Short Note : The prosecution case was that Sukhram (P.W.1) and his two sons Jagannath (P.W.3) and Komal (P.W.6) were cultivating the field when the appellants came there and assaulted them. Held : The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the field which was being cultivated by Sukhram and his two sons was in possession of the appellants and that they were protected by the right of private defence of property. The trial Court has negatived the right of private defence on the theory that the appellants could have taken recourse to law and should not have taken the law in their own hands in preventing trespass. It has been laid down that the law does not require a person whose property is forcibly tried to be occupied by trespassers to run away and seek the protection of the authorities. In the opinion of this Court, the appellants acted within their right and they, therefore, cannot be convicted of the offences for which they have been tried. Munshiram v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702 , relied on.