JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellants Prabhu, Kalu, Chhotiya, Ratan Lal and Ram Charan were tried in relation to an occurrence dated November 3, 1976, which look place in village Bamori Ghata. In the said occurrence Ratan Lal, Kanhaiya Lal (since deceased) sustained seven Injuries at the hands of the accused and they succumbed to death. Learned Sessions Judge found them guilty under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- each. 2. The convicted accused have challenged their conviction and sentence by filling an appeal from jail before the Court. 3. We are not required to deal in detail the evidence and the circumstances brought forth on record by the prosecution, as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has rightly conceded that there are sufficient grounds to hold that the occurrence did take place at the time and place alleged by the prosecution and during the course of that occurrence the two deceased sustained injuries at the hands of the accused-appellants as a result of which they died. However, we have looked into the record and are satisfied that guilt has been brought home to the accused by cogent, consistent and reliable evidence. 4. The only point raised before us is that the trial Court committed an error of law in convicting the accused under Section 302/34 I.P.C. They could be convicted at the most under section 304 Part I read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. PW 10 Mangi Lal, brother of the deceased, under cross-examination admitted that on the date of the occurrence Jwar crop was standing in Dholiwali Bari which was sown by the accused. PW 5 Ratan Lal stated in cross-examination that the entire land on which the occurrence took place was recorded in the name of the accused in the Revenue record. PW 6 Lalu, who is brother of the deceased, also admitted that the fields situated around the well were recorded in the names of the accused-appellants in the Revenue record. In face of the above evidence it cannot be said that the accused persons were not in possession of the land on which the occurrence took place. Thus the deceased were trespassers on the land and the accused were entitled to the right of self defence to property. In face of the above evidence it cannot be said that the accused persons were not in possession of the land on which the occurrence took place. Thus the deceased were trespassers on the land and the accused were entitled to the right of self defence to property. Besides that, accused Prabhu in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that complainant indicted an injury on his person. This fact stands corroborated by the arrest memo, wherein it has been mentioned that Prabhu had certain injuries on his person, though they have been described as old one. Thus the defence set up by the accused stands probabilised, yet the question remains whether the accused had a right to cause death in right of self defence to person and property. 6. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the accused exceeded their right of self defence and as such they should be convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 I.P.C The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellants under section 302/34 I.P.C. are set aside. 7. A perusal of the arrest memo of accused Ram Charan indicates that he was 15 years of age at the time of arrest. He had already remained in jail for a period of three years. Keeping in view the age of accused Ram Charan, he is sentenced to the term of imprisonment already undergone by him. Rest of the accused-appellants Prabhu, Kalu, Chootiya and Ratan Lal are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years each. 8. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. and the period of detention undergone by them during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the term of sentence awarded by this Court. 9. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Revision allowed. *******