Judgment A.S. Godara, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 23/24-7-1981 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 58/80. The learned Sessions Judge, after completion of trial, vide his impugned Judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Nos. 1 to 7 as under: 1) Pahar Singh Under Section 302 IPC life imprisonment Sentenced to 1000/-and, in and, fine of Rs. payment of fine, to default of one year’s further undergo imprisonment, rigorous Under Section 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment of and fine and, in Rupees 1000/-payment of fine, to default of one year’s further undergo imprisonment, rigorous Under Section 325/149 IPC Three years’ rigorous a fine of imprisonment and default of Rs. 300/-and, in to further payment of fine months’ rigorous undergo four imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC Three months’ simple imprison- Rs, 100/-and ment and fine of payment of fine in default of undergo 15 days’ to further imprisonment, simple Under Section 323/149 IPC Three months’ simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and ment and fine of payment of fine in default of to further undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100 and in payment of fine to 15 days’ simple 2) Bhav Singh life imprisonment 1000/-and in payment of fine to one year’s imprisonment. imprisonment and fine of and in default of to further year’s rigorous rigorous imprison- of Rs. 300/-of payment of undergo four rigorous imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days simple Three months’ ment and fine of default of further undergo imprisonment. Sentenced to and fine of Rs. default of further undergo rigorous Under Section 302/149 IPC Life Rupees 1000/-payment of fine undergo one imprisonment. Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months, Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Under Section 147 IPC Under Section 302 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison-Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. 3) Jog Singh imprisonment and fine of and in default of to further year’s rigorous rigorous imprison- of Rupees 300/-of payment of undergo four imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison-Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. 3) Jog Singh imprisonment and fine of and in default of to further year’s rigorous rigorous imprison- of Rupees 300/-of payment of undergo four imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Life Rupees 1000/-payment of fine undergo one imprisonment. Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months’ rigorous Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Under Section 323/149 IPC Under Section 147 IPC Under Section 302/149 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. 4) Chandan Singh and fine of Rs. default of payment further undergo five imprisonment. and fine of default of to further months’ rigorous rigorous imprison- of Rs. 300/-of payment of undergo four imprisonment. simple imprison- Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Five years RI 700/-and in of fine to months’ rigorous Three years’ RI Rs. 300 and in payment of fine undergo four imprisonment. Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months’ rigorous Three months’ ment and fine of Under Section 323/149 IPC Under Section 147 IPC Under Section 307 IPC Under Section 325 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. 5) Asu Singh and fine of default of to furthere months’ rigorous rigorous imprison- of Rupees 300/-of payment of undergo four imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and Under Section 323/149 IPC Under Section 147 IPC Under Section 307/149 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Five years’ R.I. Rs. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and Under Section 323/149 IPC Under Section 147 IPC Under Section 307/149 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Five years’ R.I. Rs. 700/-and in payment of fine undergo five imprisonment. Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months’ rigorous Three months’ ment and fine of payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days’ imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-and payment of fine undergo 15 days imprisonment. 6) Man Singh rigorous imprison- of Rupees 300/-of payment of undergo four rigorous imprison- of Rupees 300/-of payment of undergo four imprisonment. simple imprison- Rs. 100/-in Under Section 323/149 IPC Under Section 147 Under Section 325 IPC Under Section 325/149 IPC Under Section 323 IPC in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three months’ ment and fine of in default of to further simple Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months’ R.I. Three years’ ment and a fine and in default fine to further months’ rigorous Three months’ ment and fine of default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC Three months’ simple imprison- ment and fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 147 IPC Three months’ simple imprison- ment and fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. 7. Moti Singh Under Section 325 IPC Three years’ rigorous imprison- ment and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months’ R.I. Under Section 325/149 IPC Three years’ rigorous imprison- ment and a fine of Rs. 300/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months’ rigorous imprisonment. Three months’ Under Section 323 IPC simple imprison- ment and a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC Three months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Three months’ Under Section 323 IPC simple imprison- ment and a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 323/149 IPC Three months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Under Section 147 IPC Three months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences of all the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. .2. Asregards appellants Nos. 8 to 21, they were convicted under Sections 325/149, 323, 323/149 and 149, I.P.C. and, at the same time, they were acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. However, after their conviction, as above, the learned trial Judge instead of sentencing them immediately, extended .benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and ordered their release on probation of good conduct and keeping peace for a period of three years on their execution of a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/-and a surety bond in the like amount. 3. By the same Judgment and order, learned trial Judge acquitted the accused Bhoor Singh, Hanjiya, Pabu Singh, Gulab Singh, Durjan Singh, Chatra, Janiya, Soniya, Jhepa, Kesiya and Kevada of offence under Sections 147, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149, 323 and 323/149, I.P.C. However, as regard the order of acquittal of aforesaid accused persons, the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal and so far as accused persons who have been acquitted as above for alleged commission of offence for which they were tried by the trial Court, their acquittal has become final. 4. However, the appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order have preferred this appeal as above. 5. Briefly slated the facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, on being summarised are as under: 6. The appellants are residents of village Nagani of Distt. Jalore, Kheta (deceased) as well as Amba (PW 2), Roopa (PW 3), Samrath Singh (PW 4), Bhora (PW 5), Bagia (PW 6), Ukia (PW 7), Jagta (PW 8), Varda (PW 9), Gamna (PW 10), and Jawan Singh (PW 11) are residents of village Deegaon. The agricultural fields of these persons popularly known as Tokaniwala is situated in the territory of village Bhetala. The agricultural fields of these persons popularly known as Tokaniwala is situated in the territory of village Bhetala. PW 9 Varda accompanied by the injured witnesses, who is son of Kheta (deceased) lodged report (Ex. P/2) with Bakhtawar Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Bagra on 12-8-80 at 5.00 PM alleging therein that a public way from village Deegaon to their fields situated in village Bhetala passes through the fields of appellants Pahar Singh, Bhav Singh, Balwant Singh, Vad Singh, Punama Ghanchi etc. situated in the territory of village Nagani falling in between the villages Deegaon and Bhetala. The villagers of Deegaon whose fields are so situated in village Bhetala have been using the aforesaid public way passing from the fields of aforesaid accused persons from the time immemorial. However, sometime preceding the incident which took place on 12-8-80 itself at about 1.00 PM, the aforesaid accused and their associates through whose fields, the way from Deegaon to their fields in Bhetala is situated, started raising obstructions in the way thereby attempting to restrain them from passing through the way whereas there was no convenient alternative way to go to their fields and return to their village Deegaon. .7. Sometime before this incident, the aforesaid accused Pahar Singh etc. had closed the way passing from their fields and as a result, Kheta reported this matter through the Collector, to the Tehsildar who enquired into the matter and, after hearing claims of both the sides, ordered for opening of way by clearance of obstruction raised thereon and, accordingly, the obstructions were removed and the aforesaid agriculturists of village Deegaon including Varda, Kheta etc. started going and coming through the aforesaid public way to their fields situated in village Bhetala. About 4-5 days prior to the date of incident, the aforesaid Khatedars and cultivators of fields falling in the village Nagani dug ditches on the way obstructing the same. On the fateful day, Kheta accompanied by PW 2 to PW 13 and Chena started from their village Deegaon for their fields in village Bhetala through the aforesaid way, but on their arrival, they found that Pahar Singh, Bhav Singh, Punama, Bheek Singh, Balwant Singh etc. had so dug ditches and put long plants on the same causing obstruction on the way. However, Kheta and his associates removed the bushes/thorny plants etc. had so dug ditches and put long plants on the same causing obstruction on the way. However, Kheta and his associates removed the bushes/thorny plants etc. and filled up ditch with sand and removed the bushes/thorny plants etc. and after clearing the obstructions so caused on the land of way, they went to their fields in village Bhetala. After doing needful and having taken rounds of their fields, at about 1.00 p.m., Kheta and his associates including Varda started for their village Deegaon through the aforesaid way. They had two bullock carts with them. When they were passing from the way passing through the field of Bhima Ganchi, which was being cultivated by Tikama Ganchi, all the accused persons, presently appellants, and all those who have been acquitted after the trial, being armed with lathi forming an unlawful ass6mbly, were present in the field of Bhima. When they were passing by their side towards village Deegaon, Pahar Singh hurled vulgar abuses at Kheta and challenged him as to why did he clear the obstructions raised in his field on the land of disputed way. Kheta replied that it was the Government which had given them a right of way on the disputed land which also passed through his field and so they passed from the way. Pahar Singh immediately gave a forceful lathi blow on the head of Kheta, as a result of which, his turbon was thrown off to the ground. Bhav Singh gave another blow of Jathi on the head of Kheta and Kheta fell down. Bhoor Singh inflicted lathi blow on the left hand and arm of Kheta. Pahar Singh and Bhav Singh inflicted repeated lathi blows on his ribs and, thereafter, all the other accused persons also started assaulting all the persons accompanying Khela as a result of which Amba, Roopa, Samrath Singh, Bhura, Bagia, Ukia, Jagta, Varda, Gamna and Jawan Singh (PW 2 to PW 11) were injured. Out of them. Amba and Jawan Singh received grievous injuries while rest of the injured persons received simple injuries. Kheta, due to multiple injuries, became unconscious on the spot. Amba, also became unconscious due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away towards the village Nagani. Shrinath Singh, immediately, went to the village Deegaon and brought bullock cart of Varda on the spot. Kheta, due to multiple injuries, became unconscious on the spot. Amba, also became unconscious due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away towards the village Nagani. Shrinath Singh, immediately, went to the village Deegaon and brought bullock cart of Varda on the spot. They .physically lifted both Kheta and Amba and put them on the bullock cart, Varda and his associates carrying injured persons on the cart left towards village Bagra to report the incident to the police. However, after covering a distance of 3-4 fields, Kheta succumbed to his injuries and hence the cart on which the dead body was lying, was left in the village Deegaon & Anr. bullock cart was procured on which all the injured person were seated and they headed towards the police station Bagra whereat the report was lodged by Varda Ram. 8. Bakhtawar Singh (PW1 8) on the basis of aforesaid report, registered FIR No. 31/80 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and commenced investigation. 9. Heinspected injuries of all the injured witnesses and prepared their injury reports Ex. P-33 to Ex. P-42. All the injured persons were referred to the Government Hospital, Bagra for examination of their injuries and treatment. 10. Dr. Om Prakash Sharma, (PW 17) Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Bagra inspected injuries of injured persons i.e. Amba, Roopa, Samrath Singh, Bhuria, Bagia, Ukia, Jagta, Varda, Gamna, and Jawan Singh which are detailed in Exs. P-20, 26, 25, 29, 23, 27, 30, 31, 28 and 22 injury reports respectively. 11. Since some of the injuries of Amba (PW 2) and Jawan Singh (PW 11) were suspected to be grievous, accordingly, they were referred for X-ray of their injured parts of the body to the Govt. Hospital, Jalore whereat Dr. Rajendra Prasad Purohit, (PW 16), Medical Jurist, arranged for their X-rays. Dr. Rajendra Prasad on examination of X-ray report of Amba found, as per Ex. P-li, that metacarpal bone of left little finger was fractured. Similarly on the basis of findings of X-ray plate, Ex. P-12, it transpired that right rib of Amba was also fractured and, as a result, both the injuries, as per findings given in Ex. P-14, were opined to be grievous in nature. 10.12. P-li, that metacarpal bone of left little finger was fractured. Similarly on the basis of findings of X-ray plate, Ex. P-12, it transpired that right rib of Amba was also fractured and, as a result, both the injuries, as per findings given in Ex. P-14, were opined to be grievous in nature. 10.12. Similarly on the basis of X-ray report of Jawan Singh, it was found that his fronto parietal bone was fractured and so also there was fracture of ulna bone of left hand at its midshaft region and so both the injuries of Jawan Singh were found to be grievous. .13. Dr. Omprakash (PW 17), on 13-8-80, conducted post-mortem of the dead body of Kheta, as per Ex. P/32 PMR, in the outskirt of village Deegaon itself and he found the following external injuries on the dead body: Wound: 1. A lacerated wound 2.5 cms. x 0.5 cm x bone deep oblique in direction in parieto occipital region of left side. 2. A lacerated wound, oblique in direction 4 cm x 0.4 cm x bone deep in right parietal region 2 cm away from right parietal side. Bruises: 1. A bruise transverse in direction on lateral side of left arm 9 cm x 3 cm in size 10.5 cm away from lateral epicondye of left humerus. 2. Abruise of 6.5 cm x 3 cm on lateral side right arm 1.5 cms. away from lateral epicondye of right humerus. 3. A bruise oblique in direction on right side of back 29 cm x 2.5 cm in size extending upto right crest. 4. Abruise 13.5 x 2.5 cm in size oblique in direction extending from lower part of right side of back to the upper part of absence meeting the bruise No. 3,12.3 cms above the right iliac crest. 5. A bruise 14 cmx 2.5 cm in right scapular region oblique in direction. 6. A bruise 12 cms x 2.5 cms in back (left side of back) oblique in direction. 14. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem and caused by a blunt weapon. Dr. Sharma opined that cause of death was internal haemorrhage due to rupture of liver. 15. Bakhtawar Singh (PW 18), after inspection of place of occurrence, prepared Ex. P-44 site plan and inquest report of dead body Ex. P1 43. 14. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem and caused by a blunt weapon. Dr. Sharma opined that cause of death was internal haemorrhage due to rupture of liver. 15. Bakhtawar Singh (PW 18), after inspection of place of occurrence, prepared Ex. P-44 site plan and inquest report of dead body Ex. P1 43. It was found that occurrence took place in the field of Bhima Ganchi where at many patches of blood stained soil were found and their samples were taken. He also found that there were trails of a permanent way passing through the field of Bhima at the site. He also found two ploughs, as also reported in the FIR itself by Varda, left at the site. He arrested all the accused persons along with Omsingh, Umaid Singh etc. 16. After completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against all the 32 accused persons of Ex. P-2 report as well as against Oma alias Umpaid Singh in the Court of Judl. Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments for charge, discharged Oma alias Ambsingh from the alleged charges vide his order dated 30-1 1-80 and the same has gone unchallenged. Rest all the 32 accused persons were charged with commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325/149, 323 and 329/149, I.P.C. to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial was completed. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. 17. The accused persons were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution story and instead, maintained that they did not commit any offence and so also denied the incident as alleged by the prosecution. 18. Accused Jhepa, Bhik Singh, Pahar Singh, Bhav Singh and Maud Singh pleaded alibi and they examined DW 1 Ganga Singh, DW 2 Shav Singh, PW 3 Dhonkal Singh and also Dhan Singh respectively in support of their defence plea. DW 5 Kanjeet Singh was examined in defence to show that there was no way as claimed by the prosecution witnesses. 19. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned Judgment and order dated 23/24-7-1981, convicted and sentenced the appellants Nos. DW 5 Kanjeet Singh was examined in defence to show that there was no way as claimed by the prosecution witnesses. 19. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned Judgment and order dated 23/24-7-1981, convicted and sentenced the appellants Nos. 1 to 7, as above, while extended benefit of probation of Offenders Act to the appellants 8 to 21, acquitting other accused persons and hence this appeal by the appellants as referred to hereinbefore. 20. It may also be mentioned that State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal of accused persons who were tried along with the appellants and hence their order of acquittal has acquired finality. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and have also gone through the evidence on record of trial Court as well as impugned Judgment and we have given our considerate thought to the rival contentions. 22. Thelearned counsel for the appellants, in the first instant, while assailing the impugned Judgment contended that there is voluminous evidence available on record of trial Court but the learned Sessions Judge entirely tailed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and, in a half hearted manner, taking a superficial view of the evidence, convicted the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge erroneously held that Bhima Ghanchi could have claimed the right of private defence of property in whose field the alleged incident took place whereas, his co-accused persons had no right of private defence of property. The revenue Tehsildar (PW 15) Doongar Singh had no jurisdiction to have inquired into and ordered for opening the way as claimed by Kheta and his associates and hence the villagers of Deegaon were not vested with any legal right to pass through the fields of the Khatedars of village Nagani through which the villagers of Deegaon claimed their right of way. Besides in case there was any obstruction on the way passing from the fields of accused persons, only legal course left for the alleged injured witnesses was to have approached the public authorities for legal remedy, if any, but the learned trial Judge failed to give benefit of exercise of right of defence of property to the accused persons and the view of learned trial Judge in regard to the prosecution evidence is erroneous resulting in perverse finding of guilt of accused persons warranting its reversal. 9.23. As borne out of the impugned Judgment and order of sentences, learned trial Judge has illegally convicted the appellants 1 to 3 only under Section 3 02/149 while acquitting rest of the accused persons of the same offence. Accordingly, only three persons could not have formed any unlawful assembly as required by Section 141, I.P.C. Besides, alleged fatal injuries of Kheta are neither attributed to appellant Pahar Singh nor to Bhav Singh and, therefore, at the same time, each of them could not have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter. On the same ground, appellants Chandan Singh and Asu Singh also could not have been liable for commission of offence under Section 307 simpliciter, as well as under Section 307/149, I.P.C. on the face of acquittal of their co-accused persons from the similar. 24. As regards, appellant Jog Singh, who is son of appellant Pahar Singh, it has been submitted that he was aged not more than 16 years at the time of the incident who is falsely implicated in this case and besides Bhoor Singh who was alleged to have been named in array of assailants of deceased Kheta has been given a good -bye by the prosecution witnesses whereas during the course of investigation, Bhoor Singh was also accused of causing injuries to the deceased kheta. 25. Ithas also been contended that appellants Moti Singh and Man Singh have been sentenced with imprisonment of various terms, as above, while similarly situated 14 accused persons have been extended benefit of release on probation of good conduct. 25. Ithas also been contended that appellants Moti Singh and Man Singh have been sentenced with imprisonment of various terms, as above, while similarly situated 14 accused persons have been extended benefit of release on probation of good conduct. Lastly, it has been contended that there was no intention on the part of any appellant either to kill Kheta or to cause the grievous injury nor there was any unlawful assembly formed with the common object of causing death or grievous injuries to any person and, therefore, at any rate, the liability of the accused persons whose involvement in the alleged incident is proved beyond reasonable doubt, does not travel beyond the ambit of Sections 325/149, I.P.C. and hence conviction of appellants under Sections 302, 302/149, 307, and 307/149, I.P.C. is not sustainable. 26. Accordingly, it has been submitted that Pahar Singh was aged about 67 years while Jog Singh and Chandan Singh, Asu Singh and Man Singh were 16, 21, 30 and 20 years at the time of alleged occurrence and in view of the circumstances, in case they are held liable for commission of offence under Section 325/149, I.P.C, there is every justification for extending benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the exclusion of Jogsingh being a juvenile offender, not liable to be convicted and sentenced. However, the learned.-Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed aforesaid contentions raised from the side of the appellants while supporting the legality and correctness of the impugned Judgment and the order. 27. However, the learned P.P. vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised from the side of the appellants while supporting the legality and correctness of the impugned Judgment and the order. 28. Before adverting to dispose of the aforesaid contentions raised from the side of the appellants, we think it appropriate to discuss, appreciate and reappraise the prosecution evidence as well as the defence advanced by the appellants before the trial Court to find out any irregularity, unreasonableness or illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 29. Thelearned trial Judge has based his findings of guilt of the accused-appellants, as above, on the basis of evidence mainly of injured witnesses who are P.Ws. 2 to 11 besides P.W. 12 Kalia and P.W. 13 Shivnath Singh who were also in the company of injured witnesses at the time of incident. 29. Thelearned trial Judge has based his findings of guilt of the accused-appellants, as above, on the basis of evidence mainly of injured witnesses who are P.Ws. 2 to 11 besides P.W. 12 Kalia and P.W. 13 Shivnath Singh who were also in the company of injured witnesses at the time of incident. Besides, there is overwhelming medical evidence in addition to other circumstances. 30. As regards the factum of violent and unnatural death of Kheta as a result of injuries caused in the aforesaid incident, there is no dispute nor there is any scope for disputing the same. P.Ws. 2 to 11, who are respectively Amba, Roopa Samrath Singh, Bura, Bagia, Ukia, Jagta, Varda, Gamna and Jawan Singh, have clearly stated that Kheta, who was in the forefront pleading and defending their right of way passing through the fields of the accused-persons situated in the village Nagani through which Kheta and all the injured witnesses who are residents of village Deegaon had access to their fields popularly known as “Tokariwalas” situated in village Bhetala and there was no other short and convenient way while Pahar Singh and his co-accused persons through whose fields the way passed, were always opposed to the same and the appellant Pahar Singh was leader of the opposite party consisting of the accused-persons and, accordingly, there was, admittedly, animosity between Kheta and his ‘associates, most of whom are injured witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution, on the one side and Pahar Singh and his associates, accused-appellants, on the other side. 8.31. All these injured witnesses have clearly stated that no sooner all of them, while returning from their fields Tokaniwala, after having a round thereof , to their village Deegaon, all the accused-persons were, being armed with lathis, present in the field of Bheema Ghanchi and it was Pahar Singh who vulgarly abused and challenged Kheta and his companions and when Kheta asserted that they had a legal right as also affirmed by the Revenue Tehsildar, Jalore, time and again, to pass from the way leading their fields to their village and Pahar Singh his accomplices had no legal right to obstruct and restrain them from passing from the way which passed through their fields from the times immemorial. Resultantly, he was assaulted and, as a result of injuries received by him, he fell and, as a result of injuries received at the hands of the assailants, he died while he was being transported on bullock-cart from the scene of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bagara alter coverage of two to three fields from there and hence the bullock-cart with his dead body was left at the outskirts of the village Deegaon. 9.32. P.W. 17 Dr. CXP. Sharma, who was Medical Officer-in-charge of the Government Dispensary, Bagara, performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Kheta and he found wounds and injuries on his person, as already detailed hereinbefore, vide Ex.P.32 post-mortem report. He clearly opined that the cause of death of Kheta was internal haemorrhage due to rupture of liver. He did notice lacerated wounds on his parieto-occipital region of left side as well as right parieto-fronto region but both these injuries were simple in nature and, as a result of internal examination of liver, he found that the right lobe of liver was lacerated and his left humerus bone was also found fractured. Thus, as a result of post-mortem and medical examination of the dead body of Kheta, the proximate cause of his death was rupture of liver as result of being lacerated, besides, having received as many as 5 more injuries as are noted therein. 10.33. There is neither any suggestion nor any circumstance to hold that all the injuries including the fatal one received by deceased Kheta were not received in this incident and so there was no other direct or indirect contributory factor leading to his death and hence the learned trial Judge did not commit any error in holding that Kheta died an unnatural and violent death at the hands of the assailants in this incident. It was a clear case of homicidal death. 11.34. Similarly, so far as the injured persons P.W. 3 Roopa, P.W. 4 Samrath Singh, P.W. 5 Bhura, P.W. 6 Bagia, P.W. 7, Ukia, P.W. 8 Jagta, P.W. 9 Varda and P. W. 10 Gamna are concerned, as stated by all these injured persons and so also borne out of Ex. P.2 FIR lodged by P.W. 9 Varda and so also supported by P.W. 18 Bhaktawar Singh, S.H.O. on the basis of Exs.P.33 to P.42 and also corroborated by the statements of P.W. 17 Dr. P.2 FIR lodged by P.W. 9 Varda and so also supported by P.W. 18 Bhaktawar Singh, S.H.O. on the basis of Exs.P.33 to P.42 and also corroborated by the statements of P.W. 17 Dr. O.P. Sharma and also revealed from their respective injury reports being Ex.Ps. 26, 25, 29, 23, 27, 30, 31 and 28. All these injured persons who have appeared as prosecution witnesses received multiple injuries in this incident and this factum has also not been successfully challenged by the defence either before the trial Court or before this Court as well. Besides, so far as the injuries of these injured persons are concerned, their statements are further corroborated from the evidence of P.W. 12 Kalia and P.W. 13 Shivnath Singh. Therefore, we are in full agreement with the findings of the learned trial Judge that all these nine injured prosecution witnesses were also assaulted and received multiple injuries, being simple, in this very incident. 2.35. Asregards P.W. 2 Amba and P.W. 11 Jawan Singh, they have stated that they received grievous injuries at the hands of the assailants. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 3 to 10 have also lent further corroboration to the statements of injured P.W. 2 Amba and P.W. 11 Jawan Singh. So are also the statements of P.W. 12 Kalia and