J. M. MAHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 faced trial under Section 302, of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Sonia Naik and, the other respondents along with them faced the trial under Section 148, 302 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed riot besides causing the death of Sonia Naik and causing hurts to P. Ws. 1,5,6,7,9 and 10 and another Hinjiriya Jaya. Another, accused Jaya Gouda who was also charge-sheeted to face the trial had expired hefore its commencement. ( 2 ) THE prosecution came with a case that Jaya Gouda, Bisu Gouda (respondent No. 1), and the father of P. W. 1. and others were on litigating terms since 1969 in respect of a piece of land measuring 12 acres in village Charangul which stood recorded in Ext. 1 in favour of the father of P. W. 1 A suit filed by Jaya Gouda and others claiming title and interest in the land as also for recovery of possession of the s. ame failed at the appellate stage. The land had also been mutated in favour of P. W. 1 and that was attached in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in M. C. No. 20 of 1979, but that the accused persons, armed with lathis and spades, came upon the land as the aggressors in the morning of 2-7-1980 and assaulted the deceased and P. Ws. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and dragged away the deceased Sonia Naik and P. W. 9-Dhana Hinjiriya to the dry field of accused N anda Gouda (respondent No. 6) where Sonia was mercilessly beaten leading to his death and P. W. 9 was rendered senseless by beating. After the occurrence, the accused persons left the place. A First Information Report was lodged at the Koraput Police Station by P. W. 1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the trial commenced. After the occurrence, the accused persons left the place. A First Information Report was lodged at the Koraput Police Station by P. W. 1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the trial commenced. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the members of the party of the P. W. 1 were the aggressors and finding that the injuries suffered by the accused persons were more severe than those suffered by the other side but such injuries were not explained, and also finding that Sonia Naik had not been dragged to the field of Nanda Gouda but during the quarrel with the accused persons he himself had advanced there as an aggressor, held the respondents to have lawfully exercised right of private defence to safeguard their person and property and acquitted them. The learned Sessions Judgb also came to the conclusion that the assault on P. W. 9 as alleged, did not occur there being variance in the evidence of the witnesses in that regard. ( 4 ) SINCE on resume of the evidence we find ourselves generally in agreement with the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Judge, it is not necessary for us to reiterate the discussion of the evidence in detail as was held by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy and anr. , observing that is is not the duty of the Appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the Trial Court on the evidence, to respeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the Trial Court and that expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the incident of assault and riot took place on plot No. 1020. It has been rightly found by the Trial Court that no evidence has been led by the prosecution that such plot belonged to the prosecution witnesses. The earlier decision in 1969 under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, (Ext. 48), the recordof-rights (Ext. 1) or the decision in the title appeal (Ext. 44) do not relate to plot No. 1020. Only Ext. The earlier decision in 1969 under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, (Ext. 48), the recordof-rights (Ext. 1) or the decision in the title appeal (Ext. 44) do not relate to plot No. 1020. Only Ext. 3, the preliminary order of the learned Magistrate under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in M. C. No. 20/79 refers to plot No. 1020 but it was found that even though there was an order of attachment passed in Ext. 3, yet the attachment effected was only of the standing crops and not of the land. Hence, even though the respondents were in such plot of land at the time of the incident, yet they could not be described as the aggressors or to have trespassed upon the land of the P. Ws. in any manner. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel No. IV that the prosecution case is not that the respondents were guilty of trespass only so far as plot No. 1020 is concerned, but in respect of the entire 12 acres of land on which they had admittedly no possession yet they had gone upon it which had required the party of the P. W. 1 to defend its possession. Even if such submission is accepted, yet admittedly at the time the incident took place, accused persons were only on plot No. 1020 which was not in possession of the P. Ws. Even if the members of the party of the P. W. 1 had any right of private defence in respect of the other lands, it did not extend to be exercised on plot No. 1020 and hence it could not said that the accused had no right of private defence of their person or property at the time of the occurrence. To that extent, the conclusion reached by the Trial Court must be upheld. So far as the dragging of the deceased Sonia Naik is concerned, the statement of P. W. 3 himself is that actually none had dragged Sonia Naik to the field of Nanda Gouda but that he was quarrelling with those four and while so quarrelling was advancing towards N anda Gouda field and assaulted Oltu Raghunath. So far as the dragging of the deceased Sonia Naik is concerned, the statement of P. W. 3 himself is that actually none had dragged Sonia Naik to the field of Nanda Gouda but that he was quarrelling with those four and while so quarrelling was advancing towards N anda Gouda field and assaulted Oltu Raghunath. From this it is apparent that the prosecution wanted to build up a case of Sonia having been dragged to the filed and beaten mercilessly but it emerges that actually he had himself gone to the place and had also been a party to the assault. ( 6 ) SO far as respondent No. 10 - Dhanu Gouda is concerned, even though he was putported to be implicated as having given two fatal blows by means of a spade, yet it was the evidence of the Investigating Officer that hie; investigation did not reveal that he had taken part in the assault on Sonia Naik. Admittedly, the respondents suffered lacerted wounds on their heads as appearing from Exts. 37 to 39. Such injuries have not been explained by the prosecution, and save and except the injuries suffered by P. W. 9 and the death of Sonia Naik, the respondents were more severe then those suffered by the prosecution party. Respondents No. 10 is also supposed to have assaulted P. W. 9 with the spade. The spade seized from respondent No. 10 was M. O. I whereas the spade seized from respondent No. 15 was M. O. II. M. O. I was never sent for any serological examination. M. O. II was so sent and blood stains were found present on it. As such, it could not be said that the spade seized from respondent No. 10 had any blood marks on it. Respondent No. 15 had not been named by P. Ws. 1 to 10 as being the assailant of P. W. 9 or Sonia Naik, P. W. 9 had also not named any such person as his assailant but developed his version and implicated respondent No. 10 during the evidence stage. Respondent No. 10 was also not implicated as an assailant of the deceased during the stage of investigation. 1 to 10 as being the assailant of P. W. 9 or Sonia Naik, P. W. 9 had also not named any such person as his assailant but developed his version and implicated respondent No. 10 during the evidence stage. Respondent No. 10 was also not implicated as an assailant of the deceased during the stage of investigation. ( 7 ) FROM all such facts, the learned trial judge came to hold that the deceased sustained blows of some unknown person belonging to the party of the respondents and that there was no common intention to kill the deceased or to, inflict the injuries on P. W. 9. The evidence of any of the respondents individually being guilty of murder or causing the injuries is weak, Besides, he also found the party led by P. W. I to be the trespasser and the aggressor and the respondents to be within their right of private defence. ( 8 ) IN view of such state of the evidence, we do not find any material reason to disagree with learned Sessions Judge to convert the finding or acquiual to one of conviction. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal fails there being no merit in the same and is dismissed. .