GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. — In this appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants which are as under, are being challenged: Accused Conviction R.I. SentenceFine In defaultimprison-ment. 1. Babu U/s 307, IPC 5 years Rs. 1000/- 6 months R.I. 2. Chhotu U/s 326, IPC 1 years Rs. 200/- 2 months R.I. U/s 325, IPC -do- -do- -do- U/s 447, IPC 15days Nil Nil U/s 148, IPC 3 months Nil Nil 3. Jumma U/s 325, IPC 4 years Rs. 1000/- 4 months R.I. 4. Yasin U/s 324, IPC 2years Rs. 200/- 1 months R.I 5. Immamuddin U/s 147, IPC 2 months Nil Nil U/s 148, IPC 2 months Nil Nil U/s 149, IPC 2 months Nil Nil U/s 447, IPC 15 days Nil Nil 6. Farid7. Bhunman U/s 325,324, 147, 148,149 & 447, IPC released after admonition U/ss. 6(1) r.w. S.3 of Probation of Offenders 8. Trilok U/s 147, IPC Act. 9. Nanha10. Iqbal11. Gopi U/s 147, IPC Given benefit of S,4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and ordered to be released on furnishing personal bonds and sureties. 2. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 3. A typical case of complainant party taking law in their own hands by trying to challenge the cultivation of land in possession of the accused, who had obtained injunction against the complainant party, has come to limelight during the arguments of this appeal. 4. The trial Court in a very cursory manner, has ignored and under mind the sanctity of the injunction issued by the competent court, on untenable and frivolous grounds that after about a year of the incident that injunction was set aside by the appellate court. The decision was, therefore, merely based upon adjudication of the factual assertions on the above twin points and the implications, logical and legal, of injunction in favour of a party and against another party in matters of cultivation of agricultural field. 5. Coming to the facts, in brief, of the prosecution case, the accused party formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and entered the field of Khasra No. 518 belonging to Govindnarain (PW9) and then started beating the complainant party with the result that Suraj (PW 4)-received 16, Govindnarain (PW 9)-12 Rambabu (PW7)- 8- Daulatsingh (PW 2) -3, Mst. Dhapu (PW8) -4, Jagdish (PWl)-2 injuries. 6. Dhapu (PW8) -4, Jagdish (PWl)-2 injuries. 6. Out of the above, 3 injuries of Suraj, one injury of Govind and one of Daulatsingh are alleged to be grievous one. Accused party also received the injuries although the same were simple. According to the medical evidence, the injuries found on the persons of the accused party are as under;- Babu 1. Lacerated wound 2"x 1/4" x 1/8" middle of the skull. 2. Swelling 3* x 1" left shoulder. 3. Swelling 2" x 1" left side chest in the miaxlery line. 4. Abrasion 4" x 1/8" on right index finger. Jumma 1. Abrasion 1/4"x 1" right shoulder joint. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/8" left illiac fossa. 3. Contusion 5" x 1/2" on left scapuls in its middle. 4. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/8" above the left eye brow. Hanuman 1. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/8" on right forearm in its middle. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/8" on left heal. Immamuddin 1. Swelling 2" x 1/2" on left leg in its middle. 2. Abrasion J" x 1/8" on right wrist joint. Chhotu 1. Swelling 1" x 1/2" on right wrist joint. 2. Contusion 2" x 1/2" left scapuls. Yasmin 1. Swelling 1/4" x 1/4" left thumb, 2. Swelling 1/4" x 1/4" on right forearm in its upper one third. * 3. Contusion 5" x 2" left scapula, 4. Contusion 4" x 2" left buttock, 7. Now the crucial question is whether the occurrence took place at the field, Khasra No. 518, because an effort has been made by the prosecution to change the place of occurrence to the field of Prabhu adjoining to the field Khasra No. 518. In this respect, it would be necessary to examine the statement of Prabhu (PW 6). 8. Prabhu has stated that in the field, Khasra No. 518, the accused party was cultivating the field. Suddenly in his field both, the accused party and the complainant party armed with the weapons came running and the accused party started beating the complainant party. He then ran away out of fear. 9. Contrary to it, the statement of Govindnarain (PW9) the alleged owner of Khasra No. 518, mentions a different story. According to him, the accused party had given a challenge a day earlier to the date of the occurrence that they would cultivate the field, Khasra No. 518, and therefore, he sent Dhapu (PW1) to stop them. Mst. 9. Contrary to it, the statement of Govindnarain (PW9) the alleged owner of Khasra No. 518, mentions a different story. According to him, the accused party had given a challenge a day earlier to the date of the occurrence that they would cultivate the field, Khasra No. 518, and therefore, he sent Dhapu (PW1) to stop them. Mst. Dhapu (PW8) and Daulatsingh (PW2) went to the Khasra No. 518 but the accused party started beating them and thereafter other part of the occurrence took place in the field of Prabhu. The investigating Officer who prepared site inspection note and has been examined as (PW16) Brijnarain, has clearly stated that the blood stained earth was found in the field, khasra No. 518, at two places and in the field of Prabhu. 10. The statement of the complainant party is very clear on this point that there was dispute between the parties about the field and the accused party had given a challenge and wanted to cultivate the field, Khasra No, 518, after challenge. 11. If that is so, and obviously it is so, because, as far as the possession and the cultivation of the field, Khasra No. 518, is concerned, apart from, the oral testimony, Govind has not given a registered deed in his favour or favour of his father or relative nor there is any mutation document which clinches the issue. 11. If that is so, and obviously it is so, because, as far as the possession and the cultivation of the field, Khasra No. 518, is concerned, apart from, the oral testimony, Govind has not given a registered deed in his favour or favour of his father or relative nor there is any mutation document which clinches the issue. Temporary injunction dated 25-9-75 which had been served on Govind and other on 22-3-76 reads as under:- ^^udy vknsk fnukad 25-9-75 U;k;ky; miftyk/khk VkSad fely ua- 104@75 vuokuh eqdíerk vyknhu iq= vCnqYyk [kka lksuok cuke enuyky iq= Jheky xksfoUn ukjk;.k iq= Jheky jkeckcq iq= Jheky egktu NksVw oYn xksiky ukjk;.k iq= xksiky] gtkjh iq= xksiy tkfr vghjkuA 25-9-75 % oknh us nkok gqDe bErukbZ nokeh izkFkZuk e; gqDe bReukbZ pUnjkstk e; kiFk i= o nLrkost iskdj gesa ;dhu fnyk;k fd oknh vkjkth [k-ua- 518-411 ¼517%51½ 4 okds xzke yksuok dk [kkrsnkj dkrdkjku ekfyd gS vkSj ogh jkT; ljdkj dks yxku vnk djrk gSA izfroknhx.k jaftk ds vk/kkj ij fcyk otg oknh ds dCts dkr o [kkrsnkjh dh mä Hkwfe esa etekger djrs gS o dCts ls oafpr djuk pkgrs gSA ;fn izfroknhx.k dks tfj, gqDe bErukbZ pUnjkstk ikcUn ugha fd;k x;k rks oknh dks ukdkfcys lykeh uqdlku gksus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% izfroknhx.k dks tfj, gqEd bErukbZ pUnjkstk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd os Lo;a tfj, ,tsUV ;k ukSdj oknh dh [kkrsnkjh o dCts dkr dh vkjkth [k-ua- 518@411 ¼517%51½ 4 okds xzke [kksuok rg- VkSad esa fdlh idkj dh etkger u djs ;fn mUgsa dksbZ vkifÙk gks rks fn- 21-10-75 dks mifLFkr vnkyr gksdj isk djsaA ntZ jftLVj gksdj fufpr rkjh[k ij isk gksA gqDe lquk;k x;kA ,lMh@& vkj-lh- fuMj miftyk/khk VkSad 12. It is nobodys case that this injunction was not in existence on 12.6.76 when the occurrence took place. Contrary to it, the case of the complainant parly was that this injunction was vacated by the appellate court in 1977 after it was confirmed by the trial court on the revenue side on 16-12-76. 13. Be that as it may, the basic fact remains that on 12-6-76 temporary injunction restraining the complainant party from interfering in possession of the accused party in Khasra No. 518, and not entering into the Khasra No. 518 was in valid existence and this injunction was shown to the parties concerned. 14. 13. Be that as it may, the basic fact remains that on 12-6-76 temporary injunction restraining the complainant party from interfering in possession of the accused party in Khasra No. 518, and not entering into the Khasra No. 518 was in valid existence and this injunction was shown to the parties concerned. 14. The trial court was not justified in holding that since the injunction was set side by the appellate court in 1977, therefore, injunction would not be treated as having any effect on the date of incident. 15. In criminal case, what is to be seen is as to how the party was working on the date of occurrence, and the question of possession, title or right of possession is to be considered on the basis of facts available on that date irrespective of what was happened or what would have been adjudicated upon after a year or so. The existence of temporary injunction on the date of occurrence in favour of the party creates a case of defence for the retention of the property and its cultivation by that party in whose favour the injunction has been issued. The remedy of the rival party is to get it vacated and then entered into that field or stop other parties. 16. It would be a literary lawlessness and contempt of court orders which have been issued by competent court of law, and served upon and that the orders are treated as waste papers or / and party goes to the field to exhibit their muscle strength. The entire judicial system for adjudication of rights of parties and granting temporary relief in based on solemn philosophy. The juristic phelo-sophy in that is rule of Jaw, the citizens should not be allowed to have a trial of strength by coming on the roads, streets, or fields or taking law in their own hands and attacking other persons. 17. Whenever there is feud or dispute, they must come to a competent court and get it adjudicated. The juristic phelo-sophy in that is rule of Jaw, the citizens should not be allowed to have a trial of strength by coming on the roads, streets, or fields or taking law in their own hands and attacking other persons. 17. Whenever there is feud or dispute, they must come to a competent court and get it adjudicated. During pendency of the decision, the provisions have been made by the legislature for temporary relief by way of ad-interim relief order like temporary injunction and stay order, and the salutary principle is that if a person can have an injunction then he can have protective umbrella of his sights and no one can encroach upon those rights because that protective umbrella would ward off all such attempts. 18. In the instant case, it is obvious on the perusal of the entire record including documentary evidence that the principal dispute was regarding ownership and possession of the agricultural field Khasra No. 518. Since it is beyond dispute that on the date of occurrence, the injunction was in force in favour of the accused party and against the complainant party for the field in dispute, as a logical and legal corollary to it, the complainant should have not taken law in their own hands by going to the field and trying to stop cultivation. The fact that the accused party received grievous injuries is not much of consequence so far as right of private defence is concerned. 19. In Mana vs. State of Rajasthan (1), I had occasion to discuss the importance of right of private defence of property or person as it existed, in he ancient age and was honoured and respected by Manu. Yajnavalykya, Kautlya & others, they have said that the right of private defence is not only right when the aggression is made by other party but it is legal duty to combat aggressor and save himself and if he fails then it is guilty of offence of not being protected himself by raising proper defence against aggressor. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code in this respect are not on that high pedestal. Even then these provision as held by series of decisions, are sufficient to protect a person by giving him right to defend himself against any aggressor of the persons as well as property. 20. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code in this respect are not on that high pedestal. Even then these provision as held by series of decisions, are sufficient to protect a person by giving him right to defend himself against any aggressor of the persons as well as property. 20. In Mana vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) I have observed as under:- "58. It is true that sitting here in the court room and while making a fine distinct on between the extent of the right of private defence of person and property available to a party, we may by analysing the niceties of provisions of S. 100, 102, 103 and 104 of the Indian Penal Code, enter into a mental gymnasium" regarding the quantum of the force which should have been used. But can the tiller of the soil defending his only source of livelihood and the ploughing and cultivation which he has done and which is likely to give him. hardly "two square scale" a day with difficulty; weigh each blow they would give to defend that property and person; in golden scales. Is he not entitled to protect himself and his property?" 21. The above observations clearly apply to the present case because the accused were tillers of the soil and their only source of livelihood was cultivation and they were fighting for eminence and not accidence. If they would have been deprived of this agricultural field in dispute, their entire family would have extincted because of starvation. The extinction of the family from the starvation is too serious for any one much more for agriculturists. It was in these circumstances that we have observed in State of Rajasthan vs. Ramswarup (2) as under:- "When the accused persons are threatened with extinction of their persons and property, their most instinct would be to ward off the threat by whatever methods and means they can adopt without permitting the opportunity to the complainant party to succeed in their objective. In this case, the accused persons having their right of private defence of persons and property took action and in that process the complainant party was beaten. The accused persons in this case, had the right of private defence of their persons and property. They even did not exceed with this right. The accused persons had the right to protect themselves and their property. The accused persons in this case, had the right of private defence of their persons and property. They even did not exceed with this right. The accused persons had the right to protect themselves and their property. Had the complainant party falt that the land had been wrongly sold or purchased by Kishanlal accused by deceitful means they should have gone to a civil court for proper remedy. There is no justification in taking the law in their own hands and in trying to forcibly dispossess the accused persons from the said land who also beat the accused persons." (para 19). 22. Similar view was taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court time and again in Jaidev Vs. State of Punjab (3). 23. In view of the above, though the learned counsel for the accused has argued and challenged about each individual case and the offence in which it would fall and the part played, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to enter into that controversy about individual case. It would be sufficient to observe that the accused party asserted the right of private defence and they have not exceeded it in any manner, whatsoever. 24. The result of the above discussion is that all the appellants are entitled to the acquittal. Their conviction and sentence under which they have been held guilty, are set aside and they are acquitted of all the offences. The appellants are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.