JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of the judgment of Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated September 23, 1975. whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under sections 302 &307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and a sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment for each offence respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on October 27, 1974, at police station, Bansoor a report was lodged by PW.3 Jairam wherein it was stated by him that in village Kalianpura-tan-Rampur there is a field bearing khasra No. 5192 where he alongwith Netram and Ramjilal was harvesting the crop of Bajra. At that time they heard the sound of a gun-fire. They thought that some hunters might have fired. Shortly thereafter Surajbhan accompanied with Ramprasad Gulla, Phoola, Bhagirath, Chhajia, Chhitar, Jawahara, Baiya, Mst. Sundi wife of Surajbhan and Mst. Ghasi wife of Prabhati arrived there. Surajbhan threatened them and said that they had forcibly occupied the field and hence must leave at once. He directed Mst. Sundi and Mst. Ghasi to collect the bajra crop lying at the threshing floor and when the latter went to collect it Mst Ghisi wife of Netram objected to this. The accused party went few steps back and then Surajbhan from behind a bush took an aim with gun and challenged the complainant party that in case anyone of them comes nearer he would be shot dead and he further said he will take the revenge of his brother Gyarsilal's murder. He thereafter twice fired from his gun. One of the shots hit Mst. Ghisi in her abdomenal region, as a result of which she fell down. His second shot hit Ramjilal on his arm, as a result of which he also sustained injuries. He thereafter fired once again but this time his aim missed. When the complainant party raised an alarm all these people went towards the hillock. It was mentioned in the report that Ramchandra and Heera who were his neighbours had also seen the occurrence. Condition of Mst. Ghisi was reported to be precarious and it was mentioned that she was shifted to the hospital as the Doctor was not available in the village. On receipt of this report a case under sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Condition of Mst. Ghisi was reported to be precarious and it was mentioned that she was shifted to the hospital as the Doctor was not available in the village. On receipt of this report a case under sections 307, 148 and 149 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On the very day of the occurrence, i .e., on October 27, 1974 at 8:35 p.m Mst. Ghisi succumbed to her injuries and the autopsy was conducted by Dr. P. S. Agrawal PW.4 who found the following injuries on her person: 1. Gun shot wounds in an area 2 cm in length on lower part of chest and abdomen right side anterolaterally varying in size 11/2cm x 1 cm to 11/4 x 3/4 cm with black inverted margins and surrounding skin was normal in colour. This was wound of entrance. The exit wound of this injury were on right side of back and gluteal region l cm x l1/4cm to 1 cm x 3/4 cm in size with everted margins. On opening the body Dr. Agrawal found the following: 1. There was sub-cutaneous and muscular blood clots under the external injury. The right pleura and right side of peritonium were found perforated. The pleural cavity on right side contained, blood about 12 ounces and peritonial cavity contained blood about 8 ounces. 2. The right lung showed perforation in lower lobe on outer, anterior and posterior surface. 3. The liver showed perforation and laceration on anterior and posterior surface through and through. 4. There was fracture of right iliac crest posterior part. 5. Right kidney was perforated and lacerated with blood clots around and one pellet embaded in the posterior abdomenal wall behind right kidney was taken out sealed in a vial, signed and handed over to the police. 6. The heart was empty on both the sides 7. There was perforation of intestines at two places. In the opinion of Dr. P.S. Agrawal the cause of death was gun-shot injuries which resulted in laceration, perforation of liver kidney, right lung resulting into haemorrhage and shock. He also examined Ramjilal injured and found gun-shot wound in an area 24cm 12cms on right arm lower half, force-arm anteror-medial surface, varying in size 11/2cm x 1/4cm to 3/4cm x 1/2cm with blackish inverted margins. According to him the injury was grievous in nature and was caused by a fire-arm. He also examined Ramjilal injured and found gun-shot wound in an area 24cm 12cms on right arm lower half, force-arm anteror-medial surface, varying in size 11/2cm x 1/4cm to 3/4cm x 1/2cm with blackish inverted margins. According to him the injury was grievous in nature and was caused by a fire-arm. During investigation the investigating officer Soorat Singh, PW. 12, inspected the site, prepared the site-plan and memo of inspection Ex.P 10. He also recovered empty cartridiges and wads from the place of occurrence. He thereafter arrested the accused Surajbhan. When Surajbhan was arrested a gun and a bandoleer with 25 cartridiges in it, was also seized from him. During investigation the investigating officer also collected evidence regarding cultivatory possession over the field. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted by him against the accused Surajbhan for offence under sections 302 and 307 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Behror who committed the accused to Sessions for trial. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of both the sides re-framed the charge and charged the accused for offences under sections 302, 307, 148 and 447 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses out of which PW. 1 Mst. Bharpai, PW. 2 Mst. Nanchi, PW. Jairam PW. 5 Ramjilal injured, PW.6 Netram, PW.8 Chhitar and PW. 10 Heera have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. All these witnesses in their statements have stated that Nanchi. Gnisi, Ramjilal, Netram and Jairam were harvesting the bajra crop, at that time number of persons named in their statements including Surajbhan accused came there and tried to remove two bundles of crop stalled in the threshing floor. When the same was objected to by Ghisi, Ramjilal and others. Surajbhan and his party pushed back to a short distance and he fired from behind a bush which hit Ghisi and Ramjilal. These witnesses have stated that they were in cultivatory possession of the field and it was their own crop which they were harvesting. Dr. P.S. Agrawal, PW. 4, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post mortem report of Mst. Ghisi and the injuries sustained by Ramjilal. Sixteen documents were also placed on record in proof of the case of the prosecution. Dr. P.S. Agrawal, PW. 4, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the post mortem report of Mst. Ghisi and the injuries sustained by Ramjilal. Sixteen documents were also placed on record in proof of the case of the prosecution. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution case and thereafter filed a statement in writing. In his statement the accused-appellant has stated that the field khasra No 5192 and 5193 in village Kalianpura-Tan-Rampura. Tehsil Bamoor belong to his brother Gyarsilal and was in his cultivatory possession since long Since the parcha khatedari was not given to him he moved an application to the Sub Divisional Officer who passed order in his favour on December 23 1970. An appeal against that order was filed by Goojarmal. Sheochand, etc. which was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority on June 12, 1971. His name was entered in record on January 28, 1971 and the same is entered in Jamabandi of Samvat 2027. His brother Gyarsilal was thereafter murdered by Jairam Rang lal, Netram, Chhitar, Amichand and party who had to face a trial and the appeal is now pending in the High Court. On September 28, 1971 the mutation was done in the name of minor sons of Gyarsilal but since they were minor actually the accused Surajbhan cultivated the land on their behalf. He had also given levy of produce of the field and when a notice of ejectment was given to him by Tehsildar an order was passed in his favour on April 16, 1974. and he was asked to deposit a penalty of Rs. 132.50 only According to him the Tehsildar got the boundaries physically demarcated on July 12, 1974 Jairam, Netram etc. filed a suit for injunction in the court of Munsiff Behror which too was dismissed on April 4, 1974. He further stated that the complainant party is very powerful and intend to take forcible possession of their field. They had been causing harm to the extent that his brother was murdered for which they had been bound down on May peace, 1974. He stated that he moved application to the Superintendent of Police and Collector also who inspected the site and found his possession and also danger for breach of peace. They had been causing harm to the extent that his brother was murdered for which they had been bound down on May peace, 1974. He stated that he moved application to the Superintendent of Police and Collector also who inspected the site and found his possession and also danger for breach of peace. It was in these circumstances, he stated, that he was also given the licence for a gun for his personal safety and he purchased the one which has been recovered from him. He further stated that oh October 27, 1974, he and his wife Sundi had gone to the field in the morning where in the noon Ramjilal, Ghasi, Jagnnath, Govinda, Gaur Sahai, Makhanlal, Lachchu Gyarsa and 28 to 30 persons came armed with deadly weapons and tried to remove the crop forcibly from the threshing floor. He got scared and went back a few steps and thereafter fired in exercise of right of private defence Since the complainant party had started encircling them he fired and then Ghisi and Ramjilal might have sustained injuries as a result of fire which was aimed in air. He further stated that if he would not have fired, he and his wife would have been killed. Four witnesses were examined to substantiate the defence story. 5. The learned Sessions Judge found that the crop in dispute, at the time of incident, was forcibly and unauthorisely grown by the complainant party but they were in physical possession of the land at the time of occurrence. He also held that the complainant party had already encroached upon and cultivated the land. The accused had only a right to have re-course to local authorities and was not justified in taking the law in his own hands. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, acquitted the accused for offence under sections 447 and 148 IPC but convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 6. In these appeals the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants vehemently argued that the defence has produced as may as 26 documents to show that they were the khatedar tenant of this land and had been in possession of the same in the past. 6. In these appeals the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants vehemently argued that the defence has produced as may as 26 documents to show that they were the khatedar tenant of this land and had been in possession of the same in the past. Copies of the revenue records, namely, Jamabandi, Khasra Girdabari, Dhalbanch, Revenue Receipts, Levy Receipts and judgments of the Revenue Courts have been placed on records and it is conclusively proved that the field has been in possession of the accused which was being cultivated on behalf of his minor nephews sons of late Gyarsilal and to this effect oral evidence has also been placed on record which consists of the statements of three of the neighbours who had their fields adjoining and the wife of accused Surajbhan. It was vehemently argued that the accused is entitled to both, right of private defence of person and property. It was also staled that since the complainant party had failed to get any relief from the Revenue Courts they came to the field to take law in their own hands and wanted to enter the field forcibly and on resistance they started pelting stones at his wife who also sustained injuries during the occurrence. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the accused-appellant may have it good case for proving his title to the disputed land but according to the documentary evidence. namely, Ex. P. 6 and the statements of as many as seven witnesses it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that the complainant party hid arrived at the field in the early morning when they harvested their crop and had collected it at the threshing floor. It is thereafter in the noon that the accused party came armed with a gun and Surjabhan fired at Ghisi and Ramjilal. 8. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the entire record. 9. It is thereafter in the noon that the accused party came armed with a gun and Surjabhan fired at Ghisi and Ramjilal. 8. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the entire record. 9. In this case incident is not denied and the point argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the appellant was in actual physical possession of the land and the complainant party trespassed and wanted to throw him out by use of force and as such he has acted in exercise of right of private defence of person and property and hence we do not intend to reproduce the whole evidence regarding firing by Surajbhan which resulted in death of Ghasi and injuries to Ramjlal and we have no doubt that from a perusal of series of documents submitted by the accused in his defence it is absolutely clear that the land was shown in the khatedari of Gyarsilal and the Revenue Courts have also decided cases in his favour. But question still remains to he decided is whether it was he who was harvesting the crop on October 27, 1974, and the complainant party was trespasser. It is borne out from the perusal of the statements of the witness son bath the sides and also from the record of various Revenue Authorities that the complainant party had been objecting to the title of Gyarsilal on this field since long. Gyarsilal was a Up-sarpanch and he had taken possession of this land which was a part of a pasture land, it was thereafter that he got the things regularised. But it appears that the complainant party did not permit the accused to cultivate this field. In this respect it is clearly established from the record that when Tehsildar with other revenue authorities had gone on the field to deliver possession to Gyarsilal it was resisted by the complainant party inasmuch as there was a quarrel where Gyarsilal was murdered for which the complainant party faced trial. This fact is also admitted by DW. 1 Jagannath who has categorically stated that when Tehsil people went to deliver the possession to Gyarsilal there was a quarrel in which Gyarsilal lost his life. This fact is also admitted by DW. 1 Jagannath who has categorically stated that when Tehsil people went to deliver the possession to Gyarsilal there was a quarrel in which Gyarsilal lost his life. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has emphatically argued that khasra girdawari of samvat 2027 to 2030 clearly shows the possession of Gyarsilal and on the strength of this, cultivatory possession of the accused should be presumed under section 114 of the Evidence Act. In this respect the learned counsel also placed reliance on an inspection note prepared by the Tehsildar Lalsingh on July 12, 1974. Reliance is also placed on the revenue receipts as well as the receipts of weighing the part of crop in levy. We are unable to rely on these documents because in khasra girdawari the name of Gvarsilal has been shown in samvat 2029 and 2030 when admittedly he had died and, therefore, clearly the patwari has recorded the entries mechanically without going on the spot else the possession of Surajbhan on behalf of the minors would have been entered therein. Regarding the note prepared by Lalsingh Tehsildar, it is suffice to say that Lalsingh has also prepared Ex.P.6 which is a document contradicting his earlier note Ex. D.15. dated July 12, 1974. It appears to us that it is Lalsingh and the other revenue officials who have not discharged their duties faithfully and the two murders have taken place due to their slackness. Both, the Tehsildar and the Patwari have been preparing documents in favour of the ether party as and when it suited them without looking into the orders passed by the Revenue Courts. They have failed to have any protection to Gyarslal or his minor children or to Surajbhan despite the fact that they had been fighting the revenue cases successfully in their favour for over a decade. Even the Superintendent of Police and the Collector had visited the site but there is no evidence on record to suggest that they actually put the accused party in possession much less protected their right and helped in peacefully cultivating the land in dispute. The complainant who had no regard for rule of law had been fighting with the accused persons and it resulted in earlier loss of life of Gyarsilal and this murder of Ghisi. The complainant who had no regard for rule of law had been fighting with the accused persons and it resulted in earlier loss of life of Gyarsilal and this murder of Ghisi. In spite of this we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there is evidence to suggest that on the day of occurrence it was the accused party which had gone to harvest the crop which they had sown. It is true that the accused does not have to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and has to show his defence only by preponderance of probability but at the same time it is the duty of the Court to weigh the evidence in true perspective. The accused had not put a single question to the prosecution witnesses numbering as many as seven that they had forcibly cultivated the field or it was the crop sown by the accused which the complainants had gone to harvest. In this view of the matter the foundation of the defence has not been laid when the prosecution witnesses were examined. We are however, of the opinion that the accused had a valid title to land khasra No. 5192. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused persons are not trespassers on this land and had also not formed unlawful assembly, but at the same time we hold that there is consistent and reliable evidence that the accused though illegally had already entered into possession of the field and in the morning they were harvesting the crop when the, incident took place. The witnesses of the prosecution have not been shaken on this aspect of the case in cross-examination. We, therefore, hold that it was the accused who had sufficient time to have had recourse to law and should have gone to the authorities for redress rather than taking the law into his own hands. Accused Surajbhan had no right to go armed with a gun when the complainant party was harvesting the crop though may not be legal and took the life of Mst. Ghisi and injured Ramjilal. The accused has, therefore, rightly been convicted under sections 302 and 307 IPC. 10. Accused Surajbhan had no right to go armed with a gun when the complainant party was harvesting the crop though may not be legal and took the life of Mst. Ghisi and injured Ramjilal. The accused has, therefore, rightly been convicted under sections 302 and 307 IPC. 10. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that we had no alternative but to sentence the accused to life imprisonment because anything short of it cannot be awarded under section 302 IPC but at the same time we feel that this is one case where the State Government should recommend the case of the accused-appellant to His Excellency the Governor for granting parden to the accused-appellant or to remit his sentence mainly because it is for the slackness of the District Revenue Authorities and police to provide legal protection to the appellant that he took the law into his own hands. His brother has already lost life in pursuing a just remedy and that too in presence of the Tehsildar and other Government employees who had gone to deliver the possession to him in pursuance of the order of revenue courts and again subsequent to it Tesildar, Lalsingh, who had gone on the spot on July 12, 1974, failed to protect the right of the accused-appellant and did not afford protection to him for peacefully cultivating the fields khasra Nos. 5192 and 5193 in future which lawfully belonged to them. We are hopeful that the authorities will give a favourable consideration to our expectations. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to the bail bonds. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar will ensure the arrest of the accused to serve out the remaining sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******