P. P. GUPTA, J. Indrapal Singh, Surendra Singh and Prithvi Raj Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-11-1978 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur convicting and sentencing each of them under Section 302 read with Section 34,i. P. C. to imprisonment for life. 2. The charge against appellants was that in furtherance of their common intention the appellants committed the murder of Hira Singh on 27-4-1977 at 5-00 p. m. in village Dhukri, P. S. Banda, district Sahahjahanpur. 3. Since the parties are closely related, it will be material to go through their pedigree. I Jabar Singh, common ancestor, had five sons, viz. Hira Singh, (deceased), Pool Singh. Manna Singh, Munnu Singh and Roopa Singh P. W. 1 Virpal Singh, is the son of Hira Singh. Phool Singh had died issueless four months prior to the incident. Manna Singh also died issueless. Munnu Singh also died leaving behind two sons, viz. Kalyan Singh and Subedar Singh. Kalyan Singh is issueless. The accused Indrapal Singh and Surendra Singh are real sisters son of Kalyan Singh. Roopa Singh had one son, viz. Gaya Singh, who is also dead. Gaya Singh has three sons, Viz. Prithvi Raj Singh (accused-appellant) and two other minor sons aged 12 years and 8 years respectively. 4. Phool Singh owned 28 Bighas of land on his death, which occurred about two months before the date of occurrence, wheat crop was standing on that land. Hira Singh (deceased), being the real brother of Phool Singh, had better claim of inheritance on the land of his brother, Phool Singh, as compared to in other branches of the pedigree. His nephew, Kalyan Singh, wanted to grab the land and the crop. A litigation in this regard was pending in Tehsil. The accused-appellant, Prithvi Raj Singh was taking the side of Kalyan Singh. 5. On 27-4-1977 at about 5-00 P. M. , P. W. 1 Virpal Singh, accompanied by his father, Hira Singh, went to see the wheat crop sown in the filed of Phool Singh and found the appellants standing in that field and P. W. 2 Lal Singh, Tej Singh and Kutumb Singh were harvesting the wheat crop. The accused-appellants, Prithvi Raj Singh and Indrapal Singh were armed with spears while accused-appellant Surendra Singh was armed with a Lathi. The accused-appellants, Prithvi Raj Singh and Indrapal Singh were armed with spears while accused-appellant Surendra Singh was armed with a Lathi. Hira Singh asked the persons harvesting the crop as to why they were doing so when the dispute regarding the land was still pending. On hearing Hira Singh, P. W. 2, Lal Singh and his two companion stood up. The appellant, Surendra Singh, gave a Lathi blow to Hira Singh saying that he would not leave him in a position to take benefit from the inheritance. All the three appellants then started assaulting Hira Singh with their weapons. On an alarm being raised by P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, one Chhutkannu Singh reached there. Appel lant, Surendra Singh, then took out a Tamacha from his Anti and pointing it towards Virpal Singh and Chhutkannu Singh threatened that they would be murdered in case they move forward. Thereafter the appellant, Surendra Singh, discharged his Tamancha towards Hira Singh and then all the appellants ran away. 6. P. W1 Virpal Singh, approached his father and found him dead. Accompanied by village Chowkidar, he went to Police Station, Banda where the F. I. R. Ex. Ka-1, was lodged. The investigation of the case was taken up by P. W. 3 Baljit Singh, S. I. , who, after interrogating the informant at the Police Station, reached the place of incident. On 28-4-1977, Panchayatnama and other necessary papers were prepared and the dead body of Hira Singh was sent for post-mortem examination to Shahjahanpur where authopsy on his body was performed on 29-4-1977 at 3. 00 P. M. by Dr. S. K. Mehrotra. The same day i. e. on 28-4-1977 at about 2. 00 p. m. P. W, 3, Baljit Singh, S. I. , handed over the investigation to S. I. , T. C. Sharma, who, after having completed the investigation, submitted charge-sheet, Ex. Ka-8, against the appellants. 7. All the three appellants denied the charges Appellant. Indrapal Singh, stated that Phool Singh used to live with Kalyan Singh, who had sown the crop, but the deceased, Hira Singh, wanted to grab it. He claimed to have been falsely implicated because he had been adopted by Kalyan Singh and P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, wanted that he should leave the village. Indrapal Singh, stated that Phool Singh used to live with Kalyan Singh, who had sown the crop, but the deceased, Hira Singh, wanted to grab it. He claimed to have been falsely implicated because he had been adopted by Kalyan Singh and P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, wanted that he should leave the village. The murder was alleged to have been taken place during night when he was not in the village but had gone to village Bujhari in connection with the marriage of his Bhanji. Appellant, Surendra Singh, also denied the prosecution case and stated that he does not live in village Dhukri. He claimed to have been falsely implicated because Kalyan Singh is his maternal uncle (Mama ). Appellant Prithvi Raj Singh, stated that Phool Singh used to live with Kalyan Singh, who had sown the crop and was in possession over the land and the crop of Phool Singh. He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case because he was reared by Kalyan Singh, who is issueless. 8. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. Besides formal witnesses, the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, viz. P. W. I, Virpal Singh, who is the son of deceased, Hira Singh, and P. W 2 Lal Singh. 9. P. W 4, Dr. S. K. Mehrotra. who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Hira Singh on 29-4-1977 at 3. 00 p. m. , found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: " (1) Incised wound 2 cm x 0. 5 cm x full thickness of right ear. (2) Lacerated wound on right eye-brow bone deep with underlying bone fractured. (3) Incised wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep on right side neck in middle laterally. (4) Incised wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep on right shoulder. (5) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm x muscle deep below injury No. 4 (6) Incised wound muscle deep on lateral side of right thigh. (7) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of middle of right calf. (8) Incised wound 1 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep, 8 cm below right inguinal ligament in thigh. (9) Incised wound 1. 5 cm x 1 cm chest cavity deep in mid-axillary line 3 cm below right axilla cavity deep. (10) Incised wound 1 cm x 0. (8) Incised wound 1 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep, 8 cm below right inguinal ligament in thigh. (9) Incised wound 1. 5 cm x 1 cm chest cavity deep in mid-axillary line 3 cm below right axilla cavity deep. (10) Incised wound 1 cm x 0. 5 cm muscle deep 10 cm below angle of left jaw. (11) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on right scapula. (12) Lacerated wound 10 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on occipun underlying fracture of bone. (13) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x vertebrae deep on nape of neck. " 10. On internal examination, frontal, occipital and parietal bones and under injuries No. 2 and 12 were found fractured. The membrane and brain were found congested. In the opinion of the Doctor, the aforesaid injuries were sufficient to cause death, which was due to shock and haemorrhage. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death could have been caused on 27-4-1977 at about 5. 00 p. m. and that there could be a difference of six hours in duration either way. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri P. N. Misra, and the learned A. G. A. Sri A. K. Tripathi, were heard and the record of the case including the impugned judgment was also perused. 12. The pedigree, as given above, is not disputed. The fact that Hira Singh had 28 Big has of land, on which wheat crop was standing on the date of his murder, has also not been challenged. It has come in the statement of PW 1, Virpal Singh, that his uncle, Phool Singh, sometimes used to live with him and at others with Kalyan Singh, depending on his whims. He further admitted that prior to his murder Hira Singh was living with Kalyan Singh. It has further been admitted by him that Phool Singh and Kalyan Singh used to cultivate the land together. It is also established from the evidence that although the land belonged to Phool Singh, yet cultivation of the Banding wheat crop had been done by Kalyan Singh, with whom Phool Singh was living. It is, therefore, quite natural that Kalyan Singh and his two Bhanjas, viz. Indrapal Singh and Surendra Singh, who are the co-appel lants, must have been anxious to harvest the wheat crop that had been sown by Kalyan Singh. It is, therefore, quite natural that Kalyan Singh and his two Bhanjas, viz. Indrapal Singh and Surendra Singh, who are the co-appel lants, must have been anxious to harvest the wheat crop that had been sown by Kalyan Singh. On the other hand, Hira Singh considered that the land and the standing crop belongs to him on the death of Phool Singh because it is he who should inherit his Property. It was, therefore, most natural for him to see that the crop standing in the field of hool Singh was not harvested by Kalyan Singh. 13. The crop was being harvested on the day of incident is borne out from the evidence of the two ocular witnesses, viz. P. W. 1 Virpal Singh, and P. W2, Lal Singh. It finds further corroboration from the statement of the Investigation Officer, who found about two Kathas of harvested wheat crop in the field of Phool Singh. The place of incident has also not been seriously challenged and the evidence of the ocular witnesses finds corroboration from the fact that the Investigation Officer found blood in the field of Phool Singh. The time of death, which, according to the prosecution, is at 5. 00 p. m. on 27-4-1977, is also fixed from the testimony of Dr. S. K. Mehrotra. It may be noted that at the time of autopsy, the stomach was found to contain digested food material which indicates of the fact that the deceased must have taken his food between 4 and 6 hours prior to the murder. Had the murder been committed in the darkness of night undigested or semi-digested food should have been found because in villages people normally have their evening meals in summer months between 7 and 8. 00 p. m. The contents of stomach and intestine of the deceased, however, show that the deceased must have taken meal sometime in the day and since the incident took place around 5. 00 p. m. , digested food material was found in the stomach. In the circumstances, the possibility of Hira Singh being murdered sometime in the night is completely rule out. 14. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the F. I. R. was ante time and it was registered after consultation with the police when P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, returned from Bujhari. In the circumstances, the possibility of Hira Singh being murdered sometime in the night is completely rule out. 14. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the F. I. R. was ante time and it was registered after consultation with the police when P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, returned from Bujhari. It may, however, be noted that the Investigating Officer reached the village in the night of 27-4-1977. The Next morning. On 28-4-1977, the dead body was sent to Banda and Virpal Singh (P. W. 1) had accompanied the dead body. Panchnama was prepared at 8. 00 A. M on 28-4-1977. The Panchnama and other documents prepared by the Investigation Officer on 28-4-1977 have crime number and all other necessary particulars. All these facts and circumstances completely ruled out the possibility of the F. I. R. having been ante timed. 15. P. W. 1 Virpal Singh, is the son of the deceased Hira Singh and it is, therefore, natural for him to have accompanied his father to have a look at the standing crop which was under threat by the appellants and about which a litigation was also pending. P. W. 2, Lal Singh, Tej Singh and Kutumb Singh were harvesting the crop. There is nothing in his testimony to discredit him. Moreover, this fact has not been seriously challenged that at the time of occurrence, he, along with other two persons, was harvesting the wheat crop standing on the field of Phool Singh. Thus both the eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are most natural and worthy of credence. Nothing has been shown in their testimony which may shake their credibility. In our opinion, therefore, the witnesses have rightly been believed by the learned Trial Judge. 16. It was next urged before us that since the standing crop had been sown by Kalyan Singh and he was in possession, he had every right to protect the crop and he had, therefore a right of private defence to his property. The appellants, Surendra Singh and Indrapal Singh were his sisters sons, who were living with Kalyan Singh because he is issueless. It may be a case where the appellants might have exceeded their right of private defence, but in no case it can be said that they committed the murder of Hira Singh. 17. The appellants, Surendra Singh and Indrapal Singh were his sisters sons, who were living with Kalyan Singh because he is issueless. It may be a case where the appellants might have exceeded their right of private defence, but in no case it can be said that they committed the murder of Hira Singh. 17. We have given our anxious thought to the argument placed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but find ourselves not in agreement with this argu ment. The question in this case is as to whether the accused had a reasonable ap-prehenison of danger to his property which may give him the right to private defence which such a right to private defence of property, if any, commenced. In the instant case, it has come in the evidence of the eye-witnesses that Hira Singh accompanied with his son, Virpal Singh, went to the field of Phool Singh where they found the appellants harvesting the crop. They simply asked them as to why they were harvesting the crop when a litigation regarding it was pending. Nothing further was said or done either by Hira Singh or by Virpal Singh. There is also nothing on record to suggest that either of them threatened the appellants with dire consequences if they did not stop further from harvesting the crop. In the circumstances, we do not think that there was any danger to the property from the side of Hira Singh. There could be no occasion of reasonable apprehension of threat to the property. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the right to private defence of property did not commence so as to give an occasion to the appellants to start assaulting the deceased. Hira Singh. It is, therefore, not a case where the appellants can be said to have exceeded their right to private defence of property. As a matter of fact this right had not commenced when they started assaulting Hira Singh. The appellants cannot, there fore, take the advantage of the Exception 3rd to Section 300, I. P. C. 18. Looking to the nature of injuries, specially that there was fracture of frontal, occipital and parietal bones under injuries no. As a matter of fact this right had not commenced when they started assaulting Hira Singh. The appellants cannot, there fore, take the advantage of the Exception 3rd to Section 300, I. P. C. 18. Looking to the nature of injuries, specially that there was fracture of frontal, occipital and parietal bones under injuries no. 2 and 12 and the statement of P. W. 1, Virpal Singh, wherein he has stated that on being enquired by Hira Singh as to why they were harvesting the crop, all the accused started assaulting Hira Singh and accused Surendra Singh, while delivering a lathi blow to Hira Singh, said that he would not leave him in a position to take the benefit of inheritance, we agree with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellants inflicted those injuries with the intention to cause the death of Hira Singh. 19. For the reasons given above this appeal must fail. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are no bail. They will surrender to serve out the sentence awarded. Appeal dismissed. .