JUDGMENT 1. - The six accused appellants before us have been convicted for offences under sections 302, 302/149, 148, 447, 323, 324, 325/149 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, by his judgment dated 16th March, 1989 and sentenced as under:- Laxman U/s. 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment Prabhu, Madan @ Madanlal, Roop Narain, Johari and Mst. Marki. U/s. 302/149 IPC - Life Imprisonment Laxman, Prabhu, Madan @ Madan Lal, Roop Narain Johari and Mst. Marki. U/s. 148 IPC - One year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to under one month S.I. U/s. 447 IPC - One month simple imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC - Six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 325 read with S. 149 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine one month simple imprisonment. 2. Against this conviction and sentence they have preferred this appeal. 3. The incident for which this case arises occurred on 18th August, 1985 in the forest of Kalwar which falls under the Police Station Manpur. Ghasi son of Banshi PW6 lodged the first information report on the allegations that about 3 or 4 in the afternoon, Sriya, Kishore, Gordhan, Jamna, Lahri and Ramotar were levelling their field by a tractor when with the intention of causing their death, the accused persons Prabhu and others, who have been named in the FIR, came there armed with deadly weapons. They were shouting that the other party should be killed. They entered the field and Prabhu, Roop Narain, Laxman, Madan and Ghamandi had kulhadies, while others had lathies and Laxman gave a kulhadi blow on the head of Jamna. Roop Narain gave a kulhadi blow on the head of Gordhan. Ramsahai and others came to intervene and then Prabhu gave a kulhadi blow to Ramsahai and Madan gave a kulhadi blow to Ramotar. Joharia gave a lathi blow to Tohfa. Ghamandi gave a kulhadi blow to Satvir. As a result of the injuries Jamnas condition was serious. On this report a case was serious. On this report a case was registered for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 and 323 IPC. Joharia gave a lathi blow to Tohfa. Ghamandi gave a kulhadi blow to Satvir. As a result of the injuries Jamnas condition was serious. On this report a case was serious. On this report a case was registered for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 and 323 IPC. Subsequently section 307 IPC was added and on the death of Jamna, the case was converted into section 302 IPC. Challan was filed against as many as 11 persons and charge was framed against all of them. 4. The case of the accused was that the `dol' of their field was broken by the complainant party. Some of the accused stated that they were not present in the village on the date of occurrence. As many as 23 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they examined three witnesses in support of their case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that in the incident Jamna died while Ramavtar, Ramsahai, Gordhan, Gulabi, Kishori and Lahari received simple and grievous injuries. On the basis of the evidence, it was found that the injury of the head of Jamna was inflicted by accused Laxman by a kulhadi. The injuries of Gordhan on the head and hand were by Roop Narain. The injury on the hand of Lahari was inflicted by Johari. The injury on the head of Ramsahai was caused by Prabhu by a kulhadi. The injury on the head of Gulbi was inflicted by a lathi by Johari. The injury on the head of Ramavtar was caused by Madan by a lathi. Out of the five women accused, presence of Smt. Marka in the incident and participation in the commission of offence was accepted. On the basis of this, it was held that the six appellants took part in the incident and caused injuries to six persons and caused the death of Jamna. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence arrived at the finding that the incident took place in Dongawala field, which was in possession of Ramsahai and Sriya of the complainant party. Referring to the injuries received by accused namely, Laxman, Prabhu, Johari, Mst. Marki and Roop Narain. The learned counsel for the accused had advanced the plea that the accused were entitled to act in self defence because their Dola was broken. Referring to the injuries received by accused namely, Laxman, Prabhu, Johari, Mst. Marki and Roop Narain. The learned counsel for the accused had advanced the plea that the accused were entitled to act in self defence because their Dola was broken. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Dola was not broken and actually the incident occurred because the accused persons were jealous as Dongawala field was being levelled. It was held that the accused were aggressor and if they received any injuries then it was not necessary for the prosecution to give any explanation for the same. It was held that all the persons encroached the field with a common object and as such, those who had trespassed and participated in the beating were liable for the offences under sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 325/149 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that this is a case wherein the incident started because Dola of the field of the accused was demolished and in the incident as many as five accused persons received injuries,though simple, but on vital part, such as head and these injuries have not been explained. It is contended that this is a case wherein the accused persons had acquired the right to defend their persons & property & if in such a situation some persons of the complainant side have received injuries, then it cannot be said to be a case where section 149 IPC would be attracted. According to him the accused were justified in inflicting the injuries and they cannot be held guilty of any offence. An attempt has also been made to show that the incident took place in the field of the accused, which is adjacent to the Dongawala field. But this plea could not be pressed by them in view of the other material which shall be seen presently. 6. An attempt has also been made to show that the incident took place in the field of the accused, which is adjacent to the Dongawala field. But this plea could not be pressed by them in view of the other material which shall be seen presently. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged that this is a case wherein all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and entered the field of the complainant with a view to inflict injuries and caused the death of some persons and it is a case wherein all the accused were guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC and Laxman, the author of the fatal blow could be guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC simplicitor. According to him no Dola was broken and actually there was no Dola, but the complainant party were levelling the field and the same could not be objected by the accused in any manner. For the injuries of the accused persons it is submitted that they are self inflicted and because of these injuries the accused cannot claim to have a right of private defence. It is also contended that the accused party did not stop after inflicting one blow but they caused several injuries and their action cannot be said to be justified. 7. We have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides and have perused the record of the case. Ex.P.4 is the site plan showing the Dongawala field in which the incident occurred. Near the northern wall blood was found in this field and there were indications to show that a quarrel has taken place. It was also reported that the field had been recently levelled. On the north of the field there is a field of the accused in which Jawar crop was standing and there was nothing to show that altercation had taken place in it. The prosecution witnesses who were present at the site and were injured in the incident have been examined and we may look into a couple of statements in order to see as to how the incident occurred. PW. 2 Lahari has stated that were levelling their field by a tractor. From the northern side the accused came armed with lathies, and kulhadies and stated that their work should be stopped for ever. PW. 2 Lahari has stated that were levelling their field by a tractor. From the northern side the accused came armed with lathies, and kulhadies and stated that their work should be stopped for ever. Thereafter Laxman gave a kulhadi blow on the head of Jamna. Prabhu gave a kulhadi blow on the head of Ram Sahai. Roop Narain gave a kulhadi blow to Gordhan on his hand. When Jamna fell down and other people intervened the accused persons went away to their house. He has admitted in the examination in chief that the accused persons had inflicted the injuries as they were alleging that the complainant party was demolishing their dolla. However, the witness had stated that they had not demolished the dolla. 8. PW. 3 Kishori, who received the injuries in the incident, has also stated that the accused persons came there and asked for an explanation as to why they were demolishing their dola, upon which the complainant party said they had not broken any dola, but Laxman gave blow on the head of Jamna and thereafter the accused persons gave a series of blows to the persons of the complainant party. It is obvious from these statements that there was some dispute about the demolition of dola because of which the incident started. The accused at the time of the incident had claimed that their dola was being demolished and then the incident started. There could not be any question of forming any unlawful assembly by the accused for causing the death of Jamna or for that matter any one else. Some of the accused in their statements have stated that when they asked the complainant party not to demolish the dola, then the complainant party started beating. In this case when as many as five accused persons have received injuries and the total number of injuries are 17 and injuries of some of the persons are on the head, then these injuries cannot be said to be superficial injuries, which can be ignored. The prosecution ought to have given some explanation for these injuries and the failure to do so would only go to show that the genesis of the incident is being suppressed. The prosecution ought to have given some explanation for these injuries and the failure to do so would only go to show that the genesis of the incident is being suppressed. In the circumstances we are not inclined to accept that the accused had an apprehension that there was danger to their life and property and when they protested they were beaten and they have a right of private defence. In the exercise of this right they could have caused injuries to the complainant party but only to the extent which could be said to be permissible in the circumstances. The injuries of the accused persons are abrasions and bruises except for two lacerated wounds one on Laxman and other on Roop Narain, which are on the head. The nature of the injuries cannot be said to be such which could cause an apprehension that there could be loss of life. The complainant party was not armed with any sharp edged weapon. At the most the accused could have the apprehension of grievous hurt and they could have a right to act in exercise of private defence but this right is exceeded to the extent that more harm has been caused then was necessary. None of the circumstances existed in which it could be said that he right of private defence extended to voluntarily causing of the death. In the present case Laxman who has inflicted kulhadi blow on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death is a wound about 8 cm long which had caused even laceration of the brain. There was compound depressed fracture of right side frontal bone. Such a blow by kulhadi would normally come in the category of an offence under section 302 IPC. But as the injury was caused in exercise of private defence, but this right has been exceeded, the act of Laxman causing the injury would fall under sub-section (2) of section 300 IPC and the offence would fall under section 304 Part-I IPC. The other accused would be held to be justified in causing the injuries in exercise of right of private defence and no offence would be made out against them. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal of appellants Prabhu, Madan, Roop Narain, Johari and Mst. The other accused would be held to be justified in causing the injuries in exercise of right of private defence and no offence would be made out against them. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal of appellants Prabhu, Madan, Roop Narain, Johari and Mst. Marki is accepted and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/149, 148, 447, 323, 325 and 325 read with section 149 IPC. They are on bail, they need not to surrender. The appeal of Laxman is partly allowed. He is acquitted of the offence under section 302 IPC and other offences and his conviction is altered to offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. For this offence he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He will be entitled to the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. 10. The result of the appeal may be communicated to the jail authorities. *******