JUDGMENT 1. The learned Additional Sessions 1udge, Baran District Kota convicted the accused appellants Keder, Rameshwar and Chhotey Lal, 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 wit, show that there is Parat land' situated in between the agricultural fields of deceased Jagannath Meena and Kedar Nfeena, 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 Minna 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, be 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 postmortem examination on the dead-body was done by the doctor and after investigation as charge sheet was filed. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and they came out with a (lase of exercise of right of private defence of property as well as of person. 5. 3. The postmortem examination on the dead-body was done by the doctor and after investigation as charge sheet was filed. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and they came out with a (lase 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) infect was in their possession sine 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 w as in exercise of right of private defence of their person that any injuries were caused by them. They bad also lo died a FIR, but after investigation a final report was filed by the police and charge-sheet was filed against them. Dr. Sahoti PW 14 has proved the injuries en the accused appellants Kedar. Rameshwer 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 lard was in their cultivator possession. Learned counsel further contends that the injuries on the accused appellants undisputed 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 & 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 postmortem report, deceased Jagannath had received as many as four incised wounds, over scalp-oxipital region. over scalp right parito oxipital region 3" above right ear, over right parito tempo oxipital region 1" below injury No. 2 and over scalp oxipitoparital junction and other parts of the body. As per postmortem report, deceased Jagannath had received as many as four incised wounds, over scalp-oxipital region. over scalp right parito oxipital region 3" above right ear, over right parito tempo oxipital region 1" below injury No. 2 and over scalp oxipitoparital junction and other parts of the body. He had also received multiple contusion and, therefore, it can he 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 and the said land lyse in between the agricultural fields of Kedar & 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 PW 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 cultivatable. In his own words he stales 'Muljimano Ne Fad Rakhi Hap. 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 PW 14 in his statement has clearly admitted that he bad examined the injuries on Kedar son of Behrulal on 20th December 1983 and had found the following injuries; "1. Incised cut I" x1/4 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 centre over forth and fifth metacarpal bone". Dr. Saboti further states 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 car pol bone of little finger. Dr. said that injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. Dr. Dr. Saboti further states 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 car pol bone of little finger. Dr. said that injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. Dr. Sahoti had also examined Choteylal, other accused appellant and had found that he had received four injuries as under 1. Incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" over right fore-arm ," above wrist joint medialy. 2. Incised wound 31/2" x 1/4" x 11/4" over scalp in the contre ex-tending from frontal towards canter. 3. Incised wound (a) 1" 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 bone deep.Extending from base of Index finger to wrist joint in the center with cutting of second metacarpal. 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 plat No. 109 dated 20-12-1983 which revealed the fracture of second meta car pol hone, be opined that injury No. 4 was grievous in nature as shown in Ex. D 2. 10. On examining Rameshwar, the (13:tor bahl that he has received four following injuries "1. Incised wound 2" x 1/4 x 1/4 " over fore-head left side near centre. 2. Incised wound 1/2 " x 1/4 " x 1/4 " over right middle finger distal phalanx. 3. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4 x ⅛" over right hand dorsal aspect. 4. Swallowing I" x 1" over left index :finger bone." The doctor opined that all the injuries were simple in nature and injury Nos. 1, 2 and 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 as said to have been received in the same incident. Admittedly, the prosecution has not explained the injuries on accused persons. 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 as 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. 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 in the site plan Ex.P 3 was in possession of the accused persons is concerned, we are of the )pinion that it is a clear case of exercise of right I 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 cense pence 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 302/34IPC. They are in custody. They shall be released for the with 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.Appeal allowed. *******