Judgment B.P.Singh and R.M.Prasad JJ. 1. The eight appellants of this appeal along with one Methur Bhagat, who died during the pedency of the trial, were put for trial before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1987. By this judgment and order dated 27th July, 1988, the Trial Court has convicted appellant No. 1, Anandi Bhagat of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also convicted and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, IPC. Appellant No. 2, Ramdeo Bhagat and Appellant No. 6, Ram Pratap Bhagat have been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, IPC. Appellant No. 7, Garib Mahto has been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, IPC. Appellant-Sailendra Bhagat has been convicted and sentenced under Section 323 and Section 147, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. Appellants 3, 4 and 5 have been found guilty of the offences under Sections 323/148, IPC and Sections 323/147, IPC respectively, but they have been ordered to be released on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 2. The occurrence, in this appeal is said to have taken place on 15th of December, 1985 at about 7 a.m. at village Harnahi, which lies within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baruraj. In the occurrence, the appellants are alleged to have committed murder of Lalita Devi, wife of PW 1, and caused injuries to some other members of the prosecution party. The specific allegation against Anandi Bhagat-appellant No. 1 is that he inflicted bhala blow on the abdomen of Lalita Devi, which resulted in her death. The First Information Report was lodged promptly by Ram Chandra Bhagat (PW 6) at Baruraj Police Station at 8.10 a.m. on the date of occurrence. The case was investigated by Baijnath Singh, Investigating Officer (PW 7), who after comple tion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet, whereafter the appellants were committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The First Information Report was lodged promptly by Ram Chandra Bhagat (PW 6) at Baruraj Police Station at 8.10 a.m. on the date of occurrence. The case was investigated by Baijnath Singh, Investigating Officer (PW 7), who after comple tion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet, whereafter the appellants were committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3. As many as seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. PW 2 is Dr. M.K. Srivastava, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW 7 is the Investigating Officer. The remaining five witnesses claim to be the eye-witnesses of whom PW 3, Bindeshwari Bhagat is a co-villager while remaining four are members of the same family. PW 1, Laxman Bhagat is husband of the deceased while PW 6, Ram Chandra Bhagat is the Informant in the case and brother of PW 1. Bachiya Devi, PW 4 is wife of Ram Chandra Bhagat, PW 6. Prabhawati Devi, PW 5 is daughter of PW 1. The occurrence is said to have taken place just in front of the house of the informant, and, therefore, the prosecution has strongly relied upon the testimony of these witnesses, being the natural witnesses, whose presence cannot be doubted. The ocular account of the occurrence given by these witnesses is supported by the earliest version of the occurrence as disclosed in the First Information Report. The Trial Court has, therefore, accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses and convicted the appellants as noticed earlier. 4. It is not in dispute that Laxman Bhagat, PW 1 and Ram Chandra Bhagat PW 6 are brothers. They have another brother Bhagwan Bhagat, who also lives in the same ancestral home, but there has been a partition of the ancestral home and three brothers occupied three distinct portions of the house, which has a common angan. There is a door leading to Sahan towards north while there is another door on the east, which remains closed. Towards north-east of the Sahan, there is a plot of land (survey plot No. 1065), which was originally owned by the three brothers in equal share, each having 5 dhurs. The said plot of land is only a few yards away from the house of the Informant. Towards north-east of the Sahan, there is a plot of land (survey plot No. 1065), which was originally owned by the three brothers in equal share, each having 5 dhurs. The said plot of land is only a few yards away from the house of the Informant. After partition the two plots of 5 dhurs each towards the west were allotted to PWs 1 and 6 while the remaining 5 dhurs were allotted to the share of Bhagwan Bhagat, which forms the eastern portion of the said plot. Bhagwan Bhagat had sold his portion of the plot to appellant No. 1 Anandi Bhagat, who was in possession of that portion of the plot having survey plot No. 1065. It is also not in dispute that Anandi Bhagat was in possession of portion of the plot purchased by him while PWs 1 and 6 were in possession of 10 dhurs, which fell to their share. It also appears that on the portion of plot No. 1065 which has fallen to the share of PWs 1 and 6 they have their Banthan, where cattle is tethered and a few banana plants have also been planted. The prosecution case is that appellant Anandi Bhagat wanted to forcibly occupy the portion of land which had fallen to the share of PWs 1 and 6. On the date of occurrence, appellant No. 1 Anandi Bhagat along with Methur Bhagat (since deceased) started cutting away the banana plants grown on the land of prosecution witnesses, and started digging the plot. This was noticed by Bachiya Devi, PW 4, who protected, whereupon she was assaulted with spade by Methur Bhagat, who also abused her. When Lalita Devi came to her rescue, Anandi Bhagat brought of bhala from the house of Methur Bhagat and chased them. While Bachiya Devi managed to escape, Lalita Devi suffered a bhala blow on her abdomen and she fell down and died soon after. Apart from Bachiya Devi, PW 4, this occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Ram Chandra Bhagat, PW 6, Laxman Bhagat, PW 1 (husband of the deceased), Prabhawati Devi, PW 5 (daughter of the deceased), and Bindheshwari Bhagat, PW 3, a co-villager and neighbour. It is the prosecution case that when male members of the family protested, Anandi Bhagat called the other appellants who came variously armed and assaulted some members of the prosecution party. 5. It is the prosecution case that when male members of the family protested, Anandi Bhagat called the other appellants who came variously armed and assaulted some members of the prosecution party. 5. Lalita Devi died soonafter and Ram Chandra Bhagat, PW 6, proceeded to the Police Station to lodge a report. He lodged the first information report at 8.10 a.m. at Police Station Baruraj, which was at a distance of about 3 kms. from the village of occurrence. In his first information report, he stated that near his house, there was a plot on which his Bathan was located. In the morning at about 7 a.m. while he was at his house, appellant Anandi Bhagat and Methur Bhagat (deceased) came and started cultivating his land and cutting away the banana plants. His wife (PW 4) objected, to which Methur Bhagat retorted by assaulting her. Thereafter, his brothers wife Lalita Devi (deceased) went to the rescue of Bachiya Devi. Appellant-Anandi Bhagat threw away his spade and brought a bhala from the house of Methur Bhagat and assaulted his brothers wife at his Darwaja. His brothers wife started writhing in pain. He and his brother asked the appellants not to indulge in violence, but Anandi Bhagat called the other appellants, who came variously armed with farsa, bhala, lathi, musal, etc. particulars whereof have been mentioned in the report. Appellant-Anandi Bhagat exhorted his cornpanions to kill both the brothers, whereafter Bharat Bhagat assaulted the informant with bhala, causing injury on his right arm. Thereafter, Anandi Bhagat hurled bhala blows on him, which cut his finger. Methur Bhagat assaulted him with lathi. Seeing the occurrence, his brother Laxman Bhagat managed to escape and started raising alarm. The appellants assaulted his wife and his niece with lathi causing them injuries. It is also alleged that Garib Mahto was at Darwaja of Methur Bhagat and was instigating the appellants to assault them. After the occurrence, the appellants ran away. In the first information report, five villagers have been mentioned, who had witnessed the occurrence, out of whom Bindeshwari Bhagat was examined as PW 3. 6. Dr. M.P. Srivastava, PW 2 performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Lalita Devi on 16.12.1985. He found the following injuries on her persons : (i) Penetrating wound 2" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep found on the right hypocondrium 2" above the right illiac spine. 6. Dr. M.P. Srivastava, PW 2 performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Lalita Devi on 16.12.1985. He found the following injuries on her persons : (i) Penetrating wound 2" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep found on the right hypocondrium 2" above the right illiac spine. Another wound found l"/2" x 1/2, abdominal cavity deep just 1-1/2" below the left superior illiac spine. Both wounds were corresponding to each other. Wound No. 1 was the wound of entry and second wound was the wound of exit caused by penetrating object. On internal dissection the liver, intestine and spleen were found to have sharp cut wound and punctured-I part of blood was present in the abdominal cavity. (ii) Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep found on the wrist joint of left hand. In his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to above-mentioned injuries specially injury No. (i). Injuries were caused by sharp-pointed object, may be bhala. The time that elapsed since death was within 36 hours. Injury No. (i) was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No. (ii) could be caused by the side of bhala. The testimony of PW 2 leaves no room for doubt that Lalita Devi met a homicidal death and died of injuries caused by sharp-pointed weapon such as bhala. 7 At the trial PW 1, Laxman Bhagat deposed that on 15.12.1985 at about 7 a.m. he was at his house, so where his wife and his younger brothers wife, Bachiya Devi. He heard hulla and came out of his house. He saw appellant-Anandi Bhagat brining a bhala from the house of Methur Bhagat. He came running with bhala and seeing him, his wife ran out of fear. However, Anandi Bhagat assaulted Lalita Devi, his brothers wife with bhala, as a result of which she fell down and started writhing in pain. When his brother Ram Chandra Bhagat, PW 6 protested, Anandi Bhagat called the other appellants. In response to the call given by Anandi Bhagat, Methur Bhagat (since deceased) armed with spade, Bharat Bhagat armed with bhala, Ramdeo Bhagat armed with farsa, Shailendra Bhagat armed with lathi, Sukhlal Bhagat armed with musal (pestle), and Ram Pratap Bhagat and Rajeshwar Bhagat with lukari (sticks on which cloth is wrapped for burning at night) came. In response to the call given by Anandi Bhagat, Methur Bhagat (since deceased) armed with spade, Bharat Bhagat armed with bhala, Ramdeo Bhagat armed with farsa, Shailendra Bhagat armed with lathi, Sukhlal Bhagat armed with musal (pestle), and Ram Pratap Bhagat and Rajeshwar Bhagat with lukari (sticks on which cloth is wrapped for burning at night) came. Appellant Garib Mahto stood near Darwaja of Methur Bhagat and supplied weapons to other appellants, and exhorted them to assault the members of the prosecution party. Ram Chandra Bhagat, PW 6 was assaulted by Bharat Bhagat with bhala while Anandi Bhagat hurled a bhala blow on him which injured his finger, when he attempted to ward off the blow. Ram Chandra Bhagat managed to escape. Thereafter, Shailendra Bhagat assaulted his daughter Prabhawati Devi, PW 5 with lathi. Ramdeo Bhagat with a farsa chased this witness, but he managed to escape. After the assault, the appellants ran away and when this witenss went near his wife, he found her dead. It was stated by this witness that at his Bathan Anandi Bhagat and Methur Bhagat had cut the banana plants and dug up the land. When his brothers wife went and protested followed by his wife Lalita Devi (deceased), his brothers wife was assaulted whereupon his wife raised alarm. It was on hearing the alarm that he came out of the house and witnessed the occurrence. This witness has deposed to the effect that he lives with his two brothers in the same house, which has been partitioned and there is a Darwaja towards north of the house which has a common angan. In front of Darwaja, there is a Sahan which is about 1-1/2 Laggi i.e. approximately 15 feet in width. This witness has also deposed to the effect that survey plot No. 1065 was partitioned between the three brothers and his brother Bhagwan Bhagat had sold his share of plot measuring 6 dhurs to Anandi Bhagat. The bathan of the witness is located on the remaining 10 dhurs of land of that plot which was approximately 40 ft. x 20 ft. Anandi Bhagat wanted them to give up that portion of land. Towards the south western corner of the disputed land there was a well. This witness was examined by the Investigating Officer and in his presence other witnesses had also been examined. x 20 ft. Anandi Bhagat wanted them to give up that portion of land. Towards the south western corner of the disputed land there was a well. This witness was examined by the Investigating Officer and in his presence other witnesses had also been examined. This witness has further deposed that they were inside the house but on hearing hulla, they came out and saw that Lalita Devi (deceased) and Bachiya Devi, PW 4 were running towards the house. They also, thereafter, witnessed the occurrence as it took place. This witness denied the suggestion put by the defence that this witness along with others had attempted to forcibly take possession of the portion of the land sold to appellant Anandi Bhagat, and that in course of that occurrence when they started assaulting the members of the defence party, Lalita Devi (deceased) wanted to prevent them from doing so and that in that process this witness hurled his bhala at his wife. This witness has also admitted that a counter-case was lodged in respect of the same occurrence, but that was a few days after the occurrence. 8. PW 3, Bindeshwari Bhagat is not related to the informant and claims to be a co-villager and living near the house of the informant at a distance of about 100-150 feet. He had witnessed the occurrence while standing near his Darwaja. The version given by this witness is substantially the same as the version disclosed in the First Information Report. This witness has described in detail the manner in which Lalita Devi was assaulted as also Prabhawati Devi and Ram Chandra Bhagat. He had seen the two ladies running away and appellant Anandi Bhagat chasing them and piercing bhala in the abdomen of Lalita Devi (deceased). We have read his deposition carefully and we find no infirmity or inconsistency in his deposition which may lead us to reject his testimony. 9. PW 4 Bachiya Devi has also given a graphic description of the manner in which the occurrence took place. She has stated that at about 7 a.m. she was collecting cowdung at her bathan which was adjacent north-east of her house. At that time Methur Bhagat (deceased) and appellant Anandi Bhagat came with spade and while Methur Bhagat started digging earth, Anandi Bhagat started cutting banana plants. When she protested, Methur Bhagat hit her with his spade and abused her. At that time Methur Bhagat (deceased) and appellant Anandi Bhagat came with spade and while Methur Bhagat started digging earth, Anandi Bhagat started cutting banana plants. When she protested, Methur Bhagat hit her with his spade and abused her. Lalita Devi came to her rescue and then appellant Anandi Bhagat went to the house of Methur Bhagat nearby and brought a bhala and chased them. She managed to run ahead of Lalita Devi, but Anandi Bhagat gave bhala blow on the right side of the abdomen of Lalita Devi, who fell down and started writhing in pain. This witness started weeping. Her husband and husbands brother came out hearing the alarm raised by them. Anandi Bhagat called the other appellants whom she has named including the weapons carried by them. There is hardly anything in the cross-examination of this witness to discredit her. She has stood the test of cross-examination well and even Counsel for the appellants could not point out anything in her testimony, which may persuade us suspect the truthfulness of the version deposed to by her. 10. Prabhawati Devi, PW 5 (daughter of the deceased) has also given the same version of the occurrence. The Informant, who has been examined as PW 6 has deposed at the trial and his testimony in Court is fully corroborated by the First Information Report lodged by them. 11. The testimony of the eye- witnesses is consistent and there appears to be no reason to suspect the truthfulness of these witnesses. Even the objective findings of the Investigating Officer, PW 7 support the prosecutibn version. The Investigating Officer had found that the house of the Informant was facing north. Just outside the house of the Informant, there was Sahan and to the north-east of the Sahan, there was survey plot No. 1065, where he was shown the bathan of the Informant. Towards south-western corner of the land in dispute, there was a well and to the south of the well there was a Bari. The dead body of the deceased was lying little west of that Bari. Having regard to the description of the place of occurrence as disclosed by the Investigating Officer as also by the eye-witnesses examined at the trial, it appears that there was Sahan of the Informant just in front of the house towards north. The dead body of the deceased was lying little west of that Bari. Having regard to the description of the place of occurrence as disclosed by the Investigating Officer as also by the eye-witnesses examined at the trial, it appears that there was Sahan of the Informant just in front of the house towards north. On the north-eastern corner of the Sahan there was survey plot No. 1065, part of which was sold to appellant-Anandi Bhagat. The first part of the occurrence took place near the bathan located on survey plot No. 1065 and the two females were chased by Anandi Bhagat, who had brought a bhala from the house of Methur Bhagat. Naturally, the two ladies ran towards their house and while PW 4 Bachiya Devi managed to reach her house, Lalita Devi was assaulted near the well or near the Bari, which is on the way to her house from the bathan. Counsel for the appellants tried to impress upon us the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found lying a little west of the Bari and not near the Darwaja as was deposed by PW 1. We do not attach much importance to this aspect of the matter because it is not in dispute that the dead body of Lalita Devi was lying on the eastern portion of her Sahan, and the bathan, where the occurrence originated is to the north-east of the Sahan of the Informant. Obviously, when she was chased, she came running towards her house and while she was attempting to do so, she was assaulted somewhere near the well or near the Bari. That appears to be the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses. PW 1 has no doubt stated that she was assaulted at her Darwaja but that does not mean that Lalita Devi had reached the main entrance of the house when she was assaulted. When the villagers say that something has happened at the Darwaja, they mean that some incident has taken place near the main entrance or in front of the house and not necessarily at the door literally. In this case also, the dead body was found just near the house, only a few feel away from the main entrance, and, therefore, we find no discrepancy in the testimony of PW 1 on this account. In this case also, the dead body was found just near the house, only a few feel away from the main entrance, and, therefore, we find no discrepancy in the testimony of PW 1 on this account. It was then submitted that as many as five witnesses of the village were named in the First Information Report, but only one of them has been examined. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses named in the First Information Report. As many as four eyewitnesses have been examined, who were members of the family and their presence cannot be disputed. Apart from them, another independent witness named in the First Information Report has been examined. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all other witnesses named in the First Information Report. 12. It was then submitted that in the post-mortem report the Doctor has mentioned about the existence of another injuries on the left wrist joint of the deceased. This injury has not been explained by the prosecution. The doctor has opined that such injury could have been caused by the side portion of bhala. This injury is not such as must have been noticed by the witnesses when inflicted. This apart the possibility of the same bhala blow causing the injury on the abdomen and on the wrist cannot be ruled out because in the process of piercing the abdomen, the bhala may have caused on injury on the wrist of the deceased. 13. Counsel then submitted that there is a counter-case lodged by these appellants and that in the said counter case charge-sheet has been submitted alleging offence under Section 323/147, IPC. We do not know whether any conviction has been recorded in that case because the result has been made known to us. Having regard to the materials on record, we are not in a position to hold that any injury was suffered by the members of the defence party because there is no injury report on the record nor is there any other evidence to prove the nature of injury suffered by any member of the defence party. Having regard to the materials on record, we are not in a position to hold that any injury was suffered by the members of the defence party because there is no injury report on the record nor is there any other evidence to prove the nature of injury suffered by any member of the defence party. Even the right of private defence of person or property cannot be spelt out from the facts of the case, and if one is to go by the suggestion but to the prosecution witnesses, it was PW 1 Laxman Bhagat who killed his wife. The suggestion appears to us to be baseless and unworthy of acceptance because there was no reason for PW 1 to kill his own wife when she was being chased by the appellant Anandi Bhagat and she was running to save her life. The appellants cannot derive any advantage from the fact that a counter- case has been lodged by them. 14. Having carefully considered the evidence on record, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Apart from Anandi Bhagat and Methur Bhagat, others appear to have come on the scene only after Lalita Devi had been assaulted by Anandi Bhagat. They have, therefore, rightly not been convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Their conviction under Sections 147,148, 323, IPC, etc. appears to be justified. 15. In the result, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence if any.