JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran convicting the accused appellants under Sections 148,302/149. 326/149, 3 24/149 and 323/149, IPC and sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment as under: 1. 302/149, IPC Life Imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo further 5 years R.I. 2. 148, IPC One year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 500/-. 3. 326/149, IPC 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 4. 324/149, IPC 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 5. 323/149, IPC One month's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- under each of the above counts, each accused appellant has been ordered to undergo one fourth of the sentence awarded to him for each offence. 2. There is a field bearing Khasra No. 53 measuring 8 Bighas and 3 Biswas in village Mouza Moondla Pachelkala in District Kota. This land was mortgaged with possession to accused persons by Mst. Gordhani widow of late Tejmal and his two sons Surajmal and Prahalad, and the accused persons had been cultivating the same since then. On 20.8.80 Rambilas (PW 7) submitted a written report (Ex.P. 18) which was chalked out as an earlier FIR (ExP.19) at 6-40 PM. stating therein that half portion of the land in Khasra No. 53 had been mortgaged with possession by Smt. Gordhani and her two sons for a consideration of Rs. 800/- in favour of accused Na'hulal. Some revenue proceedings were going on between the parties. It has further been mentioned that Surajmal and Prahalad had sown Til crop a few days back. On the day of the incident at about 11-12 AM, 19 persons went to the deputed land armed with weapons and started ploughing the field by tractor. The complainant party reached the spot and asked the accused party not to cultivate and to stop ploughing by the tractor. On this, accused Banshilal and Chitar abused them and asked the complainant party to leave the field, otherwise they will kill them. But, when the complainant party resisted and did not allow the tractor to proceed, the accused inflicted injuries to Surajmal and Prahalad, as a result of which both of them died. 3. The police registered a case under Secs 147, 148. But, when the complainant party resisted and did not allow the tractor to proceed, the accused inflicted injuries to Surajmal and Prahalad, as a result of which both of them died. 3. The police registered a case under Secs 147, 148. 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302, IPC and Sec 34, IPC- After usual investigation, the case was challaned in the court of the Magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions for trial, and the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Baran convicted the accused appellants, as stated above, and acquitted 12 accused person. 4. Five accused-appellants have filed the appeal No. 517/84 and the sixth accused-appellant has filed appeal No. 564/84. Hence, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The defence version is that the accused party was in possession of the disputed land for the last more than 21 years and had been cultivating the same. They have produced a copy of the sale deed dated 8-2-62 (Ex. D. 10) saying that the land was purchased by them from the complainant party for a sum of Rs 1,900/-. They have also produced in defence Ex.D. 11, a copy of the application submitted to the Sub-Registrar for getting the sale deed registered. In their statements under Sec 313, Cr P.C. also, it has been stated that it was the accused party which was in possession and at the time of the incident the accused persons were ploughing the field by tractor when the complainant party came there and obstructed them by force and gave beating to accused Banshi Gorilal, Chitar son of Banshilal and another Chitar son of Jailal. They in order to protect the property and their person inflicted to the complainant party, as a result of which two of them died. PW 13 Dr. Prem Chand has deposed that he had examined accused Chitar son of Banshilal on 20-8-84, who had received seven injuries. Out of them, two were incised wounds on parietal region. He has also proved the injuries caused to Banshilal, one of them being an incised would on occipital-parietal region. He had also examined accused Gobrilal and found two incised wounds on the parietal region and one abrasion on the right foot. He also examined another Chitarlal son of Jailal who had received an incised wound on the right hand, one abrasion and complain of pain on back and chest. He had also examined accused Gobrilal and found two incised wounds on the parietal region and one abrasion on the right foot. He also examined another Chitarlal son of Jailal who had received an incised wound on the right hand, one abrasion and complain of pain on back and chest. The defence has also produced a copy of the FIR Ex. D8 lodged by them at 6 P.M. against the complainant party i.e., 45 minutes before the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant party. 6. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the record of the case. PW 2 Amritial in bis cross-examination has stated that he had asked the complainant party as to why they were ploughing the field of the accused party and sowing Til crop, whereupon Surajmal had replied to him that they were paying them the mortgage money but they were not accepting the same and. therefore, they were sowing Til crop. Even PW 7 Rambilas, who is the son of deceased Surajmal and nephew of deceased Prahlad has stated that when the complainant party had reached the field, they had asked the accused-party not to destroy the crop of Til sown by them. Thereupon the accused persons asked the complainant party to go away from the field, otherwise they will be killed. Since the complainant party did not go and obstructed the accused persons from ploughing the field by tractor, the accused persons gave beating to the complainant party. Rambilas has further admitted in cross-examination that after the mortgage the field was in possession of Nathu and even at the time when they had sown Til the possession continued with Nathu. Though he has also stated that his father and uncle had called Nathu and had asked him to accept the mortgage money and they wanted to redeem the property and take back the possession, but Nathu did not agree, on further cross-examination Rambilas admitted that initially he had come alone to the field and saw from a distance that the accused persons were destroying their crop by the tractor. He came running to the village and informed his father and uncle- Thereupon, all three came to the field with sticks. He came running to the village and informed his father and uncle- Thereupon, all three came to the field with sticks. On further cross-examination Rambilas also admitted that on the day of incident at about 8-9 A M. the accused persons had come to their village with tractor and the complainant party had come to know that the accused persons were going to plough the field, but the complainant party did not tell the accused party that they had sown Til in the field, and the accused persons should not go to the field to cultivate and plough the field. He further admitted that even when they left the village to the field, the complainant party did not inform them about this and when the accused party had left for the field with a tractor, they followed the accused party to the field and obstructed the accused persons from ploughing the field by standing infront of the tractor, and his father Surajmal asked the accused persons that he will not allow to plough the field by tractor. Thereupon, the accused persons inflicted injuries to the complainant party. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on AIR 1958 SC 702, (Munshiram v. Delhi-Administration) wherein it has been observed as under:- "It is true that no one including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But stray or even intermittent acts on trespass do no give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as a resistance to an intrusion upon possession on which has never been lost. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as a resistance to an intrusion upon possession on which has never been lost. The persons in possession by a stray act of trespass, a possession which has not matured into settled possession, constitute an unlawful assembly, giving right to the true owner, though not in actual possession at the time to remove the obstruction even by using necessary force." 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also brought to our notice a D.B. judgment of this court reported in 1978 RLW 245. (Mana v. State of Raj) . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State brought to our notice AIR 1975 SC 1674 , (Pooran Singh v. State of Punjab) and AIR 1377 SC 619, Ramratan v. State of U.P.) 10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases, we are of the view that conviction under section 302, IPC cannot be maintained. The accused persons were admittedly in possession of the disputed field, and admittedly it were the accused persons who were ploughing the field when the complainant party had come and had asked the accused party not to plough the field. It appears that there was a scuffle between the parties as a result of which both the sides received injuries. It is unfortunate that the two persons from the complainant party had died as a result of the incident. But, it cannot be said that the accused persons intended to cause death, or they had made an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased 'Surajmal and Prahlad. It was at the spur of the moment that both the parties inflicted injuries on either side and unfortunately the injuries inflicted by the accused persons proved fatal and two members of the complainant party died. It was at the spur of the moment that both the parties inflicted injuries on either side and unfortunately the injuries inflicted by the accused persons proved fatal and two members of the complainant party died. Looking to the injuries received by the accused party by sharp edged weapon on vital part of their body, we are of the opinion that the accused persons are entitled to the right of private defence, both of the property as well as of the person, and as such they are entitled to acquittal. 11. In the result, these two appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran is set aside and the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellants are hereby quashed and set aside. Accused-appellant Gobrilal is in Jail and he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused Nathulal died during the pendency of the appeal, and the other accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged and they need not surrender.Appeals allowed. *******