Judgment GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 378, Cr. P. C. has been directed against the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta ( 2 ) THE prosecution case relates to an incident which occurred on 29-9-1976 at 12. 00 Noon in village Indokali in which Umaida Ram was murdered and some persons received injuries. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by Ganesh Ram son of deceased at about 1. 45 a. m. on 30-9-1976. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302, 302 read with 34, 325 read with 34 and 323, I. P. C. All the four accused respondents pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Accused in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied having committed any offence. The plea of the accused Bhagwant Ram was that he was not at the place of occurrence. Hari Ram accused pleaded that when he was collecting grass by a jeli, Umaida, Ganesha and Tulchha went there, abused him and Ganesha snatched kassi which was in the hands of his mother and caused injuries by kassi to her and Tulchha gave a lathi blow on her head and therefore, he had to use his jeli to save his mother. Chhoga Ram and Bhuri also raised the plea of self-defence. The accused respondents examined 2 witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties held that accused Bhagwant Ram was not at the place of occurrence. He further held that Bhuri and Chhoga Ram accused respondent had inflicted blows in the exercise of their right of private defence. For that Hari Ram, accused, the learned Sessions Judge observed that be had exceeded the right of private defence and had committed offence under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. Looking to his age, he was released on probation. ( 3 ) THE arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State and Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard, ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Bohra, was that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the accused had a right of private defence to cause hurt to any person. His submission was that the participation in the occurrence of the accused Bhagwant was also fully established by the evidence on record. ( 5 ) MR. Bohra, was that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the accused had a right of private defence to cause hurt to any person. His submission was that the participation in the occurrence of the accused Bhagwant was also fully established by the evidence on record. ( 5 ) MR. Mehta, on the other hand, has tried to support the Judgement of Trial Court. ( 6 ) WE have given the matter our anxious considerations. ( 7 ) THE first point that arises for determination is whether the respondent Bhagwant had also participated in the occurrence. Harka Ram (PW 5) is said to be eye- witness to the occurrence. He has clearly deposed that he had not seen accused Bhagwant Ram taking part in the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has stated in clear terms that he had not seen accused Bhagwant Ram at the spot. However, at another place, he has stated that he had seen accused Bhagwant Ram running in the southern side. It is obvious from the statement of Harka Ram that even if Bhagwant was seen somewhere in the southern side of the place of occurrence, he had not participated in the occurrence. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the participation of accused Bhagwant Ram in the occurrence was not fully established and he has rightly been acquitted. ( 8 ) COMING to the second contention pertaining to right of private defence, it is relevant to point out that Ganesha who had lodged the FIR has admitted in unequivocal terms that the accused had cut the grass from the southern side of dora and they had not cut grass from the Northern side of the dhora, "dhora" divides two fields owned by different persons. It is not in dispute that the field belonging to the complainant party was situate on the Southern side and that of the accused party was situate in Southern side. When it is admitted position that accused had cut grass from the southern side of "dora", it has to be found that they had not trespassed over the land of the complainant party and had not committed any other offence also. When it is admitted position that accused had cut grass from the southern side of "dora", it has to be found that they had not trespassed over the land of the complainant party and had not committed any other offence also. However, the prosecution has come with a case that it is the custom in the, village that "dhora" in between the two fields is used by the villagers in such a manner that dhoras situate in southern side and eastern side are used by the owners of those fields which are situate in northern and western side of those dhoras. However, the so-called custom is not proved by convincing evidence on record. Jeewan Ram (PW 2), who has given evidence regarding such a custom, has admitted in his cross-examination in clear terms that on whose land the dhora is situate, the owner of that field is entitled to take grass of that dhora. It is thus clear that there is no such custom in the village regarding taking of grass from the dhora as has been set up by the Prosecution. It is not the case for prosecution that the dhora from where the accused were cutting grass was part of the land of complainant party. The prosecution has not examined the Patwari who could depose on the basis of measurement that dhora was situate on the land of complainant party or accused party. However, accused have examined Brij Mohan Patwari in this regard, Brij Mohan has clearly deposed that dhora lying in between the fields of the parties is owned by Lakha (father of accused Hari Ram) upto 220 ft and remaining 210 feet was owned by both the parties in equal share. Thus it is obvious that the place from where the accused were cutting the grass was part of their agricultural land and they had every right to cut grass thereform. ( 9 ) THE defence case is that the complainant party obstructed the accused party from cutting grass on the southern side of dhora and Umaida (Deceased), Tulchha having lathies in their hands had gone there, abused them and Ganesh inflicted kassi blow to Bhuri and Tulchha Ram gave lathis blow on the head of Bhuri and therefore, Hari Ram had to intervene to rescue his mother. The learned trial Court has believed this version. The learned trial Court has believed this version. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in accepting this version of the accused as Bhuri, Hari Ram and Chokha Ram were not trespassers and were working on their own land and it was the complainant party who had gone there and inflicted blows on Bhuri. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to Dr. Suresh Chand Maheshwari (PW 10) there was a lacerated wound at the left front to parietal region of scalp of Bhuri and the upper and outer portion of her left ear (helix) had also cut and separated. According to the doctor this injury on the ear was of grievous nature and was caused by sharp edged weapon. The prosecution witnesses had stated during investigation that Bhuri had sustained injuries with kassi in that occurrence. The relevant portions of their police statements are proved on record by the statement of Jayant singh, Investigating Officer (PW 9 ). Dr. Suresh Chand had deposed that the injury on ear could be caused by light and very sharp cutting weapon. On seeing the kassi, he deposed that he could not say as to what was the sharpness of that weapon at the time of its use. Thus, Dr. Suresh Chand is not definite that the injury on ear of Bhuri was caused by kassi shown to him during his examination. It is obvious that the prosecution witnesses when they were examined in Court, have concealed the important fact that in that occurrence Bhuri had sustained injuries by sharp weapon. It was the duty of the prosecution to have explained the injuries of Mst. Bhuri which were not of the insignificant nature. Rather one of the injuries was of grievous nature and the wound was even on the vital part of the body. ( 11 ) HARI Ram, who is son of Bhuri in the circumstances, that without any reason the complainant party had caused injuries to Mst. Bhuri, was perfectly justified in coming to her rescue and use force. The learned Sessions Judge has held that Hari Ram exceeded the right of private defence when he inflicted lathi blow with great force on the head of Umaida Ram, He has, therefore, convicted him under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be held to be erroneous. The learned Sessions Judge has held that Hari Ram exceeded the right of private defence when he inflicted lathi blow with great force on the head of Umaida Ram, He has, therefore, convicted him under Section 304 Part II, I. P. C. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be held to be erroneous. ( 12 ) AS regards the other accused respondents, it cannot be said that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse. There is no scope to take a view other than the one taken by the Sessions Judge. It is settled principle of law that while considering the appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal even if on the evidence two views were possible. It is not a case where the learned Sessions Judge has omitted to consider some important evidence against the accused respondents or has misread the evidence produced against them. No case of interference is, thus, made out. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we find no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.