JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 26, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Case No. 144/1994 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Prabhu Singh and Hanuman Singh: under section. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- 'each. In default of payment of fine two months'. rigorous imprisonment. under section. 147 IPC: six months' rigorous imprisonment. under section. 323/149 IPC: Three months' rigorous imprisonment. under section. 447 IPC: One month's rigorous imprisonment. Jagram, Vishram and Gabbu: under section.323 IPC: Three months' rigorous imprisonment each, under section.447 IPC: One month's rigorous imprisonment each. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case are detailed out in the judgment under challenge before us and they ' indicate, that in village Khanpura,Khasra No.93 is a Government land and the same is entered as "Siwai Chak" in the revenue record. It appears that deceased Rewad had cultivated a portion of the aforesaid land in an unauthorised manner and proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were initiated against him by the concerned Tehsildar. Thereafter, vide order dated September 21, 1992 (Ex.D.2), the Tehsildar, Lalsot dispossessed him and the standing crop was forfeited to the State Government. On October 13,1992 at about 9.00 a.m., it appears that Rewad and his associates again attempted to cultivate Khasra No.93 and a portion of it was cultivated by him but it was objected by the villagers and an incident took place in which members of both the parties have sustained injuries.From the side of the complainant, besides Rewad, six more persons namely Shiv Charan, Kajod, Rajmal, Ramesh, Harkesh. and Hansraj sustained injuries. From the side of the accused persons, Gokul, Gajanand, Kalu, Pukhraj,Hansraj, another Gokul and Prabhu Singh sustained a number of injuries. 3. A report of the incident was made by PW.3 Shiv Charan at Police Station, Lalsot in which 29 accused persons were named to have participated in the said incident. So far the assault to Rewad is concerned, 8 persons namely; Hanuman Singh, Prabhu Singh, Ram Singh, Bishram, Pukhraj, Nathu, Gabbu and Jagram were named to be assailants. Written report ex.P/2 is on the record which was made on the same day at Police Station Lalsot. On that report, crime No.257/92 was registered under Sections 147,148,149,323,307, and 302 IPC. So far the assault to Rewad is concerned, 8 persons namely; Hanuman Singh, Prabhu Singh, Ram Singh, Bishram, Pukhraj, Nathu, Gabbu and Jagram were named to be assailants. Written report ex.P/2 is on the record which was made on the same day at Police Station Lalsot. On that report, crime No.257/92 was registered under Sections 147,148,149,323,307, and 302 IPC. Rewad sucummbed to the injuries sustained by him and the autopsy over his dead body was conducted by PW.9 Dr.K.B.Chhipa vide post mortem report Ex.P/13. The following injuries were found on his body: 1. A lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 /2 cm on the right occipeto parietal region posteriorly. 2. A contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on Lt. scapular region. 3. A contusion Lt.Side of back 10 cm x 1 cm on subscapular region. Horizontal. 4. An abrasion At. elbow joint 1 /2 cm x 1 /2 cm. 4. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of Rewad was coma and injury to the brain. He also examined injuries of other injured namely Kajod, Rajmal, Ramesh, Harkesh and Hansraj vide Ex.P/11,Ex.P/12,Ex.P/14,Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16 respectively. The injuries of the above injured persons were found to be simple in nature. The injuries of the accused persons were also examined by PW.10 Dr.S.P. Sharma vide Ex.D/9 to Ex.D/15. 5. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against 29 accused persons including the appellants and they were tried for various offences including under section 302 and 302/149 IPC in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. The learned Additional Sessions Judge except the appellants acquitted remaining accused persons of all the charges. The appellants Jagram, Vishram and Gabbu were acquitted of all other charges except under Sections 323 and 447 IPC. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants seriously contended that the deceased Rewad had no right to plough Siwai Chak land which was being used by villagers to graze their cattle. The learned counsel contended that in spite of the order of the Tehsildar on September 7,1992 (Ex.D.1), the deceased Rewad again tried to plough the land by use of force with the assistance of his associates and when the villagers prevented them from going to the field they were assaulted by them. The learned counsel contended that in spite of the order of the Tehsildar on September 7,1992 (Ex.D.1), the deceased Rewad again tried to plough the land by use of force with the assistance of his associates and when the villagers prevented them from going to the field they were assaulted by them. Learned counsel contended that the fact that six of the accused persons have sustained a number of injuries on various parts of their body including head goes to show that the members of the complainant party were armed with weapons and they forcibly wanted to plough the Siwai Chak land. It was also contended that otherwise also, there is no convincing and reliable evidence that the appellants Prabhu Singh and Hanuman Singh have caused the injuries to the deceased Rewad. 7. After going through the entire material and evidence available on record, we find that the submissions made by Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants have merit: From the evidence and documents it is borne out that Khasra No. 93 is Siwai Chak and it was unauthorisedly cultivated by the deceased Rewad for which proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated against him. After notice to him he was dispossessed and the crop was forfeited to the State Government vide order of the Tehsildar, Lalsot dated September 7,1992(Ex.D/1). It also transpires that the villagers wanted to prevent Rewad and his party persons to plough the Siwai Chak land again and in that process they sustained a number of injuries which are proved by P.W10 Dr. Hari Prasad Sharma. From the post mortem report of Rewad it appears that he sustained only one injury on his head. In the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. there was a general allegation against eight accused persons to have assaulted Rewad and the two appellants Prabhu Singh and Hanuman Singh were not named to have given lathi blows on the head of Rewad. The eye-witnesses have made improvements in their statements during trial stating therein that Hanuman Singh and Prabhu Singh gave lathi blows on the head of Rewad but they have been confronted with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. during the investigation. The eye-witnesses have made improvements in their statements during trial stating therein that Hanuman Singh and Prabhu Singh gave lathi blows on the head of Rewad but they have been confronted with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. during the investigation. Even otherwise, the deceased Rewad had only one injury on the head which has been assigned to two persons and it is difficult to hold any one of them to be the author of the said injury. 8. The prosecution has not come with a true version about the origin of the fight and the manner in which it has taken place. In other words, the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution witnesses about the injuries sustained by accused persons. 9. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the villagers had a right to prevent Rewad and his associates from forcibly cultivating the Siwai Chak land which was being used by the villagers to graze their animals. In absence of cogent and reliable evidence that any of the appellants caused solitary injury on the head they cannot be convicted. 10. Consequently, it is a fit case in which the appeal should be allowed and the accused appellants should be acquitted of all the charges. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appellant Prabhu Singh is in jail. Hence, he shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Other appellants are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal Allowed. *******