JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13th June,1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, whereby, he held guilty appellant Mst. Kanchan under section 302 and appellant Mangla under section 302/34, IPC, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. Appellant Mangla was also found guilty under section 324, IPC. But, no separate sentence was passed for this offence against him. 2. The alleged incident had taken place on 6th Aug., 1984, in which, one Onkar died. Pokhar, son of Deva lodged a written-report at PS-Baroni. the very day, at about 1.30 PM. alleging that he and his brothers had agricultural lands in Village-Anwarpura Khera. that day, at about 8 AM. while they were sowing Bajra at their fields, the accused persons, 20 in number, whose names are mentioned in the report. armed with Lathi, Kudali and Phaora, with a common object, illegally entered into their fields, and asked them not to cultivate the said lands. When they were obstructed, Mst. Kanchan inflicted a Kudali blow from its sharp side on the head of Onkar. Bajranga then inflicted lathi blows on the head, legs and shoulder of Jagdish. Nathu gave a blow with lathi on the legs of Kesra, resulting in breaking of bones. Nathu then inflicted lathi blows to the informant, on his hands and legs. Harikishan it flicted one lathi blow on the head of Ratna. Mangla gave lathi blows on the head of Mst. Nangi and Dakha inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Mst. Shanti. Ganga gave a lathi blow on the legs and waist of Mst. Kamla, wife of Jagdish Nathu then inflicted one lathi blow on the head of Ramlal. Ganga inflicted one blow with lathi on the eyes of Mst. Dhapu. Badri inflicted one lathi blow each on the head of Balu and Kesra. And Moola also had inflicted lathi-blows. According to the report. the alleged incident was seen by Prahlad Kumhar. It was also alleged therein that about 11/2 months prior to the incident these accused persons had also tried to obstruct them in cultivating the lands, for which, a suit was also pending in the court of Deputy Collector, Tonk, and a temporary injunction was issued against the accused persons. 3. On the above report, a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 447 & 321, IPC, was registered. 4. 3. On the above report, a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 447 & 321, IPC, was registered. 4. Regarding the same incident, the accused persons also lodged an FIR at about 10.45 AM, on 6th Aug., 1984 (Ex.D.l6); and a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 325 & 323, Indian Penal Code was registered; and under these sections, a challan was also submitted against the complainant-party, on 30th Nov., 1984. The number of this sessions case is 3/85. In this case, 9 persons who are witnesses in sessions case No. 4/85, have been found guilty under section 323, IPC, but, they have been released on admonition. 5. After the death of Onkar, the case was converted into that under section 302 IPC. The injuries of the members of the complainant-party were examined by Dr. Gopal Singh, who also conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Onkar. Dr. Gopal Singh also examined the injuries of appellant Mst. Kanchan, whose report is Ex. D. 9, and of Mangal whose report is Ex. D.10. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of Onkar occurred due to serious shock, as a result of brain-damage at the site of occipital bone, the bone being fractured into multiple pieces damaging the brain. 6. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 20 persons and all of them were committed to the court of sessions. The trial court framed charges against Mst. Kanchan under sections 148, 302 & 23, Indian Penal Code ; against Mangla under sections 147. 302/149, 23 & 324, Indian Penal Code ; and against other accused persons under sections 147, 302, 149/323, IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The defence version was that Khasra No. 53 was the well, and the lands on its both the sides, i.e., eastern and western sides, were ancestral property. The accused persons and the complainant-party are the descendants of the same great-grandfather. The eastern side of the well was under cultivation of the accused persons, and that on its western side, was cultivated by the complainant-party. The accused persons had sown 'Bajra' on the eastern side of the well. On the day of the alleged occurrence, Bajra crop was standing at the knee-height The complainant party reached there with ploughs and Kulis and started overthrowing the crop of the accused persons. The accused persons had sown 'Bajra' on the eastern side of the well. On the day of the alleged occurrence, Bajra crop was standing at the knee-height The complainant party reached there with ploughs and Kulis and started overthrowing the crop of the accused persons. It was stated that the complainant-party had inflicted injuries to the accused persons, for which, a sepatate FIR was lodged ; a challan was submitted; and conviction was passed, as mentioned above. 7. After completing the trial in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted 10 accused persons of the charges levelled against them, i. e. under sections 147, 302/149 & 323, IPC. It, however, found Mst. Kanchan guilty less under section 302, and Mangla under sections 302/34 & 324, IPC. Mst. Kanchan was also acquitted of the charges under sections 148 & 323, Indian Penal Code and so also Mangla under sections 147 & 323, IPC. Accused Nathu, Bajranga, Badri, Harikishan, Babu, Kanya, Barji and Phula were found guilty under section 323, IPC, but they were acquitted of the charges under sections 147 and 302/149, IPC. Mst. Kanchan and Mangla who have come in appeal, were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that after trial, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the complainant-party and the accused persons are descendants of the same ancestor, and that there was a bona fide dispute between the two parties regarding some agricultural land, for which, a revenue litigation was going on between them. It was also observed that the entry of the accused persons into the disputed field, was not illegal. It was also held by the trial court that the accused persons had not formed any unlawful assembly, and also that there was no pre-plan for committing the offences, and the it the dispute had taken place on the spur of the moment; and further that the khatedari of Khasra No. 52 was in the name of the complainant-party, but, some land was joint also; and the well was in the joint-khatedari. It was then argued that on the basis of these findings, the trial court acquitted 10 persons of all the charges, and also other accused persons of the charge under section 147, IPC, because, formation of unlawful assembly was not established by the prosecution. It was then argued that on the basis of these findings, the trial court acquitted 10 persons of all the charges, and also other accused persons of the charge under section 147, IPC, because, formation of unlawful assembly was not established by the prosecution. The accused persons who were found guilty under section 323, IPC, were released on admonition. It was also argued that in the cross-case (sessions case No. 3/87), the members of the complainant-party were found guilty ups. 323, IPC, for causing injuries to Mst. Kanchan and Mangla. The learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the learned trial court has failed to consider the right of private-defence to the accused persons. According to him, from the evidence, it is clear that the accused persons had sown Bajra' in the disputed field. The trial court has also held that the appellants had the right to enter into that field. There was a well and, the land was in joint-khatedari. A revenue litigation is going on between the two parties with regard to the disputed land. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the accuse, persons had sown Bajara' in the disputed field and that the members of the complainant-party had come to recultivate the land. The case of the prosecution is that the members of the complainant-party had gone there to sow the land again on account of poor sowing. But, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes clear that the land was cultivated by the accused persons; and this is not correct that it was cultivated by the complainant-party and that they had gone to recultivate the land and sow Bajra' over there. In such circumstances. he conviction of the appellants, is bad, argued the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. We have perused the entire record of the case and gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the judgment of the trial court. It is correct that the trial court has held that there was no unlawful-assembly formed by the accused persons and that it cannot be said that the entry of the accused per sons to the field, was illegal. It was also held that the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment, and that there was no pre-plan. It is correct that the trial court has held that there was no unlawful-assembly formed by the accused persons and that it cannot be said that the entry of the accused per sons to the field, was illegal. It was also held that the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment, and that there was no pre-plan. It was also observed that Khasra No. 52 was of the complainant-party but, some part of this khasra was in the joint-possession of both the parties, for which, litigation was going on. It was also held therein that the prosecution has failed to prove as to where and at which specific place, the alleged occurrence had taken place. Both the parties had their shares in the well also. So, the entry of the accused persons to the field, cannot be treated as a criminal trespass. Even with this finding, the trial court has found guilty the accused-appellants as mentioned above. 10. Mst. Kanchan has been found guilty under section 302, Indian Penal Code for inflicting injuries to Onkar, who died as a result thereof. According to the prosecution case. Mst. Kanchan was armed with Kudali, and she had inflicted Kudali blow by its sharp side, on the head of Onkar, resulting in the fracture of his scalp. In the FIR (Ex. P. 19), infliction of only one blow by Mst. Kanchan. is mentioned. Also, the evidence is to the effect that Mst. Kanchan had inflicted only one Kudali blow. A look into the post-mortem report of Onkar (Ex. P. 54) shows that he had injuries-3 were lacerated wounds, I was contusion and 2 were swellings, 2 of the lacerated wounds, were on the occipital region; and the death occurred due to shock as a result of brain-damage at the site of occipital bone. The bone was fractured into multiple pieces. It means that the head-injuries of Onkar, were fatal, which ultimately resulted in his death. There were 2 injuries on head of Onkar; and according to the prosecution witnesses, only 1 injury was inflicted by Kanchan. It has not been established as to which injury was inflicted by Kudali which resulted in the fracture of the occipital bone. 11. According to the FIR and the evidence on record, Mst. There were 2 injuries on head of Onkar; and according to the prosecution witnesses, only 1 injury was inflicted by Kanchan. It has not been established as to which injury was inflicted by Kudali which resulted in the fracture of the occipital bone. 11. According to the FIR and the evidence on record, Mst. Kanchan was having a Kudali' in her hand, which was a sharp-edged weapon, and she had inflicted blow on the head of Onkar with its right side, i.e. sharp edge. There was no injury which was by a sharp weapon. If a blow by a Kudali was inflicted, there must have been wounds by sharp weapons; but, that is not the position. Both the injuries resulting in the fracture of the occipital bone, were lacerated wounds. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that Mst. Kanchan had inflicted any Kudali-below on the head of Onkar. There were 20 persons on the side of the accused party; and according to the FIR (Er P.19), every accused person was assigned with particular blow to particular persons. Mst. Kanchan was also assigned with one blow to Onkar. But, Mangla was not assigned with any blow to be inflicted to Onkar. So. Mangla appellant cannot be held guilty of inflicting any fatal below to Onkar. Mangla has been convicted with the aid of S. 34, Indian Penal Code for offence under section 30 IPC. Whether Mangla had any common intention with Mst. Kanchan has not been established by the prosecution. The trial court has held that there was no pre-plan, pre-meditation or common object of the accused persons. 12. We fail to understand as to how the trial court has found that Mangla appellant had common intention of committing murder of Onkar, specially in that circumstance when Mst. Kanchan has been convicted of offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code simpliciter, and this fact has been established that Mst. Kanchan is responsible for inflicting the fatal blow to Onkar. So, how. Mangla could be convicted under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code ? How did the trial court come to the conclusion that Mangla had common intention with Mst. Kanchan when there is no clear evidence on the record to the effect that Mst. Kanchan had inflicted the fatal injury to Onkar. The fatal injury was inflicted by a blunt weapon, while Mst. How did the trial court come to the conclusion that Mangla had common intention with Mst. Kanchan when there is no clear evidence on the record to the effect that Mst. Kanchan had inflicted the fatal injury to Onkar. The fatal injury was inflicted by a blunt weapon, while Mst. Kanchan had a sharp-edged weapon in her hand, and she, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. by the sharp edge of her Kudali had inflicted the blow. Therefore, it is a bad finding of the trial court that Mst. Kanchan had inflicted any blow on the head of Onkar. When no fatal blow was inflicted by Mst. Kanchan, how appellant Mangla could be held guilty with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code ? The trial court has failed to understand this aspect and also it could not appreciate correctly when Mst. Kanchan had inflicted a blow by a sharp weapon, how the death of Onkar was caused by infliction of a blow by some blunt object, resulting in lacerated wounds. The cause of death was fracture of the occipital bone on account of lacerated wounds and not on account of incised wounds. We thus find that in all respects, conviction of Mst. Kanchan, is bad. Similarly, that of Mangla appellant under section 302/34, IPC, is also bad. 13. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused persons had right of private defence to their persons and property. After reading the statements of the prosecution witnesses, we find that they had inflicted any injury to the accused persons. They even denied that they had seer, any injury on the persons of the accused persons. This is height of giving false statements Dr. Gopal Singh PW 15 has proved the injuries on the persons of Mst. Kanchan and Mangla, whose injury-reports have been marked as Exs. D.9 & D. 10. It is noteworthy that the accused persons had also lodged an FIR of the incident, against the complainant-party and 9 of the prosecution witnesses were challenged and found guilty in the cross sessions case under section 323, IPC. The prosecution witnesses have also falsely stated that they had not inflicted any injury to the members of the accused-party, and that they even did not any injury on their bodies. The prosecution witnesses have also falsely stated that they had not inflicted any injury to the members of the accused-party, and that they even did not any injury on their bodies. It shows that the prosecution witnesses are most unreliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 14. In Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) , their Lordships have observed as under : in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. 15. In the present case, certainly, there is a non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused persons at the time of the occurrence, but, there are false statements of all the prosecution witnesses that they did not see any injury on the bodies of the accused persons. So, this non-explanation and the false statements of the prosecution witnesses give the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, and it has not presented the true version in the Court. The denial by the prosecution witnesses about the presence of injuries on the persons of the accused persons, shows that their evidence is unreliable. The denial by the prosecution witnesses about the presence of injuries on the persons of the accused persons, shows that their evidence is unreliable. We, therefore, are of the view that the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution and the denial of the injuries on the accused-party by the prosecution witnesses, are fatal to the prosecution story, and we observe here that the prosecution has not come with the true version and has suppressed the actual cause of the occurrence. As held by the trial court, the accused persons were within their right to enter into the field; and the fact is that the accused persons had sown Bajra' in the disputed field, and it was the complainant-party who had tried forcibly to sow 'Bajra' again over the cultivated land; and in the right of their private defence to their persons and property and to save the crop cultivated by them, if injuries were caused by the accused persons to the members of the complainant-party, then, in our opinion, no offence was committed by the accused persons. 16. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ramswaroop and others (1987 Cr.L.R (Rajasthan) 517) , it was observed when the accused persons were threatened with extinction of their persons and property, and the complainant-party was trying to forcible dispossess and taking law in its own hand that the accused acted in exercise of their right of private defence and did not exceed this right. This judgment was of a division bench in which, Justice G.K. Sharma was a member. 17. In ' Ram Khiladi and another v. State of Rajasthan, (1984 Cr.L.R. (Rajasthan 708) which is also a case of division bench of this Court. This judgment was of a division bench in which, Justice G.K. Sharma was a member. 17. In ' Ram Khiladi and another v. State of Rajasthan, (1984 Cr.L.R. (Rajasthan 708) which is also a case of division bench of this Court. it was had that the place where the incident took place and the cause of the incident, if not proved as stated by the prosecution witnesses, and on the other hand, the explanation given by the accused persons and the evidence led by them in their defence, gives plausible explanation of their stand that the incident took place on account of the reason that the complainant-party had damaged the water-channel going to the field of the accused persons, then, the complainant-party was the aggressor, and that in that case, if injuries were inflicted by both the parties a case of exercise of the right of private defence to persons and property, is clearly made out by the accused persons; and in that case, while accepting the appeal of the accused persons, they were acquitted. 18. In Hiralli and others v. The State of Rajasthan etc. (1980 RCC 348) , it was held by a division bench of this Court when the accused were in the possession of the disputed field-Complainant party attacked and gave injuries to the accused-party. The accused party then gave injuries to the complainant-party, and one person died, that the accused persons had the right of private defence to their persons and property, and all the accused persons were acquitted. 19. In Gyarsya and others v. The State of Rajasthan (1985 RCC 172) , a case of division bench of this Court, in which Justice Bhargava was one of the members and delivered the judgment, it was observed, when the occurrence had taken place at the field of the accused persons and the accused persons had received minor injuries, and where a cross-case was also instituted by the accused persons, that it was in self-defence both to the property and the persons that the accused persons had given beating and inflicted blows to the complainant-party, and that merely because the prosecution had given the F.R. in the case launched by the accused persons by lodging the FIR (Ex. D. 5), it could not be said that the accused persons were not entitled to the right of private defence. 20. D. 5), it could not be said that the accused persons were not entitled to the right of private defence. 20. In the present case also, the accused persons lodged an FIR, and the members of the complainant-party were challenged by the police; and the trial court found 9 of the complainant-party guilty under section 323, IPC. So, this case is more strong than that of Gyarsia (supra). The accused persons had received injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant party, who were the aggressors in this case. They had entered into the field and tried to damage the Bajra' crop sown by the accused persons. When the accused persons obstructed in doing so, the dispute took place. The trial court in this case also held that the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment, without any pre-meditation, and on account of the aggression by the complainant- pasty, the accused persons, were in their right to defend their property and persons, and in that circumstance, if beating was given to the complainant-party by the accused-party, it cannot be said that the accused had no right of private-defence to their persons and property, nor can it be said that they had exceeded this right of private-defence. Therefore, the trial court has committed error in not agreeing with the contention of the accused persons that they had the right of private-defence to their persons and property. 21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the convictions of the appellant Mst. Kanchan under section 302, Indian Penal Code and Mangla under section 302/34, IPC, cannot be maintained, the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The convictions and the sentence passed against both the appellants under sections 302 & 302/34, Indian Penal Code respectively, by the trial court, are hereby set aside, and they both are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Both the appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******