JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal directed against the acquittal order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 14th January, 1976 in Sessions Case No. 252/74. 2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that one Ram Swaroop sustained grievous injuries and thereafter succumbed to death and the accused were members of unlawful assembly and they are responsible for the commission of the murder of Ram Swaroop. It is alleged that the incident had taken place at about 11.00 AM on 6th August, 1974 in the jungle near the village Beroj. The cattle belonging to the deceased had strayed into the field belonging to the accused party. Ram Swaroop sustained simple and grievous injuries and he was removed to hospital Alwar where he succumbed to his injuries. The first information report was lodged after II hours of the incident. The case u/s 447, 448, 324 and 323 IPC was registered by the Officer In-charge, Police Choki and sent to the Police Station Mandawar On the next day i.e on 7th August, 1974. additional section 307 IPC was added. Ram Swaroop succumbed to his injuries on 7-8-74 and as such, the case was converted u/s 302 IPC. 3. In support of the prosecution, oral evidence as well as documentary evidence was recorded. The statement of Ram Kishore, the author of the FIR, Gokul, scribe of the FIR. Rampal, Mansingh and Chhitar were also recorded to support the case of the prosecution. All these witnesses have tried to show that they are eye witnesses. The Investigating officer prepared the site memo Ex. P 2. At point 'A' in field No. 6, it has been reported that the blood was found. Admittedly, this field is in possession of the accused party. Nearby field is the field 'Baniyawala' which is admittedly is not the field of the complainant party. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of both the parties, held that the complainant party was aggressor and the occurrence has taken place in the field which in the possession of the accused who are persons of the town Todden section. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of P 2 Rampal who in his cross examination admitted that the field in which the incident took place was being cultivated by the accused persons. This witness has also pleaded ignorance as to how the trouble started. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the statement of P 2 Rampal who in his cross examination admitted that the field in which the incident took place was being cultivated by the accused persons. This witness has also pleaded ignorance as to how the trouble started. PW 3 Man Singh in his cross-examination says that the blood was found on the spot from where Ramswaroop fell down. It has been admitted by the Investigating Officer that the blood was found only under the Keekar tree and no anywhere else and this tree at the place where the blood was found is in the field of the accused Harijans. PW 4 Gokulram has also stated that blood was collected only under Keekar tree and the police collected blood stained soil from that spot. PW 6 Shanker Lal SHO had inspected the site and prepared site memo Ex. P 2 which clearly shows that the fight had taken place in the field No. 6 belonging to the accused party in which Jawar crop was standing. The learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of the complainant party on the question of possession of the field and has rightly held that the accused party was in possessions of the field and Jwar crop was standing and the complainant party was the aggressor. 5. From the perusal of the statements of the witnesses, it seems that the fight started all of a sudden and was not pre-meditated or pre-planned. Ex. P 4 is the injury report of Narsingha Harijan who is the accused. He has sustained five injuries including the fracture of the shaft of the 8th rib on the right side. This accused has also sustained simple injury on the post part of crown of head Similarly, the other accused Satya Narain has sustained three injuries reported in Ex. P 5, including the injuries sustained on the parietal area of the head. Jai Narain, the third accused had also sustained three injuries reported in Ex. P 6 injury report. From the side of the complainant, Ram Swaroop had sustained four injuries. Injury No. 2 is grievous. Rest injuries are simple. Ex. P. 9 is that post mortem report of of Ram Swaroop deceased. The cause of the death of Ram Swaroop is due to head injury, fracture of skull and brain compression ante-mortem in-nature. P 6 injury report. From the side of the complainant, Ram Swaroop had sustained four injuries. Injury No. 2 is grievous. Rest injuries are simple. Ex. P. 9 is that post mortem report of of Ram Swaroop deceased. The cause of the death of Ram Swaroop is due to head injury, fracture of skull and brain compression ante-mortem in-nature. From the perusal of the post mortem report, it seems that all the four injuries reported in Ex. P 7 were found by the doctor. Internal injuries have also been recorded by the coo for in postmortem report. Ex P 11 is the injury report of Ram Kishore. This witness has sustained four injuries and all injuries were simple in nature. Thus, it is clear that from the side of the complainant, the persons sustained injuries whereas from the side of accused party, three persons sustained injuries. The incident had taken place at the spur of moment as the cattle of the complainant party were grazing in the field of the accused. The prosecution has come with the case that good number of persons from both the sides were present on the spot but from the injury report it seems that only very few from both the sides had actively participated in the fight and taking into consideration, the findings of the court below, we are of the view that the findings arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. Even in a case of acquittal when two views are possible, the view taken by the court below has to be accepted and the court should not enter into the niceties of application of evidence specially when two views are possible. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. The State appeal is rejected. The hail bonds of the accused are cancelled and they need not surrender.Appeal rejected. *******