JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal under Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code State of Rajasthan has challenged the acquittal of respondents Birbal Ram, Rajendra, Krishanlal and Jitendra by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide Judgment dated 12.2.82 under Section 302, 307, 323, 302 read with Section 34 and 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. On 30.4.81 at about 7 p.m. there was an incident in which deceased Chunni Ram and PWs Nanu Ram, Nand Ram, Satyanarayan, and Smt. Chandra and Shanti and Smt. Bodo (not examined) had sustained injuries. The injured and the deceased were taken to the hospital where Tej Singh, ASI PS Chunawat recorded the statement of injured Nanu Ram. In that statement Nanu Ram revealed that his father Chunni Ram was going to the `Dhani' after alighting the bus and when he reached near the `Dhani' of accused Birbal, Krishan, Rajendra and Jitendra gave beatings to his father telling that he often quarrelled over the water course (tIMl). They dragged his father in their Dhani' and gave beatings. He stated that at the time of occurrence Krishna had a club, Rajendra and Jitendra `Batta' of a lathi and Birbal had a `Jaffa'. He further stated that when he went there to save his father, he was also given beatings and so also Satyanarayan, Nand Ram, Chanda, Shanti, Sharda and Inder were given beatings. It was stated that it is on the intervention of Sukhram and Maniram that the accused stopped giving beatings. It was revealed that Chunni Ram died while on way to the hospital. On this statement a case under Section 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered. The police collected the injury reports of the injured persons and the post-mortem report of Chunni Ram, inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. After the completion of usual investigation, the police challaned them. 3. Charges under Sections 302, 307 and 323 Indian Penal Code were framed against all the 4 accused persons. Alternative charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code were also framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Nanu Ram, PW 2 Mst. Chanda, PW 3 Raji Ram, PW 4 Mani Ram, PW 5 Sukhram, PW 6 Satyanarayan, PW 7 Nand Ram, PW 8 Dr. Vijay Kumar, PW 9 Dr. Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Nanu Ram, PW 2 Mst. Chanda, PW 3 Raji Ram, PW 4 Mani Ram, PW 5 Sukhram, PW 6 Satyanarayan, PW 7 Nand Ram, PW 8 Dr. Vijay Kumar, PW 9 Dr. Rajendra Kumar, PW 10 Dhanraj, PW 11 Jamnalal, PW 12 Dr. Gangaram, PW 13 Jagdish Chandra, SHO and PW 14 Taj Mohd. ASI. Accused in their statements under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code denied the correctness of the prosecution story. Accused Birbal pleaded that he was not present at the place of occurrence. The other three accused admitted their presence at the place of occurrence. They further admitted that they had caused injuries to Chunni Ram and other persons. They set up a case that they had to cause injuries to the members of the complainant party in the exercise of their right of private defence. Accused did not examine any person in defence. The learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. He found that Chunni Ram's death was homicidal. He also found that Nand Ram, Nanu, Satyanarayan, Shanti, Bodo and Chanda had sustained injuries in the occurrence. He held that the accused had inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party in the exercise of their right of private defence. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused respondents. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State appellant and Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record of the case. 5. The contention of Mr. Singhvi was that the accused were inimical to the members of the complainant party and noticing Chunni Ram all alone they attacked and dragged him to their field. He submitted that as the accused had first attacked Chunni Ram who was all alone, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the accused had a right of private defence to cause injuries to the members of the complainant party. 6. Mr. Garg, on the other, hand tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He pointed out various circumstances, which according to him, lead to irresistible conclusion that thfe complainant party was the aggressor and the accused had to cause injuries to save themselves from further beatings. 7. We have given the matter our anxious consideration. 8. 6. Mr. Garg, on the other, hand tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. He pointed out various circumstances, which according to him, lead to irresistible conclusion that thfe complainant party was the aggressor and the accused had to cause injuries to save themselves from further beatings. 7. We have given the matter our anxious consideration. 8. It is now no more in dispute that there was an occurrence of beating on 30.4.81 in which Chunni Ram sustained head injury and he died after some time because of that injury. Besides the statements of the eye- witnesses, there is the medical evidence contained in the statement of Dr. Rajendra Kumar (PW 9) who deposes to have conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of Chunni Ram. According to him, there was a lacerated wound on the left occipital region of Chunni Ram which led to intra cranial hemorrhage. He opines that the head injury of Chunni Ram was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. By this evidence, it is amply proved that Chunni Ram had met homicidal death and the cause of his death was the injury suffered by him in the occurrence. 9. Nand Ram (PW 7), Satyanarayan (PW 6), Chanda (PW 2) and Nanu Ram (PW 1) deposed that they had suffered injuries in the occurrence. The injuries which they have pointed out were found by the medical officers who examined them. Their injury reports are Ex.P/15 (Chanda), Ex.P/17 (Nanu Ram), Ex.P/19 (Nand Ram) and Ex.P/18 (Satyanarayan). The injury reports indicate that Chanda had suffered 3 simple injuries, two of which were on her scalp, Nanu Ram had suffered 8 injuries out of which 7 were the lacerated wounds inflicted on his head, Satyanarayan had suffered two injuries out of which one was on his head and Nand Ram had suffered two injuries. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence in this regard. It is fully established that Chanda, Nanu Ram, Satyanarayan and Nand Ram had sustained blunt weapon injuries in that occurrence. By the statement of Dr. Gangaram (PW 12) it is also established that a rib of Nanu Ram was found fractured on x-ray examination. It is, therefore, proved that in that occurrence Nanu Ram had suffered one grievous injury also besides the other injuries. 10. By the statement of Dr. Gangaram (PW 12) it is also established that a rib of Nanu Ram was found fractured on x-ray examination. It is, therefore, proved that in that occurrence Nanu Ram had suffered one grievous injury also besides the other injuries. 10. The prosecution also came with the case that in that occurrence Bodo Bai and Santi were also given beatings and they had suffered multiple injuries. However, the prosecution has not examined Bodo Bai and Smt. Shanti. The injury reports of Bodo Bai (Ex.P/16) and that of Shanti (Ex.P/20) have been admitted by the defence counsel. It is therefore obvious that the accused do not dispute that Santi and Bodo Bai had also suffered injuries in the occurrence. 11. Before proceedings further regarding the prosecution case we would like to look at the injury reports of accused Rajendra Prasad, Jitendra and Krishanlal Ex.D/6 to D/8. These injury reports have been proved by'Dr. Rajendra Kumar (PW 9). Even the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the accused had sustained injuries in that occurrence. Therefore, it is fully established that the three accused persons had also suffered injuries in the occurrence. According to the injury report Ex.D/6, Rajendra had sustained 7 injuries out of which one was lacerated wound on his head. Injury Report Ex.D/7 indicates that Jitendra had suffered 3 injuries out of which two were lacerated wounds on his head. As per injury Report Ex.D/8 Krishan had suffered 9 injuries out of which two were laderated wounds on his head. Injury found on his right forearm was found to be of grievous nature on x-ray examination. 12. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in the agricultural field of accused persons. The prosecution witnesses want the court to believe that when the accused took away Chunni Ram Dragging him in their field, the witnesses had to go there to save Chunni Ram. According to the prosecution, the occurrence first started outside the field of the accused where one injury was inflicted on Chunni Ram's head and thereafter the accused dragged him to their field. 13. The first question to be determined is whether the accused had caused any injury outside their field when Chunni Ram was on the passage. According to the prosecution, the occurrence first started outside the field of the accused where one injury was inflicted on Chunni Ram's head and thereafter the accused dragged him to their field. 13. The first question to be determined is whether the accused had caused any injury outside their field when Chunni Ram was on the passage. In the FIR Ex.P/1 it was stated that on seeing Chunni Ram, Birbal shouted that they were fed up with the water course dispute and they should teach a lesson to Chunni Ram and then the accused ran towards Chunni Ram and dragged him in their "Dhani". All the prosecution witnesses deposed that Krishna had inflicted one lathi blow on the temporal region of Chunni Ram when he was on the passage. This important fact however does not find place in the FIR and the police statements of the witnesses. The attention of the witnesses was drawn towards this important omission. Their explanation was that they stated before the police but they could not say why the police did not write. This explanation cannot be accepted. Had the witnesses stated so, the investigating officer had no reason to omit this important fact from their statements. The very circumstances that this fact is not stated in the FIR Ex.P/1 and in the statements recorded Under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code goes to show that this was not the version of the prosecution witnesses at the investigation stage that accused Krishna had landed a lathi blow on the temporal region of Chunni Ram when he was on his way to his `Dhani'. Obviously, this improvement has been made in order to explain as to in what circumstances the prosecution witnesses had to go in the agricultural field of the accused party. 14. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are not consistent on the point as to how Chunni Ram was taken in the `Dhani' from the passage. The statements of Nanu Ram (PW 9), Raji Ram (PW 3), Satyanarayan (PW 6) and Nand Ram (PW 7) indicate that all the four accused dragged Chunni Ram from the way towards their Khaiiyan; whereas the statement of Chanda (PW 2) indicates that only two accused had gone in the passage and they had taken Chunni Ram to their field by giving pushes (sic). She nowhere says that the 4 accused persons had encircled Chunni Ram which fact is deposed by. other witnesses. Then some of the witnesses depose that Chunni Ram was dragged by the assailants whereas the other witnesses state that he was given kicks. One fitness even deposes that having suffered injury on his temporal bone. Chunni Ram had fallen on the ground whereas the other witnesses deposed that he did not fall on the ground on sustaining the head injury. These contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses which are not an insignificant aspect of the occurrence lead us to infer that the witnesses are telling lies and they have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. In our opinion, no occurrence took place when Chunni Ram was in the passage and was going to the `Dhani'. The prosecution witnesses have made improvements regarding this part of the occurrence in order to justify their entry in the agricultural field of the accused persons. 15. There are other circumstances on record which probablise the defence version that the members of the complainant party had attacked the accused persons in their field and the accused had to repel the force in exercise of their right of private defence. (i) The first circumstances is that the accused did not have the weapons in their hands while causing injuries which are usually used when the incident is preplanned. According to the prosecution witnesses accused Birbal had a `Jaffa', accused Jitendra and Rajendra had `Batta' and Krishanlal had a lathi. `Jaffa's and `Batta's are made of wood and they are used to clean the earth and lift the fodder. If the accused had intended to do away with the life of Chunni Ram as is alleged by the prosecution, they would have armed themselves with the weapons of common use. It seems that when the members of the complainant party attacked, they lifted the `Batta' and `Jaffa's which were lying there for agricultural work. (II) The next circumstance is that at the time of the site inspection by the investigating officer, he found a broken `Gandasi' lying there. The iron portion of the `Gandasi' was lying at one side and the wooden handle in broken condition was lying on the other side. Not only this, the investigating officer also noticed that the wooden handle of the `Gandasi' was blood stained. The iron portion of the `Gandasi' was lying at one side and the wooden handle in broken condition was lying on the other side. Not only this, the investigating officer also noticed that the wooden handle of the `Gandasi' was blood stained. It is not the case for the prosecution that any of the accused persons had a `Gandasi' in his hand. When this is not the version of the prosecution witnesses'that the `Gandasi' found lying there belonged to the accused party, the only inference that can be raised is that someone of the complainant party had gone in the field of the accused armed with `Gandasi. It seems that when the complainant party attacked, the accused persons, the latter over-powered the former and the `Gandasi' was broken rendering the assailant disarmed (iii) The version of Satyanarayan (PW 6) that he had gone there unarmed and seeing that the accused were inflicting blows to his father and other members of the family he picked up a `Chosangi'/'Tangli' (a wooden club having 4 horns which is used to lift soil, fodder etc.) from there and waived it and thereby caused injuries to the accused can not be accepted. The investigating officer did not find any `Chosangi' lying at the spot Satyanarayan does not say that he had thrown away the `Chosangi' at the spot. By this only it can be inferred that Satyanarayan had taken the said `Chosangi' with him obviously because it belonged to him. It is thus obvious that Satyanarayan had gone there armed with a `Chosangi'. The defence suggestion to Satyanarayan (PW 6) that Nand Ram had a `Kassi' in his hand at the time of occurrence had not been denied by him. He simply avoided the question by saying that he did not remember. In our opinion, the witnesses were armed with weapons like `Chosangi', 'Gandasi' and `Kassi' and they have given false statements that they had gone to the field of accused unarmed. (iv) A perusal of the injury reports of the three accused persons reveals that multiple injuries were caused to them. Rajendra had suffered as many as 7 injuries; Jitendra had suffered 3 injuries and Krishanlal had suffered 9 injuries. There were injuries on the head of all the three accused viz. Krishanlal, Jitendra and Rajendra. Even one grievous injury was suffered by Krishanlal. Rajendra had suffered as many as 7 injuries; Jitendra had suffered 3 injuries and Krishanlal had suffered 9 injuries. There were injuries on the head of all the three accused viz. Krishanlal, Jitendra and Rajendra. Even one grievous injury was suffered by Krishanlal. The fact that so many injuries were caused to the three accused goes to show that the persons other than Satyanarayan had also inflicted blows to the members of the accused party. (v) The occurrence had taken place in the background of the incident which took place at about 4 p.m. on the same day. Satyanarayan (PW 6) deposes that he was cleaning the water course of his field when accused Jitpndra went there and abused him and caught him by his neck and he left him on the intervention of Mani Ram and Sukh Ram. This incident is also narrated by Mani Ram (PW 4) and Raji Ram (PW 3. Sukh Ram has not been examined. There are some discrepancies in the statements of Satyanarayan and Raji Ram regarding the place where Jitendra went and manhandled Satyanarayan but we ignore this discrepancy considering it to be an insignificant point. In our view, on the incident of 4 p.m. the aggrieved persons could be the members of the complainant party. Jitendra had manhandled Satyanarayan. Satyanarayan does not deposed to have done anything against Jitendra. Therefore, there could not be the feeling of taking revenge in themind of Jitendra and his family members. Such a feeling could be there in the mind of Satyanarayan. Besides that at the time of the incident of 4 p.m. Chunni Ram was not there. As such the accused party had no reason to attack Chunni Ram. (vi) Mani Ram and Raji Ram who have appeared as eye witnesses have reason to depose in favour of the complainant party. It appears from the statement of Raji Ram (PW 3) that Satyanarayan had worked in his field on the date of the occurrence. Mani Ram even conceals the fact that Rajendra, Krishan and Jitendra had suffered injuries in the occurrence which fact is not even disputed by Satyanarayan. Both these witnesses, it is obvious, are thick with the complainant party and therefore, they have come to depose against the accused persons. Mani Ram even conceals the fact that Rajendra, Krishan and Jitendra had suffered injuries in the occurrence which fact is not even disputed by Satyanarayan. Both these witnesses, it is obvious, are thick with the complainant party and therefore, they have come to depose against the accused persons. (vii) It has been the case of the accused from the very beginning that the complainant party had attacked them and they had lodged a report of the occurrence. Even Jagdish Chandra I.O. (PW 13) admits that accused Krishanlal had also lodged report about the incident. According to him the investigation of that FIR was handed over to Taj Mohd. ASI. It is rather surprising that the investigation of this case was conducted by Jagdish Chandra and the investigation of the cross FIR was handed over to Taj Mohd. Admittedly, two FIRs were lodged in respect of the same occurrence. Both the parties set up their cases in the FIRs. It was, therefore, to be investigated by the police to find out which party was the aggressor. This could be rightly ascertained had the same I.O. investigated both the cases. In that case he could challan the party who was aggressor. In the preceeding paras we have found that the complainant party was the aggressor and the deceased and the injured had gone to the field of the accused having weapons in their hands. The investigation in the above circumstances cannot be held to be fair and impartial. 16. It is true that it is not stated by the accused that Chunni Ram deceased had inflicted or even attempted to inflict injuries on them but in our view under Sections 97 and 100 Indian Penal Code right of private defence of a person arises to the accused not only against the person who actually inflicts a blow but against all the members of that party which had attacked. 17. It is also true that in the occurrence the harm of members of the complainant party was more in comparison to the suffering of the accused person in as much as one member of the complainant party died and six persons received as many as 23 injuries as against the total 18 injuries of all the accused, but on this ground it cannot be said that the accused had exceeded the right of private defence. A person faced imminent peril of life and limb of himself or other is not expected to weight in `golden scales' the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he at the heat of moment carries his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind the law makes due allowance of it : vide Mohd. Ramzan v. State of Delhi, 1980 SC 1341 . In the instant case not less than 3 male and 3 female members had gone to the field of the accused having weapons like `Gandasi' and `Chosangi' with them. There would be obvious apprehension in the mind of the four accused who were doing their work in the field that atleast grievous hurts would be caused to them and when they were attacked, they were well within their rights in lifting the implements available to them to ward of the danger. If in that process more harm was caused to the complainant partythe accused cannot be convicted for exceeding the right of private defence. 18. As a result of the above discussion, we agree with the trial Court that the accused had inflicted injuries to the deceased and the witnesses in exercise of their right of private defence and they have not committed any offence. The trial Court's conclusions cannot be held to be pulpably wrong or manifestly erroneous. 19. In the premises aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******