JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Add i tional Sessions Judge, Baran District Kota convicted the accused-appellants Kedar, Rameshwar and Chhotey Lai, all sons of Bherulal and by caste Meena, resident of village Lisadia under Section 302/34 IPC and each of the accused-appellant had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence. 2. A perusal of the site plan Ex. P. 3 will show that there is 'Parat land' situated in between the agricultural fields of deceased Jagannath Meena and Kedar Meena, accused appellant. As per the case of the prosecution on 20th December, 1983 in the early hours of morning, when Rameshwar son of Jagannath deceased had gone to his agricultural fields and while he (Rameshwar) remained with the bullocks, his father went to the fields saying that he is going to the fields and when after sometime he (Rameshwar) also went to the fields, he saw that three accused-appellants along with one Dhanraj son of Kedar Meena Lisadia were giving beating to his father Jagannath. Kedar accused-appellant and Rameshwar were armed with 'Kutia' and Choteylal and Dhanraj were armed with lathis. They were giving beating to his father Jagannath and when he (Rameshwar) tried to save his father, he too was abused. The accused persons made their escape. He saw that his father was lying dead with several injuries on his body in a pool of blood. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Kedar son of Bhanwarlal Meena. The deceased was taken to the hospital and a report Ex. P. 7 was lodged in the Police Station Baran. 3. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body was done by the doctor and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and they came out with a case of exercise of right of private defence of property as well as of person. 5. 3. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body was done by the doctor and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and they came out with a case of exercise of right of private defence of property as well as of person. 5. The case of the accused-appellants was that the piece of land (Parat Zamin) in fact was in their possession since long and they have made it cultivable and on the day of incident it was deceased and others who had actually wanted to disposes them and it was in exercise of right of private defence of their person that any injuries were caused by them. They had also lodged a FIR, but after investigation a final report was filed by the police and charge-sheet was filed against them. Dr. Sahoti P.W. 14 has proved the injuries on the accused-appellants Kedar, Rameshwar and Choteylal. 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused -appellants that the trial Court has wrongly refused to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants, more so when there is material on record that the accused appellants were in possession of the 'parat land' and the said land was in their cultivatory possession. Learned Counsel further contends that the injuries on the accused-appellants un-disputedly were received in the same occurrence and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the accused persons. 7. The question, therefore, is as to whether the accused-appellants had any right of private defence of their person or property and if so whether on that count it can be said that their act does not amount to any offence? So far as the death of Jagannath is ,concerned it cannot be disputed that he died as a result of injuries received by him and the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants does not dispute this fact and it can be said on the basis of injuries received by deceased Jagannath that he died as a result of multiple injuries. As per post-mortem report, deceased Jagannath had received as many as four incised wounds, over scalpoccipital region, over scalp right parito occipital region 3" above right car, over right panto tempro occipital region 1" below injury No. 2 and over scalp occipito-parital junction and other parts of the body. As per post-mortem report, deceased Jagannath had received as many as four incised wounds, over scalpoccipital region, over scalp right parito occipital region 3" above right car, over right panto tempro occipital region 1" below injury No. 2 and over scalp occipito-parital junction and other parts of the body. He had also received multiple contusion and, therefore, it can be said that he died as a result of injuries. But the question is as to whether or not the accused persons were in possession of the 'parat land' or it was the complainant party which was in possession of the said land? 8. A look at the site plan Ex. P. 3 will show that as said earlier, the 'parat land' has been shown by letter 'L' and the said land lies in between the agricultural fields of Kedar and deceased Jagannath. There is no documentary evidence on record as to whether the said disputed land falls in which part of the agricultural fields, whether of deceased Jagannath or of accused-appellant Kedar. No documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the prosecution. Be that as it may, it will be seen from the evidence of Kedar P.W. 4 that he states that there was 'parat land' in between the agricultural fields of Jagannath and Kedar accused appellant and they had made it cultivable. In his own words he states 'MULJIMANO NE FAD RAKHI HAI'. Thus, it can be said that the accused persons were in possession of the said 'parat land' much before the date of incident. A reference to the statement of Dr. Sahoti has already been made in the earlier part of this judgment and Dr. Sahoti P.W. 14 in his state ment has clearly admitted that he had examined the injuries on Kedar son of Bhurelal on 20th December 1983 and had found the following injuries : "(1) incised cut 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" over hand at base of little finger dorsal aspect. (2) Contusion with swelling and suspected fracture in 2" x 2" area and over left hand dorsal aspect in the center over forth and fifth metacarpol bone." Dr. Sahoti furtherstates that he had advised for X-ray and after perusal of X-ray plate No. 108 dated 20.12.83 which showed the fracture of fifth carpol bone of little finger. Dr. said that injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. Dr. Sahoti furtherstates that he had advised for X-ray and after perusal of X-ray plate No. 108 dated 20.12.83 which showed the fracture of fifth carpol bone of little finger. Dr. said that injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. Dr. Sahoti had also examined Choteylal, other accusedappellant and had found that he had received four injuries as under : "(1) Incised wound 11/4," x 1/2 x 1/4" over right fore-arm 1" above wrist joint medially (2) Incised wound 31/2" x 1/4" x 11/4" over scalp in the central extending from frontal towards centre. (3) Incised wound (a) l" x 1/4" x 1/4", and (b) 1/2 x 1/4" x 1/4," over fore-head left side. (4) Incised wound with cutting of bone 3" x 3/4," x bone deep. Extending from base of index finger to wrist joint in the center with cutting of second metacarpol. 9. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon and he advised for X-ray and after seeing X-ray plate No. 109 dated 20.12.1983 which revealed the fracture of second metacapol bone, he opined that injury No. 4 was grievous in nature as shown in Ex. D. 2. 10. On examining Rameshwar, the doctor found that he had received four following injuries : "(1) Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x 1/4 over forehead left side near center. (2) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" over right middle finger distal phalnax. (3) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x ⅛" over right hand dorsal aspect. (4) Swelling 1" x 1" over left index finger bone." The doctor opined that all the injuries were simple in nature and injury Nos. 1, 2and 3 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and injury No. 4 was caused by blunt weapon. 11. It can be said that all the three accused appellants had received injuries and also received injuries by sharp-edged weapon. The injuries received by the accused persons, looking to the duration of injuries and date of examination, can be said to have been received in the same incident. Admittedly, the prosecution has not explained the injuries on accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said that the injuries are explained and he has further said that injuries are caused at the hands of Jagannath, but surprisingly he did not extend the benefit of exercise of right of private defence to the accused-appellants. 12. Admittedly, the prosecution has not explained the injuries on accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said that the injuries are explained and he has further said that injuries are caused at the hands of Jagannath, but surprisingly he did not extend the benefit of exercise of right of private defence to the accused-appellants. 12. Looking to the nature of injuries and the weapon by which they are caused and further looking to the fact that so far as 'parat-land' shown by letter 'L' in the site plan Ex. P. 3 was in possession of the accused persons is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is a clear case of exercise of right of private defence. No doubt Jagannath died, but in a case of present nature, we are of the opinion that the accused persons did not commit any offence. Under Section 100 IPC the right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99 to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. 13. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal and hold that the accused-appellants had a right of private defence of property as well as of person which caused the death of Jagannath. 14. The conviction of the accused-appellants under section 302/34 IPC is set aside. The sentence awarded to the accused-appellants by the learned Additional Sessions judge is set aside. Each of them is acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 IPC. They are in custody. They shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 15. A Jail appeal has also been filed by the same accused-appellants bearing No. 330/ 1988. This judgment will also dispose of the said jail appeal. AUGUST8 Appeal allowed. *******