JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by Gyan Singh and Man Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated October 27, 1975, by which each of the two appellants was convicted and sentence as under:- 1. u/s 148, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. u/s 447, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. u/s 307, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case against the appellants was as follows:- 3. One Phusa Balai resident of Dher-ka-Bas lodged a verbal report with the Station House Officer, Nechwa, on May 25, 1971 about an, incident of attempt to murder, riot and criminal trespass. It was alleged in the report that Phusa was in possession of his agricultural land situated in the vicinity of Dher-ka-Bas. On May 25, 1971, he had cultivated Bajra and Moong crops therein a few days prior to that date. On May 24, 1971, Pliusa accompanied by his nephew Dana and Dana's wife went to his field and started working therein. At about 2 p. m. Gyan Singh, Man Singh along with Bhim Singh and Sawai Singh co-accused and three more persons entered the field of Phusa and started damaging the crops of Phusa by re-ploughing the field with their tractor. Phusa, thereupon, requested them not to cause damage to his crops. Dana also tried to prevent the appellants and their associates from causing harm to the crops, but at the instigation of Sawai Singh, Gyan Singh and Bhim Singh, Man Singh fired a shot at Phusa and Dana as a result of which both of them received injuries. The other accused persons, who were armed with Jelis and lathis began to beat Phusa and Dana. When Phusa tried to prevent Dana, he was again shot at by Man Singh. 4. On the basis of the above report made by Phusa to the police, Station House officer, Nechwa, registered a criminal case under sections 307, 447 and 147,1. P. C. and took up usual investigation into the matter. The Station House Officer sent Phusa and Dana injured to Sikar Hospital along with a Constable on May 25, 1971. Dr. B. P. Jangid examined Dana and found the following injuries on his person: 1. P. C. and took up usual investigation into the matter. The Station House Officer sent Phusa and Dana injured to Sikar Hospital along with a Constable on May 25, 1971. Dr. B. P. Jangid examined Dana and found the following injuries on his person: 1. 23 small abrasions varying in size from ⅛" x ⅛" to 1/2" x 1/4" on the front of lower part of chest, abdomen and front of left thigh resembling pellet injuries (two pellets were removed from the left superior anterior iliac spine region at the time of examination). There was no smell of gun powder : 2. contusion 2" x l" on the right parietal region. 5. Injury No. 2 was simple and was caused by some blunt object. As regards injury No. 1, the Doctor advised X-ray examination of the abdomen, lower part of chest and pelvis, because this iujury appeared to have been caused by gun shot pellets with in 24 hours. Dana Ram was X-rayed in the presence of Dr. B. P. Jangid on May 31, 1971. The X-ray plate marked Ex. P. 11 revealed 11 rounded opeque shadows in the abdominal and pelvic regions resembling pellets. 6. On the same day. i. e. on May 25, 1971, Dr. B. P. Jangid examined Phusa Sam also and detected the following injuries on his body:- 1. lacerated wound l" x l/2" x l/2" on the lateral side of left leg ; 2. contusion 3" x l" on the lateral side of left leg upper part. 3 contusion 2,l/2"x,l/2" on the lateral side of left leg lower part; 4. contusion 4" x l" on the right side of the chest in the middle. 5. contusion 4,l/2" x l,l/2" on the left side of the chest in the middle. 6. swelling l,l/2" x l" on the right parietal eminence. 7. Injuries Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 were simple in nature while injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were found to be grievous, upon X-ray examination of the left leg of Phusa Ram. The Station House officer then went to the place of occurrence, prepared a site plan and a site inspection memo and thereafter handed over the investigation of this case to Manjoor Ahmad, Sub-Inspector, C.I.D. Crimes Branch, PHQ. Jaipur on February 5.1972. Manjoor Ahmad. The Station House officer then went to the place of occurrence, prepared a site plan and a site inspection memo and thereafter handed over the investigation of this case to Manjoor Ahmad, Sub-Inspector, C.I.D. Crimes Branch, PHQ. Jaipur on February 5.1972. Manjoor Ahmad. Sub-Inspector, C. I. D collected other necessary oral as well as documentary evidence in the case and came to a conclusion that a charge sheet 'must be filed against the two appellants and their associates. He, therefore, sent his report to the Police Station, Nechwa Thereafter further investigation was made by Raghubir Singh, Station House officer, Nechwa, who took blood-stained clothes of (lie injured in his possession and sealed them properly in the presence of Motbirs. Raghubir Singh then arrested Gyan Singh, Bhim Singh and Sawai Singh accused. Upon completion of the investigation a challan was filed against Gyan Singh, Bhim Singh, Sawai Singh and Man Singh in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Fatehpur, under sections 307, 147 and 447, I.P.C, The learned Magistrate, upon finding a urima-facic case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed the two appellants and Bhim Singh and Sawai Singh to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, for trial under the aforesaid sections. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar tried the two appellants and two other co-accused and came to a conclusion upon evidence, that the two appellants alone were guilty of the offences punishable under sections 307, 148 and 447, I. P. C. He accordingly acquitted Bhim Singh and sentenced the two appellants, viz., Gyan Singh and Man Singh, in the manner stated above. 8. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. N. L. Tibrewal for the appellants and Mr. Richhpal Singh. Public Prosecutor, for the State. Firstly, it has been contended by Mr. N. L. Tibrewal appearing on behalf of the appellants that there is no reliable evidence regarding complicity of Gyan Singh appellant in the commission of the crime. The prosecution could not establish by any independent and convincing evidence that Gyan Singh also participated in the assault made on Phusa Ram and Dana Ram. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Gyan Singh was held guilty by the trial Judge merely on the ground that he sustained some injuries on his body. The prosecution could not establish by any independent and convincing evidence that Gyan Singh also participated in the assault made on Phusa Ram and Dana Ram. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Gyan Singh was held guilty by the trial Judge merely on the ground that he sustained some injuries on his body. On account of presence of injuries on the tody of Gyan Singh, the learned trial Judge felt persuaded to hold that Gyan Singh could not have received injuries on his person, if he had not taken part in the commission of the assault on Phusa Ram and Dana Ram, 9. I have considered the above contention. In my opinion, Gyan Singh could not be held guilty of the offences punishable under sections 307, 148 and 447, I.P.C. merely because he was present at the time and place of occurrence and he received some injuries on his person. The presence of injuries on his body does not necessarily prove that he also mas one of the assailants of Dana and Phusa Ram. The prosecution is bound to establish beyond reasonable pale of doubt as to what role m played by Gyan Singh in the commission of the alleged crimes. The trial Judge, in my opinion, went wrong in drawing a presumption of his guilt from the mere presentation of some injuries on his body. The prosecution no doubt tried to implicate Gyan Singh in the commission of the crimes by concocting a story that Man Singh fired shots at Phusa and Dana from his short gun at the instigation of Gyan Singh, Sawai Singh and Bhim Singh, but this part of the story has not been behoved by' the trial Judge for reasons given by him in his judgment, with which fully agree. Phusa PW 2 stated in his deposition that Gyan Singh inflicted a blow on the right arm of Dana with his Jeli, but, curiously enough, Dana P. W. 3 did not say in his statement in the trial court that a Jeli blow was struck on his right arm by Gyan Singh. Phusa PW 2 stated in his deposition that Gyan Singh inflicted a blow on the right arm of Dana with his Jeli, but, curiously enough, Dana P. W. 3 did not say in his statement in the trial court that a Jeli blow was struck on his right arm by Gyan Singh. Likewise, Jesa PW 4, Mohani, P. W 7 and Hanumana Ram PW 5 Could not ascribe any specific role to Gyan Singh appellant, although they gave an omnibus statement that Dana Ram and Phusa Ram were beaten with Jeli and lathis by Gyan Singh, Bhim Singh and Sawai Singh. Hanumana Ram PW 5 and Mohani PW 7, however, admitted that they "cannot say which of the aforesaid three assailants had caused how many injuries on which part of the bodies of Phusa Ram and Dana Ram. Consequently, upon careful review of the entire evidence, am of the view that there is no evidence beyond reasonable pile of doubt that Gyan Singh also took part in the commission of the assault on Phusa Ram and Dana Ram. Even if it is taken to be proven that Gyan Singh participated in the commission of the assault, and sustained injuries on his body it has to be considered whether the plea of the appellants that the complainant and his party were aggressors and that they acted in exercise of the right of private defence of their person and property when Gyan Singh was attacked and beaten by the other party of the complainant is palpably true. 10. Before dealing with the question whether any right of private defence of person or property accrued to the appellants, may say that there is positive proof on the record from the side of the prosecution that Man Singh appellant fired shots from his short gun at Dana Ram, as a result of which Dana Ram sustained pellet injuries on different parts of his body, as indicated above. Phusa Ram, P.W. 2. Dana Ram. P.W. 3, Jesa Ram, P.W. 4, Hanumana Ram, P.W. 5 and Mst. Mohani P.W. 7, have definitely stated in their depositions at the trial that shots were fired at Dana Ram by Man Singh appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses so far as it relates to the firing of shots at Dana Ram by Man Singh appellant. Mohani P.W. 7, have definitely stated in their depositions at the trial that shots were fired at Dana Ram by Man Singh appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses so far as it relates to the firing of shots at Dana Ram by Man Singh appellant. Although the two injured and the eye-witnesses have stated in their depositions that shots were fired by Gyan Singh at Phusa Ram as a result of which he sustained pellet injuries on his body, but this fact does not find corroboration from the evidence of Dr. B.P. Jan id who, upon examination of the injuries of Phusa Ram definitely opined that all the injuries appeared to have been caused by some blunt object and that injuries Nos. 1, 4. 5 and 6 were simple while injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature as they had fractured tabula bone at two places. The pertinent question that requires determination is whether any right of private defence of person or property accrued to the appellants when shots were fired by Man Singh at Dana Ram. The right of private defence of body commences only when here is reasonable apprehension of danger to the life and limb caused by an attempt or threat to commit an offence. When no such danger is present or it may be avoided, it cannot be said that there is reasonable apprehension of danger to the body. Likewise the right of private defence of property commences when there is reasonable apprehension of danger to the property. Against criminal trespass the person in possession of the property is entitled to the right of private defence of property so long as the trespass continues and the right extends to causing to the trespasser any barm other than death subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, I.P.C. i.e. no more harm should be inflicted than is necessary for the purpose of defence of the property and that there is no time left to have recourse to the protection of the authorities. In the present case the two appellants have succeeded in proving by preponderance of probability that the field where the incident took place was in their cultivatory possession and that the complainant and his associates were aggressors inasmuch as they made efforts to oust the appellants from their peaceful possession thereof. In the present case the two appellants have succeeded in proving by preponderance of probability that the field where the incident took place was in their cultivatory possession and that the complainant and his associates were aggressors inasmuch as they made efforts to oust the appellants from their peaceful possession thereof. The appellants have succeeded the showing that Gyan Singh was attacked by the complainant and his party and he in stained several injuries on his person as a result of the assault and so a reasonable apprehension of danger to the life or limb of Gyan Singh was entertained by Man Singh appellant who, therefore, in exercise of the right of private defence of the person of Gyan Singh fired shots from his short gun at Dana Ram aggressor. The appellants have produced a certified copy of the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated September 12, 1974, by which Shaitan Singh father of the two appellants, was declared Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 70/4 measuring 8 Bighas and 4 Biswas in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. This judgment was delivered by the Revenue Appellate Authority on appeal filed by Shaitan Singh against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, by which his suit for declaration of Khateri rights and permanent injunction against Phusa Ram injured and Kaju Ram was dismissed. Likewise, in another suit filed by Shaitan Singh, father of the two appellants, against Phusa Ram in the court of the 4 Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, a decree for permanent injunction was passed I restraining Phusa Ram from causing any interference with the possession of Shaitan Singh over Khasra No. 70/3 measuring 3 Bighas and 12 Biswas, as is evident from the certified copy of the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, dated I January 18, 1972. From a bare look into the certified copies of the Jamahandis of village Rampura alias Dherka Bas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, since Samvat 2017 to 2032, it is evident that Khasra No. 7/4 measuring 8 Bighas and 4 Biswas was shown in cultivatory possession of one Kaju son of Rugha Jat while Khasra No. 70/3 measuring 3 Bighas 12 Biswas was shown in possession of Shaitan Singh, father of the two appellants. Phusa Ram could not produce any reliable evidence to show bow he came in possession of Khasra No. 70/4 measuring 8 Bighas and 4 Biswas when it was under cultivatory possession of Kaju. On the other hand, Shri Shaitain Singh, father of the two appellants, filed a suit against Phusa Ram and Kalu Ram Jat for declaration of Khatedari rights in Khasra No. 70/4 and for permanent injunction. The suit was no doubt dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, on September 25, 1973, but on appeal by Shaitan Singh, the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer and decreed the suit of Shaitan Singh in toto against Phusa Ram and Kaju Ram in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 70/4. The relevant finding given by the Revenue Appellate Authority in its judgment is quoted below : " dTtw }kjk vkjkth eqruktk budks fn, tkus ds dkj.k dTtw ds Jh Dyse djrs gSaA eqnbZ vihyk.V us ;g nkok Qwlk rFkk dTtw nksuksa eqnk;yk ds fo:) nk;j fd;k ftlesa dTtw us nkos dks dUVsLV ugha fd;k vkSj mlds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh ;DrQkZ gqbZ blls Hkh ;gh ik;k tkrk gS fd mDr dTtw dk eqnbZ ds nkos ds fo:) dqN ugha dguk mDr dTtw us eqnbZ vihyk.V mlds HkkbZ ds fo:) csn[kyh dk nkok lu~ 57 esa fd;k ftlesa mlus vius nj[kkLr fnukad 6&5&57] bZ0 ,Dl0 ih0 1 }kjk viuk nkok eqnbZ vihyk.V ds fo:) fonM~k dj fy;k vkSj ckn esa fnukad 4&7&57 dks jftLVMZ bdjkj&ukek bZ0 ,Dl0ih0 2 }kjk vkjkth eqruktk mDr dTtw us oknh vihyk.V ds gd esa V~kalQj djnh vkSj dCtk Hkh oknh vihyk.V dk dj fn;kA bl rjg oknh vihyk.V }kjk is'kd'kZ mDr MksD;qes.Vjh izwQ ls dTtw [kkrsnkj }kjk vkjkth eqruktk dh [kkrsnkjh o dCtk eqnbZ vihyk.V dh V~kUlZQj gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS tcfd bldh rLnhd esa rFkk viuh Iyh dh rkbn esa Qqlk eqnk;yk }kjk dksbZ ,slk lcwr is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;g lkfcr gks fd mDr dTtw [kkrsnkj us vkjkth eqruktk Qwlk eqnk;yk dks dk'r ds fy, eqLrfdy rkSj ij crkbZ tSlk fd eqnk;yk us vius tokc&nkos esa Iyh yh gSA " 11. Hence, in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence from the side of the prosecution that Khasra No. 70/4 was in cultivatory possession of Phusa Ram at the date and time of occurrence, there is no reason to reject the plea-of the appellants that land comprised in Khasras No. 70/3 and 70/4 was in their possession and that on the day of the occurrence they were ploughing it with their tractor, especially when the appellants have produced documentary evidence in support of their plea of peaceful continuous possession of the land in which occurrence took place. Phusa Ram and other prosecution witnesses orally stated in them depositions that or the day of occurrence Phusa Ram and Dana Ram were in possession of the land and they had cultivated it, but their oral evidence is not entitled to any weight in view of the decision of the Revenue Appellate Authority that the land comprised in Khasra No. 70/4 has been in continuous possession of Shaitan Singh and that Khatedari rights have accrued there in to the appellants' father. Consequently, 1 have no hesitation in holding that the two appellants were in peaceful possession of the lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 70/3 and 70/4 on the day of occurrence and that Phusa Ram and his party committed trespass thereon with a view to oust the two appellants therefrom. The appellants, therefore, had right of private defence of property so long as the trespass continued and that right extended to causing the trespassers, i.e. Phusa Ram and Dana Ram any harm other than death. 12. It may also be held without difficulty that Man Singh appellant caused no more harm than was necessary for the purposes of the self defence and that there was no time to have recourse to the protection of the authorities. It transpires from the prosecution evidence itself that when the appellants began to cultivate the land, Phusa Ram offered resistance by standing in front of the tractor. It is also botne out from the record that Gyan Singh appellant was examined by Dr. B.P. Jangid on May 25, 1971, and, upon examination, , as many as 5 injuries were noticed on his persons:- 1. lacerated wound 1, 1/2" x 1/4" b ne deep on the right to the occipital protuberance : 2. It is also botne out from the record that Gyan Singh appellant was examined by Dr. B.P. Jangid on May 25, 1971, and, upon examination, , as many as 5 injuries were noticed on his persons:- 1. lacerated wound 1, 1/2" x 1/4" b ne deep on the right to the occipital protuberance : 2. lacerated wound 1, 3/4" x 1/4" x bone deep on the middle of the vault; 3. contusion 2, 1/2" x 1" on the front of the right leg upper one third : 4. contusion 3, 1/4" x 1" on the front of the left thigh lower one third ; 5. contusion 1" x 3/4" on the back of left little finger with diffused swelling. 13. All the injuries were simple and were caused by a blunt object. The duration of these injuries was 24 hours at the time of medical examination. The Doctor further opined that duration of the injuries found on the person of Dana Ram and Gyan Singh was almost the same and except injury No. 5 all the injuries sustained by Gyan Singh could not be self inflicted. The prosecution failed to afford any reasonable explanation for the presence of injuries on the body of Gyan Singh. Hence, in the absence of such explanation from the side of the prosecution, the plea of the appellants that Phusa . am first struck a blow in the head of Gyan Singh with his Jeli and there after Dana Ram and others caused there injuries to his body is probabilised especially when it is proved by the appellant hat they were in peaceful possession of the land in which the occurrence took palace and that Phusa Ram and his party prevented them from cultivating their land by standing in front of their tractor. In these circumstances, Man Singh appellant in exercise of his right of private defence of property and person of Gyan Singh was justified in firing shots at Dana Rani, because if he had not used force, Gyan Sineh would have been severely dealt with by Phusa Ram and his party. Injury No. 1 i.e 23 small abrasions found on the body of Dana Ram and injury No. 2, i e contusions on his right parietal region were found simple in nature upon X-ray examination. Likewise,- the injuries Nos, 1, 4. Injury No. 1 i.e 23 small abrasions found on the body of Dana Ram and injury No. 2, i e contusions on his right parietal region were found simple in nature upon X-ray examination. Likewise,- the injuries Nos, 1, 4. 5, and 6 received by Phusa Ram were simple in nature while injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were found grievous upon X-ray examination as they had fractured the fabula bone of Phusa Ram at two places. Looking to the number and nature of the injuries received by Phusa Ram and Dana Ram and the part of their bodies on which they were inflicted by the appellants in exercise of the right of private defence of person and property, it cannot be said that more harm was inflicted than was necessary for the purposes of the defence. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentences of the appellants under sections 307, 148 and 447,1 P. C. cannot reasonably be upheld 14. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by Gyan Singh and Man Singh is accepted, their convictions and sentences under sections 307, 148 and 447, I.P.C are set aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. Sd/- K.D. Sharma, C.J. *******