JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This is an appeal by Mangal Khan and five others, who have been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly for roiting and connected offences. Mohammad Yar Khan has been convicted u/s 148, IPC. The remaining five Appellants have been convicted u/s 147, IPC. All the six Appellants have been convicted u/s 304, IPC and 325, IPC read with Section 149, IPC. Various sentences of imprisonment have been awarded for the different offenees. It is alleged that the six Appellants killed one Imdad Khan and caused grievous hurts to his father Khairullah Khan. 2. According to the prosecution, there was litigation between the parties about certain land. The land in dispute included plot No. 431 of village Dharmpur. Khairullah Khan was in possession over the plot in November 1956. There was groundnut crop in this plot. On the day of the occurrence the accused were digging ground-nut crop, which was in possession of Khairullah Khan. Khairullah Khan and his relations went to the field and objected to the digging of the groundnuts by the accused. There was an exchange of abuses between the parties. The party of the accused consisted of seven men. They were the six Appellants and one Khalil Khan. Mohammad Yar Khan accused carried a spear; while other six men had lathis. These seven men assaulted Khairullah and others. Khairullah and others fled away from plot No. 431. Khairullah and others were chased by the Appellants' party. Ultimately the Appellants' party surrounded Kairullah and others in a field belonging to Chid u Khan. In this field Imdad Khan E.nd 'Khairullah Khan were' beaten with the spear and lathis. Imdad Khan received serious injuries. Khaiiullah Khan also received a number of injuries. A report about the incident was lodged at the police station at night. Imdad Khan died as a result of his injuries. Khairullah Khan's injuries were medically examined. The six Appellants and Khalil Khan were prosecuted by the police for roiling, for murdering Imdad Khan and for causing grievous hurts to Khairullah Khan. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. The defence plea was that, plot No. 431 was in possession of the accused. Further, it was Khairullah Khan's party, which was digging up ground-nuts from the field that afternoon. When the accused protested, they were assaulted by Khairullah Khan's party. The accused filed away. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. The defence plea was that, plot No. 431 was in possession of the accused. Further, it was Khairullah Khan's party, which was digging up ground-nuts from the field that afternoon. When the accused protested, they were assaulted by Khairullah Khan's party. The accused filed away. But they were chased by Khairullah Khan's party. Ultimately, Khairullah Khan and his supporters started beating the accused in Ghiddu Khan's field. So some of the accused also struck back in self-defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case to the effect that, the Appellants' party chased Imdad Khan and Khairullah Khan. The six Appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Khalil Khan was acquitted. 5. It is common ground that, there was a fight between she parties at about 4 p.m. on 13-11-1936. The first information report on behalf of the prosecution was lodged on 13-11-1956 at 11-30 p.m. 6. According to the post-mortem report, Imdad Khan deceased had five injuries in all. There were two contused wound on the head. Injury No. 3 was an incised wound in one thigh. The remaining injuries were contusions on the back. Internal examination revealed a lacerated wound in the liver. Death was due to rupture of the liver resulting from these injuries. 7. Khairullah had nine injuries in all. Some injuries involved fractures of certain bones. Three injuries were grievous Imdad Khan and Khairullah Khan received 14 injuries in all. 8. The learned Sessions judge accepted the position that, the Appellants were in possession over plot No. 431 on the day of the occurrence. But the learned Sessions Judge observed that, this fact does not affect the result of the case. He held that the fight took place in Chiddu Khan's field at a distance of 200 steps from the held in dispute. The Court held that the accused had no justification for beating Khairullah Khan's party in Chiddu Khan's field. 9. Exts. Ka-12 and Ka-13 are the two reports lodged by the parties at the police station on 13-11-1956. Those cross-reports give the impression that, the fight took place in plot No. 431. But witnesses stated before the Court that, the light took place in Chhiddu Kaan's field at a distance of 200 steps from plot No. 431. Some of the accused also said that, the light took place in Chhiddu's field. Those cross-reports give the impression that, the fight took place in plot No. 431. But witnesses stated before the Court that, the light took place in Chhiddu Kaan's field at a distance of 200 steps from plot No. 431. Some of the accused also said that, the light took place in Chhiddu's field. In view of the stand taken by the parties before the Court, we may proceed on the footing that, the fight took place in Chhiddu Khan's field and not in plot No. 431. The question arises whether the accused had any justification for beating Khairullah Khan's party in Chhiddu Khan's field. Parties are not agreed as to how they reached Chhiddu Khan's field. Prosecution witnesses stated that Khairullah Khan's party was chased by the Appellant's party. On the other hand, the Appellants stated mat, they were chased by Knairullah Kuan's party. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version and held that the Appellants chased Khairullah Khan's party. 10. Reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jumman and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 469 . Their Lordships observed in that case on page 474 thus: In such a case where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, would it be correct to assume private defence for both sides? We are of the view that such a situation does not permit the plea of private defence on either side and would be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt, with u/s 300, IPC, Exception 4. 11. The principle laid down in Jumman's case is that, the right of private defence must not be assumed. The party, which alleges the right of private defence, has to establish that claim. In Jumman Khan's case the plea of the accused was one of complete denial of participation in die occurrence. On that plea, there was not much room for a plea of private defence. In the present case it is the definite case of the accused persons that, they were chased and beaten by Khairullah Khan's party. The accused raised the pie of private defence. On that plea, there was not much room for a plea of private defence. In the present case it is the definite case of the accused persons that, they were chased and beaten by Khairullah Khan's party. The accused raised the pie of private defence. The Court is, therefore, bound to decide the question of private defence, it is true that, the burden of proof lies upon the accused persons. But this burden is not so heavy as the burden, which lies on the prosecution for establishing its case against the accused persons. It is not necessary for the accused to produce witnesses in defence for making out and case of private defence. It is possible for the defence to make out a case of private defence from circumstances of the case. 12. In the present case the version placed by the prosecution before the Court differs materially from the version given in the report (Ext. Ka-12) and the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-14). Exts. Ka-12 and Ka-14 give the impression that, the tight took place in plot No. 431. Now it is said that, the fight took place in Chhiddu Khan's field at a distance of 100 yards from plot No. 431. In Exts. K--12 and Ka-14 it was conceded that Khairullah Khan's party was digging out groundnuts. Witnesses, however, said before the Court that, if was the Appellants' party, which was digging U.P. groundnuts before the light. The prosecution came before the Court on the footing that, Khairullah Khan was in possession over plot No. 431. But it has been proved that, the Appellants were in possession over plot No. 431 on 13-11-1956. We may also take it that, it was Khairullah Khan's party which was digging groundnuts from the held that afternoon. In other words Khairullah Khan's party was guilty of trespass and theft. The Appellants were justified in objecting to the removal of the groundnuts from the field by Khairullah Khan's party. Initially, Khairullah Khan's party-was the aggressor. 13. We know that subsequently the parties went from plot No. 431 to Chhiddu Khan's field. But there is no reliable evidence as to how the parties went from one field to the other. Each party accuses the other party for chase. We have seen that none of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution is a reliable witness. 13. We know that subsequently the parties went from plot No. 431 to Chhiddu Khan's field. But there is no reliable evidence as to how the parties went from one field to the other. Each party accuses the other party for chase. We have seen that none of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution is a reliable witness. Under the circumstances it is difficult to say which party was responsible for chasing the other party. Imdad Khan and Khairullah Khan jointly received 14 injuries in all. Two accused Shabbir Khan and Hasan Khan received six injuries in all. It is true that Khairullah Khan's party received more injuries than the Appellants' party. But the number of injuries received by the parties is not always decisive on the question as to who was the aggressor. We have seen that, initially Khairullah Khan's party was in the wrong. It is, therefore, quite possible that, Khairullah Khan's party chased the Appellants' party upto Chhiddu Khan's field and beat the Appellants there. On the view, the accused had the right of private defence of persons. At this stage there was no longer any question of private defence of property, as Chhiddu Khan's field is at a distance of 100 yards from plot No. 431. However, the question of private defence of persons remains. It is possible that, at first Khairullah Khan's party attacked the Appellants and the Appellants struck back in self-defence. 14. On that view, it cannot be said that the Appellants formed an unlawful assembly. It is to be noted that, initially the Appellants went to their field in order to protect their property. It is true that the injuries received by Shabbir Khan and Hassan Khan were simple. But some of the injuries were contused wounds on the heads. These injuries were inflicted by Khairullah Khan's party with lathis. There was, therefore, a reasonable apprehension of the accused receiving grievous hurts as a result of the attack by Khairullah Khan's party. The right of private defence of person, therefore, extended to the voluntary causing of death. The Appellants or any of them cannot be convicted for any offence. 15. The appeal is allowed. The six Appellants are acquitted of the various charges, for which they have been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Their bail bonds are discharged.