JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - Petitioners Arakhita Padhan, Hari Sahu, Bhramar Swain and Daitari Swain stand convicted under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- on each count, in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count. Petitioners Ghana, Padhan and Fakir Naik stand convicted under Sections 147 and 324, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count. Petitioner Pitei Bewa and Bhaskar Padhan are respectively the wife and son of late Dama Padhan, who died after the passing of the impugned judgment, confirming his conviction under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- on each count, in default to undergo 3 months R.I. on each count. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the date of occurrence, whilst the informant p.w. 1 and his brother p.w. 7 and their servants were cutting paddy from a piece of land belonging to p.w. 1; the Petitioners along with many others came upon the said land and assaulted the aforesaid persons with (sic) and brickbates causing several injuries on p.w. 1, his brother p.w. 7 and their servant Laxman Jena. 3. The Petitioner in their statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure totally denied the allegations levelled against them, and urged that this fail case was foisted against them due to previous enmity. But in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and in the submission made on behalf of the accused, both in the trial Court and in the appellate Court, a plea of right of private defence of property was advanced and the said plea was taken into consideration by both the Courts below. 4. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset made a vain attempt to assail the findings of fact arrived at by the Court? below on grounds of improper appreciation of the evidence on record, incredibility of the prosecution witness, and non-examination of some material witnesses. 4. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset made a vain attempt to assail the findings of fact arrived at by the Court? below on grounds of improper appreciation of the evidence on record, incredibility of the prosecution witness, and non-examination of some material witnesses. This Court, in its revisions, jurisdiction, does not interfere with a finding of fact by fresh reappraisal of the evidence on record so long it is not shown that the Court below misapprehended the evidence on record or there has been a miscarriage of justice due to incorrect appreciation of the evidence. No convening ground could be made out on which the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below can be interfered with in this revision. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and on hearing the counsel for both parties, I am satisfied that the findings of fact have been arrived at on proper and cogent consideration of the evidence on record. 5. The contention of Mr. Misra, that the Court below erred in convicting the Petitioners for the aforesaid offences after arriving at a finding that Petitioners 2 to 7 came to the land in question to protect their own right in the property over which they had ownership and possession, requires consideration. The Court?s finding to the above effect at the end of paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment is as follows: Though at the inception such an assembly was not unlawful in that they came to protect the property in dispute over which brothers of Dama have ownership and possession, yet by dealing blows with lathis and stabbing instruments to p.w. 1 and p.w. 7 and Laxman, the authors of such blows exceeded the right of private defence to property. In discussing further the evidence on record it later held: Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid Appellants exceeded in the exercise of the right of private defence to property and since more than five persons are found to have been the authors of the aforesaid injuries, the assembly consisting of these persons, became unlawful, when the assault took place. The latter quoted conclusion of the Court below is legally incorrect. The latter quoted conclusion of the Court below is legally incorrect. The Court finds that at the inception the ?assembly of the aid Petitioners along with others at the place of occurrence was not an unlawful one, as they were there in the exercise of their, right of private defence of property. In exercising their said lawful right some of them exceeded the lawful use of that right, and for that the assembly of those persons aid not become an unlawful assembly, as merely on such facts it cannot be said that those persons had the ?common object? of Acting in excess of their lawful right which is an important requisite for an unlawful assembly. So each one of those persons who acted in excess of their right can be held separately liable only for his own individual Acts done in excess of such right. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Court below, that the assembly consisting of the accused persons became unlawful, is incorrect in law in the perspective of the above findings of fact of that Court. Accused Dama Padhan, who is dead and is represented in this revision by his legal representatives-Petitioners 1(a) and 1(b), had also accompanied his brothers Ghana and Udayanath to protect their interest in the aforesaid property. Accordingly, his case should not have received separate consideration, as done by the Court below, merely because by a Civil Court decree his one third undivided share in the property in question had been sold in favour of p.w. 1. As provided u/s 97, Indian Penal Code, the right of private defence is not limited only to persons who are in Actual possession of the property, but extends to such other persons who Act in helping the former to protect their right in the property. On the aforesaid considerations, Mr. Patnaik, the learned Standing Counsel, fairly and rightly conceded that the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 147, Indian Penal Code could not be maintained and each of the Petitioners could only be individually convicted for the separate offences committed by them. Accordingly, the conviction of all the Petitioners u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereunder are liable to be set aside. 6. It was contended by Mr. Accordingly, the conviction of all the Petitioners u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereunder are liable to be set aside. 6. It was contended by Mr. Misra that in view of the finding of the Court below that at the inception the assembly of the Petitioners at the place of occurrence was not an unlawful one as they came to protect their own right in the property in question over which they had ownership and possession, and in view of the simple nature of the injuries on p.ws. I, 7 and Laxman Jena, the Court below should not have held that they exceeded the right of private defence of property. On a consideration of the evidence on record it has been found by the Court below that p.w. 1 was assaulted by Petitioners Daitari, Bbramarbar and accused Dama (since dead). P.w. 1 sustained, apart from other injuries on his person, an injury 2" ? ?" on his forehead just to the left of the middle line and 3 inches above the left eye brow. P.w. 9, the doctor who examined p.w. 1 opined that the injuries on him were caused by blunt weapons such as lathis. P.W. 7, who was assaulted by Petitioners Ghana and Fakir, sustained a lacerated wound 2" ? 1/3" ? skull deep on his head lying transversely on the skull 4?" above the left ear and 6 inches above the left eye how. He also had 4 incised wounds on the different parts of his body and an abrasion on his forehead above the eye brow. According to the doctor, all the above mentioned injuries had signs of moderate bleeding excepting the above mentioned abrasion on the forehead and he opined that the first above mentioned lacerated wound on the skull and the abrasion on the forehead were caused by blunt weapons and the 4 incised wounds on his person were caused by sharp weapons. Laxman Jena was assaulted by Petitioners Arakbita and Hari, and he sustained B bleeding injury on his skull 1" below the vertex. He also had two other injuries on his person. On The doctor?s evidence and on the eye witness account it is evident that the accused persons in exercising their right of private defence used lathis and sharp cutting and stabbing weapons, and aimed blows on the beads and other parts of the body of p.ws. He also had two other injuries on his person. On The doctor?s evidence and on the eye witness account it is evident that the accused persons in exercising their right of private defence used lathis and sharp cutting and stabbing weapons, and aimed blows on the beads and other parts of the body of p.ws. 1, 7 and Laxman Jena, who, on the finding of the Court, were defenseless. There is nothing on record to show that those persons reacted in any violent manner in the said incident. The blows on their beads luckily did not cause any such injuries culminating in graver consequences. The Court below on a convening consideration of the evidence on record has arrived at the finding that The accused persons, in assaulting p. w. 1, 7 and Laxman with dangerous weapons as aforesaid, exceeded their right of private defence. On a perusal of the discussion of this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment I am satisfied that a case of exceeding the right of private defence is made out against The Petitioners. 7. The Court, bestowing proper consideration on the evidence on record, has found out in what manner each of the Petitioners individually assaulted the above mentioned three persons. On the said separate findings against each of the Petitioners, the Court below rightly convicted five of them u/s 323, Indian Penal Code and the rest two u/s 324, Indian Penal Code as specifically mentioned in paragraph one above. 8. Mr. Misra however contended that the conviction of the Petitioners Arakbita and Hari cannot be maintained as Laxman Jena, for assaulting whom these two Petitioners have been convicted, was not examined by the prosecution. Laxman Jena was a labourer of p. ws. 1 and 7 and there is nothing on record about his whereabouts and availability at the time of trial. He was assaulted along with p.ws. 1 and 7. Both the Courts below, apart from other eye-witness account of the occurrence, have placed implicit reliance on the evidence of p.w. 6, who has been considered on convincing reasons as an independent and non-interested witness. He has categorically stated that Petitioners Arakhita and Hari gave two thenga blows on Laxman. It has been established on the evidence of p.w. 9, the doctor, that Laxman had sustained injuries on his person. He has categorically stated that Petitioners Arakhita and Hari gave two thenga blows on Laxman. It has been established on the evidence of p.w. 9, the doctor, that Laxman had sustained injuries on his person. So, merely because of non-examination of Laxman Jena, the conviction of these two Petitioners for assaulting Laxman cannot be set aside. 9. The Petitioners, as seen above, came upon the land in exercise of their right of private defence of property and in so doing they Acted in excess of that right. In that view of the matter and on the facts and circumstances of this case the sentences of fine imposed against the Petitioners for the respective offences now confirmed against them should be reduced. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of Petitioners Arakhita, Hari, Bhramarbar, Daitari and accused Dama Padhan (Since dead) u/s 323, Indian Penal Code they are sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- only; in default to undergo R.I. for one month. Similarly, while maintaining the conviction of Petitioners Ghana and Fakir u/s 324, Indian Penal Code each of them is sentenced thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- only; in default to undergo R.I. for 1? months. The conviction of the Petitioners u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and the sentences passed against each of them thereunder are hereby set aside, for reasons stated above. 10. The revision is partly allowed as mentioned above. Final Result : Allowed