JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were the accused in Sessions case No. 21 of 1992 (old No. 116/1984) on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Dist. Jaipur. They were found guilty and convicted as under: Accused appellants Mangla, Kashra and Gulab Chand - U/s. 302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 4 months R.I. Accused appellants Beni Prasad, Kalyan Rameshwar and Shobha Ram - U/s. 302/149 of the I.P.C. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo 4 months R.I. All the accused appellants - U/s. 148 I.P.C. One year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo one month R.I. U/s. 447 I.P.C. Two months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo one month R.I. U/s. 325/149 I.P.C. Two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo two months R.I. U/s. 323/149 I.P.C. Six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo one month R.I. U/s. 435 I.P.C. Three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo two months R.I. All the sentences had to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are:- (i) On 13.8.84 about 11.30 A.M. informant Gulab Chand (PW 4) lodged a written report (Ex.R 1) with the Police Station Rainwal, Dist. Jaipur. Stating therein that on 13.8.84 at about 8.00 A.M. they had gone to their field for doing agriculture work. During the course of their agriculture work, as many as 31 persons (names in the F.I.R.) came over there having lathies in their lands and asked them as to why they were doing so. When the informant party replied that they were working in their field, they attacked the informant party and started "maar-peet''. a Kachcha house in the field in which Jhamri and Mangli were preparing food, was also set fire by the accused Vijay Lal and Bena Ram, after turning the ladies out of the said house. When the informant party replied that they were working in their field, they attacked the informant party and started "maar-peet''. a Kachcha house in the field in which Jhamri and Mangli were preparing food, was also set fire by the accused Vijay Lal and Bena Ram, after turning the ladies out of the said house. On hearing the hue and cry, Lachha Ram Rana, Gopi Ram Meena and Thakur Vishnu Singh Ji came over there and rescued the informant party A case under section 147, 148, 149, 447, 436 and 323 I.P.C. was registered initially and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation injured Pokhar died and the case was converted under section 302 i.P.C. (ii) After usual investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against 14 persons including the appellants in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, Dist. Jaipur. From where the case was committed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Dist., Jaipur on 10.12.84. It was transferred to the Court of Addl. Session Judge, Jaipur Dist., Jaipur on 10.9.87 and again transferred to the trial court on 6.2.92. (iii) Charges Under section 148, 149, 302, 302/149, 323, 323/149, 325, 325/149, 447, 435 of the I.PC. were framed against all the accused. The accused denied charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial accused Kanha Ram died and proceedings initiated against him were dropped. (iv) The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and produced 75 documents. Thereafter statements of accused Under section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. The accused examined Gopi (D.W. 1). Laxman (DW 2) and Ramu (DW 3) as defence witnesses and exhibited as many as 25 documents. (v) The learned trial court convicted and sentenced accused appellants as indicated herein above. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the occurrence and the genesis of the same. The prosecution has not come with the clean hands. The injuries received by the ten accused persons have not been explained. In the F.I.R. 31 persons were named but the charge-sheet had been filed only against 14 persons. The trial court acquitted six accused persons and convicted the accused appellants. The case of the accused appellants is at par with that of the case of the other accused who have been acquitted. In the F.I.R. 31 persons were named but the charge-sheet had been filed only against 14 persons. The trial court acquitted six accused persons and convicted the accused appellants. The case of the accused appellants is at par with that of the case of the other accused who have been acquitted. Statement of Patwari, Kailash Chand (PW 28) was not properly appreciated by the trial court. According to this witness the possession of the disputed land was with accused persons Pokhar and Laxman and informant and his party had no right over this land. The finding of the trial court that the complainant party was in possession over the land in dispute, is perverse. The conviction of Mangla, Kashra and Gulab Under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor is bad in law. Similarly finding of the trial court with regard to unlawful assembly is also perverse. The accused persons were having the right of private defence to their person and property and they ought to have been acquitted from the charges.On the other hand Mr. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. N.C. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the complainant, have supported the judgment of the trial court and contended that complainant party was in possession and the testimony of prosecution witnesses was rightly relied upon by the trial Judge. There are independent witnesses of the occurrence and their testimony cannot be disbelieved. 5. We have been taken through the evidence and the circumstance of the case and we have now to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, proceed to discuss the origin and genesis of the occurrence. 6. A cross report (Ex.D. 25) of the incident was lodged at the police station Renwal by Surja Ram s/o Mahadev on 13.8.84 at 9. A.M. and on this report crime NO. 69/84 was registered under section 147, 148, 149, 447 & 323 I.PC. 7. Dr. Keshaw Bihari (PW 31) on 13.8.84 examined injuries of Shryan, Dhanna, Gopal, Rooda, Panna, Jamna, Bhoori, Bidami, Mangli, Bhanwari, Gulab Chand and Pokhar (since deceased). Shrawan sustained four injuries including two lacerated wounds on forehead and elbow. Dhanna sustained Bruises and abrasion. Gopal sustained one lacerated wound and one bruise. Ruda sustained three bruises. Panna sustained one lacerated wound and three bruises. Shrawan sustained four injuries including two lacerated wounds on forehead and elbow. Dhanna sustained Bruises and abrasion. Gopal sustained one lacerated wound and one bruise. Ruda sustained three bruises. Panna sustained one lacerated wound and three bruises. Jamna sustained one bruise and swelling on knee joint and left elbow, Bhoori sustained two lacerated wounds, one crush injury and one bruise. Bidami sustained one lacerated wound, two bruises, one abrasion and swelling, Mangli sustained two Bruises one abrasion and swelling. Bhanwari sustained two lacerated wounds, one bruise and swelling, Gulab Chand sustained one bruise and `Pokhar sustained as many as 13 injuries including eight lacerated wounds on left fore arm, occipital region, right elbow, right arm, right thigh and left leg. 8. Injuries of the accused Lada, Mohini w/o, Bheru, Mohini w/o. Gulab, Kesar S/o. Mahadev, Nanu S/o Suja, Kana Ram, Kalyan, Sobha, Gulab, Bheru were also examined by Dr. Keshav Bihari on 13.8.84. Smt. Lada sustained one lacerated wound, one bruise and swelling. Smt. Mohini W/o. Bheru sustained 2 bruises. Smt. Mohini W/o. Gulab sustained 4 lacerated wounds (three on occipital and parital region) one bruise and one abrasion, Keshar sustained 2 lacerated wounds and two bruises, Nanu sustained two bruises and one abrasion, Kana Ram sustained one lacerated wound and six bruises, Kalyan sustained 2 lacerated wounds, one bruise and two abrasions, Sobha sustained 5 bruises, one abrasion and swelling, Gulab sustained one lacerated wound and one bruise and Suja Ram sustained one lacerated wound and one bruise. 9. Dr. C.S. Dave (PW 34) who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Pokhar, found eleven injuries on his person, which included one injury on the head. There was a stitched wound 5 cm. long with 5 stitches on occipital region, six stitched wounds were on right arm, left arm, left wrist joint, right knee and left leg and four abrasions. The cause of death was shock brought about as a result of injuries to the vital organs. 10. Har Phool Singh, S.H.O. (PW 33) in his cross examination, has admitted that a cross case No. 69/89 of the incident was registered at the police station. 11. Thus from the material on record it is evident that members of both the parties sustained injuries In the occurrence. 10. Har Phool Singh, S.H.O. (PW 33) in his cross examination, has admitted that a cross case No. 69/89 of the incident was registered at the police station. 11. Thus from the material on record it is evident that members of both the parties sustained injuries In the occurrence. No doubt that the deceased Pokhar sustained one lacerated wound on the head but it is also true that ten accused including accused appellant Keshar also sustained injuries. Accused Smt. Mohini W/o. Gulab sustained three lacerated wounds on occipital and partial region. Jamna (PW 1) was cross examined about the injuries sustained by the accused but he stated that he did know whether the accused sustained injuries or not, Though he admitted against them, Panna (PW 2) in his cross examination stated that accused has sustained injuries but he cannot say that as to who was the author of the injuries. Sharwan (PW 3) stated that he had only seen the injuries on the person of accused Kana Ram. Gulab Chand (PW 4) stated that accused sustained injuries but the said injuries were inflicted by the accused on each other. Similarly other prosecution witnesses have not properly explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons. The accused have categorically taken the plea to have sustained injuries in the same incident and as such the prosecution is duty bound to reasonably explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons. Non-explanation of the injuries is a serious infirmity which renders the prosecution case doubtful. This court in Ruda Ram's case [Western Law Case (Raj.) 1996(2) R 12 (Para 15)] observed as under: "The first and fore-most question for our consideration is whether the prosecution has presented a true version, of the incident ? In a criminal case, more so in a murder case, it is of vital importance that the origin and the manner in which the incident took place should be correctly brought before the Court without suppressing any material fact. It becomes more important when defence comes with an alternative version of the incident. In a criminal case, more so in a murder case, it is of vital importance that the origin and the manner in which the incident took place should be correctly brought before the Court without suppressing any material fact. It becomes more important when defence comes with an alternative version of the incident. For considering respective version of the prosecution and the defence, law is well settled that burden on prosecution lies to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and this burden never shifts on the accused : while burden on the accused is not so onerous and it can be discharged by showing preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. The accused may fail to prove his defence by leading cogent and reliable evidence, but, still he is entitled to get benefit of doubt if from the plea a reasonable doubt is created to the prosecution case." 12. In this background we proceed to examine the prosecution case. The most important question, to be determine, is the question of possession. The prosecution examined Kailash Chand (PW 28) who worked as Patwari in village Manda Bhim Singh from June 1981 till August 1987. According to him, agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 1087 measuring 14 Bighas and two biswas and Khasra No. 1090 measuring 39 Bighas were entered in revenue records in the name of Khatedars Teeku S/o. Lala (⅕th share) Nanu, Bhora sons of Khooba (1/10th share) Gordhan, Jhoota, Bhora, Dhanna, Esra Sons of Mohu (1/10th share) Ananda S/o. Gheesa (⅕th share) Beni S/o. Geedha and Sooja, Kesra Kana Sons of Mahadev ( 2 / 5 th share).This witness exhibited Jama Bandi from 2038 to 2041 as Ex.P 33 and Exhibited Khasra Girdawari form 2039 to 2040 as Ex.P 34. In his cross examination he has categorically stated that: "As per record, Pokhar, Laxman, Manna and Kishan have no right on the said land." Witness Kailash Chand, Patwari (PW 28) has not been declared hostile though he has not supported the prosecution case. The testimony of Kailash Chand establishes the fact that title of land in dispute vests in the accused party.The prosecution has also produced Khasra Girdawaries Ex.R 20 and Ex.R 20 of Samvat 2011 to 2012 and 2015 to 2018 which are not relevant for deciding the prosecution of the party for the years of the incident that is Samvat 2041. The testimony of Kailash Chand establishes the fact that title of land in dispute vests in the accused party.The prosecution has also produced Khasra Girdawaries Ex.R 20 and Ex.R 20 of Samvat 2011 to 2012 and 2015 to 2018 which are not relevant for deciding the prosecution of the party for the years of the incident that is Samvat 2041. 13. Now discussion relating to much talked about document Ex.P 72. The learned PR has termed this document as unregistered partition deed pertaining to land in dispute.Harphool Singh S.H.O. (PW 33) has stated about his document in his examination in chief as under: "Ek Hastlikhit Tehrir Ex.P 72 Mujhe Praptee Hui Thi." (A had written Tehrir' Ex.R 72 was received by me.) None other prosecution witness has said anything relevant about this document so as to connect it with the land in dispute or factum of possession. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, we ourselves have minutely examined this document Ex.R 72. We observed following peculiarities:- (i) It has been reduced in writing in Rajasthani Local direct by one Kanhaya Lal Jain. (ii) It has a reference of Agricultural land Alamsoor Kharoli wala. It seems that there was a dispute between the parties about the said land. It has also been mentioned that if names of parties are wrongly entered they may be corrected. (iii) It has a reference of Jeevan, Ladu Heer and Pokhar Kumhar. (iv) It bears 31.7.53 as the date of its execution. (v) It also bears few thumb impressions and few signatures. 14. Mr. R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention towards the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. He placed reliance on ` Ramakrishna Mohapatra and ors. v. Gangadhar Mohapatra and ors., (AIR 1958 Orissa page 26 para 15) in which it has been observed as under: "The principle underlying section 90 is that if a private document thirty years old on more, is produced from proper custody and is on its face free from suspicion, the Court may presume that it has been signed or written by the person whose signature it bears or in whose handwriting it purports to be and that it has been fully attested and executed, if it purports so to be. In other words, documents thirty years old prove themselves. In other words, documents thirty years old prove themselves. The age of a document, its unsuspicious character, the production from proper custody and other circumstances are the foundation for the presumption as enunciated in the above section. This rule, it is now well-settled, was found on necessity and convenience. It is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to prove the handwriting or signature or execution of ancient documents after the lapse of many years. It is therefore presumed that all persons acquainted with execution of documents, if any, are dead, and proof of those facts are dispensed with. Thus, the presumption related to the execution of the documents, that is, signature, attestation etc. in other words its genuineness, but not to the truth of its contents." The contention of Mr. R.S. Agrawal, learned Public Prosecutor is that document Ex.P. 72 is an old documents of more than 30 years and it should be presumed that it has been signed by the persons whose signatures it bears. 15. We have gone through the decision cited before us. The ratio of the decision is that the presumption relates to the execution of the private document 30 years old or more, that is, signature, attestation etc., in other words presumption of its genuineness, but not to the truth of its contents. As already stated by us the documents Ex.P. 72 has a reference of agricultural land Alamsoor Kharoliwala, it has a reference pertaining to dispute between the parties about an agriculture land and correction of the entries. It also bears few thumb impressions and signatures and it was reduced into writing a local dilact by one Kanhaya Lal Jain. Even if we presume the genuineness of the said document. It is of no help to the prosecution as we cannot presume the truth of its contents. Witness Ladu Ram (PW 18) has been examined by the prosecution and in his cross-examination he stated that he handed over document pertaining to the partition, to the Police but the document Ex.P 72 had not been shown to him. This witness has given a sweeping statement with regard to the possession of the complainant party. 16. The prosecution has adduced oral evidence in support of the possession of the complainant party. This witness has given a sweeping statement with regard to the possession of the complainant party. 16. The prosecution has adduced oral evidence in support of the possession of the complainant party. Jamna (PW 1) has stated that he, Pokhar, Munna and Panna were ploughing agricultural land bearing name Kharoliwala and there was no crop at the time of the incident. The Girdawaries from Samvat 2035 to 2040 were in their names and he was in the possession of the papers of Girdawaries, Panna (PW 2) stated that they were ploughing 40 bighas of agricultural land bearing name Kharoliwala. In his cross-examination he stated that parcha of the said land was in the name of Tikku Ram, Surja Ram, Bena Ram, Bhero, Annanda etc. Keshra and Shobha Ram instituted a revenue suit against them before the said incident. He had a knowledge about the suit and stay order granted by the Court against them. Oral statements regarding possession of the complainant party over the said land were adduced by Shrawan (PW 3), Gulab Chand (PW 4), Munna Ram (PW 4), Bhori (PW 6), Jhamri (PW 7), Gopal (PW 8), Bidami (PW 9), Mangli (PW 10) and Ruda (PW 13). Harphool Singh, I.O. (PW 30) did not know as to who had paid lagan of the land in dispute. He had not enquired about the possession of the land in dispute. He ha only recovered revenue record Ex.P 70 and PW. 71. Ex.P 33, P 34, P 35 and also received documents Ex.P 72 during investigation. Independent witnesses Vishnu Singh (PW 11) and Lachcha Ram (PW 12) have been named in the F.I.R. Witness Vishnu Singh (PW 11) stated in the cross- examination that he did not see any injury on the persons of accused party. He denied that Panna was doing agriculture work in his land. Whereas witness Shrawan (PW 3) in his cross-examination stated that when they reached at their agriculture land Vishnu Singh. Gopi and Lachcha were not present in their field. Similarly Munna Ram (PW 5) also stated that when accused persons inflicted blows and set fire to Kachcha House, nobody was present in the nearby fields. Whereas witness Shrawan (PW 3) in his cross-examination stated that when they reached at their agriculture land Vishnu Singh. Gopi and Lachcha were not present in their field. Similarly Munna Ram (PW 5) also stated that when accused persons inflicted blows and set fire to Kachcha House, nobody was present in the nearby fields. Vishnu Singh had been asked pointed question in the cross-examination by the accused persons that he wanted to take possession of their land and he had strained relations with the accused party though he replied this question in negative but a careful examination of his testimony reveals that he was a interested witness and on account of this reason he told a lie about the injuries sustained by the accused persons. This witness has not appeared before the Court with clean hands and we are unable to accept his testimony as his presence is doubtful even according to the statements of prosecution witnesses Shrwan (PW 3) and Munna Ram (PW 5). Other independent witness Lachcha Ram (PW 12) has also not seen the injuries of accused persons. He has stated in his examination in chief that both the parties were fighting with each-other. He is the servant of Thakur Vishnu Singh and he has not said anything about the possession of the land in dispute. The testimony of Lachcha Ram does not inspire confidence and his presence at the time of incident is doubtful. 17. Now we take up the defence evidence. Gopi (DW 1) who is 65, years of age, has categorically stated that Pokhar, Munna, Laxman, Kishan etc. were never in possession of the land in dispute and he has been seeing continuous possession of the accused persons over the said land and accused persons were paying the rent. Laxman (DW 2) has also stated that Pokhar, Laxman and Manna were never in possession of the said land but the accused persons were in continuous possession of it. Similarly Ramu (DW 3) has also stated that accused persons were in continuous possession of the said land for more than 50 years and Pokhar, Laxman and Panna had never possessed it. 18. After careful scrutinies of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, we are of the view that the title of the land vests in the accused party. 18. After careful scrutinies of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, we are of the view that the title of the land vests in the accused party. So far as the possession of the land is concerned, the prosecution has produced ocular evidence but the same has not been supported by the documents. Kailash Chand, Patwari (PW 28) has also supported the case of the accused. As already stated, the prosecution witnesses, though asserted that they were in possession of Khasra `Girdawaries' pertaining to land in dispute and the said documents were in their names but the documents showing possession of the complainant party have not been placed on record by prosecution. 19. On the other hand the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused inspires confidence. Documents produced by Kailash Chand, Patwari (PW 28) bear the names of the accused party. The Investigation Officer Harphool Singh has also produced the documents which bear the names of the accused party. The document Ex.P 72 does not help the prosecution as nothing could be extricated out of it. 20. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that the accused party was in the possession of the field and the appellants had right of private defence to their property. As no documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution, the evidence adduced by the defence ought to have been relied upon. Mr. R.S. Agrawal, the learned PP, opposed this argument and submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and cannot be discarded on the ground that it was not supported by the documents. 21. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us and carefully examined the record. In the instant case it has been established by the evidence that the accused party was the true owner of the land in question and it was for the prosecution to prove as to when and on which year the complainant party has trespassed over the said land and whether the act of trespass was committed to the knowledge of the true owner. This fact could have been established by producing Khasra Girdawaries pertaining to said land upto Samvat 2033. This fact could have been established by producing Khasra Girdawaries pertaining to said land upto Samvat 2033. Till Samvat 2033, names of trespassers used to be entered in the Khasra Girdawaries and to show the long cultivate possession of the land in question, the evidence of Khasra Girdawari supported by the ocular statements of the witnesses would have been the best evidence. In Baljit Singh and another v. State of U.P. (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2273) , the Apex Court observed as under "Lastly there is one more important circumstance which demolishes the case of the prosecution that Sher Singh and Japar Singh were in actual cultivation of the land. PW 19, the I.O., has tacitly admitted in the evidence at page 75 of the paper book No. 1 that on July 8, 1966 he obtained copies of Khasra and Khatauni from Atma Ram Lakhwal. There two documents would conclusively show as to who was in actual cultivate possession in question, and yet ever though the I.O. had these documents in the possession, he did not chose to file them. From the fact, the only inference that the Court can draw was that if these documents had been produced, they would have been gone against the prosecution." 22. In the instant case also, the prosecution has not produced Khasra Girdawaries to prove long cultivate possession of the complainant party and despite the documents admitted to even in their possession, the witnesses did not chose to file them. Under such circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn by us is that if these documents had been produced, they would have gone against the prosecution. In this view of the matter we are satisfied that the accused party had title of the land in their names and they were in actual physical possession over it. They also had stay order in their favour against the complainant party. This being the position, it is difficult to accept the sweeping statement of the interested prosecution witnesses that the complainant party was in the possession of the land in dispute. The accused party had every right to enter in the land in question and they could not have been termed as "trespassers". By not approaching the case from this angle or vision, the trial court, in our considered opinion has committed error. The accused party had every right to enter in the land in question and they could not have been termed as "trespassers". By not approaching the case from this angle or vision, the trial court, in our considered opinion has committed error. The observation of the trial court that the complainant party was in the possession of the land and the accused party was trespasser, Is not acceptable in view of the finding of the Apex Court in Baljit Singh's case (supra). The finding of the trial court holding the appellants trespassers is based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and it deserves to be set aside. 23. On the peculiar facts of the case where possession of the land has been found with the accused party, it was nothing but high handed action on the part of complainant party to illegally enter into the said land for the purpose of constructing "doli". The accused appellants had taken the plea of right of private defence before the trial court and the trial court rejected it. We are of the view that the trial court had committed illegality in rejecting the plea of right of private defence raised by the accused appellants. As already observed by us, the accused party was in actual physical possession of land in question and they had right to protect their possession. As already discussed by us, 10 accused persons had sustained injuries and the accused party did not inflict more harm then it was absolutely necessary to inflict for the purposes of their defence. There was a free fight between the parties. Both parties were armed with lathies and the injuries attributed to the accused appellants were the results of their act which they did in the exercise of their right of private defence. 24. The contention of the learned PR is not acceptable that injuries sustained by the accused party were simple and insignificant in nature in comparison to the injuries sustained by the deceased Pokhar and others from the side of the prosecution and it was not necessary for the prosecution to have explained the injuries. Whether non- explanation of injuries, sustained by the accused, is fatal or not depends on the facts of the each case. Whether non- explanation of injuries, sustained by the accused, is fatal or not depends on the facts of the each case. In a given case, non-explanation of injuries of simple nature may not be fatal to the prosecution but, in a case like the present one, where the occurrence had taken place in the agricultural field, it assumes importance as to which of the parties opened the attack. The injuries sustained by the accused party cannot be doubted as they were examined on the same day. In the case before us, even the two said independent witnesses Vishnu Singh and Lachcha Ram have not explained the injuries of the accused persons. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it was the duty of the prosecution to give a reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused person in the course of the occurrence. The prosecution, in our considered view, has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented a true version of the incident. The accused persons were the true owners of the land in dispute and were in possession of it. They had acted in their right of private defence and they had a right of property which had to be defended and they cannot be held guilty of the murder of deceased Pokhar. The prosecution had failed to prove the charge Under section 302, 302/149, 148, 447, 325/149, 323/149, 435 I.PC. against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 25. For these reasons, therefore, we allow the appeal of the appellants and set aside the judgment of the trial court. We acquit the accused appellants from the charges under section 302, 302/149, 148, 447, 325/149, 323/149, 435 I.P.C. Accused appellant Mangla is in jail, he will be released forthwith if not required in any other case. All other accused appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******