JUDGMENT + BHAWANI SINGH, A C. J.— This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 30-S/ 10 of 1990 dated 10th July, 1991. 2. The prosecution case may be stated thus. Jagat Ram (PW 2) lives in village Kundla with his family. The accused tried to take forcible possession of Khasra No 12 as well as the house situated thereon from the complainants. With this end in view, they came to the scene on 13th July, 1985 at about 10 p. m. At that time, Raksha Devi (PW 1) was looking after the cattle in the cattle shed, the door of which was bolted from inside and when she noticed certain persons having torches in their hands and peeping inside the cattle shed, she started placing stones against the door in order to prevent them from entering the cattle shed. However, the accused started breaking the door. On this she raised alarm which attracted her husband Jagat Ram (PW 2) to the scene. Accused Gurdyalu, Sanjay, Vijay, Sunder, Garbu and Charan Singh entered into the cattle shed and gave beatings to Raksha Devi, dragged her out and then left her at a place on the road leading to village Jatoli. Accused Krishan Lai, Deep Chand, Ramesh, Raju, Ram Kishan and Devender gave beatings to her husband Jagat Ram. Accused Krishan Lai was armed with sickle while others were armed with lathis After committing the crime, all of them left towards the house of one Jagat Ram. They also cut the telephone wires and challenged Santosh Kumari and Anil Kumar, daughter and son-in-law respectively of Raksha Devi (PW 1) and Jagat Ram {PW 2). Both Santosh Kumari and her husband bolted the door from inside and remained hidden there. On the next morning, while going to lodge the report to the police, they met SJ. Tirath Ram of Police Station, Solan. The occurrence was narrated to him, who accompanied them to the house of Mohan Lai where Raksha Devi was lying injured. The statement of Raksha Devi was recorded under section 151, Cr. P. C, which forms the basis of a case under sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 452 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code (Ex. PW 8/A). 3. The police carried the investigation to the logical end and then moved the challan before the trial Court. The statement of Raksha Devi was recorded under section 151, Cr. P. C, which forms the basis of a case under sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 452 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code (Ex. PW 8/A). 3. The police carried the investigation to the logical end and then moved the challan before the trial Court. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties found all the 13 accused guilty and sentenced them by judgment dated 17th August, 1990 for different terms. This decision was assailed before the appellate court. The accused have been acquitted by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 4. The sole question for determination is whether the findings recorded by the appellate court are in tune with the evidence and legally sustainable or the decision calls for reversal for failing to adhere to the admissible evidence on record as well as the legal position. 1 answer this question in the negative and proceed to record my reasons for the same briefly since the appellate court has examined each material fact before recording its findings. 5. It has come in evidence that the parties are litigating with each other prior to this occurrence. The accused Gurdyalu was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat in a case under section 452 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (Ex. D*6). This case was initiated by Jagat Ram (PW 2). Similarly, in another case initiated by Raksha (PW 1), some of the accused were acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat on 14th March, 1983 (Ex. D-5). Another case against Gurdyalu and his sons, accused in the present case, was for offence under sections 488 and 380, I P. C. read with section 149 again on the basis of a report by Jagat Ram (PW 2) They were acquitted for this offence as well (Ex D-4). In addition, there is another judgment (Ex. D-3) relating to a case initiated again by Jagat Ram (PW 1) ending in the discharge of the accused. 6. Now I turn to the civil litigation which is material for determination of the present case Jagat Ram (PW 2) filed a civil suit for declaration asserting that he was owner in possession of khasra No. 12 as well as the house thereon. 6. Now I turn to the civil litigation which is material for determination of the present case Jagat Ram (PW 2) filed a civil suit for declaration asserting that he was owner in possession of khasra No. 12 as well as the house thereon. The case of the accused was that he was in ownership and possession of the land in question. After the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was accused Gurdyalu who was owner in possession of this land. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed by the District Judge (Ex. D-l). It is pertinent to notice here that in order to see the position for himself, the appellate court visited and inspected the spot on 14th July, 1985. The incident took place on 13th July, 1985. The appellate Court has found that taking place of the incident on a day prior to the visit of the District Judge was obviously for the reason that Jagat Ram was not in possession and in order to show that he was in possession of the property in question, he trespassed into the house This conclusion appears to be quite reasonable. The trial Court had already come to the conclusion that khasra No. 12 as well as the house thereon were owned and possession by Gurdyalu. Obviously, the claim of Jagat Ram was found unsustainable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the appellate Court on this aspect of the case are correct. 7. Now the question arises whether the accused could, in the circumstances of this case, exercise their right of private defence qua the property in question against Jagat Ram and his wife Raksha Devi. The answer to this question is undoubtedly in affirmative. Raksha Devi has trespassed into the house unlawfully. This was noticed by the accused and they pushed her out of it. Then came her husband Jagat Ram. There is no doubt about the beatings given to her by the accused However, there is no distinct evidence pointing out the participation of all the accused as alleged by the prosecution and their actual role. The case that accused Krishan Lai used sickle for inflicting injuries has been negatived by Dr. S. R. Sharma (PW 5) since no injury was found to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The case that accused Krishan Lai used sickle for inflicting injuries has been negatived by Dr. S. R. Sharma (PW 5) since no injury was found to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. This is a serious set back to the prosecution case. Another aspect of the case set up by Jagat Ram and Raksha Devi is that all the accused except Krishan Lai were armed with lathis and beatings were given by lathis. This is clearly an exaggeration for the reason that the nature of injuries on their person cannot be caused by lathi blows or by a sharp edged weapon. After examining the statements of Jagat Ram and Raksha Devi, it is difficult to conclude the individual role played by the accused in the present case Moreover, the nature of injuries as also the number of accused who allegedly participated establish that the matter has been enormously exaggerated by Jagat Ram and Raksha Devi. Only six lathis were recovered. There is no explanation as to why the other lathis and torches were not recovered. There is no evidence that the accused had taken away the remaining lathis while leaving the spot. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no other option but to accept the explanation offered by the accused in their statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. that they have been implicated in this case on account of animosity between the parties. They have also stated that they possess the khasra number as well as the house on it. Though they have denied their participation in the incident, however, the facts disclose that they participated but in the circumstances already discussed in the preceding part of this judgment, gave them right of private defence to property. The contention of Mrs. Pratima Malhotra that they exceeded the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the injuries are not very serious in nature more particularly if one looks at the number of persons who participated and the lathis used by them. While exercising the right of private defence, the accused are not expected to weigh the thrust of the assault in golden scales since it is really a question of do and die and the situation cannot be assessed from the point of view of a cool bystander. While exercising the right of private defence, the accused are not expected to weigh the thrust of the assault in golden scales since it is really a question of do and die and the situation cannot be assessed from the point of view of a cool bystander. It is a case where it can safely be held that the accused have not exceeded the right of private defence available to them in this case. 9. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed