JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J —The appellants, Atma Ram and his three sons, Lekh Raj, Tilak Raj and Ajit Kumar, were made to face trial for the offences falling under section 302/323 read with section 3 , I. P. C. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Una The learned Sessions Judge found the first two appellants, Atma Ram and Lekh Raj, guilty of the capital offence and convicted them accordingly. Atma Ram was further found guilty and convicted for the offence under section 323, I, P. C. The other two appellants were acquitted of the charge under section 302, I. P. C. and convicted only under section 323 read with section 34, L P. C. 2. For their conviction under section 302, I. P. C. both the appel lants, Atma Ram and Lekh Raj, were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. Atma Ram in addition was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under section 323, I. P. C. The other two appellants who were convicted under section 323 read with section 34, I. P C. were, however, released on probation. The common charge on which all the four appellants were tried was framed thus : - "That you on or about 15-11-1983 at village Laddia Santoo in the area of Police Station Amb, in furtherance of your common intention did commit the murder or intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Gulzari Lal and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly, on the same date and place in furtherance of the common intention of you all voluntarily caused hurts to Dalip Chand, Gurbattan Chand, Smt Parkasho Devi and Brahmi Devi and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this Court of the said charges. Sd/- Sessions Judge.” 4. Gulzari Lal deceased was the real brother of the injured persons, Gurbattan Chand and Dalip Chand. The two injured ladies are also from the same family, Smt. Parkasho being the widow of Gulzari Lal and Smt. Brahmi Devi, the wife of Dalip Chand. 5. The prosecution version and which appears to have found favour with the trial Court may be summarized thus; — 6. The two injured ladies are also from the same family, Smt. Parkasho being the widow of Gulzari Lal and Smt. Brahmi Devi, the wife of Dalip Chand. 5. The prosecution version and which appears to have found favour with the trial Court may be summarized thus; — 6. Gulzari Lal deceased and his brothers, who hereinafter shall be referred as "the complainant party" purchased a parcel of land measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas, comprised in Khasra So. 55 Mia forming undefined share of Khasra No. 55, from Babu Ram Lambardar (PW 11). This was in or about the year 1970, The adjacent land comprised in Khasra No. 54 was owned and possessed by the appellants The complainant party, it appears, had not been put in possession of the land purchased by them from Babu Ram Lambardar. Gian Chand (PW 1.6), another brother of Gulzari Lal deceased, therefore, made an application before the Tehsildar seeking demarcation of their land comprised in Khasra No. 55 Min referred to above and also of another Khasra No This demarcation was given on the spot by Dandu Ram Kanungo (PW 9) on 2-6-1983 as per his report found at Ex. PP. At the time of demarcation the disputed land comprised in Khasra No. 5 Min was found under encroachment of the appellants. Atma Ram appellant there and then relinquished possession of this land in favour of the complainant party. 7. The further version of the prosecution is that after such demarcation, the complainant party cultivated paddy crop in this land. Just after harvesting paddy crop they prepared the Iand for sowing wheat crop, This was done about a fortnight before the occurrence which took place on 19-11-1983, On the day of occurrence at about 8.30 a m., the complainant party comprising of Gulzari Lal deceased, his brothers, Gurbatan Chand and Dalip Chand PWs and the two ladies. Parkasho and Brahmi Devi, proceeded to that land for sowing wheat, Gulzari Lal deceased and Gurbatana PWs started ploughing the field while the two ladies were following them throwing seed. The members of the complainant party were still in the process of sowing wheat in that field when the appellants reached there duly armed. Lekh Raj appellant was then armed with hockey stick while the other three appellants were carrying Lathis with them. The members of the complainant party were still in the process of sowing wheat in that field when the appellants reached there duly armed. Lekh Raj appellant was then armed with hockey stick while the other three appellants were carrying Lathis with them. On reaching there, Atma Ram, appellant commanded the members of the complainant party to stop ploughing and quit the field. Gulzari Lal deceased and other members of his party refused to oblige Atma Ram by saying that they were the rightful owners of th^ field of which they had been put in lawful possession at the time of demarcation and they would, therefore, not quit. The appellants then opened their attack and started inflicting indiscriminate blows with their respective weapons on the members of the complainant party. GuJzari Lal succumbed to his injuries on the spot while the other members of his party were spared with simple injuries only. 8. The defence version was that the land forming subject-matter of the disputed was in settled possession of the appellants since long and only a few days before the occurrence they had sown wheat crop therein. On the day of occurrence, only two of the appellants, namely, Atma Ram and Tilak Raj had gone to that field when they found the members of the complainant party named above uprooting the wheat crop earlier sown in that field by the appellants. On seeing that, the appellants Atma Ram and Tilak Raj called upon the complainant party not to uproot their crop. The members of the complainant party, however, instead of complying with this legitimate demand of the appellants, pounced upon them with their Lathis. The women folk of the complainant party also joined them in be labouring the above named two appellants, ft was, in these circumstances, and confronted with this situation that the appellants Atma Ram and Tilak Raj, in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property, inflicted injuries on the persons of the members of the persons of the members of the complainant party. The other two appellants, namely, Lekh Raj and Ajit Kumar, pleaded alibi by saying that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. The other two appellants, namely, Lekh Raj and Ajit Kumar, pleaded alibi by saying that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. It was denied on behalf of the defence if there was any demarcation of the disputed land given on the spot and if at any stage the appellants surrendered their possession over this land in favour of the members of the complainant party, as alleged in the prosecution version. 9. Information about this occurrence was telephonically conveyed to the Police Station by Rattan Chand (PW 15) on the basis of the information received by him from Babu Ram Lambardar, On receipt of that information SHO, Milap Chand (PW 21), proceeded to the spot. On the way he met Parkasho Devi (PW 4) who made her statement found at Ex. PJ before the SHO under section 154, Cr, P. C. On the basis of this statement the formal MR was recorded. On reaching the spot, the police summoned and arrested three of the appellants namely, Atma Ram, Ajit Kumar and Tailak Raj. After inquest proceedings the dead body of Gulzari Lal was sent for post mortem examination. Blood stained clothes of the injured persons and the alleged weapons of offence were also taken in to possession by the police. On completion of the investigation the appellants were sent for trial 10. The plea of alibi as raised on behalf of Lekh Raj and Ajit Kumar appellants at the trial did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge who preferred to believe the prosecution version suggesting presence of all the four appellants at the time of the occurrence. The other defence plea that the appellants in inflicting fatal and other injuries on the persons of the members of the complainant party had acted only in the exercise of their right of private defence of their person and property was also negatived by the learned Sessions Judge. As per the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant party had been coming in settled possession of tue disputed land ever since 3-6-1983 when they had been put in possession thereof at the time of demarcation effected by Dandu Ram Kanungo (PW 9). The role played by the appellants during the occurrence, in the view of the learned Sessions Judge, could not but bj termed that oT an aggressor. The role played by the appellants during the occurrence, in the view of the learned Sessions Judge, could not but bj termed that oT an aggressor. The appellants were thus held liable for the convictions as recorded against them. 11. Shri Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, did not address us on the plea of alibi as pleaded by appellants, Lekh Raj and Ajit Kumar at the trial. He concentrated all his efforts on the other defence plea, namely, that the appellants in inflicting injuries on the persons of the members of the complainant party had acted only in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property and as such they could not be said to have committed any offence whatever. After carrying us through the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution itself, the learned Counsel pointed out that the only reasonable and legitimate conclusion which such evidence can lead to is that as on the day of occurrence, the settled possession over the land in dispute was that of the appellants and not of the complainant party. I be contrary view taken on this point by the learned Sessions Judge, was, as per contention of the learned Counsel, totally perverse and unsustainable especially when we bear in mind the nature and standard of proof required of an accused to establish his plea of self-defence. Once the settled possession over the disputed land is found with the appellants,, there should, as per contention of the learned Counsel, be no difficulty if accepting the defence plea that the appellants were entitled to protect their possession and for that purpose act in the manner they actually did especially when the members of the complainant party had admittedly inflicted Lathis blows on the vital parts of the bodies of the appellants, Atma Ram and Tilak Raj. 12. We find every force in the contention of the learned Counsel and are convinced that the facts and circumstances of this case, as they appear on the record, can admit of no other conclusion than the one suggested by Shri Sharma, namely, that in inflicting the blows on the persons of the members of the complainant party, the appellants had acted only in exercise of their right of private defence of property. 13. 13. Before we advert to the evidence having bearing on this point, we may observe that though the burden is always on the accused to establish his pica of self-defence, such burden is not as heavy and onerous as lies on the prosecution to establish a criminal charge. The burden lying on an accused is more akin to the burden lying on a party in civil cases. Such burden can be discharged by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities and this can be done either from the prosecution evidence itself or by adducing defence or both from the prosecution and defence taken together. Another rule which the court must be r in mind while appreciating evidence on the plea of self-defence is that where the court on an appreciation of the evidence is in doubt whether the accused has succeeded in substantiating his plea of self-defence, it must allow that plea because it is the accused alone who is entitled to the benefit of doubt, 14. Now it is an admitted position that the quarrel resulting in the fatal blows to Gulzari Lal deceased and simple injuries to other members of his party had its origin in the land dispute between the appellants and the complainant party. It being so, the first pertinent question that arises for determination in order to appreciate the defence plea of the right of private defence, is as to which out of the two parties, namely, the appellants and the complainant party, was in actual possession of the disputed land at the time of the quarrel. By actual possession, we of course mean, actual settled possession. On a consideration of the relevant material found in the prosecution evidence itself we are of the firm view that there is no alternative but to answer this question in favour of the appellant party. The contrary view taken by the Sessions Judge appears to us, totally perverse. True, that the complainant party had purchased this land from Babu Ram in or about the year 1970 but then it does not appear to be in dispute that the cultivating possession of this land remained throughout with the appellants. Gurbatan Chand (PW 5) who is a member of the complainant party admitted in so many words in answer to a court question that the accused were cultivating the land in dispute for the last 13 or 14 years. Gurbatan Chand (PW 5) who is a member of the complainant party admitted in so many words in answer to a court question that the accused were cultivating the land in dispute for the last 13 or 14 years. His other brother, Dalip C hand (PW 8) also similarly admitted that the accused party had been cultivating the land in dispute before the demarcation for the last 13-14 years. Smt. Parkasho, widow of Gulzari Lal, while appearing as PW 5 also made a similar admission when she stated that though they had purchased this land many years ago but the accused were cultivating the whole of the land and they (the complainant party) had obtained possession and started ploughing it only in the month of Jeth which corresponds to May/June, 1983. 15. The prosecution case, however, is that Gian Chand (PW 16) who is brother of PWs Gurbatan Chand and Dalip Chand made an application before the Naib Tehsildar on 29-5-1983 for obtaining demarcation of the disputed land and on that application the complainant party was given the demarcation on the spot on 2-6 1983 by Dandu Ram Kanungo PW 9 . Ex. PP is the report made by the said Kanungo about such demarcation. The further case -of the prosecution is the at that time of demarcation the land in dispute was found under encroachment of Atma Ram appellant who was present on the spot and who there and then voluntarily relinquished his possession over the encroached land in favour of the complainant party. The complainant party was thus coming in possession of this land since 2-6-1983. We find it difficult rather impossible to accept this version. The appellants who were admittedly in adverse possession of the disputed land and whose adverse possession had ripened into ownership by afflux of time on the date of the alleged demarcation, could not be expected to have voluntarily relinquished that possession in the manner suggested by the prosecution especially when after a short period they were to forcible resume that possession. Otherwise also a reference to the report of Dandu Ram Kanungo appearing at Ex. PP with respect to the alleged demarcation would by itself belie such a version. This report which is short may be extracted :— "Demarcation of Khasra Nos. Otherwise also a reference to the report of Dandu Ram Kanungo appearing at Ex. PP with respect to the alleged demarcation would by itself belie such a version. This report which is short may be extracted :— "Demarcation of Khasra Nos. 55 Min and 59 Min, Kitas 2, measuring 7-7 Kanals has been given to the applicant through the Chowkidar and other responsible persons of the village. At the spot the boundaries have been fixed with the help of Jarib. The applicant is satisfied with the demarcation. As such the file is submitted for necessary action. This report by itself suggests nothing. All that it shows is that on his application Gian Chand (PW 16) was given demarcation of land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 55 Min and 59 Min on the spot and that he was satisfied ,with the result of that demarcation. The report does not mention if any part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 55 Min was found under encroachment of the appellants or if the appellants relinquished possession of any portion thereof in favour of the complainant party. The report even does not suggest if any member of the appellant party was present at the time of demarcation of if such demarcation was carried after notice to them. We have every reason to assume that this demarcation, if at all it was carried out, was carried out in the absence and without notice to the appellants and there was thus no occasion for Atma Ram appellant for relinquishing the possession of the disputed land in favour of the complainant -party. We may observe that the application on which the demarcation was made in, dated 29-5-1983. It was addressed to the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar is alleged to have marked it to Dandu Ram Kanungo for necessary action. Thereafter Dandu Ram made his report only on 2-6-1983 There was thus no occasion for the appellants of having been informed of this demarcation expecially when they were not made a party to the application for demarcation. It was addressed to the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar is alleged to have marked it to Dandu Ram Kanungo for necessary action. Thereafter Dandu Ram made his report only on 2-6-1983 There was thus no occasion for the appellants of having been informed of this demarcation expecially when they were not made a party to the application for demarcation. In any case, the report must have mentioned about their presence and also of the factum of transfer of possession, if it was a fact Apart from that a Tatima should have been attached with tae report of the Kanungo with respect to the land which was found under encroachment and of which the possession is alleged to have been transferred to the complainant party. No such Tatima, however, finds reference in the report of the Kanungo. 16. From the material as discussed above, the only logical conclusion is that the appellants never relinquished possession of the land in dispute which was admittedly with them for the last 13 or 14 years In other words, they continued to be in possession and at the time of occurrence were in settled possession of this land. 17. Now once it is found that the appellants were in settled and cultivating possession of the land in dispute, there is every reason to accept their version that at the time of occurrence they had sown their wheat crop therein. The members of the complainant party who were admittedly ploughing that land immediately before the occurrence, had no business to enter into that land. They had obviously gone there with the criminal intention of assuming forcible possession of that land by uprooting the crop earlier sown by the appellants. The appellants, were therefore, justified in ensuring that the members of the complainant party did not uproot or damage the crop sown by them The version of the appellants that the members of the complainant party attacked them with their Lathis and inflicted blows on the heads of appellants Atma Ram and Tilak Raj is not disputed. It is not only supported by medical evidence but also admitted by Gurbatan Chand (PW 5) and Dalip Chand PW 8) both of whom did not deny the suggestion that they had inflicted blows with Dandas on the above named appellants. It is not only supported by medical evidence but also admitted by Gurbatan Chand (PW 5) and Dalip Chand PW 8) both of whom did not deny the suggestion that they had inflicted blows with Dandas on the above named appellants. The appellants, in these circumstances, must be said to be under the legitimate apprehension that in case they did not react in the manner they did, they might suffer grievous hurts if not fatal blows at the hands of the members of the complainant party who were also duly armed and whose numerical strength was also more We are thus of the considered view that the appellants in inflicting the blows on the members of the complainant party which ultimately resulted in the death of one of them and simple injuries to the others, had acted only in exercise of their right of private defence, both of body and of property, and they cannot be said to have committed any offence. The order of conviction and sentence as recorded against them by the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, not sustainable. 18. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, quash the convictions and sentences as recorded against the appellant by the trial Court and direct that all of them be acquitted of the charges for which they were tried. Appellants Atma Ram and Lekh Raj are in jail. They should be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The bonds entered into by the other two appellants stand discharged. Appeal allowed.