This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by Shri R. N. Saikia, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class at Gauhati in G. R. Case No. 1374 of 1975. Four accused, namely, Manir Ali, Md. Makib Ali, Yasin Ali and Mokshed Ali were charged v/ss. 323, 324/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. About 11 years ago, to be precise in 1975 the incident ha­ppened. The accused persons were acquitted on 21.4.1979. We are in 1986. The State of Assam would have done better not to prefer the appeal against the order of acquittal in view of the clear cut evidence appearing against the prosecution. This is a pri­vate dispute between the parties over a trivial matter. The alle­ged offences are neither offences against the State nor relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force or offences against the public tranquility or offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. The alleged offences, in the instant case, is 'hurt' falling under Chapter XVI of 'the Code'. It is high time for the Government to consider whether public money should be spent in similar matters. I observe ruefully that instead of making futile exercise in spending public money in such litigations per­haps the Government may utilise the same for the well being of the people. Other urgent needs for the needy are more pressing that such exercises by the Government. Is it a case of doing social justice to spend public money in private litigation ? We are poor judges of the relevant factors and perhaps no judge to decide what are the essential priorities those call for more care and attention of the Government. However, as the wing of the State the Court has its duty and has transmitted the message for appropriate consideration of the Government. 3. Let us proceed to the facts and circumstances of the case. The bird's eye view of the entire evidence leads to irresi­stible conclusion that the accused persons who are peasants grew paddy and it was the complainant party who destroyed the fruit of sweat and blood of the poor tillers. Should the accused be silent spectator to see that the result of their hard labour, sweat and blood destroyed by the wrong doers ? The accused used minimum force to desist the prosecution witnesses and saved a part of the golden crop, food for the nation. Should the accused be silent spectator to see that the result of their hard labour, sweat and blood destroyed by the wrong doers ? The accused used minimum force to desist the prosecution witnesses and saved a part of the golden crop, food for the nation. It is the statutory right of the accused to defend their honour and dignity, life and property within the limits of law. Where there is invasion or aggression on the property by the intruders or wrong doors, who hove no business to do so and when there is no time to take recourse to the public authority, the rightful owner has undoubted right to resist the attack and use force. The right of private defence of property is a weapon to be used and utilised where there is real apprehension that the pro­perty could not be saved without using force to desist the intru­ders or aggressors. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to exercise the right of private defence into operation. The right is available against a danger, imminent, present and real. The right is conferred to stop the other party from committing an offence. The right of private defence is codified in Sections 96 to 100 I.P.C. If acting in good faith, to preserve and conserve the property or to prevent the offence against his property, actions are taken by a person, they do not amount to offence as they fall within the provisions of sections 96 to 100 I.P.C. 4. Let us turn to the facts of the case. The prosecution allegation is that on 15.4.75 while the prosecution witnesses were pouching, the respondents along with two others unfas­tened the plough from the bullock of Ramiz Ali, his brothers, P.W.2. Manuwar Ali and Yatim Ali and assaulted them. The assault came from the blue. The brothers could not fathom the reasons of the assault. They were injured. All have simple injuries except one so called grievous hurt on the person of one of them. P.W.I, says that they had no quarrel with the accused. P.W.2, Manuwar Ali also could not get why did the accused persons beat them up and behaved in the manner. However, he says that they went to the land for ploughing "for the first time on that day''. He also admits that there was a cross case filed by the accused persons against them. P.W.2, Manuwar Ali also could not get why did the accused persons beat them up and behaved in the manner. However, he says that they went to the land for ploughing "for the first time on that day''. He also admits that there was a cross case filed by the accused persons against them. He denied that the prosecution side and others entered upon the land belonging to the accused and destroyed their paddy. He denied that the prosecution witnesses went to occupy the land by force and destroyed the standing paddy of the accused. P.W.9, the Police Officer who investigated the case stated that there was a cross case filed by the accused in respect of dispu­ted land alleging trespass by the prosecution side upon their land. The witness had seen standing paddy on the land. After the incident he went to the place of occurrence and found that the standing paddy was lying in a damaged condition at the place of occurrence. On thorough investigation he found that the land belonged to Mantaz Ali which was under cultivation of accused Manir Ali since two years before the occurrence. It is, therefore, seen from the evidence of prosecution witnessed that it was accused Manir who had been in possession of the land for the last two years before the incident. It is also found that the investigating officer found mark of one round of ploughing over the land whereby the standing paddy was damaged. He noticed it. It is thus seen that accused Manir grew paddy and the prosecution witnesses went there and plou­ghed through the standing paddy "which reached too high which wind could make them wave", as told by Defence witness No. 1. It is thus proved by P.W.9 that the prosecution side were the trespasser, committed mischief by destroying standing paddy and the poor tillers (the accused) stopped the illegal acts and prevented total destruction of the paddy grown by them. Were they not entitled to defend the property under the provisions of the penal Code ? We find enough material that the land was in possession of the accused Manir Ali. The prosecution witnesses are related and/or highly interested and they suppre­ssed the material facts. However, P.W.4, Makib Ali stated that the complainant party went to plough the land on the date of occurrence, meaning thereby for the first time that day. We find enough material that the land was in possession of the accused Manir Ali. The prosecution witnesses are related and/or highly interested and they suppre­ssed the material facts. However, P.W.4, Makib Ali stated that the complainant party went to plough the land on the date of occurrence, meaning thereby for the first time that day. P.Ws.5 and 7 were Doctors who treated the injured and descri­bed that the injuries were simple and fresh except one so-called grievous hurt found on left thigh of P.W.8, Ramiz Ali. P.W.6, is not a relevant witness. P.W.8, Ramiz Ali was bound to deny that they went to the land to oust the accused persons from possession of the land. He denied that they damaged the standing paddy grown by the accused persons. However, the witn­esses may lie but facts do rot. After the incident the Investigating officer found that a portion of the land was ploughed in conse­quence of which grown paddy was damaged. The place of incident was the place where the damaged paddy was found by him. On investigation the police Officer found that the land belonged to Mantaz Ali but was in actual physical possession of Manir Ali, accused No. 1. These are enough to hold that the accused had the right of private defence of property. The accused lodged an F.I.R. in the cross case wherein they claimed trespass by the prosecution witnesses into their land. The case of the accused is supported by the testimony of the Investiga­ting Officer. 5. These apart D. W. I, Sayed Safiqur Rahman Kaji, a responsible person proved to the hilt that the accused persons grew paddy on the land and the growing paddy was des­troyed by the prosecution witnesses. D. W. 2, Nabin Chandra Deka is none but the Sarkari Gaon Burah of the village. He testified that he went to the place of occurrence and saw the damaged paddy. He said that the paddy was grown by the ac­cused persons. The testimony of defence witnesses put final na­ils to the coffin of the prosecution case, the skeleton of which the State desired to resurrect by preferring this appeal against the order of acquittal. The accused are not required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they were not guilty. He said that the paddy was grown by the ac­cused persons. The testimony of defence witnesses put final na­ils to the coffin of the prosecution case, the skeleton of which the State desired to resurrect by preferring this appeal against the order of acquittal. The accused are not required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they were not guilty. However, in the instant case the accused have proved that they grew pa­ddy on the land which was in their actual physical possession They grew the paddy but the prosecution witnesses destroyed the same and they exercised the right of private defence to stop the aggression. I am of the opinion that the accused had the right of private defence of the property and the harms ca­used to the injured were nothing in comparison to the shocking loss that the prosecution side did to the accused. 6. For the following reasons, I hold that there is no me­rit in the appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.