S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara vide his judgment dated 11/12/1979 passed in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1979 convicted accused Kanchhedi under sections 307 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three months respectively, convicted accused Basant Rao under the same sections and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months respectively and convicted accused Munna alias Mohanlal under sections 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code but granted him benefit of the provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered his release on probation of good conduct. The present appeal i. e. 1261 of 1979 has been filed by accused Basant Rao against abovesaid convictions and sentences. Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1980 bas been filed by the remaining two accused i. e. Kanchhedi and Munna, alias Mohanlal against their abovesaid convictions and sentences. It may be pointed out that one more person i. e. Gilla alias Gilli was also tried along with the above said three accused, but he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge of the offences alleged against him on the ground that the evidence produced in the case was insufficient to implicate him in the matter. ( 3 ) IT would be clear from the judgment of the trial Court that the conviction of accused Kanchhedi under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was for causing an injury on the head of P. W. 1 Murlidhar with a sharp edged weapon. It would also be clear that the conviction of accused Basant Rao under the same section was for causing an injury on the left side of chest of P. W. 2 Khande Rao with a sharp edged weapon. The conviction of accused Munna alias Mohanlal under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was for causing simple injuries to P. W. 1 Murlidhar and P. W. 2 Khande Rao with a lathi. In addition, all the three accused-appellants were found guilty of having committed criminal trespass over the land said to be belonging to and in possession of P. W. 2 Khande Rao and were convicted under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, all the three accused-appellants were found guilty of having committed criminal trespass over the land said to be belonging to and in possession of P. W. 2 Khande Rao and were convicted under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) ACCUSED Basant Rao and P. W. 2 Khande Rao were relations. Acquitted accused Gilla alias Gilli was said to have been employed as a labourer by accused Basant Rao Accused Kanchhedi and Munna alias Mohanlal were sons of acquitted accused Gilla alias Gilli, P. W. 1 Murlidhar was a nephew of P. W. 2 Khande Rao. The incident took place in the afternoon of 9-6-1979 on a part of the field known as Kaserawala field situated in village Bhatera of district Narsimhapur. As per the evidence produced in the case, a part of Kaserawala filed had been purchased by P. W. 2 Khande Rao from D. W. 2 Narayan Rao about three years prior to the date of the incident and another part of the said field had been taken by him from the same person as a shikmi. According to the case of the prosecution on the date of the incident, in the afternoon, when the said field was being ploughed by PW. 2 Khande Rao and his nephew Murlidhar, accused Basant Rao also came there along with his labourers including acquitted accused Gilla alias Gilli and his two sons accused Kanchhedi and Munna alias Mohanlal and started ploughing the said field. On this, P. W. 2 Khande Rao and P. W. 1 Murlidhar asked accused Basant Rao and his men to refrain from ploughing the said field. But, the said accused and his men, instead of doing so, made an assault on them and caused injuries to them as described above. The first information report (Ex. P-1) was lodged by P. W. 1 Murlidhar at police-station Gadarwara after about 7 hours of the incident. The police-station was situated at a distance of about 15 Kms. from the village. ( 5 ) NOW, it was not in dispute that accused Basant Rao and acquitted accused Gilla alias Gilli also received quite a few injuries including some lacerated wounds during the course of the incident. The defence of accused Basant Rao was as follows. The police-station was situated at a distance of about 15 Kms. from the village. ( 5 ) NOW, it was not in dispute that accused Basant Rao and acquitted accused Gilla alias Gilli also received quite a few injuries including some lacerated wounds during the course of the incident. The defence of accused Basant Rao was as follows. There had been a dispute between him and P. W. 2 Khande Rao with regard to a khaliyan that had allegedly been purchased by P. W. 2 Khande Rao from him. An amicable settlement of the said dispute was reached between them on 12-3- 1979 i. e. about three months prior to the date of the incident. As per the said settlement, P. W. 2 Khande Rao was permitted to retain the khaliyan on his agreeing to give the particular part of Kaserawala field that be had purchased from D. W. 2 Narayan Rao to accused Basant Rao. According to accused Basant Rao, in pursuance of the said settlement, it was he who was in possession of the particular part of Kaserawala' field since 12-3-1979. It was while he and his men were ploughing the said field on the date of the incident that P. W. 2 Khande Rao, P. W. 1 Murlidhar and others made an assault on them with a view to drive them away from the said field. According to him, it was in this situation that in view to defend himself and his men he snatched a parena from one of the persons accompanying P. W. 2 Khande Rao (i. e. P. W. 5 Bhajanj and used the same against the aggressors. In short, the defence of accused Basant Rao was that all he and his men having acted in exercise of right of private defence of person and property. ( 6 ) IT is apparent from a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court that one important aspect of the evidence produced in the case was ignored or lost sight of by the trial Court while rejecting the above said defence taken by accused Basant Rao. There was a writing (Ex. D-1) produced in the case evidencing the settlement that had allegedly taken place between P. W. 2 Khande Rao and accused Basant Rao on 12-3-1979. There was a writing (Ex. D-1) produced in the case evidencing the settlement that had allegedly taken place between P. W. 2 Khande Rao and accused Basant Rao on 12-3-1979. In his cross-examination, when P. W. 2 Khande Rao was confronted with his signatures on the said document, he gave an evasive reply to the question put to him and tried to suggest that his signatures were obtained on the said document without his knowing the contents thereof. The document in question was signed by several witnesses. Some of these witnesses were examined by the defence and they supported the defence case that in settlement of the dispute relating to the khaliyan that had been purchased by P. W. 2 Khande Rao from accused Basant Rao, the former agreed to give the particular part of Kaserawala field that he had purchased from D. W. 2 Narayan Rao to accused Basant Rao. In the above said state of evidence, it did not seem unlikely that accused Basant Rao had been put in possession of particular part of Kaserawala field on 12-3-1979 and was in possession of the same since then. If that was so, there was no question of accused Basant Rao and his men having committed any offence of criminal trespass over the said land as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, in the facts and circumstances stated above, and in view of the injuries suferred by the members of the accused party, the defence of right of private defence of person and property taken by accused Basant Rao stood sufficiently probablised and there was also no question of the said accused and the other accused persons being held guilty of offences punishable under section 307 or 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries suffered by the members of the complainant party were all of a simple nature and there was nothing to suggest that there was any exceeding of the right available to accused Basant Rao and his men in the situation. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal as also Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1980 are allowed. The convictions and sentence of the accused-appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. Appeal allowed. .