JUDGMENT 1. - The state has filed this against the judgment dated October 4, 1972 of the learned Additional Session Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 3/72. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid judgment has acquitted the accused-respondent Nasru, Shyodan and Ashraf of the offences under Section 148, 447, 379, 302 and 337/149, I.P.C. He has acquitted the accused-respondents Kapoora, Shandi, Sumer Kamar Singh and Atru of the charges under Sections 447, 448, 379, 307 and 302/149, 1 P.C. Accused persons Firozkhan, Fajru and Din Mohammad have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 307, 302/140 and 323, I.P.C., and accused Suleman and Ajmat have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 447, 307, 379, 302/149 323, I.P.C. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to possession of Khasra No. 159 situated in Village Dotri Pahadi. Navikhan (PW 1) claimed to be in possession of the aforesaid field, whereas Nasru accused claimed that he was in its possession, One Bhagmal was the khatedar of the aforesaid fields, and he transferred the fields under a registered sale deed to Nasru accused, but Navikhan claimed that the fields had been given to him by Nawajkhan father of Bhagmal, and he (Navikhan) was since then in possession. The case of the prosecution further is that on September, 29, 1969 at about 10-11 A.M., all the accused-respondents were members of the unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to trespass him therefrom and to commit the murder of Juhuru and also to cause injuries to others. Accused Nasru, Shyadan and few others were armed with guns, and others were armed with lathis and sharp weapons. They abused Navikhan and others, and when they were asked not to hurl abuses, they started giving beating to them. Nasru fired which hit Juhuru, who died. Shyodan and Ashrau are also said to have fired at Juhuru and he also received injuries at their hands. A report of the incident was lodged by Navikhan and the investigation was set in motion. 3. The doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Juhutu, and found that he had gun shot injuries and died as a result thereof. The doctor also examined the injuries of injured persons Pirbux, Navikhan, Rahim and Abdulla. Each of them had, 1, 3, 2. and 1 injuries respectively. 3. The doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Juhutu, and found that he had gun shot injuries and died as a result thereof. The doctor also examined the injuries of injured persons Pirbux, Navikhan, Rahim and Abdulla. Each of them had, 1, 3, 2. and 1 injuries respectively. Navikhan had two incised wounds by sharp weapon, simple in nature. Rahim had also one injury by sharp weapon, simple in nature. All the injuries of all the injured persons were simple. 4. Charges were framed against the accused persons, and they pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined. The accused persons in their statements under Section 310 Cr. P.C. set up a case that Nasru accused had purchased the disputed field for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/- from Bhagmal about five years ago under a registered sale deed, and since then he was in its possession, Mutation had been effected in his favour. He had ploughed the fields two days before the occurrence Navikhan (PW 1) was never in possession of the fields. On the date of occurrence 20-25 persons armed with guns and spears and lathis suddenly came to the disputed fields where he (Nasru) was sowing it, and surrounded it Foju fired a shot from his gun. Ibrahim and others were attracted on the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries. In the occurrence on hearing three persons of the accused party received injuries at the hands of Navikhan and others, and their names are asin, Ishav and Sumer. The accused persons examined four witnesses in defence. The learned Additional-Sessions Judge, as already stated earlier, acquitted the accused persons. 5. We have heard the learned public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed as many as two points for determination. The accused persons examined four witnesses in defence. The learned Additional-Sessions Judge, as already stated earlier, acquitted the accused persons. 5. We have heard the learned public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons, and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed as many as two points for determination. The first point was, as to whether the complainant party, i.e., of Navikhan (PW1) was in possession, and cultivation of the disputed fields on the date of occurrence, and the second was, as to whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and went to the disputed fields to enforce their right, or the complainant party committed any act which was an offence against body or property of the type described in Section 97, IPC which confers upon the accused a right of private defence. After a thorough discussion of the evidence on record, under Point No. 1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that the disputed field was in possession and cultivation of accused Nasru before and on the date of occurrence, and Navikhan (PW1) was never in its possession. Under point No. 2, the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that it was complainant party which committed trespass upon the field of accused Nsaru, and assaulted Yasin, Ishav and Sumer, who came thereto save accused Nasru, It has also been held that assuming that all the accused persons were present, they did not exceed their right of private defence of person and property, as they could reasonably apprehend atleast grievous hurt when they were faced with 14 persons armed with lathis. 7. We have no hesitation in saying that the State Appeal has no force. The conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Nasru accused was in possession of Khara No- 149 on the date of occurrence and prior to it is based on enough material. It is not disputed that Navikhan (PW 1) had filed a suit against Nasru with regard to the fields in dispute, and the suit was pending on the date when the occurrence took place. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place in the same fields which had been transferred by Bhagmal to Nasru accused and relating to which Navikhan (PW1) had filed a suit against him (PW11) Ghanshyam Dass is the Halka Patwari. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place in the same fields which had been transferred by Bhagmal to Nasru accused and relating to which Navikhan (PW1) had filed a suit against him (PW11) Ghanshyam Dass is the Halka Patwari. He has clearly stated that after the death of Bhagmal, mutation was entered in the name of accused Nasru, and was in actual possession of the fields Khasra No. 149 and 152. He also states that the occurrence took place in those fields, and mutation is only affected after a report regarding actual possession is made by him. Thus it can be said that Nasru accused was in possession of the fields, and it is not that he along with others had formed an unlawful assembly in order to dispossess Naviknan (PW1), who was never in possession of the fields in dispute rather, the circumstances are such which go to show that Navikhan (PW1) and others were the aggressors. There is evidence on record that on the day of occurrence Navikhan (PW1) along with 13 others, in all 14 persons, with 14 bullocks and 7 ploughs, went to cultivate the disputed fields. They were also with lathis. One who is in possession will not go with so many persons and so many ploughs armed with lathis to the fields, and case of the defence that Nasru who was in possession was ploughing his fields, which fields he had also earlier Ploughed, and it were Navikhan (PW1) and others, who in a large number went to the fields to dispossess Nasru, is more probable. Three persons belonging to the accused party received injuries. Though, it was stated in the FIR that lathis were used by the complainant party, but during the course of their statements on oath, the injuries of accused persons were suppressed by the prosecution witness. If as many as 14 persons go armed to dispossess and also to cause injuries to three persons belonging to the party of Nasru, it can be said that the accused party could have reasonably apprehended that grievous be the right, in case they did not exercise the right of private defence. If as many as 14 persons go armed to dispossess and also to cause injuries to three persons belonging to the party of Nasru, it can be said that the accused party could have reasonably apprehended that grievous be the right, in case they did not exercise the right of private defence. The case of the prosecution, that besides Nasru, two or three others fired at Juhuru, has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court, because in the opinion of the doctor the injuries of Juhuru could be the result of one shot. 8. To us, there appears to be no force in this State Appeal, and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******