JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.9.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Shiganganagar in Sessions Case No. 97/82 convicting the accused-appellants under section 304 sentencing them to suffer 10 years r.i. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' r.i. on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also as canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor I have scrutinised the evidence on record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. Shri M.L. Garg counsel for the appellants submits as under- 4. That the learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the prosecution evidence has chosen to convict the accused persons out of 10 accused persons under Section 302 and 149 i.RC. having held that the presence of the eye- witnesses Ogar Singh and Jagrup Singh itself have not been proved hence it is difficult to accept the prosecution story. The learned Judge has observed in para No. 26 as under- " 26- vfHk;kstu dh mDr lk{; ls ;g fo'oluh; :i ls izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; tx:i flag vkSj mxzflag ekStwn jgs gksa vkSj mUgksaus ?kVuk dks ns[kk gksA " 5. The learned Judge in para No. 32 has observed that the recoveries have also been proved by the prosecution, as under- " 32- bu lHkh cjkenxh;ksa ds lEcU/k esa ,d ckr dguk pkgwaxkA cjkenxh;ksa ds ipksZa esa iklZyksa dk ukedj.k ;Fkk ,0ch0lh0 vkfn djds ugha fd;k x;k FkkA fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk ds izfrosnu esa vu iklZyksa dks ukedj.k ,0,0ch0ch0 1] lh0lh0 1 vkfn dgdj fd;k x;k gSA fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk us iklZyksa dk ukedj.k fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k ;g Li"V ugha gSA " 6. Relying on this finding of the learned Sessions Judge, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that conviction only to the two accused persons in the circumstances is not permissible. Relying on this finding of the learned Sessions Judge, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that conviction only to the two accused persons in the circumstances is not permissible. After scrutiny of the record and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse and there is no challenge to those findings From the scrutiny of the judgment, it is found that only reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the two appellants out of 10 accused persons is there and statement in their defence that there were no aggression and the injury if any caused by them was not for self-defence of person. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is incorrect and impermissible in law. It is no doubt true that corroboration to prosecution evidence can be sought from the finding of the evidence but where the prosecution does not come out with particular case of free fight and the defence claims right of private defence of person and property, reliance cannot be placed solely on this evidence and conviction cannot be recorded. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, erred in law in recording the order of conviction. In such circumstances the reliance was placed by the learned Judge reported in 1982 Cr.LJ 173 Kerala High Court. 7. On overall appreciation of the contentions raised above, I agree with the learned counsel that the conviction solely on the defence version is not possible or permissible particularly when the learned Judge disbelieving the persons as eye-witnesses and disregarding the recoveries as chosen to convict two accused persons out of 10 accused persons. 8. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set-aside. The bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******