Judgment O. N. Asthana, J. 1. The accused appellants of the abovesaid three appeals have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order of the Sessions judge, Madhubani passed in Sessions trial No 49 of 1982 State V/s. Baijnath yadav and eleven others on 21st of December.1990, where the learned Sessions judge held the accused-appellants Baijnath Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav guilty- for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I. P C. , and held the resttin accused-appellants guilty for the offence punisnable under Sec.302 read with Sec.149 I. P. C. Further accused Subodh Yadav has been held guilty for the offence under Sec.147 T. P. C. and the other eleven accused-appellants have been guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.148 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the accused-appellants Shtvjee Yadav, Ram narayan Yaday, Ram Chandra Yadav end Jogendra Yadav had been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.307 I. P. C the other accused-appellants Fuideo Yadav. Taiyab Khan, Jabir Hussain@motiur Rahman, hare Krishna Yadav aad Ram Udgar Yadav had been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324 I P. C. and the accused-appellant, Subodh yadav had been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.323 I. P. C. 2. Accused-appellant, Ram Chandra Yadav has filed Criminal Appeal no.27 of 1991. Accused-appellant, Baijnath Yadav has filed Criminal Appeal no.54 of 1991 and the other ten accused-appellants have filed Criminal v Appeal No.8 of 1991 3. According to the prosecution case on 4-8-1981 at about 7.30. A. M. Anant Yadav (injured informant), P. W.12 along with his son Krishna Kant yadav Krishna Yadav (deceased) and nephew Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W.6, ramdeo Yadav P. W.9, and Jagdish Yadav P. W.3 and four ploughs came to the filed of bis brother Asharfi Yadav (a patient of leprosy) P. W.1 and ploughed the southern four katba (area) plot and thereafter started ploughing the northern small plot of two katha thirteen dhurs situate after the intervening plot area five katba six karies and while they were ploughing this northern small plot for sowing Dhaa (which his brother Asharfi Yadav got in exchange on 11-7-1981 from Rajendra Yadav ). these accused persons, baijnath Yadav, Ram Chandra Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav, Jogendra Yadav, ram Udgar Yadav, Taiyab Khan, Jabir Hussain and Jadunandan Yadav aimed with Bhata. the other accused-appellants, Ram Narain Yadav, Hare krishna Yadav and and Shtvjee Yadav armed with Garassa, accused appellant. these accused persons, baijnath Yadav, Ram Chandra Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav, Jogendra Yadav, ram Udgar Yadav, Taiyab Khan, Jabir Hussain and Jadunandan Yadav aimed with Bhata. the other accused-appellants, Ram Narain Yadav, Hare krishna Yadav and and Shtvjee Yadav armed with Garassa, accused appellant. Subodh Yadav armed with Lathi and others deceased accused persons who died in the natural course before the submission of charge sheet, namely mukteshwar Yadav armed with Garassa and Jharokhi Yadav armed with gachhar along with other persons arrived there from northern western side and asked Anant Yaday and his family men to give up ploughing; Anant Yadav and his familymen told the accused persons that it was their field and they would not be giving up the ploughing; there were exchange of words between the two groups; and mean time some other armed persons from the side of the accused Jadunandan Yadav arrived and there were loud exchange of abuses between the two groups; Janak Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Jagdish yadav, Ramdeo Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav, Lachhman Yadav, Ram Bilash yadav and Ram Avtar Yadav villagemen and relations of the complniants rushed there to request the accused persons not to be aggressive; the accused-appellants Baijnath Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav gave fatal assaulti with their Bhalas on Krishna Kant Yadav and the accused Baijnath Yadav caused fatal assult killing Krishna Kant Yadav who fell dead at the spot; the accused shivjee Yadav, Ram Narayan Yadav, Jadunandan Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav, ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused severes assaults on Anant yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav and Chandra Shekhar Yadav with the intention to commit their murder; the other accused persons Phooldeo Yadav, mukteshwar (dead), Taiyab Khan, Jabir Hussain, Jogendra Yadav, Hare krishna Yadav, Ram Udgar Yadav, Jadunandan Yadav and Ram Udgar yadav voluntarily caused hurt to Janak Yadav, Lachhman Yaday, Ramdeo yadav, Asheshwar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Ram Avtar and Remesh Chandra yadav and the accused, Subodh Yadav voluntarily caused hurt to Janak yadav and Lachhman Yadav with his Lathi 4. Later on other villagement also arrived there and they intervened and the accused persons left the place of occurrence The villagement brought the injured persons and the dead-body of Krishna Kant Yadav to State Hospital, Pandaul. The Hospital authorities informed the nearby police Station, Pandaul. Sri Satyadeo Pandey. Later on other villagement also arrived there and they intervened and the accused persons left the place of occurrence The villagement brought the injured persons and the dead-body of Krishna Kant Yadav to State Hospital, Pandaul. The Hospital authorities informed the nearby police Station, Pandaul. Sri Satyadeo Pandey. Incharge Police Station, pandaul arrived at the Hospital at 11 A. M. on the same day on 4th August.1981 and he found the dead-body of Krishna Kant Yadav in the Hospital and also fonnd the injured persons in the Hospital. Sri Satyadeo Pandey recorded the statement of the injured informant-Anant Yadav, P. W.12. His fardbeyan is Exhibit-2. 5. Undisputedly four kathas land of the prosecution side owned and passeseed by Asharfi Yadav lies in the south. In its north there is five katha six dhurs land which was purchased by Ram Chandra Yadav on 5-3-1981 from Thakkan Yadav On the strength of the adjacent four katha southern land Asharfi Yadav moved a petition on 10-6-1981 under Sec.16 (3) of bihar Ceiling Act asserting his right of pre-emption in the Court of Deputy collector Land Reforms for the orders that his five katha six dhurs land be declared to be his tenancy land (on the strength of the right of pre-emption), and Asharfi Yadav deposited the money in the State Treasury (the amount for which Ram Chandra Yadav purchased this land plus ten percent ). Knowing that Asharfi Yadav has filed a pre-emption petition before the ceiling Authorities, Ram Chandra Yadav sold this land on 11-6-1981 to baijnath Yadav. On 17-6-1981 the Deputy Collector passed a prima facie order that Asharfi Yadav could get this land by pre-emption and thus issued notice declaring Asharfi Yadav to be the person entitled to possession. Later on holding as Ram Chandra Yadav sold away this land to Baijnath Yadav, the Deputy Collector dismissed this petition of Asharfi Yadav claiming this five katha six dhurs land on the basis of his exercise of right of pre-emption. In the northa adjacent to this five katha six dhurs land, there is swo katha thirteen dhurs land which has been acquired by Asharfi Yadav in exchange from Rajendra Yadav on 11th July, 1981 (Exchange deed is Exhibit-1 ). 6. In the northa adjacent to this five katha six dhurs land, there is swo katha thirteen dhurs land which has been acquired by Asharfi Yadav in exchange from Rajendra Yadav on 11th July, 1981 (Exchange deed is Exhibit-1 ). 6. According to the prosecution case, Anant Yadav, Krishna Kant yadav, Chandra Shekbar Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav and Jagdish Yadav ploughed all the southern four kathas of land, and thereafter they were ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and they were ploughing third round in this northern land while the accused persons came forming unlawful assembly and assaulted that committing murder of Krishna Kant Yadav and made severes assaults on certain members of the prosecution party and made physical criminal assault on the other members of the prosecution party. On the other hand, the defence version is because the prosecution party started breaking the southern mend of their two katha thirteen dhurs land to grab five katha six dhurs land of the accused persons, and the prosecution party started ploughing this five katha six dhurs land, the accused-party came there to defend their five katha six dhurs land. 7. The defence of the accused persons is that the prosecution party came armed and they wrongfuly started ploughing five katha six dhurs land of the accused persons in order to take possession over it by dispossessing the accused persons, and on protest by Ram Chandra Yadav Yogendra Yadav and Baijnath Yadav, the members of the prosecution party took the law into their own hands and the members of the prosecution party assaulted ram Chandra Yadav and Yogendra Yodav (accused persons), and thus really the members of the prosecution party were the aggressors. 8. The prosecution has examined Asbarfi Yadav P. W.1, Laxman yadav P. W.2, Jagdish Yadav P W 3, Ramesh Chandra Yadav P. W.4, ramadhar Yadav P. W.5, Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W.6, Janak Yadav p. W.7. Ramautar Yadav P. W.8, Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9, Asheshwar yadav P. W, 10, Ram Biiash Yadav P. W.11, Anant Yadav P. W.12. Dr. G. M. Sinha P. W.13, Sarbeshwar Nath Sinha, Investigating Officer P. W.14, Satyadeo Pandey, Incharge Police Officer Pandaul Police Station P. W.15, shankar Mandal P. W.16. Biltu Paswan P. W.17, Doctor V. K. Sinha P. W.18, Ram Jatan Bbarti Investigating Officer P. W.19, Bhawanath Jha P. W 20. Dr. Chhotelal Paswan P. W.21 and Jugeshwar Mukhiya P. W.22. Dr. G. M. Sinha P. W.13, Sarbeshwar Nath Sinha, Investigating Officer P. W.14, Satyadeo Pandey, Incharge Police Officer Pandaul Police Station P. W.15, shankar Mandal P. W.16. Biltu Paswan P. W.17, Doctor V. K. Sinha P. W.18, Ram Jatan Bbarti Investigating Officer P. W.19, Bhawanath Jha P. W 20. Dr. Chhotelal Paswan P. W.21 and Jugeshwar Mukhiya P. W.22. The court examined Dr. Laxmi Kant Mishra and Dr. Sheo Shankar Prasad Shahi is Court witnesses C. W.1 and C. W.2. 9. The accused person examined Ram Jatan Yadav D. W.1 and Ram karan Yadav D. W.2 in defence. Ram Jatan Yadav D. W.1 formally proved the two deeds dated 19th July 1988 and 18th September, 1983 (Exhibits A and A-1 ). Ram Karan Yadav D. W.2 proved the copy of the grounds of appeal (Exhibit-C ). 10. In their statements under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. the accused Baijnath yadav told the Court that he went to the field and found the prosecution party breaking the mend, and be asked them not to do such act and the prosecution party attacked. The accused Jabir Hussain told the Court that on that day he was at the house of his sister in village Ashapur of Banipur block. The other accused Jadunandan Yadav told the Court that on that day he was at Laharia Sarai with the Doctor for the medical treatment. But neither Jabir Hussain nor Jadunandan Yadav addused any witness in support of their alleged alibi. 11. The prosecution witnesses Shankar Mandal P. W.16, Biltu paswan P. W.17, Bhawnath Jha P. W.20 and Jabeshwar Mukhiya p. W.22 are formal witnesses. The witnesses of a fact are Asharfii yadav P. W.1, Laxman Yadav P. W.2, Jagdish Yadav P. W.3. Ramesh chandra Yadav P. W.4, Ramadhar Yadav P. W.5, Chandra Shekhar yadav P. W.6, Janak Yadav P. W.7, Ramautar Yadav P. W.8, Ramdeo yadav P. W.9. Asheswar Yadav P. W.10, Ram Biiash Yadav P. W.11, and Anant Yadav P. W.12. Except Asharfi Yadav and Ramadhar Yadav the other ten witnesses on fact are injured persons who received injuries in this occurrence. The statements of Janak Yadav P. W.7 and Ramautar yadav P. W 8 were tendered by the prosecution. The accused persons suggested that this Ramautar Yadav is also a descendant of the common ancestor of Asharfi Yadav. 12. Except Asharfi Yadav and Ramadhar Yadav the other ten witnesses on fact are injured persons who received injuries in this occurrence. The statements of Janak Yadav P. W.7 and Ramautar yadav P. W 8 were tendered by the prosecution. The accused persons suggested that this Ramautar Yadav is also a descendant of the common ancestor of Asharfi Yadav. 12. Jagdish Yadav P. W.3, Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9, and Asheshwar yadav P. W.10 are the independent witnesses from the side of the prosecution. The deposition of other injured prosecution witnesses too deserve credence on consideration. 13. The Hospital Doctor sent the slip to the Police Station, Pandaul that a deed-body and injured persons had arrived there. Satyadeo Pandey, incharge Police Officer. P. W.15 came to the Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Anant Yadav and prepared the fardbeyan (Exhibit-2)Sri Pandey also prepared the inquest report of the dead-body of Krishna kant Yadav brought by the prosecution party to the State Dispensary. This inquest report is Exhibit-6. The injured accused Ram Chandra Yadav gave his statement to Sri Pandey giving the counter version relating this occurrence. This fardbeyan of accused Ram Chandra Yadav prepared by Sri pandey is Exbibit-B. Sri Pandey sent these fardbeyans etc. to Madhubani police Station in which area the occurrence took place, 14. As there was tension as well between the patties in the village, the police Officer Ram Jatan Bharti P. W.19 was sent with Armed Polk Force to the village. Sri Bharti arrived at the place of occurrence at 12.10 P. M. same day on 4th August, 1981. Sri Bharti found the place of occurrence to be two katha thirteen dhurs land. Asharfi Yadav who was present there also pointed out that this two katha thirteen dhurs land was the place of occurrence. Sri Bharti found the pool of blood, a part of bamboo danda, a Lathi, a bhala and several pieces of brick bats in this two katha thirteen dhurs land. Sri Bharti also found that the southern mend of this two katha thirteen dhuvs land was broken at two places, twenty two feet and fifteen feet in length respectively and two Kudals were lying. Sri Bharti also found that one circular round line of ploughmark and two straight lines of plough marks from north to south were there in this five katha six dhurs land. Sri Bharti also found that one circular round line of ploughmark and two straight lines of plough marks from north to south were there in this five katha six dhurs land. The residential house of Asharfi and his brother and family members was found situate twenty yards away in the cast of the place of occurrence. The intervening land between the place of occurrence and the residential house of Asharfi yadav also belongs to Asharfi Yadav. Ram Ratan Bharti also recorded the statements of the witnesses. As Sri Bharti was not carrying on the investigation in a bonafide manner and apprehending the statements were not beiqg recordeed correctly, Asharfi Yadav moved an application to the Dy. S. P. / circle Officer who was supervision incharge. Thus from 28th August, 1981, sidheshwar Nath Sinha, P. W.14 started investigation in the case. He prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, Exhibit-4. He recorded the statements of witnesses on 29th August, and 31st August and finally submitted charge sheet on 2-11-1981, charge sheet in Exhibito. 15. On 4-8-1981 Dr. G. M. Sinha examined the injured Anant Yadav. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Laxman Yadav, Janak yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav and Ram Bilash Yadav. Dr. G. M. Sinha examined the injuries of the accused-appellant Ram Chandra Yadav. After giving some first old, Dr. O. M. Sinha sent the accused-appellant. Yogendra Yadav directly to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital along with injured Laxman Yadav. The injured accused Yogendra Yadav was not examined for his injuries, if any. 16. The dead body of a deceased, Krishna Kant Yadav was examined on 50th August.1981 and two ante mortem injuries one incised wound four inch long gapped on the lateral aspect of the left side of the neck extended below up to the left clevical. On dissection the left Jagular vein was found cut in the upper part of the wound on the lower part of the wound the left plura together with the portion of apical lob of the lung was incised; and other incised wound two inch long grapped muscle deep on the posterior aspect of the right arm in its lower part postmortem report, Exhibit-8, 17. The injured Chandra Shekhar had two wounds (1) incised wound over lateral side of chest and (2) incised wound over left forearm. 18. C. W.1 Dr. The injured Chandra Shekhar had two wounds (1) incised wound over lateral side of chest and (2) incised wound over left forearm. 18. C. W.1 Dr. Luxmi Kant Mishra who examined the chest injury of Chandra Shekhar at District Hospital after taking X-ray etc, found that this incised wound in the left side of chest had cut ribs and the cut plura : and there was plural infusion suggestive of piercing of some foreign body into the lungs. Dr. Luxmi Kant Mishra, P. W.1 stated that this chest injury was grievous in nature. 19. The injured Anant Yadav had three incited wounds (1) Incised wound over inner surface of the thumb, middle and ring finger (2)incised wound on left thumb and (3) incised wound over left side of skull above parietal bone size two inch x half inch x bone deep Dr. C. M. Sinha stated that the incised wound on the head was dangerous to life. If any bone was cut or fractured has not been proved by the prosecution bringing on record X-ray report 20. The injured Luxman Yadav had one sharp cutting wound on left side of the skull one inch x 1/6th inch x bone deep, two small incised wound over left leg and a small incised wound over the base of the left index fingure. Dr G M. Sinha in his injury memo stated that the nature of injuries was simple but Dr. Sinha stated on oath that the head injury of Luxman Yadav was dangerous to life. 21. The other injured persons Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Janak Yadav, jagdish Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav and Ram Bilash Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav had incised wounds and lacerated wound on their bodies, besides abrasions. Their injuries were not found grievous. 22. The prosecution witness Asharfi Yadav P. W.1 elderly man of 85 years of age was suffering from skin disease and thus he was not inside the agricultural field. This witness was standing on the north east corner of the northern plot (residential house is hardly thirty yards (away ). Their injuries were not found grievous. 22. The prosecution witness Asharfi Yadav P. W.1 elderly man of 85 years of age was suffering from skin disease and thus he was not inside the agricultural field. This witness was standing on the north east corner of the northern plot (residential house is hardly thirty yards (away ). This witness has staled on oath that his brother Anant Yadav, his son Chandra Shekhar yadav, his nephew Krishna Kant Yadav, and Ramdeo Yadav and Jagdish yadav ploughed his southern four katha area plot and thereafter they started ploughing his northern two katha thirteen dhurs area plot which he came to possess in exchange from Rajendra Yadav (cousin brother of Thakkan Yadav)and While they were ploughing this northern plot third round, all these armed accused-persons along with several other persons arrived there and gave the threat that they should not plough this northern plot and gave the threat to the lives of his familymen who were ploughing the northern field and that these accused persons forming unlawful assembly aggressively committed murder of Krishna Kant Yadav and caused severes injuries to Chandra shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, Luxman Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, ramdeo Yadav and Janak Yadav. This witness, stated specifically on oath that the accused Baijnath Yadav assaulted with his Bhala on the neck of krishna Kant Yadav and the other accused Ram Chandra Yadav assaulted with his bhela on the left arm of Krishna Kant Yadav. He stated further that the accused Ram Chandra Yadav assaulted with his Bhala on the chest of Chandra Shekhar Yadav and other accused Yogendra Yadav assaulted with his Bhala on the left hand of Chandra Shekhar Yadav. This witness stated further that accused Shivji Yadav and Ram Narain Yadav caused physical assault on Anant Yadav : and the accused Jadunandan Yadav and phooldec Yadav caused physical assaults on Ramesh Chandra Yadav. This witness stated further on oath that the accused Jabir and Taiyab Khan caused physical assaults with their Bgalas on the legs of Luxman Yabav. 23. The prosecution witness Luxman Yadav, P. W.2 who himself was iniured in this occurrence has narrated 6n oath that these armed accused persons arrived there and caused physical assaults aggressively uttering that anant Yadav his son. 23. The prosecution witness Luxman Yadav, P. W.2 who himself was iniured in this occurrence has narrated 6n oath that these armed accused persons arrived there and caused physical assaults aggressively uttering that anant Yadav his son. nephew and their ploughmen Ramdeo and Jagdish yadav should not plough this northern plot and these accused persons killed krishna Kant Yadav and these accused persons caused severe injury to chandra Shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Ramdeo yadav Janak Yadav, Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav and also to his person, This witness stated specifically that Baijnath Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav caused fatal assaults on Krishna Kant Yadav who died on the spot in the northern field. He stated further on oath that the accused Jogendra Radav and Ram ,chandra Yadav caused severe assaults to chandra Shekhar Yadav ; accused Fhooldeo Yadav and Jadu Nandan Yadav caused severe assaults on Ramesh Chandra Yadav ; and accused Shivjee yadav and Ram Narayan Yadav caused physical assaults on Anant Yadav ; accused Jabir Hussain, Taiyab Khan armed with Bhalas, Mukeshwar (deceased) and accused Subodh armed with Lathi caused physical assaults on luxman Yadav; accused Subodh Yadav, Phoolded Yadav and the deceased mukeshwar Yadav caused physical assaults on Janak Yadav; accused jogendra Yadav caused physical assault on Ramdeo Yadav; accused Hare krishna Yadav made physical assaults on Ramavtar Yadav and Asheshwar yadav and accused Ram Udgar Yadav caused physical assault on Jagdish yadav. 24. Prosecution witness, Jagdish Yadav P. W.3, who was ploughing the field and was injured in this occurrence has narrated the occurrence on oath how all these armed accused persons along with others arrived there when he along with Asharfi Yadav and others was ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and while third round of ploughing was being carried, these accused persons wanted to stop them from ploughing and that the accused persons aggressively assaulted Krishna Kant Yadav, Chandra shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Luxman Yadav, ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav, Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and asheshwar Yadav and the fatal assaults caused by accused Baidyanath yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav resulted in the killing of Krishna Kant yadav in the northern field. This witness stated specifically on oath that the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused sever assaults to chandra Shekhar Yadav ; accused Shivjee Yadav and Ram Narayan Yadav caused sevare physical assaults on the person of Anant Yadav and accused jadunandan Yadav and Phooldeo Yadav caused severes assaults on Ramesh chandra Yadav i accused Jabir Hussain and Taiyeb Khan caused physical assaults on Luxman Yadav ; accused Jogendra Yadav caused physical assaults on Ramdeo Yadav ; accused Phooldeo Yadav, Subodh Yadav and the deceased Mukteshwar Yadav (dead) caused physical assaults on Janak yadav ; accused Hare Krishna Yadav caused physical assaults on Ramavtar yadav and Asheshwar Yadav ; and mat accused Ram Udgar Yadav physically assaulted on his left leg. 25. Prosecution witness, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, P. W.4 stated on oath how these armed accused persons along with other persons arrived there and Asharfi Yadav along with his nephew, son and two labourers were ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and while they were completing the ploughing of this northern land, the accused persons asked them not to plough and the accused persons aggressively assaulted causing injuries to Krishna Kant Yadav, Chandra shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, luxman Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav, Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish yadav, Asheshwar Yadav and to his person ; and that due to the fatal assoults caused by the accused Baidhnath Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav, krishna Kant Yadav died on the spot. This witness stated further that the accused persons Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused severe injury to Chandra Shekhar Yadav ; accused Shivjee Yadav and Ram Narayan yadav caused severes injuries to Ram Chandra Yadav; accused Jabir hussain, Taiyab and the deceased Mukteshwar Yadav caused injuries to luxman Yadav ; accused Jogendra Yadav caused injuries to Ramedo Yadav ; accured Phooldeo Yadav, Subodh Yadav and deceased Mukteshwar Yadav caused injuries to Janak Yadav; accused Hare Krishna Yadav caused injuries to Ramavtar and Asheshwar Yadav ; accused Ram Udgar Yadav caused injuries to Jagdish Yadav and the accused Jadunandan Yadav. Phooldeo yadav and the deceased Jharokhi caused injuries to him. 26. The prosecution witness, Ramadhar Yadav, P. W.5 has narrated the prosecution case on oath. Phooldeo yadav and the deceased Jharokhi caused injuries to him. 26. The prosecution witness, Ramadhar Yadav, P. W.5 has narrated the prosecution case on oath. He has stated how these armed accused persons along with other persons arrived at the northern two katha thirteen dhurs area filed, where Anant Yadav, his son, his nephew and two ploughment were ploughing and while this northern field was being ploughed third round these accused persons asked the ploughment not plough any further and to vacate the plot and that these accused persons aggressively made physical assaults on Krishna Kant Yadav, Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, ramesh Chandra Yadav, Luxman Yadav. Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav. Ramavtar Yadav,jagdish Yadav and Asheshwar Yadav. This witness had stated on oath how the accused Baiinath and Ram Chaudra Yadav caused severe assaults and killed Krishna Kant Yadav at the spot the northern field He stated on oath that the accused Jogendra Yadav and Ram Chandra yadav caused severe assault on Chandra Shekar Yadav; accused Shivjee yadav and Ram Narayan Yadav caused severe assault on Anant Yadav; accused Jadunandan and phooldeo Yadav caused severe assault on Ramesh chandra Yadav; accused jabir Hussain and Taiyab Khan and Mukteshwar yadav (deceased) caused severe assaults on Luxman Yadav; accused Jogendra yadav caused severe assault on Ramdeo Yadav; accused Phooldeo Yadav and subodh Yadav and the deceased Mukteshwar caused severe assault on Janak yadav; accused Hare Krishna Yadav severe assault on Asheshwar Yadav and ramavtar Yadav; and accused Ram Udgar Yadav caused physical assault on jagdish Yadav. 27. Injured prosecution witness. Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W 6, who was also ploughing the northern plot two katha thirteen dhurs area has stated the prosecution case on oath how these armed accused persons along with others arrived at the northern plot where he along with his familymen and two ploughmen were ploughing third round and these accused persons asked them not to plough and to vacate it and how these accused persons made aggressive physical assaults on them causing fatal assaults to him and krishna Kant Yadav, Anant Yadav. Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Luxman yadav Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav, Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and asheshwar Yadav. Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Luxman yadav Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav, Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and asheshwar Yadav. This witness stated on oath that the fatal assault on the neck of Krishna Kant Yadav was made by the accused Baijnath Yadav with his Bhala and the other accused Ram Chandra Yadav made fatal assult on the right arm of Krishna Kant Yadav and, thus, killed him at the spot inside the northern field; accused Ram Chandra Yadav caused physical assautt on his left side chest and the other accused Jogendra caused injuries on his left hand while these" accused persons made physical assault on him. This witness stated further that the accused Jadunandan and Phooldeo Yadav caused physical assaults on Ramesh Chandra Yadav; accused Jabir Hussain and Taiyeb Mukteshwar Yadav caused physical assaults on Luxman Yadav Accused Jogendra Yadav caused physical assault on ramdeo Yadav accused Phooldeo Yadav, Subodh Yadav and the deceased mukteshwar Yadav caused physical assault on Janak Yadav; accused Hare krishna Yadav caused physical assault on Ramavtar Yadav and accused ram Udgar Yadav caused physical assault on Jagdish Yadav. 28. The other prosecution witness, Ramdeo Yadav. P. W.9 who was also injured in this occurrence has stated on oath the prosecution case and stated while he along with Anant Yadav and others was ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs area plot in third round these armed accused persons along with others arrived there and asked them not to plough any further and to vacate the land and how these accused persons aggressively caused physical assaults on Krishna Kant Yadav, Chandra Shekhar Yadav and Anant Yadav and on his person. This witness stated when he was injured he rushed to the residential verandah and thus, he had not seen that any other person from the side of the prosecution was injured. This witness stated on oath that accused Baijnath Yadav caused assault on the neck of krishna Kant Yadav with his Bhala and accused Ram Chandra Yadav caused physical assault on the right arm of Krishna Kant Yadav and Krishna Kant yadav fell dead in the northern plot. This witness stated on oath that the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused a severe assault on Chandra Shekhar Yadav and accused Shivjee and Ram Narayen Yadav caused a sever assault on Anant Yadav; and that the accused Jogendra yadav caused physical assault on his shest. 29. This witness stated on oath that the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused a severe assault on Chandra Shekhar Yadav and accused Shivjee and Ram Narayen Yadav caused a sever assault on Anant Yadav; and that the accused Jogendra yadav caused physical assault on his shest. 29. The other injured witness, Asbeshwar Yadav P. W, 10 who was planting paddy (Dhan) sapplings in the nearby field, has stated the prosecution case on oath. This witness stated on oath that these armed accused persons along with others arrived at the place of occurrence when Anant yadav and his familymen and ploughmen in all five persons were ploughing the northern plot area two katha thirteen dhurs and these accused persons asked these ploughmen not to plough the land and to go away and these a. ccused persons aggressively made physical assault causing death of Krishna kant Yadav and causing injuries to Chandra Shekhar Yadav. Ramesh chandra Yadav, Luxman Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav, Jagdish yadav and to his person. He stated on oath that the accused Hare Krishna yadav caused physical injury to his person This witness stated specifically on oath further that the accused Baijnath and Ram Chandra Yadav caused fatal injuries to Krishna Kant Yadav and killed him at the spot; and accused jogendra Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav caused serious physical injuries to Chandra Shekhar Yadav and accused Shivjee Yadav and Ram Narayan yadav caused physical injuries to Anant Yadav; accused Jadunandan and phooldeo Yadav caused physical injury to Ramesh Chandra Yadav: accused jabir and Taiyab and the deceased Mukteshwar Yadav caused physical injuries to Luxman Yadav; accused Jogendra Yadav caused physical injuries to Ramdeo Yadav; accused Phooldeo Yadav, Subodh Yadav and the dedeased mukteshwar Yadav caused physical injuries to Janak Yadav; and accused ram Udaar Yadav caused physical injuries to Jagdish Yadav. 30. The other injured prosecution witness Ram Bilash Yadav P. W.11 has stated on oath the prosecution case and stated that these armed accused persons along with others arrived at the northern two katha thirteen dhurs area plot and they stopped Janak Yadav and his son and nephew and the ploughmen from ploughing the land any further and they aggressively caused physical assaults on Krishna Kant Yadav, killing him at the spot and to the persons of Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Anant Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav luxman Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav, Janak Yadav and Jagdish Yadav. This witness also named the assailants who caused injuries to these accused persons this witness stated specifically on oath that the accused Ram Udgar Yadav caused Bhala blow on his left elbow. 31. The injured informant, Anant Yadav, P. W.12 stated on oath the prosecution case and how oa that fateful morning when he, his son Krishna kant, his nephew Chandra Shekhar and his other two ploughmen Ramdeo yadav and Jagdish Yadav after ploughing tne southern four katha land were ploughing northern two katha thirteen dhurs land in the third round these armed accused persons along with several others persons there at the northern plot, where they were ploughing and these accused persons asked them not to plough and to go away from the laud and how these accused persons aggressively physically assaulted This witness specifically stated on oath that the accused Baijnath made fatal assault with Bhala on the neck of his son krishna Kant Yadav and other accused Ram Chandra Yadav caused physical assault on the right elbow of Krishna Kant Yadav; and accused Ram Chandra yadav caused physical assault on Chandra Yadav and that accused shivjee Yadav and Ram Narayan Yadav caused physical assault on him. As his son Krishna Kant Yadav fell dead in the field due to the injuries on his person he rushed to his son and sat there to care his dying son. He stated that later on he come to know that eight other persons received injuries from the hands of these accused persons. 32. Learned trial Judge held that the occurrence took place in the manner on the date, time and at the place as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution party neither intended nor tried to take possession over the intervening land area five katha six dhars : and the place of occurrence was the northern plot area two katha thirteen dhurs and these accused persons forming unlawful assembly were aggressors The trial Court held further that the fatal injuries caused by the accused Baijnath on the neck of Krishna kant Yadav was caused by Bhala and the accused persons intentionally murdered Krishna Kant Yadav and they attempted to murder Anant Yadav. Ramesh Chandra Yadav and Chandra Shekhar Yadav and that they caused injuries with Garasa : and Lathi on the persons of Luxman, Yaday, Ramdeo yadav, Janak Yadav Ramavtar Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav and Ram Bilash Yadav as well and the prosecution has established the charges beyond reasonable doubt against these accused persons. The trial Court found that the accused persons had neither right of private defence of property nor the right of private defence to the person and because the injuries of the accused persons were not grievous the prosecution was not expected or required to explain them. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants urged : (1) the prosecution party was ploughing five katha six dhurs land of the accused persons ; accused persons went there to defend their property ; (five katha six dhurs land); and the prosecution party became aggressor and caused injuries to the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav : (2) in exercise of right of private defence to person and property accused persons too used arms to defend themselves ; (3) that the prosecution witnesses are relations and the labourers under the control of the prosecution witnesses, and no independent witness has been examined ; (4) the medical evidence is contrary to the oral evidence ; (5) injuries of the accused persons are not explained ; and that (6) the prosecution evidence has not been able to establish with definiteness who assaulted whom. 34. The prosecution party consisting Anant Yadav, Krishna Kant yadav (deceased), Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Kamdeo Yadav and Jagdish yadav with four pair of bullocks and ploughs arrived at 7.30 A. M. in the morning and firstly ploughed the southern four kathas land, and thereafter started ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and white they were carrying the third round of ploughing in this northern two katha thirteen dhars land, the accused persons arrived there and asked Anant Yadav. his family men and the labourers Ramdeo Yadav and Jagdish Yaday to stop ploughing and to leave the land. The prosecution party was not in possession of the intervening five katha six dhurs land. According to the prosecution version, the prosecution party was not ploughing this intervening land. 35. The contention of the appellants is that the prosecution party were ploughing this five katha six dhurs land and thus were taking the possession over it. The prosecution party was not in possession of the intervening five katha six dhurs land. According to the prosecution version, the prosecution party was not ploughing this intervening land. 35. The contention of the appellants is that the prosecution party were ploughing this five katha six dhurs land and thus were taking the possession over it. The prosecution evidence on record shows that Anant Yadav and his plougmen were not ploughing this five katha six dhurs land. The investigation Officer, Ram Jatan Bharti, P. W 19 found at the spot that the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land was ploughed by the prosecution party, and in the northern western side of this land, the Pool of blood was there on the ground, and within this land the Investigation Officer also found a Bhala a wooden Lathi, a small Lathi and a number of brick-bat pieces here and there on the spot. The Investigation Officer found that the southern boundary (mend) of this )nnd was found cut at two places at one place about twenty feet and at another place about fifteen feet, and two Kudals were also there and a circular round of the movement of plough and two signs of the plough from south to north were there on this intervening land. This cutting of the mend and such signs of the plough over the intervening five katha six dhurs land were the probable results of taking the ploughs along with bullocks from the southern four kathas land to the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land crossing the intervening five katha six dhurs land. The cut in the southern mend of two katha thirteen dhurs land was also the probable result of the movement of more than one plough in two katha thirteen dhurs land The other pair of bullock of the prosecution patty finding uneasiness would have made a round in the intervening five katha six dhurs land. All these signs found by the Investigating Officer do not point if any ploughing was carried in the intervening five katha six dhurs land. 36. All these signs found by the Investigating Officer do not point if any ploughing was carried in the intervening five katha six dhurs land. 36. Further if the prosecution party intended to take possession of the intervening land, the prosecution party would have first ploughed this vening five katha six dhurs land Thus, neither the prosecution party had any intention to take possession over five katha six dhurs land nor the prosecution party ploughed this five katha six dhurs land for taking possession over it. Learned counsel for the appellants made reference to the first information report, where in the end of the report (Exhibit-2), Anant Yadav mentioned the motive there was the dispute over the land, and urged that the disputed la nd between parties the was five katha six dhurs land and the prosecution party was ploughing this lands. The recital of this first information report from the beginning shows that the prosecution party was ploughing the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land after removing the old standing stalks of Marhua. The extent of the plot with six Lagga in the first information repori also points out that the prosecution party was ploughing two katha thirteen dhurs when this occurrence took place. Relating the motive the recital in the first information is that the motive was the dispute over all the land from before. 37. Asharfi Yadav, P. W.1 has stated on oath in paragraph 4 of his statement that the accused Baijnath Yadav and Jadunandan Yadav were anxious to get this northern two katha thirteen dhurs land. The accused might be interested in this two katha thirteen dhurs land as they had redently acquired five katha six dhurs land in south of it. The allegation in the end of first information report. Exhibit-2, relates to the motive and Anant Yadav mentioned it what he happened to read in the minds of the accused-persons. This recital in the first information report does not go to support the contention of the appellants. 38. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the statements of Investigation Officer, Ram Jatan Bharti, P W.19 who stated that the prosecution witnesses. This recital in the first information report does not go to support the contention of the appellants. 38. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention to the statements of Investigation Officer, Ram Jatan Bharti, P W.19 who stated that the prosecution witnesses. Ram Bilash Yadav, Anant Yadav, Asheshwar yadav, Ramdeo Yadav and Kamesh Chandra Yadav told him that the disputed land was five katha six dhurs and this land in the ceiling case was a cause for the physical assaults ; and this be inferred that the prosecution party was exercising the right of possession over five katha six dhurs land at the time of this occurrence. This five katha six dhurs land relating which the matter was pending in the Ceiling Court was the cause or issue/motive between the parties. But the occurrence took place on the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and at that time the prosecution party was ploughing that northern two katha thirteen dhurs land The motive in the minds of the parties might be different. In the case the place of occurrence and the acts of asseilants are to be seen. 39. The counsel for the appellants pointed out that the dead-body was not found at the place of occurrence. The injured father, uncle and the first cousins of the deceased Krishna Kant @ Krishna Yadav were taken to hospital. The dead-body of Krishna Kant @ Kishun Yadav was also taken by them to the Hospital apprehending that the dead-body be not want only destroyed by the accused-appellants. Pool of blood was found by the investigating Officer in that northern two katha thirteen dhurs land. 40. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out to paragraph 9 of the grounds of appeal filed by the Advocate of the prosecution party in the court of Collector, Madhubani, Exhibit-S, where the Advocate happened to strengthen the order of declaration of the right of this prosecution party by the lower Court (D. C. L R ) dated 17-6-1981 mentioning that the D. C, L. R. gave possession to the prosecution party over the land (five katha six dhurs by the order dated 17-6-1981 and the respondents tried to take forcible possession and committed murder of Krishna Kant Yadav. This ground of appeal is not the statement of the prosecution witnesses. This ground of appeal is not the statement of the prosecution witnesses. This ground has been raised by the Advocate under mis-apprehension both on law and facts because the D. C L. R. by order dated 17-6-1981 simply declared prima facte right entitled to possession on the strength that the prosecution party had the right of pre-emption over this five katha six dhurs land and just to strengthen the claim of the prosecution party the Advocate happened to add that the respondents tried to take forcible possession over the land, and murder of Krishna Kant Yadav was committed. This ground No.9 has no allegation that the prosecution party was ploughing and was thus possessing this live katha six dhurs land, and the occurrence took place on this five katha six dhurs land and Krishna Kant Yadav was murdered over it. This ground in the Memo of appeal does not make out any defence for the appellants. 41 The suggestion of the appellants that Anant Yadav had no right either in four katha land or in two katha thirteen dhurs land, and he went there as aggressor is baseless. Of course, this southern and northern land belong to his elder brother Asharfi Yadav. Asharfi Yadav was an elderly man of 85 years of age and was suffering from skin disease since long. His son Chandra Shekhar Yadav, his brother Ananth Yadav and his nephew krishna Kant Yadav (deceased) along with two labourers went there to plough the land. There is nothing unnatural in it. No such inference is possible that Anant Yadav was stranger or had gone there as aggressor. The statement of Anant Yadav P. W.12 at one place that it was his land does not go to help in any way the alleged contention of the appellants that anant Yadav was aggressor. 42. There is nothing on record in evidence to show that the prosecution party was ploughing five katha six dhurs land of the accused persons. Accused persons have not examined any witnesses in defence to show if the prosecution party was ploughing five katha and odd land of the accused persons. 42. There is nothing on record in evidence to show that the prosecution party was ploughing five katha six dhurs land of the accused persons. Accused persons have not examined any witnesses in defence to show if the prosecution party was ploughing five katha and odd land of the accused persons. There is a mere recital in the report lodged by the accused Ram chandra Yadav (as the cross-version of the occurrence) that be saw that anant Yadav, Asharfi Yadav and ten other members of their party were ploughing the filed of Baijnath Yadav with their four ploughs and they were armed with Lathi, Bhala, Grassa, Farxa, Brick-bat etc, and when he (Ram chandra Yadav) along with Jogendra Yadav and Baijnath Yadav arrived at the filed and asked Anant Yadav and his partymen not to plough the land, and he also found that Asharfi Yadav and his partymen had broken the mend ; and there were exchange of words and accused Anant Yadav assaulted aim (Ram Chandra Yadav) on the chest with spear and other partment also made assaults ; and that all of them (Ram Chandra Yadav, Jogendra Yadav and Baijnath Yadav) were injured. In his statement before the Court under section 313 Cr. P C. , this accused Ram Chandra Yadav did not tell the court how and when if he was injured and whether he arrived at the place of occurrence and if the prosecution party was the aggressor. The other accused Jogendra Yadav too did not make any statement in the Court tinder section 313 Cr. P. C. if he came to the place of occurrence and the prosecution party were the aggressors and how and when he was assaulted, if any. The accused Baijnath Yadav told the trial Court in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. that he saw that Asharfi Yadav and his partymen including Krishna Kant Yadav were breaking the mend to make his five katha six dhurs land party of their land, and he told them not to do so and they happened to make physical assaults on him (Baijnath Yadav ). This statement of the accused Baijnath Yadav also goes to show that the prosecution party were not ploughing five katha six dhurs land. 43. This statement of the accused Baijnath Yadav also goes to show that the prosecution party were not ploughing five katha six dhurs land. 43. A perusal of the prosecution witnesses shows that no cross-examination was made, suggesting the prosecution witnesses if they were ploughing five katha six dhurs land; and if the accused persons stopped them from doing so and the prosecution party became the aggressors and the prosecution party first caused injuries to the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav. 44. The cross-version in the written report of Ram Chandra Yadav, exhibit-A has no corroboration either from the evidence on record or even from the statements of the accussd persons made in the Court. 45. Accused Ram Chandra Yadav had incised wound 1.5" x 1/6"x 1/4" on left side chest and a small lacerated wound over right palm. The other accused Jogendra had probably some Lathi injury memo showing the injuries of Jogendra Yadav is not on the Court record 46. These injured accused persons Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra yadav bid not tell the Court in their statements under Sec.313 Cr. PC. how, and from whose hand they received any injury. No where it has been suggested to the prosecution witness in cross-examination that the prosecution parties were the aggressors and caused these injuries first to the accused Ram chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav. Prosecution witnesses, Ram Chandra yadav P. W.4, Ramdhar Yadav P. W.5, Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W.6 told the Court in their statements on oath that the persons who assembled from their side also threw brick-bats on the accused party, so as to make them run away from the place of occurrence The lacerated wound of the accused Ram Chandra Yadav and the injuries of the accused Jogendra, if any, might be the result of hit of the brick-bats. 47. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses Luxman Yadav P W 2 and Asharfi Yadav P. W.1 show that 70-80 persons assembled from the side of the accused persons and 25-30 persons happened to assemble at the place of occurrence from the side of the prosecution parties, and the persons from the side of the prosecution parties intervened to save Anant Yadav, his son and nephew and bis ploughmen from the assaults of the accused persons. Thus, It was likely that Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav happened to get physical assaults at the hands of some persons who came and intervened to save Anant Yadav, his son and nephew and ploughmen. As there happened to be the melee (of people) the prosecution witnesses would not have been able to see who happened to make assaults on Ram Chandra yadav and Jogendra Yadav. The injuries on Jogendra Yadav and Ram chandra Yadav were not grievous enough and thus too the prosecution was under no obligation to make all the efforts to find out whose hands caused injuries on Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav. 48. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the decision in the case of Lakshmi Singh and other v State of Bihars. reported in (l976) 4 Supreme court Cases 394, where the grievous injury not being explained by the prosecution was considered one of the grounds for awarding acquittal. In this reported case significant omission on the part of the prosecution was that no independent witness was examined. The counsel for the State pointed out that in this case, injuries on the side of the accused-appellants in themselves show that in all probability they had not been caused by aggressors hands and the report from the side of the accused-appellants, is nothing but an effort of little defence on the strength of these small injuries both in. number and the nature Looking to the nature of the injuries on the person of the accused-appellants, the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain them does not create any doubt either in genesis of the prosecution case or in the prosecution case itself. 49. Counsel for the appellants suggested that the prosecution party took four ploughs with ulterior motive to plough this five katha six dhurs land as well, and the prosecution witnesses have admitted that one plough was enough to plough two katha thirteen dhurs land in a day. 49. Counsel for the appellants suggested that the prosecution party took four ploughs with ulterior motive to plough this five katha six dhurs land as well, and the prosecution witnesses have admitted that one plough was enough to plough two katha thirteen dhurs land in a day. Anant Yadav p. W.12 has stated on oath that he took four ploughs to cultivate the four katha (southern) plot and the northern two katha thirteen dhurs plot of his brother and he was required to plough his own plots with these plots, as one of the ploughs was taken on loan Furtherit is the routine norm of village people that they plough all the land before lunch-break and in the afternoon the villagemen look after their other affairs relating agricultural or otherwise and the bullocks too get tired. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred because four bullocks were taken for ploughing, the prosecution party had any intention to take possession over five katha six dhurs land by ploughing it. Had the prosecution party any such intention, they would have ploughed this five katha six dhurs land first. 50. The prosecution party was not ploughing five katha six dhurs land nor the prosecution party intended to plough this five katha six dhurs land, and thus there was no reasonable apprehension of danger to property (five katha six dhurs land) of the accused-appellants. The statement of the accused-appellants Baijnath Yadav is when they reached there the members of the prosecution party had broken the southern mend of two katha thirteen dhurs land at two points. The prosecution party was ploughing their two katha thirteen dhurs land. Obviously this breaking of the mend at two points was not giving rise to any reasonable apprehension of danger to the property (five katha six dhurs land which was lying Parti after cutting Rabbi crop two months back. Learned counsel for the State also pointed out that in this situation, if the accused-appellants had any feeling in their mind that the prosecution party would be encroaching their lands, the accused-appellants had time to approach the District authorities and the Area Magistrate and also to the Court for action against the prosecution party (as this five katha six dhurs land was lying Parti-vacant ). Thus, the accused-appellants had neither reasonable apprehension of danger either to the property or to the person of the accused-appellants. Thus, the accused-appellants had neither reasonable apprehension of danger either to the property or to the person of the accused-appellants. The criminal trespass by the complaining party over five katha six dhurs land had not commenced simply with breaking of southern mend of two katha thirteen dhurs land at two points in the south. The right of exercise of private defence to property did not commence simply because the southern mend of two katha thirteen dhurs land was broken at two points. There is also no evidence on record find also no positive suggestion to the prosecution witnesses at which place and from whose hands, accused-appellants received injuries. Accused-appellants have failed to make out if there was any reasonable apprehension of danger either to the person or to the property of the accused-appellants. 51. The prosecution evidence on record proves that the accused-appellants were the aggressors and they caused criminal assaults on the members of the prosecution party. 52. Mere relationship is not enough to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses unless it be shown that they are interested witnesses. On this test, prosecution witnesses, Asharfi Yadav P. W.1, his brother anant Yadav P. W.12 and their sons and nephew Laxman Yadav P. W.2, ramesh Chandra Yadav P. W.4 Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W.6 might be categorised as interested witnesses. 53. The injured persons are the best witnesses as they saw the occurrence and being injured would be narrating the truth. Asheshwar yadav P. W.10, and Ram Bilash Paswan P. W.11 who is connected remotely to Asharfi Yadav P. W.1 being a member of the clan are the independent witnesses from the side of the prosecution. Further Jagdish Yadav P. W.3 and Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9 who were ploughing the fields and were injured in this occurrence are the independent witnesses S/shri Jagdish Yadav and ramdeo Yadav, who were the casual labourers ploughing the fields, were not on regular pay roll of Asharfi Yadav and Anant Yadav round the year. Because the accused-appellants in their report (cross version) at police station named Jagdish Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav amongst the accused person, is no ground to reject their testimony. 54. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no independent witness has been examined from the side of the prosecution has no force. 55. Because the accused-appellants in their report (cross version) at police station named Jagdish Yadav and Ramdeo Yadav amongst the accused person, is no ground to reject their testimony. 54. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no independent witness has been examined from the side of the prosecution has no force. 55. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants urged that consistent prosecution evidence is that the accused Baijnath hit his spear on the neck of krishna Kant and thus caused fatal injury resulting in his death while the deposition of Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, P. W.18 is that the injury on the neck of Krishna Kant was one incised wound four inch left gap on the lateral aspect of the left side of the neck extending below up to the left clevical (on dissection the left juglar vein was found cut in the upper part of the wound, on the lower part of the wound plura together with the portion of epical lob of the lung was incised ). The doctor made the statement that the death was caused by this injury which was on the neck ; and probably the weapon used in causing that injury would be Garassa and Farsa and not possibly by Bhala. Of course, the doctor admitted that the Bhala is also a weapon which has sharp edge on both sides, Bhalas are of different make and different sharpness. Bhala held by accused-appellant Baijnath Yadav might be having sharp edge on both sides besides the point for penetration at the end. Such a Bhala hit hard laterally would have caused such injury on the neck of the deceased. It was a day time occurrence and all the prosecution witnesres have stated on oath that the accused-fiaijnath Yadav assaulted with his Bhala on the neck of the deceased Krishna Kant resulting in his death at the spot. This prosecution version of assault by the accused-appellant. Baijnath by his Bhala on the neck of the deceased-Krishna Kant cannot be doubted simply in the light of the probabilities disclosed by Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, P W.18. 56. Discussed earlier the injuries on the side of the accused on Jogendra yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav were not grievous and thus the prosecution was under no duty to find out whose bands caused injuries on Jogendra yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav. Vijay Kumar Singh, P W.18. 56. Discussed earlier the injuries on the side of the accused on Jogendra yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav were not grievous and thus the prosecution was under no duty to find out whose bands caused injuries on Jogendra yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav. Further there being the melee of the people, the prosecution witnesses would not have been able to see who happened to make assaults on Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries of the accused persons remained unexplained is not material. 57. The Advocate for the appellants made the reference to the decision reported in 1988 P. L. J. R.302 (Thakur Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar) where it has been observed that the common object of assembly is entirely a matter of inference depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case ; and if the members of the assembly knew that the wrong/ offence was likely to be committed. Here more than seventy years persons were accompanying these accused-appellants, and according to the prosecution case, these accused-appellants were armed and Baijnath Yadav and ram Chandra Yadav (land owners) were ahead in the mob. The first information report has the recital that the accused-appellants told them not to cultivate the land and there were exchange of violent utterances, and meantime more persons armed with Lathies, Bhalas, Grassas and brick-bats from the side of the accused-appellants happened to assemble and there were longer violent exchange of words and abuses and during this exchange of abuses the accused-appellants made physical assaults. Thus, it is evident that the accused-appellants desired that Baijnath Yadav gets larger area in the land. Because accused-appellants were armed is not enough to hold that they had the attitude to the extent committing murder or they had gone to the place of occurrence with the determination to overcome any resistence, even to the extent of committing murder. Thus, it is evident that the accused-appellants desired that Baijnath Yadav gets larger area in the land. Because accused-appellants were armed is not enough to hold that they had the attitude to the extent committing murder or they had gone to the place of occurrence with the determination to overcome any resistence, even to the extent of committing murder. The object of this big assembly including the accused-appellants most probably was that by the show of criminal force, they would be depriving Asharfi Yadav, his brother-Anant yadav and their family men from the possession of the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land and thus Baijnath Yadav would be enforcing his supposed right of pre-emption over that northern land (being adjacent to five katha six dhurs land of Baijnath Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav ). 58. Thus, the accused-appellants are guilty of forming the unlawful assembly with the common object of asserting criminal force in order to get possession over northern two katha thirteen dhurs land of the prosecution party, and the accused-appellants used the criminal force by making physical assaults. 59. The prosecution witnesses, Asharfi Yadav, Laxman Yadav, jagdish Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav aud Ramadhar Yadav, Chandra shekhar Yadav, Ramdeo Yadav, Asheshwar Yadav, Ram Bilash Yadav and anant Yadav have stated on oath that the accused-Baijnath Yadav made the fatal assault with his spear on the neck of Krishna Kant @ Kishun Yadav. AH these prosecution witnesses have stated on oath further that accused ram Chandra Yadav caused injury on the right hand of Krishna Kant @ kishun Yadav with his spear. 60. Anant Yadav P. W.12 made the statement on oath that he saw the accused-appellant, Baijnath Yadav making fatal assault from his spear on the neck of his son Krishna Kant @ Kishun Yadav and he saw other accused-appellant, Ram Chandra Yadav making physical assault with his spear on the right-hand of his son Krishna Kant @ Kishun Yadav, and be saw the accused-appellant Ram Chandra making physical assault with his spear on the left side chest of Chandra Shekhar, and the accused-appellant, shivji and Ram Narain caused physical assault with their Garassa on his person. This witness told as he saw his son Krishna Kant who fell at the spot on receiving the injury on the neck, he happened to be there by the side of his dying son and thus, he had not seen with his eves who made further assaults on the other persons of the prosecution party. Ramdeo yadav P. W.9 stated on oath that he saw the accused-appellant Baijnath yadav making the fatal assault on the neck of Krishna Kant and he saw the other accused Ram Chandra making the physical assault by his spear on the right hand of Krishna Kant. This witness Ramdeo Yadav stated further that he saw accused Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav making physical assaults with their Bhalas on Chandra Shekhar Yadav, and he saw the accused Shivji and Ram Narain Yadav making physical assaults with their Garassa on Anant Yadav and that the accused Jogendra Yadav made physical assault by his Bhala on his chest, and being hit and suffering injury on the chest he (this witness Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9) happened to get away from the place of occurrence and went to sit in the Verandah and thus he told that he could not see who caused physical assaults on other members of the prosecution party. 61. The prosecution witnesses, Ashaifi Yadav P. W.1, Laxman Yadav p. W.2. Jagdish Yadav P. W.3 Ramesh Chandra Yadav P. W.4, Ramadhar yadav P. W.5, Chandra Shekhar Yadav P. W.6, Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9, ashesher Yadav P. W.10, Ram Bilash Yadav P. W.11 and Anant Yadav P. W.12 have stated on path that the accused appellant Ram Chandra Yadav made physical assault with his Bhala causing injury on the left side of the chest of Chandra Shekhar Yadav. Prosecution witnesses, P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, P. W.9, P. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant, Jogendra Yadav made physical assault with his bhala causing injuries on left hand of Chandra Shekhar Yadav. 62. The prosecution witnesses, P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, P. W.9, P. W.10, P. W.11 and P. W.12 have stated on oath that the accused-appellants, Shivji Yadav and Ram Narain Yadav made physical assaults with their Garassa causing injuries to Anant Yadav. 63. 62. The prosecution witnesses, P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, P. W.9, P. W.10, P. W.11 and P. W.12 have stated on oath that the accused-appellants, Shivji Yadav and Ram Narain Yadav made physical assaults with their Garassa causing injuries to Anant Yadav. 63. The prosecution witnesses, P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, p. W.6, P. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellants, jadunandan Yadav and Fuldeo Yadav made physical assault with their Bhalas causing injuries on the legs of Ramesh Chandra Yadav. 64. The posecution witnesses, P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, p W, 6, P. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellants jabir Hussain @ Majibur Rahman and Taiyab Khan made physical assaults with their Bhalas on the legs of Luxman Yadav and that the deceased muktheshwar Yadav caused physical assaults on the head of Luxman Yadav. 65. The prosecution witnesses P. W.1, P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, P. W 9, P. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellans Jogendra Yadav made physical assault with his Bhala on the chest of Ramdeo Yadav. 66. Prosecution witnesses. P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W 4, P. W.5, P. W 6, p. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant Fuldeo yadav caused physical assaults with his Bhala on the thigh of Janak Yadav and the accused-appellant Subodh Yadav caused assaults with his Lathi on the back of Janak Yadav. 67. The prosecution witnesses, P. W.2, P W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5 and p. W.6 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant Hare Kirshan Yadav caused physical assaults with his Grassa on Ramavtar Yadav. The prosecution witnesses, P. W.2, P. W.3, P W.4, p. W.6 and P. W.10 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant Hare Kishan Yadav caused physical assault with his Grassa on Asheshar Yadav. 68. The prosecution witnesses P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, p. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant Ram udgar Yadav caused physical assaults with his Bhala on Jagdish Yadav. 69. 68. The prosecution witnesses P. W.2, P. W.3, P. W.4, P. W.5, P. W.6, p. W.10 and P. W.11 have stated on oath that the accused-appellant Ram udgar Yadav caused physical assaults with his Bhala on Jagdish Yadav. 69. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the prosecution witness Asharfi Yadav P. W.1 did not tell the Investigation Officer Ram jatan Bharti P W.19 that the accused-appellant Ram Chandra Yadav made physical assault on Krishna Kant and Chandra Shekhar Yadav. The other prosecution witness Laxman Yadav P. W.2 did not tell the Investigation officer that Ram Chandra Yadav made physical assault on Krishna Kant yadav and Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on Chandra Shekhar yadav, and Jadunandan Yadav and Fuldeo Yadav made Physical assault on ramesh Chandra Yadav, and Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on ramdeo Yadav, and Fuldeo Yadav and Subodh Yadav made assaults on janak Yadav, and Hare Krishna Yadav and Ram Udgar Yadav made assaults on Ramavtar Yadav and Hari Krihna Yadav made assault on Asheshwar yadav and Jagdish Yadav. The prosecution witness Jagdish Yadav did not tell the Investigation Officer that Ram Chandra Yadav made physical assault on krishna Kant Yadav, that Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on Chandra shekhar Yadav that Shivji Yadav and Ram Narain Yadav made physical assaults on Anant Yadav, that Hare Krishna Yadav made physical assault on ramavatar Yadav and that Ram Udgar Yadav made physical assault on jagdish Yadav. The prosecution witness, Asheshwar Yadav, P. W.10 did not tell the Investigation Officer that Ram Chandra Yadav made physical assault on krishna Kant, that Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on Chandra Shekhar Yadav that Jadunandan Yadav and Fuldeo Yadav made physical assault on Ramesh Chandra Yadav that Subodh Yadav and fuldeo Yadav made physical assault on Janak Yadav and that Ram Udgar yadav made physical assault on Jagdish Yadav. The prosecution witness Ram bilash Yadav, P. W.11 did not tell the Investigation Officer that Jogendra Yahav made physical assault on Chandra Shekhar Yadav. that Jadunandan Yadav made physical assault on Ramesh Chandra Yadav, that Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on Ramdeo Yadav, that Subodh Yadav made physical assault on Jank Yadav and that Ramudgar Yadav made physical assault on jagdish Yadav. 70. that Jadunandan Yadav made physical assault on Ramesh Chandra Yadav, that Jogendra Yadav made physical assault on Ramdeo Yadav, that Subodh Yadav made physical assault on Jank Yadav and that Ramudgar Yadav made physical assault on jagdish Yadav. 70. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that even the prosecution witnesses Jagdish Yadav and Asheshwar Yadav did not tell the investigation Officer if Ram Udgar Yadav assaulted Jagdish Yadav and Hare krishna Yadav assaulted Asheshwar Yadav. 71. These above statements pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are the omissions in the narration by the prosecution witnesses to the Investigation Officer. It is evident from the statement of Asharfi yadav, P. W.1 that Sri Ram Jatan Bharti, Investigation Officer was not carrying on the investigation in bona fide manner and apprehending the statements were not being recorded correctly. Asharfi Yadav moved an application to the Deputy S. P /circle Officer who was supervision Incharge, and the Investigation Officer was changed. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses on oath in the Court are the correct statements which accused-appellants happened to make the physical assault on which particular person on the side of the prosecution parties. 72. It is natural that there could not be complete observation of all the assailants and the weapons used by the assailants in the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses The witnesses Jagdish Yadav, P. W.3 Asheshwar Yadav P. W.10 and Ram Bilash Yadav P. W.11 happened to narrate different weapons in the hands of couple of the accused-appellants. Ramdeo Yadav P. W.9 told the Court on oath when he was hit by the accused-appellant Jogendra Yadav on his chest he moved away to rest in verandah and thereafter he did not see who assaulted whom. The other witness Anant Yadav P. W.12 told the court when he saw his injured fallen son Krishna Kant dying he went there to sit by the side and thereafter he did not see who assaulted whom. Thus the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are the natural and independent statements relating the occurrence and the assailants 73. The other witness Anant Yadav P. W.12 told the court when he saw his injured fallen son Krishna Kant dying he went there to sit by the side and thereafter he did not see who assaulted whom. Thus the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are the natural and independent statements relating the occurrence and the assailants 73. The prosecution witnesses established that the accused-appellants, baijnath and Ram Chandra Yadav caused physical assaults on Krishna Kant @ Kishan Yadav and the physical assault by the accused-appellant, Baijnath yadav on Krishna Kant @ Krishan Yadav was fatal one causing his death at the spot; accused-appellant, Ram Chandra Yadav and Jogendra Yadav caused physical assault on Cuandra Shekhar Yadav ; accused-appellant Ram narain Yadav and Shivji Yadav caused physical assault on Anant Yadav ; accused-appellant Jadunandan Yadav and Fuldeo Yadav caused physical assuults on Ramesh Chandra Yadav ; accused-appellant Jabir hussain @ Majibur Rahman and Taiyab Khan, caused physical assault on luxman Yadav ; Mukteshwar Yadav, now dead, caused physical asseult on the head of Luxman Yadav ; accused-appellant-Jogendra Yadav caused physical assault on Ramdeo Yadav ; accused-appellant Fuldeo Yadav and subodh Yadav and Mukteshwar Yadav (now dead) made physical asseults on Janak Yadav ; accused-appellant-Hare Kishan Yadav caused physical assaults on Ramavtar Yadav and Asheshwar Yadav and the accused ramudgar Yadav made physical assault on Jagdish Yadav. 74. The injury of Chandra Shekhar Yadav was incised wound 2"x2 1/2" over left lateral side of chest ribs cut and plura cut. There is no deposition that there was fracture of the bone. 75. The Injured Anant Yadav and Luxman Yadav had incised wound on the head bone deep They were simple in nature. Dr. Sinha suggested because these injuries were in vital part of the body and thus they were likely to cause death. Neither the extent/size of the injury nor the deposition of dr Sinha proved that these head injuries endangered the life of the victim. 76. The assembly of 70-75 persons (including these accused-appellants), some of them armed, arrived at the place and by show of criminal force this assembly were to enforce their supposed right on the northern two katha thirteen dhurs land. As several persons including the accused-appellants were armed, it was certain that the common object was to cause hurt in the enforcement of their right on land. As several persons including the accused-appellants were armed, it was certain that the common object was to cause hurt in the enforcement of their right on land. The members of the assembly would not have known that culpable homicide/killing was likely to be committed. Killing was not there to achieve the common object. It cannot be attributed that the members of the unlawful assembly including these accused-appellants knew that the killing was likely to be committed. 77. There was no probability of the right of private defence either to the person or to the property of the accused-appellants. There is also nothing on record to show that there was any grave and sudden provocation from the side of the prosecution party. There is nothing in evidence on record to show that the victim Krishna Kant Yadav was armed with any dangerous weapon and was aggressive. 78. The evidence does not show that there was attempt to murder anant Yadav, Ramesh Chandra Yadav and Chandra Shekhar Yadav. There was no breek/fracture of bone of any of these injured persons. The medical evidence also does not show that the injuries caused to them were potting their lives in immediate danger of death. 79. Accused-appellants, Ram Udgar Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav, Ram narayan Yadav, Jogendra Yadav, Hare Krishna Yadav Taiyab Khan, Jabir russain @ Mujibur Rahman, Shivjee Yadav, Jadunandan Yadav and Ram chandra Yadav are held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 324 read with Sec.149 I. P. C. The accused-appellant Subodh yadav is held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 I P,c. 80. Accused-appellant Baijnath intentionally caused fatal injury with his Bhala on the front upper part (on the side of the neck) of Krishna Kant, sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature and Krishna kant died as a result, soon at the spot. Accused-appellant Baijnath is thus held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I P. C. 81. Considering the fact that the accused-appellants (except Baijnath)are on bail and the occurrence is fourteen years old, the accused-appellants, ram Udgar Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav. Accused-appellant Baijnath is thus held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I P. C. 81. Considering the fact that the accused-appellants (except Baijnath)are on bail and the occurrence is fourteen years old, the accused-appellants, ram Udgar Yadav, Phooldeo Yadav. Ram Narayan Yadav, Jogendra Yadav, subodh Yadav, Hare Krishna Yadav, Taivab Khan, Jabir Hussain @ Mujibur rahman, Shivjee Yadav, Jadunandan Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav (except Baijnath) are allowed to give a bond of Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand)with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of three years to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and mean time their sentences shall remain suspended. They shall be giving their bonds in the Court of the trial Judge within a month from the date of this judgment. 82. Accused-appellant Baijnath Yadav is awarded the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I. P. C, This accused-appellant, Baijnath Yadav would be undergoing the sentence. 83. Accordingly the abovesaid three appeals stand dismissed with modification in the conviction and sentence. A copy of the judgment be placed on the file of two Criminal Appeals t e. Cr. Appeal No 27 and 54 of 1991. Appeals dismissed