JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The eight Appellants along with six others acquitted were tried on charges under Sections 147, 323 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by Shri T.V. Rao, Additional sessions Judge, Pori. All the Appellants were convicted u/s 147, I.P.C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Appellants Raghunath Padhan and Gobardhan Padhan were also convicted u/s 304, I.P.C. of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of deceased Bidya Naik and were convicted under the second part of the said section and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Appellants Raghunath Padhan, Dinabandhu Swain, Ananta Padhan, Narasingh Padhan, Maguni Padhan, Fakira Padhan and Markanda Padhan were also convicted u/s 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for six months each. All the sentences against all the Appellants were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that a dispute arose over the boundary ridge between the fields of the informant Lokanath Naik and the Appellant Raghunath Padhan as the latter wrongfully ploughed the ridge, threw earth into the fields of Lokanath and thereby encroached upon his lands. It is stated that Lokanath reported the matter to Kanhei Padhan, the father of Raghunath, and they both took Bhadraloks to the fields on 6-2-1956 and demarcated the boundary and pitched stones thereon. On the next day, the sons of Kanhei Padhan removed the stones which were again replaced by Lokanath, on 8-2-1956. It is stated that in the afternoon of that day, the Appellants along with the six other accused who Were acquitted formed into an unlawful assembly armed with Thengas with the common object of assaulting the informant's party for replacing the stones in the boundary ridge and proceeded towards the fields passing by the side of the informant's house in sarangi sahi. At this time, Kanhei Padhan, father of Appellant Raghunath Padhan, requested the sarbarkar Nilamani Hazari (P.W. 16) to settle the matter amicably, In consequence of which Basu Martha (P.W. 15) and Banchhanidhi Naik (P.W. 3), the brothers of Loknath Naik, were called to that place and Ananta Moharana (P.W. 20) was sent to recall the sons of Kanhei Padhan going towards the fields. It is stated that Ananta called them back from the Bhagabat Ghar about 100 cubits from Loknath Naik's house and while they were returning, Appellant Raghunath Padhan shook his Thenga towards Lokanath Naik who was sitting on his Pinda in the company of Bidya Naik (the deceased), Bhagaban Naik (P.W. 7) and Shyam Sunder Martha (P.W. 2) and challenged them why they had not gone to the fields to measure their strength with them. It is the prosecution case that at this challenge, Bidya protested by coming out of the Pinda and accosted Raghunath whether they were going to beat them, at which Appellant Raghunath dealt a lathi blow on the head of Bidya who fell down to the ground. Immediately thereafter Appellants Gobardhan Padhan and Dinabandhu Swain dealt two other lathi blows to Bidya On his head and he fell down unconscious bleading profusely from his wounds on the ground. Lokanath, Bhagaban and Shyam ran to the rescue of Bidya when they were also assaulted by Appellants Narasingh, Markanda, Fakira and Maguni and by acquitted accused Mina. Damodar Naik and Gopinath Naik also came running on hearing the Hulla and they were also assaulted by Appellant Ananta Padhan and acquitted accused Basu Moharana, Gobinda Moharana and Rahasa Padhan. Banchhanidhi Naik (P.W. 3) who was attending the Panchayat at the Sarbarakar's place came running out hearing the Hulla and he was also attacked by Appellant Raghunath and acquitted accused Mina. It is further stated that the Bhadraloks Nilamani Hazari (P.W. 16), Hata Biswal (P.W. 11) and Narasingha Prusti (P.W. 18) came running on hearing the row along with Basu Martha (P.W. 15), father of Bidya, and found Bidya lying in a precarious condition and was bleeding through his mouth and nostrils. They arranged for his removal to Sarankul Police Station accompanied by the informant Lokanath Naik and other injured persons, but on the way Bidya died. His dead body was produced at the Police Station at 11 P.M. that night and information was lodged before the police by Lokanath. The Sub-Inspector in charge of the Police Station (P.W. 80) drew up the First Information Report (Ext. 1) and took up the investigation. About one hour before Lokanath reached the police station, Appellant Raghunath Padhan and five others had lodged information against Lokanath and others complaining of rioting committed, as per Ext. 26. Dr. The Sub-Inspector in charge of the Police Station (P.W. 80) drew up the First Information Report (Ext. 1) and took up the investigation. About one hour before Lokanath reached the police station, Appellant Raghunath Padhan and five others had lodged information against Lokanath and others complaining of rioting committed, as per Ext. 26. Dr. I.P. Acharya (P.W. 5) conducted the postmortem examination on 2.2-1956 and the Appellants along with the other accused afterwards were charge-sheeted. 3. Ext. 2 is the post-mortem report of the deceased Bidya. In the opinion of the Medical Officer (P.W. 5), the cause of death of the deceased was due to the injuries on the head resulting in bleeding extra and infra-dural which was sufficient to cause brain shock and pressure over the brain to ensue a fatal result. Dr. C. Misra (P.W. 6), the Medical Officer, Sarankul Dispensary examined the injured persons, Shyam (P.W. 2), Banchhanidhi (P.W. 3), Damodar (P.W. 4), Bhagaban (P.W. 7) and Gopinath (P.W. 8) on 9-2-1956 on police requisition and found injuries on them as described in the injury certificates. Exts. 3 to 8 are the injury certificates. Appellant Raghunath Padhan and five others were examined by the same Doctor (P.W. 6). Appellant Raghunath Padhan had a swelling of the left ring finger with lacerated injury on it measurtng 1/4/" X1/6 "X 1/6"- which was simple in nature caused by hard rough substance as per Ext. 9. Appellant Ananta Padhan had a swelling on the left shoulder as per Ext. 10. Appellant Narasingh Padhan had a lacerated injury 11/2"X1/2"x1/6" on the middle of the right parietal bone of the scalp as per Ext. 11. Appellant Magunl Padhan had a swelling with scratches on the right palm, right below joint and left shoulder as per Ext. 12. Appellant Fakira Padhan had one big swelling covering almost half of the right fore-arm with a shall scratch on it as per Ext. 18. Appellant Markanda Padhan had a swelling on the back of the left shoulder joint with irregular abrasions measuring 1"X1" and a swelling on the left knee joint with a scratch as per Ext. 14. According to the medical evidence, all the injuries of the Appellants were found to be simple in nature and caused by hard rough substance. 4. The Appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges framed against them. 14. According to the medical evidence, all the injuries of the Appellants were found to be simple in nature and caused by hard rough substance. 4. The Appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges framed against them. They stated that they were going to the fields holding Badis to see the damage caused to their ridge by the informant's' men who had shifted the ridge wrongfully that while they were going they were caned back by Ananta Moharana (P.W.20) and Dina Swain from the Bhagabat Ghar; that at the Pinda of the informant Lokanath Naik, a mob consisting of 16 persons armed with lathis and Bhusas were assembled including Bidya, Shyam, Damodar, Gopinath, Bhagaban, Banchhanidhi, Lokanath and others and while they reached the Mandap In front of Kasi Sarangi's house, deceased Bidya challenged as to why they were returning without proceeding to the fields and abused them as 'Sala' ; and that when Raghunath protested saying that they were going to attend the Panchayat at the Sarbarakar's place, Bidya rushed at them with a Thenga saying that the Panchayat would be made then and there and strock a blow aiming at the head of Ananta, but as the later turned back it struck on his left shoulder. They also stated that they moved their Badis in self defence and retraced their steps towards their house when Basu (P.W. 13) came behind and pierced a Bhusa on the head of Narasingh who fell down senseless and they carried him home. Some of the accused also pleaded alibi. They therefore stated that they were not the aggressors and they had not assaulted Bidya Naik or the other prosecution witnesses voluntarily, but while moving their Thengas in self defence, they might have been injured. Appellant Raghunath denied of having caused the death of Bidya or of having committed rioting and stated that it was the informant's party who sifted the ridge by encroaching to their land and when they replaced it, the informant's party were waiting to assault them. 5. P.W. 1 Lokanath Naik, P.W. 2 Shyam Sunder Martha, P.W. 3 Banchhanidhi Naik, P.W. 4 Damodar Naik, P.W. 7 Bhagaban Naik and P.W. 8 Gopinath Naik, the Injured persons, speak to the story of the prosecution. 5. P.W. 1 Lokanath Naik, P.W. 2 Shyam Sunder Martha, P.W. 3 Banchhanidhi Naik, P.W. 4 Damodar Naik, P.W. 7 Bhagaban Naik and P.W. 8 Gopinath Naik, the Injured persons, speak to the story of the prosecution. In addition to this, P.W.12 Kasinath Sarangi, P.W.13 Baso Naik, P.W. 19 Chakradhar Sarangi, P.W. 20 Ananta Moharana, P.W. 22 Bhima Pradhan and P.W. 24 Gobinda Majhi are the alleged eye-witnesses independent of the Injured persons. P.W. 23 and 24 were not examined by the Public Prosecutor, but were tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 16 Nilamani Hazari P.W. 15 Basu Martha, P.W. 18 Narasingh Prusti and P.W. 11 Hata Biswal arrived at the spot on hearing a row and saw the accused persons going away with Thengas and some members of the informant's party lying Injured. P.W. 10 Chintamani Padhan and P.W. 14 Bhubaneswar Sarangi speak to a portion of the occurrence. 6. The main contentions raised by Mr. Asok Das, the learned Counsel for the Appellants are two. In the first place, he contended that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have accepted the prosecution case as disclosed in the evidence in the face of a different story having been given by P.W.l in the first information. He contended that the evidence adduced in the case was contrary to that disclosed in the first information and as such the prosecution story could not be believed. Secondly, he contended that the prosecution Party was the aggressor and even if the Appellants were alleged to have caused the injuries complained of, they acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person and as such were exonerated from all liability. 7. Looking into the First Information Report, the evidence of P.W. 1 and the evidence of the other witnesses for the prosecution, three different versions of the occurrence appear to have been spoken to. 8. The occurrence is admitted as having taken place on 8-2-1956 in the village Danda resulting In the death of one person and simple injuries with lacerated wounds on five others on the prosecution side and simple Injuries on six persons of the accused party. This occurrence is the result of a dispute over the intervening ridge of the fields of Lokanath Naik and Kanhei Padhan, the father of Appellant Raghunath. Accused Nos. 5, 8, 12 and 14 are the brothers of Raghunath and accused Nos. This occurrence is the result of a dispute over the intervening ridge of the fields of Lokanath Naik and Kanhei Padhan, the father of Appellant Raghunath. Accused Nos. 5, 8, 12 and 14 are the brothers of Raghunath and accused Nos. 4 ann 9 are his uncles. Accused No. 7 is the son of accused No. 9. Accused Nos. 2 and 6 are the sons of accused No. 4. Accused Nos. 3 and 10 are the cousins of Raghunath while accused Nos. 11 and 18 are the paternal cousins of Raghunath. Thus all the accused seem to be closely related. The prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Lokanath Naik, P.W. 15 Basu Martha, P.W. 8 Gopinath Naik and P.W. 3 Banchhanidhi Naik are brothers. P.W. 7 Bhagaban Naik is the son of Lokanath Naik. The deceased Bidya, P.W. 2 Shyam and P.W. 4 Damodar are the sons of P.W.15 Basu Martha. P.W. 20 Ananta Moharana is the maternal uncle of Appellant Raghunath Padhan and his brothers. The facts connected with the origin of the dispute appear to be this. Lokanath purchased a piece of land from Boita Bewa about S or 4 years prior to the occurrence white the adjoining land to the east belonging to Boita's co-sharer Bhaiga Dalabehera (P.W. 29) was purchased by Kanhei Padhan subsequently. In February 1956 disputes seem to have arisen between the parties over the intervening ridge. Lokanath claimed that the rid e which was straight was ploughed by Kanhei Padhan's sons and was made curved towards Lokanath's side. Kanhei's sons denied that the ridge was straight and asserted that it Was curved towards Lokanath's side from the beginning. On the request of Lokanath, Kanhei went to the field on 6-2-1956 with Bhadraloks P.Ws. 9, 10, 11 and 15 to demarcate the boundary. P.W. 9 stated in his evidence that he found the ridge a bit curved in the middle and that they advised them to get the boundary demarcated by an Amin later on and till then they advised them to straighten the ridge without creating trouble over it. II is stated that both parties agreed to the proposal and stones were placed on the demarcating boundary in a straight tine. II is stated that both parties agreed to the proposal and stones were placed on the demarcating boundary in a straight tine. P.W. 11 slated that white they were fixing stones, Appellant Raghunath pradhan and one Rajkishore Sahu objected to such fixing of stones without measurement by the Amin, but that Kanhei wanted the Bhadraloks to proceed with the demarcation. According to Lokanath (P.W.1), the accused persons removed the demarcating stones on 7-2-1956 and that he learnt from Kasinath Sarangi (P.W. 12) that Appellant Raghunath Padhan banged at his door while returning from the field challenging that they had removed the stones and that Lokanath's men might replace the same. It is stated that on Wednesday at bathing time, Lokanath reported to Kanhei about the conduct of his sons and called him to the fields for fixing the boundary stones again, but Kanhei did not listen and so Lokanath went to the fields and refixed the stones on the, boundary. In the afternoon, the Appellant and 'acquitted accused numbering 14 are stated to have come armed with lathis and proceeded toward the filed being watched by Lokanath, Shyam, Bhagaban and Bidya from their Pinda. It is also stated by P.W. 1 that they were going to remove the stones forcibly and to assault his men if they went there. It is the prosecution evidence that at that time Kanhei again asked Nilamani Hazari (P.W. 16) to intervene and settle the dispute as his sons were again going to the field. Ananta Moharana (P.W. 20) called back the accused to attend the Panchayat at the Sarbarakar's place and while passing Raghunath gave a threat to the informant saying "Had they come to the field, they would have seen what would have happened" and brandished his Thenga towards Bidya. On seeing this, Bidya came towards him and protested as to why they were showing Thengas and asked them whether they meant to beat them. It is the evidence of Lokanath that thereupon Raghunath assaulted Bidya on the head with a lathi followed immediately by lathi blows by Gobardhan and, Dinabandhu, as a result of which Bidya fell down senseless and succumbed to his injuries. It is the evidence of Lokanath that thereupon Raghunath assaulted Bidya on the head with a lathi followed immediately by lathi blows by Gobardhan and, Dinabandhu, as a result of which Bidya fell down senseless and succumbed to his injuries. But this version of what occurred as stated by P.W. I and the injured persons is at variance not only with the first information lodged by P.W. 1 Lokanath, but also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses tendered for cross-examination-P.Ws. 23 and 34. The version of the occurrence as spoken to by P.W. 20 Ananta Moharana, P.W. 23 Bali Swain and P.W. 24 Gobinda Majhi is quite different. They stated that while the accused party consisting of six persons Raghunath, Markanda, Narasingha, Fakir, Ananta and Maguni were returning from the Bhagabat Ghar on being caned by the Sarbarakar to attend the Panchayat through Anant Moharana, they reached near the Mandap when Lokanath's party 16 in number including P.Ws. 1 to 4, 7, 8 and deceased Bidya who were armed with Thengas attacked them. It is stated by them that the deceased Bidya challenged Appellant Raghunath as to why they were returning without going to the fields and when Raghunath replied that they were going to attend the Panchayat, Bidya declared that the Panchayat would be made then and there and so saying he rushed with a Thenga and struck Ananta followed by Gopinath who struck Ananta and both parties fought with each other with Thengas. P.Ws. 28 and 24 did not speak to the alteration alleged by the prosecution, but their evidence is simply to the effect that they saw Bidya running and assaulting Ananta Padhan. The learned Sessions Judge held that all the partisan witnesses of the prosecution party suppressed the fact that Bidya assaulted any body during the 'marpit' and alleged that without any provocation Appellants Raghunath, Gobardhan and Dinabandhu assaulted Bidya with fatal blows and that the story as stated by them was highly improbable. In the first Information Report, a third version appears and this is the earliest version of the prosecution. In the first Information Report, a third version appears and this is the earliest version of the prosecution. It is to the effect that at about 5 0' clock on the day of occurrence, all the accused came armed with lathis and spears to the house of P.W. 1; that Raghunath Padhan, Dinabandu swain and Gobardhan Padhan assaulted Bidya ; and that some of the other accused assaulted some other injured persons as stated in the prosecution evidence. It is clear from the First Information Report that the version stated therein does not refer to the accused party going to the fields armed with lath is and on their return assaulting Bidya and others who were sitting on" the Pinda. The case, as stated in the earliest information, appears to be that the accused party came direct to the house of Lokanath and assaulted the persons. But this is not the version as stated in the evidence of P.W. 1 and the version as stated by P.Ws. 20,23 and 24. Consequently, the learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct in contending that the story of the prosecution, as disclosed in evidence, ought not to have been accepted as it materially differs from that of the First Information Report. 9. The version of the occurrence, as stated by the defence, is that the ridge was curved, but it was Lokanath who shifted the ridge and placed earth on the field of Kanhei by encroaching with one cubit of land; that Kanhei's sons removed the encroachment; that there was no demarcation by the Bhadraloks, but that Lokanath's men again replaced the ridge and challenged the accused persons at their door on the afternoon of 8-2-1956 saying that they had reerected the ridge again; and that the accused might go to remove the same. It Is the defence version that so saying Lokanath's men 16 in number armed with Thengas and Bhusas went back to their house and were assembled there to assault the Appellants when they went to their field; that Appellant Raghunath Pradhan and his brothers six in number went to see the damage caused to their field, but they were called back by Ananta Moharana and Dina Swain to attend the Panchayat from the Bhagabat Ghar and when they reached Kasi Sarangi's Mandap, Bidya Naik challenged them as to why they were returning without proceeding to the fields and when Appellant Raghunath replied that they were going to attend the Punchayat, Bidya declared that the Punchayat would be made then and there and so saying he rushed with a lathi and struck Ananta and his companions attacked the six accused persons and what they did afterwards was an done in exercise of the right of private defence. This version of the defence is supported substantially by the evidence of P.Ws. 20, 23 and 24. As the evidence on behalf of the prosecution is mostly interested evidence, in my opinion, the version given by the defence appears to be more probable in view of the fact that it is supported by three prosecution witnesses. 10. The learned Sessions Judge laboured much in his judgment to bring the facts of this case under the ambit of the decision in the case of Matte Mandal and Others Vs. Emperor. In this case it was held, Where the party of the accused goes to the place knowing that they would meet with opposition and taking with them a large body of men to defeat that opposition and the party of the prosecution incidentally appear to have done exactly the same thing, it is clear that neither party can claim any right of private defence and the assemblies of men on both sides were unlawful. It is not of much importance in the circumstances which side began the attack when both parties contemplated a fight and prepared for it in advance. It is not of much importance in the circumstances which side began the attack when both parties contemplated a fight and prepared for it in advance. On the authority of this decision, the learned Sessions Judge observed, "It appears to be most probable that while the accused party were returning accused Raghu accosted the complaint's party for not going to the fields to measure their strength but arranging a panchayat, the deceased Bidya took up the challenge and he rushed with a 'thenga' and assaulted one of the accused persons may be Ananta or some body else, thereupon both parties joined in a free fight in which Bidya was fatally assaulted by his assailants." This conclusion, in my opinion, does not follow in view of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 20, 23 and 24 and the contrary version of the prosecution case put forward in the sessions court differing in essential particulars from the version given in the first information, especially when the learned Sessions Judge himself in categorical terms says, "The prosecution have suppressed the story of Bidya assaulting first the accused party; but It is not at all probable that without any provocation the accused party would deal fatal blows on Bidya causing his fall instantaneously". In my opinion, the learned sessions Judge erred In getting over this finding of his by merely saying on the authority of the decision of the Patna High Court that it was not material whether the attack was commenced by the informant's party or by the accused party as both parties were determined to fight with each other to decide the issue then and there. 11. In this connection, it is also contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the evidence in the case is contrary to the charge framed against the Appellants and that the common object, as stated in the charge, was not made out. The charge framed against 14 accused persons is as follows: That you on or about the 8th day of February 1956 at Gudipada were each a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely, to assault the members of complainant's party committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code.... In paragraph 2 of the judgment, In enumerating the prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge stated that the fourteen accused with the common object of assaulting the informant's party for replacing the stones in the boundary ridge proceeded towards the field passing by the side of the Informant's house in Sarangi Sahi and then when they were returning on being caned to attend the Punchayat the occurrence took place. Mr. Asok Das contends that the common object of the accused persons armed with lathis was to go to the ridge and not to assault the informant's party. He also contends that if the common object of the assembly Was to assault the informant's party, they would have assaulted them when going to the field seeing they were sitting on the Pinda of P.W. 1. Admittedly, according to the prosecution evidence, this did not happen. They passed the house of Lokanath seeing some of the prosecution party sitting there and were going towards the field. P.W. 20 then called them to attend the Panchayat. They heeded to his request and returned from the Bhagabat Ghar to attend the Punchayat and when they Were going to attend the Panchayat, the evidence of P.Ws. 20, 23 and 24 shows that Bidya rushed in the first instance with a Thenga towards them and assaulted Ananta and the other members of the prosecution party also came running towards them and the 'mar pit' took place. So it cannot be said that when the accused party was returning from the Bhrgabat Ghar to attend the Punchayat, they went with the object of having a fight. The learned Government Advocate contended that as the common object in the charge is only to assault the members of the prosecution party, the evidence has proved the charge in as much as it can be held that the Appellant's party returned from the Bhagabat Ghar and then the assault took place. But the prosecution case must be viewed as a whole and that case discloses that the Appellant's party started from their house with the common object of assaulting the informant's party with Thengas. This case is not made out by the prosecution. There is evidence in the prosecution case that when the Appellants were returning from the Bhagabat Ghar to attend the Punchayat, Bidya and others of the prosecution party ran towards them and assaulted them. This case is not made out by the prosecution. There is evidence in the prosecution case that when the Appellants were returning from the Bhagabat Ghar to attend the Punchayat, Bidya and others of the prosecution party ran towards them and assaulted them. In these circumstances, the counter assault by the Appellants amounts to an attack in exercise of the right of private defence of person. Ananta, one of the Appellants, was beaten severely on the head from the back with a lathi. The Appellants were only 6 in number. The prosecution party were about 16 in number. They rushed against them with lathis. At that stage it was not for them to modulate their defence. They must, in the first instance, protect themselves and with that and In view, they dealt some blows with lathis on Bidya and others. I do ant think that in causing the death of Bidya with a blow with the lathi they exceeded the right of private defence. 12. In the case of Parbhoo and Others Vs. Emperor, decided by Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of seven Judges, it was held by the majority. In a case in which any general exception in the 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 at 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 evidence given in support of the plea of the said 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. In the case of Gajanand and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court held. A free fight is when both sides mean to fight from the start, go out to fight and there is a pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival commanders. There could be no question of a free fight when there was a clear finding of the High Court that Anjaninandant's party were the aggressors. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival commanders. There could be no question of a free fight when there was a clear finding of the High Court that Anjaninandant's party were the aggressors. Having regard to the finding reached by the High Court the riot took place at the narrow path as a result of the dispute about the Nepali pilgrim and the further fact that Gajenand's party received more numerous injuries one of which was fatal, it was obvious that Gajanand's party could not be said to have constituted an unlawful assembly. Gajanand's party was engaged in the peaceful pursuit of worship at their own takhat and was busy attending to the Puja for the Nepali pilgrim. At that point of time they were not members of an unlawful assembly. 13. Applying the principles of these two decisions, I am of opinion that it cannot he held that the accused party, when returning from the Bhagabat Ghar On being called by P.W. 20 to attend a Punchayat, had gone prepared for a fight and that the occurrence in this case was the result of Bidya and others of the prosecution party rushing at the Appellant's party armed with Thengas and assaulting them. Therefore, it cannot be held that the Appellants had a common object of assaulting the informant's party and that their conduct In beating some members of the prosecution party which resulted in the death of one person on the evidence in the case amounts to an act of exercise of the right of private defence. At least the evidence raises a doubt with regard to this plea. The Appellants are entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 14. I would, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentences passed on the Appellants, acquit them of the offences for which they were convicted and allow the appeal. Appellants 1 and 2 wilt be set at liberty forthwith and the bait bonds of the other Appellants wilt be cancelled. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed