan Mohapatra got two acres in Panchapahara, Order 59 in Gholepur and 0rder 41 in Gopalpor. The two plots is Gholepur and Gopalpur from one contiguous land. The prosecution case is that Gobardhan had been in possession of these lands particularly those situate in Gholepor and Gopalpur ever since 3rd November 1950. There is a water channel through which the water from these lands Is drained out. Since the settlement Gobardhan claims to be improving the lands by levelling the lower portions. In 1955 the present accused persons along with others created trouble by trying to close up the mouth of the channel and thereby to render the lands of Gobardhan useless. Gobardhan filed a petition for action u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure in consequence of which the present accused persons were warned not to create trouble. 3. The further part of the prosecution story leading to the occurrence is that on 29th April, 1956 Gobardhan P.W. 13 and his son Krushna (P.W. 1) engaged 7 labourers to level up a portion of the land. They worked till midday. 3. The further part of the prosecution story leading to the occurrence is that on 29th April, 1956 Gobardhan P.W. 13 and his son Krushna (P.W. 1) engaged 7 labourers to level up a portion of the land. They worked till midday. Next day they started working on this land 01 Gobardhan and alter finishing their work before 8 O'clock when five of the mulias were returning to their village at Ghodabar which is at a distance of a mile from the place of occurrence and the other two munas were, however, following P.W. l to receive the wages the accused persons in a boy armed with lathis appeared and committed rioting at a distance of nearly 300 cubits away from the place where the mulias were working in the morning. Accused Banambar gave a lathi blow on Jayi Naik who was going ahead of the five mulias and accused Fakir also gave another lathi blow to Jayi Naik. As a result of these blows Jayi fell down on the ground senseless. P.W. 8 Dhoi Naik was amongst the five mulias and was also assaulted. Thereafter the other mulias ran away to a safe distance. But in the mean time P.W. 6 Jogi Naik, Chowkidar of village Ghodabar from where all these mulias were coming, was passing by the way and saw the occurrence. He rushed to the injured Jayi Naik. He also was given a blow by accused Banambar. However he carried the injured to the police station and to the hospital. 4. First information report was lodged by P.W. 1 Krushna, the son of Gobardhan at about 1 O' clock in the afternoon of that day the police station being at a distance of 7 miles. The injured was unconscious and was in the hospital till 7.30 a.m. of 2nd May, 1956 when he expired. His dying declaration could not be taken by Taluk Officer, P.W.4 as the injured lay unconscious throughout till his death. 5. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their Case is that the land of Narasingh Sahu which was being cultivated by Shyamghan Sahu (Appellant No. 5) for the year in question adjoins the land of Gobardhan. Shyamaghan had grown tobacco on this adjoining land for the year io question. 5. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their Case is that the land of Narasingh Sahu which was being cultivated by Shyamghan Sahu (Appellant No. 5) for the year in question adjoins the land of Gobardhan. Shyamaghan had grown tobacco on this adjoining land for the year io question. On the date and time of occurrence accused Bimambar Fakir and Syamaghan were working in that and 4 to 5 mulias came and dog earth from that very land. Accused Shyamaghan having protested an the mulias fled away excepting Jayi Naik, the deceased who persisted in digging earth. Thereafter accused Shyamaghan pushed him. Jay Naik too made an attempt with the crowbar in his hand to assault Shamaghan. Accused Banambar and Fakir rushed to the field with sticks and resisted the blow with the help of the sticks. The deceased fell down with the crowbar. He got up and again attempted to assault Shamaghan with the same crowbar. The further defence is that when for the second time there was an attempt by the deceased to deal a blow with the help of the crowbar that also was avoided by these three accused persons with the help of their sticks. The deceased fell down and the three accused persons left the place. 6. The prosecution mainly relies upon and the conviction is also based on the evidence of seven eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, Sambhu Naik, Dhoi Naik, Saunti Naik, Sanei Naik and Ananda Naik respectively, are mulias belong to village Ghodabar who were working on the day of occurrence in the morning hours for Gobardhan. P.W. 1 is the son of Gobardhan and also claiming to be an eye-witness. P.W. 6 is the Chowkidar of village Ghodabar and also is a resident of the same village. The learned Sessions Judge characterises him a chance witness as according to this witness he came from his village with his mother-in-law who was returning to her village and left her at Gholpur and was coming back with a view to secure a loan when he had to pass by the way and saw the occurrence: but nevertheless as he had a very slight injury which could have been caused by a fall, the learned Sessions Judge believes that he was present at the time of the occurrence. P.W. 8 happens to be the brother of P.W. 6. P.Ws. 9 and 11, the other mulias, are also brothers. P.W. 1, who claims to be an eye-witness, states in his cross-examination that the land of Gobardhan and that Narasingh Sahu adjoin each other, that the ridge between the two lands had disappeared due to deposit of silt, that a nala ran from this land in possession of Gobardhan and that the accused persons had closed the mouth of the nala. Narasingha's land, h admits, was cultivated by Shamaghan for the year in question and Shyamaghan had grown tobacco in the land adjoining their land. He further stales that Narasinga Sahu had stopped the Nala by filling it up and mixing it with his lands". The spot map prepared by P.W. 10, Radhanath Mohanty, A.S.I. of Police, also indicates that the plat where the mulias were alleged to have worked on the date of occurrence is just adjacent to the tobacco plot. 7. Now I will come to the story about the occurrence itself. Besides the mulias and the son of Gobardhan, we have got the evidence of P.W. 6, the chowkidar of village Ghodabar. He says that his village is at a distance of a mile from the place of occurrence, he is not the Chowkidar of Gholepur, or Gopalpur or Govindapur where the lands are situate. According to him he escorted his mother-in-law to her village and after leaving her there when he was coming for a loan, as he had no food in his house for a couple of days, he saw the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge, as I have indicated above, was constrained to acknowledge that he appeared to be a chance witness; but he relied on his evidence on account of the reason that he had sustained some injury. He was In fact examined by the same doctor (P.W. 14) who held post mortem examination on the deceased Jayi Naik. The doctor found a very slight injury and was of the opinion that this slight injury could have been caused by a fall even and it could also have been self-inflicted, and it was so negligible in nature. Moreover this witness in his cross-examination states that none except him saw the occurrence, excepting Krushna, the son of Gobardhan. The doctor found a very slight injury and was of the opinion that this slight injury could have been caused by a fall even and it could also have been self-inflicted, and it was so negligible in nature. Moreover this witness in his cross-examination states that none except him saw the occurrence, excepting Krushna, the son of Gobardhan. But in the committing court he had stated that he alone was present when jayi Naik was assaulted. This is entirely contradictory to the prosecution evidence and on the basis of this statement the evidence of the other eye-witnesses falls to the ground. Aprat from this while scanning the evidence of the other eye-witnesses I find that there are very great Improbabilities throwing a good deal of doubt and suspicion about the story presented before the Court. 8. Regarding the place of occurrence, the prosecution case is that it took place nearly 280 to 300 cubits away from the CHAKA where the lands of P.W. 13 are situate and where the mulias were working. Five mulias were returning home after finishing their work and the accused persons appeared on the spot, that is nearly, 300 cubits away from the place where the mulias were digging and dealt two lathi blows as against deceased Jayi Naik. This appears highly improbable. The basis of the prosecution Case is that it was on account of the previous disputes in respect of the lands situate in the two villages Gopalpur and Gholepur which were in possession of Gobardhan since 1950, when he ceased to be the Sarabarakar that the disputes between the villagers and Gobardhan arose and further that it was for this purpose that resistance was being offered by these accused persons and the accused persons assaulted the deceased. It is significant to note that in fact, according to the story told by the prosecution, digging by the mulias took place not only on the date of occurrence but also from the previous day when the mulias worked from morning till noon. On the date of occurrence also the mulias worked from morning till about 8 0' clock when, after finishing the work they had proceeded far away, the occurrence took place. On the date of occurrence also the mulias worked from morning till about 8 0' clock when, after finishing the work they had proceeded far away, the occurrence took place. If these accused persons meant to obstruct the digging process of the mulias, it is not possible to expect why they did not so obstruct the mulias or the deceased on the spot where they were digging and why should they be waiting till after the work had finished and the mulias had gone away to such a distance. It can never be suggested for a moment that the accused persons were taken by surprise on the date of occurrence and did not know about the working of the mulias on the disputed land, because the work was going on since the previous day and the accused persons belong to the neighbouring village at a very close distance. 9. Further regarding the lime of occurrence it is highly improbable to expect that in fact when the mulias had finished their work before 8, the occurrence took place at 8 0' clock. It is the definite evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 that in fact on the previous day the mulias worked from morning tilt noon and this is in consonance with the habits of the labourers of the locality. But it is curious that on the date of occurrence the mulia would be finishing their work as early as 7.30 or 8 in the morning-the prosecution has stated in the F. I. R. that the occurrence took place at 8 0' clock in the morning. This can never be accepted as true. Moreover what possibly Can be the motive against this poor labourer Jayi Naik. According to the prosecution story, the son of Gobardhan was there. He is the main witness and has been examined as P.W. 1 in the case. If the accused persons had any grudge they would immediately rush against this P.W.1 rather than deal death blows to this innocent mulia who was engaged simply as a labourer. It is significant to note in this connexion that the investigating officer, who reached the spot very promptly, according to his statement did not find any blood on the spot. If the accused persons had any grudge they would immediately rush against this P.W.1 rather than deal death blows to this innocent mulia who was engaged simply as a labourer. It is significant to note in this connexion that the investigating officer, who reached the spot very promptly, according to his statement did not find any blood on the spot. These features not only make it very difficult to accept the prosecution story which appears to be untrustworthy, but to a great extent probabilises the defence version that the occurrence took place at the time when Jayi Naik persisted to dig inspite of the opposition of the accused persons and that he was digging on the Nala very adjacent to the tabacco plantation made by Shyamaghan. It is quite natural that if Jayi Naik persisted and did not listen to the several protests of the accused persons there would be altercation and when Jayi Naik who was with a crowbar as suggested by the defence, held the crowbar as against some of the accused persons who were present on the spot to resist, the accused persons had reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt and would be dealing blows with lathis against Jayi Naik. 10. There Is yet another important Inconsistency in the case of the prosecution which makes its story and its witnesses evidence unacceptable. Most of the eye-witnesses had made the statement that in fact Jayi Naik walked a distance of nearly 100 cubits after he had received the injuries. But according to the doctor's evidence the deceased had suffered multiple fractures on the skull and it would not be possible for him to walk a distance of 100 cubits. In fact the deceased was unconscious for a long time before his death. 11. Indeed it is not possible for us to find that the plea of self defence, as taken by the accused persons, has been completely established. But never. theless this is always the accepted principle that the standard of proof necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts is not what is required of the accused persons to establish their plea under any of the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. But never. theless this is always the accepted principle that the standard of proof necessary on the part of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts is not what is required of the accused persons to establish their plea under any of the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. But if the Court, after review of the entire evidence on record, finds that the plea is a plausible theory and if the Court entertains a reasonable doubt in his mind as to the guilt of the accused, the accused is certainly entitled to the benefit even though the accused persons has not been able to fully establish his plea of self defence or any other plea under the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code. I may In this connexion refer to a Bench decision of our High Court reported in Nitai Naik v. The State 23. C.L.T. 203. The judgment was delivered by me which was agreed to by my learned brother Das, J. after a review of quite a number of decisions on the point, and particularly relying upon Full Bench decisions of the Rangoon and Allahabad High Courts. There we came to the conclusion that: The accused is not caned upon to prove the ingredients of the provisions of Sections 84 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt in order to get an order of acquittal. It will be sufficient If on a review of all the evidence before the Court, the Court feels that the ingredients required under the section may reasonably be probable the accused is entitled to an acquittal. Or, in other words, on a review of the entire evidence, if the Court entertains a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to an acquittal in the Case, on the cardinal principle of criminal justice which has not been affected by the special provision of Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. That was a case where the accused had taken the plea of insanity coming under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. This decision has also been followed in the meantime by another Bench of this Court in Mundagudia Mulia v. State Crl. Appeal No. 28 of 1956. That was a case where the accused had taken the plea of insanity coming under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. This decision has also been followed in the meantime by another Bench of this Court in Mundagudia Mulia v. State Crl. Appeal No. 28 of 1956. It would be pertinent for me only to refer to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Parbhoo and Others Vs. Emperor, where Iqbal Ahmad, C.J. on a very careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the general principles of Criminal Jurisprudence administered in this country, laid down the proposition that: In a case in which any general exception in the Indian Penal Code is pleaded by an accused person and evidence is adduced to support such plea, but such evidence fails to satisfy the Court affirmatively of the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the general exception pleaded, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the general exception) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court whether the accused person is or is not entitled to the benefit of the said exception. This was the majority view of the Fun Bench. I need not refer to the other decisions which have been thoroughly discussed In my previous judgment reported in 28 C. L. T. 208. 12. In the instant case, as I have discussed above, it is not possible for us to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as coming with a true story i but nevertheless the materials transpiring in the prosecution case go a great way to make the defence version plausible and reasonable and lead us to entertain grave and reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons. 13. In conclusion, therefore, the appeal is allowed, the Appellants are acquitted of offences under Sections 302 and 148, Indian Penal Code, the convictions and sentences are set aside and the Appellants are to be set at liberty forthwith. Rao, J. 14. I agree. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed