JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Kamal Singh has been convicted under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, petitioner Shyodan his been convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' simple imprisonment and the petitioner Vijay Singh has been convicted under section 323 I.P.C. but instead of sentence he was given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur by his judgment dated 10.10.1972. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.3.1968 Bhondu along with his cousins Chokhey and Jagannath was cutting the gram crop standing in Khasra No. 714 in Mauja Usarani. The petitioners armed with Lathis and Farsi reached there and objected to the harvesting of the crop. They asked them to stop harvesting. On refusal from the complainant side the petitioners attacked the complainant party. During this Bhondu, Jagannath and Ghokhey received injuries. Bhondu lodged the report at the Police Station Kumher on the same day at about 10.00 a.m. The Police after investigation challaned the accused under sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C.in the court of Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur, who committed the petitioners for trial under section 307 I.P.C. to the court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The case was transferred to the court of Asstt. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur for trial. After trial the Asstt. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner Kamal Singh under section 326 I.P.C. to two Years' rigorous imprisonment, Shyodan was convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and the petitioner Vijay Singh was convicted under section 323 I.P.C. but he was given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 3. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. He, however, reduced the sentence imposed upon Shyodan Singh from imprisonment for three months to one of fine of Rs. 200/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. 5. 200/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are serious discrepancies with regard to the injuries sustained by the complainant party as mentioned in the First Information Report and those found on their person, by the medical evidence. This shows that either the incident did not take place as mentioned in the First Information Report or it has been subsequently improved at the trial. This also creates doubt as to the truth of the prosecution case. It has further been contened that the learned lower court, have not taken into consideration that the disputed field was in the possession of the petitioners and that the petitioners sowed the crop and it was the complainant party which had gone to harvest the crop sown by the petitioners. At the most, if the petitioners went to protest against the trespass and cutting the crop and when the complainant party caused injury to Shyodan and in that case if the injuries were caused to the complainant party, the petitioners acted in their right of self-defence, and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners. The statement of Prabhati PW. 3 is clear on this point that the petitioner Kamal Singh sowed the crop in the field. He has, however, added that thereafter in the night the complainant party upturned the crop and sowed their on seeds therein. This witness has also said that he was also taken by Chokbey to upturn the crop. Thus from the prosecution case itself, it transpires that the petitioners went there and said that they have cultivated the land and they would harvest it and they cannot allow the complainant party to harvest it. To this effect there are the statements of Jagannath PW, 1, Chokhey PW. 5 who are the members of the complainant party and received injuries. Thus from the prosecution case itself it transpires that the petitioners have been able to establish that the crop sown in the field in dispute was sown by the petitioner Kamal Singh and, there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused were dispossessed thereafter. Thus from the prosecution case itself it transpires that the petitioners have been able to establish that the crop sown in the field in dispute was sown by the petitioner Kamal Singh and, there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused were dispossessed thereafter. The statement of Parbhati to the effect that subsequently they upturned the crop sown by Kamal Singh has not been supported by any other witness. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries received by Shyodan in the course of incident. Thus the petitioners exercised their right of private defence of person and property and they deserve acquittal. 6. The contention of the learned public prosecutor is that there are concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below and therefore no interference is called for in the revision. Further the prosecution has proved that the complainant party was in possession of the field and.[the petitioners caused injuries and they have been rightly convicted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned courts blow have misread the evidence resulting in the grave miscarriage of justice. They have not taken into account the question of right of private defence, and therefore, by misreading the evidence there has been a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, interference in revision is necessary. 8. From the perusal of the record it may be said that the prosecution has not established that the field was sown by the complainant party, it is alleged by Parbhati PW. 3 that the-crop sown by Kamal Singh was upturned and the complainant party sowed its own crop. There is no further evidence of any prosecution witness. As stated by the prosecution witnesses jaghanath PW. 1 and Chokhey PW. 5 the petitioners at the time of occurrence, claimed that they had sown the crop and they were entitled to harvest it, the complainant party was not entitled to cut and take the crop. In this situation it cannot definitely be said that the complainant party bad cultivated the crop rather it was the accused party which seems to have cultivated the land and sowed the crop. The petitioners, were, therefore, justified to go to the field, and protest against the harvesting of the crop by the complainant party. In this situation it cannot definitely be said that the complainant party bad cultivated the crop rather it was the accused party which seems to have cultivated the land and sowed the crop. The petitioners, were, therefore, justified to go to the field, and protest against the harvesting of the crop by the complainant party. It is an admitted fact that there had been a litigation going on between the parties and the judgment of revenue court has been against the complainant party, the complainant party had tried to get support from the witnesses like Buddhi PW. 2 and Kishan PW. 8, who were not at all present at the scene of occurrence (as has been held by the trial court). The prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan. In such circumstances their evidence has of course to be read with caution. The learned trial court has, however, held that it is well proved from the oral and documentary evidence that Chokhey PW. 5 cultivated the disputed. field and sowed the gram crop but as pointed out above this fact has not been proved beyond doubt. Rather from the statement of Parbhati it can be said that the disputed field was sown by the petitioners. If that is the fact and in such circumstances, if the petitioners have gone to forbid the complainant party which was a trespasser from harvesting the crop and committing the theft of the crop and even if it should be taken that the petitioners used force ami caused injuries, their act cannot amount to an offence as they had acted in their right of private defence of person and property. Shyodan has received injuries on his person which were seen by the Sub-Inspector Kosal Kishore, PW. 11. Shyodan got himself examined for bis injuries after bis release from the police custody and the doctor Shailandra PW. 6 who examined the injuries of Shyodan, has proved the injuries and the injury report Ex. D/5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbrayanam and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1970 SC 1070 . 6 who examined the injuries of Shyodan, has proved the injuries and the injury report Ex. D/5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbrayanam and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1970 SC 1070 . It has been held in that case that even if the plea of self-defence was not raised by the accused and that he had, on the contrary pleaded alibi did not preclude the Court from giving to him the benefit of the right of private defence, if on proper appraisal of the evidence and other relevant material on the record the Court concluded that the circumstances in which he found himself at the relevant time gave him the right to use his gun in exercise of this right. The analogy of estepple or of the technical rules of civil pleadings is, in such cases inappropriate and the Courts are expected to administer the law of private defence in a practical way with reasonable liberality so as to effectuate its underlying object, bearing in mind that the essential basic character of this right is preventive and not retributive. In the present case the prosecution has firstly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the field was cultivated by the complainant party and the complainant party was in possession of the field and that it has sown the gram crop therein. Rather the prosecution evidence supports the case of the accused that they cultivated the field and were not -dispossessed thereafter, and if the petitioners had gone to protect-and check-the-complainant party which was the trespasser, from cutting the gram crop sown by them and even if their request was not acceded to, they used some force and when the complainant party inflicted injuries to the petitioners, the petitioners had the right of self defence of property and person and to as much force as they did. The use of force which the petitioners had done, in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be excessive, Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence. The courts held have failed to read some of the evidence and appreciate it. In this view of the matter the revision petitioners deserves to be allowed and the petitioners deserve to be acquitted. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The courts held have failed to read some of the evidence and appreciate it. In this view of the matter the revision petitioners deserves to be allowed and the petitioners deserve to be acquitted. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner Kamal Singh is acquitted of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., the petitioners Shyodan and Vijay Singh are acquitted of the charge under section 323 I.P.C. and their convictions and sentences are set aside. The fine, if paid by Shyodan, shall be refunded to him. *******