JUDGMENT From the judgments of both the Courts below it can be seen that each of the party claimed right of private defence. Therefore, the question that came up for consideration was as to who were the aggressors. Both the Courts after examining various documents in the litigation, however, ultimately held that the accused were the aggressors and accordingly convicted them. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have overlooked the fact that the accused were in possession of the land at the relevant time and in this context, he relied on some of the admissions made by P. W. 3 and others. The High Court after considering the evidence of D. Ws Ito 3, who are the official witnesses, was not prepared to accept the plea of the accused that they were in possession. Admittedly there were civil and criminal proceedings between both the parties. The facts and circumstances go to show that both sides were armed and two of the accused received gun-shot injuries. It is not clear from the records that at what point of time the actual attack by the accused took place. If the accused had already dealt several blows on the deceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of the land some days ago. Therefore even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the deceased and others had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence. In these circumstances, the plea of the accused that they also acted in self-defence cannot altogether be ignored. At any rate their plea also appears to be plausible. However, the accused while exercising the right of self-defence have exceeded the same. The medical evidence shows that a number of injuries were int1icted on the deceased and on P. Ws and also the other workers. In this view of the matter the offence committed by them would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder as Exception 2 to Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted. Accordingly we set aside the convicti9n of the appellants under Sections 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. In this view of the matter the offence committed by them would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder as Exception 2 to Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted. Accordingly we set aside the convicti9n of the appellants under Sections 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict them under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo seven years' R.I. The other convictions and sentences are confirmed. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. If the accused have already served out the sentences, they may be released. But this is subject to verification.