M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE present seven appellants along with one another Hari Ram were put to trial in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 1984 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia. The co-accused Hari Ram died during the pendency of the trial and the case against him abated. The present seven appellants have been convicted and sentenced by Sri S. K. Pandey, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia by the judgment and order dated 6-8-1986. Out of them, Kharpattu, Dharam Deo, Ram Awadh and Satya Narain have been convicted under Section 148, I. P. C. , 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and 323, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo I1/2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, I. P. C. , life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC read with Section 149, I. P. C. 4 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and six months rigo-rous imprisonment under Section 323 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. Remaining three accused-appellants Mahangi, Harish Chandra and Lachhan Deo have been convicted under Section 147 I. P. C. , 302 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. , 307 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. and 323 I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo one years rigo-rous imprisonment under Section 147, I. P. C. and for the remaining offences the sentences are similar as those awarded to the first named four accused-appellants. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE profile of the prosecution case, shorn of superficialities, may be set forth. One Ram Awadh was murdered in this incident and four others namely, Govardhan. Shyam Bali, Jai Ram and Shyam Deo sustained injuries. The incident took place on 30-8-1984 at about 10. 30 a. m. in village Bakrabad, Police Station Haldharpur, District Ballia. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was seven kilometers. The informant was PW 1 Ram Badan brother of the deceased Ram Awadh. Shyam Bali, Jai Ram and Shyam Deo sustained injuries. The incident took place on 30-8-1984 at about 10. 30 a. m. in village Bakrabad, Police Station Haldharpur, District Ballia. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was seven kilometers. The informant was PW 1 Ram Badan brother of the deceased Ram Awadh. There was dispute and enmity between the parties over Abadi land of plot No. 198 situate in the said village. All the accused appellants allegedly belonged to a clique or group. On the fateful day and time, they assembled on the Abadi land in question and started digging a hole in the ground to embed a hand pipe. Hari Ram (deceased) and the present accused-appellants Ram Awadh and Satya Narain were armed with Gandasas, accused appellants Kharpattu and Dharam Deo had spades and the remaining three Harish Chandra, Manhagi and Lachhan Deo had lathis. PW 3 Shyam Bali, Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha asked the accused appellants not to embed the hand, pump in the Abadhi land. An alteration ensued and the accused-appellants started assaulting PW 3 Shyam Bali. The shouts attracted PW 1 Ram Badan complainant, his elder brother Ram Awadh (deceased), their father Govardhan, PW 2 Dahari, Jai Ram, Dharam Deo son of Phaujdar and Ram Barai who tried to intervene. The accused appellants made repeated assaults on Ram Awadh with Gandasas and spades who fell down and died. Govardhan Shaym Bali, Jai Ram and Shyam Deo sustained injuries. On the lodging of such first information report by PW 1 Ram Badan at 12. 30 p. m. on 30-8-1984 a case under Sections 147/148/149/307/302, I. P. C. was registered. The investigation followed which was taken up by PW 5 S. I. Abdul Qayum Khan. He reached the spot and prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased including other necessary papers. The site plan was also prepared by him and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Ultimately the accused appellants and Hari Ram (deceased) were charge sheeted. ( 3 ) POST-MORTEM over the dead body of the deceased Ram Awadh was conducted by PW 7 Dr. G. P. Tripathi on 31-8-1984 at 4 pm. The deceased was aged about 32 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person. 1. ( 3 ) POST-MORTEM over the dead body of the deceased Ram Awadh was conducted by PW 7 Dr. G. P. Tripathi on 31-8-1984 at 4 pm. The deceased was aged about 32 years and about one day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person. 1. Incised wound size 9 cm x 1 cm x whole thickness of cheek from left angle of mouth towards the left mandible. 2. Incised wound size 11 cm x 3 cm x bone deep from right ear downward along the right mandible. 3. Incised wound size 5. 5 cm x 3. 5 cm x bone deep on the forehead 2. 5 cm above the root of nose. ( 4 ) THE death had occurred due to coma resulting from ante-mortem injury No. 3. ( 5 ) PW 8 Dr. R. C. Rai had examined the injuries of Govardhan on 30-8-1984 at 5. 45 p. m. in District Hospital Ballia. As per injury report Ex. Ka 16 the following injuries were found on his person. 1. A contusion about 9 cm x 5 cm over the posterior aspect of proximal part of left forearm. Red in colour. 2. A contusion about 11 cm x 2 cm on the front of right chest about 2 cm below the right nipple. Contusion placed horizontally, Red in colour. 3. A lacerated wound about 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep situated on the left side of head about 5 cm medial and 7 cm posterior to the left parietal eminence. Soft clot seen inside the wound. 4. An incised wound about 9 cm x 1. 5 cm x cavity deep on the back on right side about 3 cm above and 3 cm media to the inferior angel of right scapula. Wound obliquely placed. 5. A lacerated wound about 4. 5 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep over the right side of head about 2 cm medial and 2 cm anterior to the right parietal eminence. Another lacerated wound seen crossing the first one and placed in antero-posterior direction and of the size of 5 cm x 0. 3 cm x scalp deep. Soft clot seen in both the wounds. ( 6 ) IN incised wound seen near the right molar prominence of size 4 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep. 6. Injuries Nos. Another lacerated wound seen crossing the first one and placed in antero-posterior direction and of the size of 5 cm x 0. 3 cm x scalp deep. Soft clot seen in both the wounds. ( 6 ) IN incised wound seen near the right molar prominence of size 4 cm x 0. 2 cm x skin deep. 6. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were simple and they as well as injuries No. 3 and 5 had been caused by some blunt and hard object. Injuries No. 4 and 6 had been caused by some sharp edged weapon X-ray of chest and skull was advised. On X-ray being taken, fracture of his 5th right rib was found. ( 7 ) PW 8 Dr. R. C. Rai had also examined the injuries of PW 3 Shyam Bali at 5. 55 P. M. As per the injury report Ex. Ka 17 the following injuries were found on his person : 1. An incised wound about 6 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep over the right side of head just in front of right parletal eminence. Soft clot seen inside the wound. Advised x-ray of skull. 2. A contusion about 6 cm x 2 cm on the posterior aspect of right forearm about 8 cm from the elbow joint longitudinally placed. Red in colour. 3. An incised wound about 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep on the back of right hand near the third and 4th metacarpal joint. Soft clot in the wound. 4. An incised wound about 4 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep over the skin of left leg about 10 cm from the knee joint. 5. Incised wound about 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x bone deep over the front of left leg about 2 cm below the injury described in No. 4. Soft clot in the wound. ( 8 ) INJURIES No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 had been caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 1 had been kept under observation. X-ray of skull was advised. Injury No. 2 was caused by some blunt and hard object and was simple. On X-ray being taken, depressed fracture of right parietal bone was found. ( 9 ) THE injuries of PW 4 Shyam Deo were also examined by PW 8 Dr. R. C. Rai on 30-8-1984 at about 6. X-ray of skull was advised. Injury No. 2 was caused by some blunt and hard object and was simple. On X-ray being taken, depressed fracture of right parietal bone was found. ( 9 ) THE injuries of PW 4 Shyam Deo were also examined by PW 8 Dr. R. C. Rai on 30-8-1984 at about 6. 05 P. M. As per injury report Ex. Ka-18 the following injuries were found on his person : 1. A contusion about 5 cm x 4 cm on the medial aspect of left forearm about 3 cm from the left wrist joint. Red in colour. 2. A contused swelling about 7 cm x 6 cm on the posterior aspect of left forearm near the left elbow joint. Red in colour. 3. An abrasion about 1 cm. x 1 cm on the outer aspect of left upper arm about 6 cm from the lateral end of left clavicle. Red. 4. An abrasion about 1 cm x 1 cm over the iliac crest (right ). 5. A penetrating injury about 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x skin deep over the left side of abdomen about 3 cm from the midline. No bleeding. Injury over the mid abdomen. Complaint of pain over the right thigh. ( 10 ) INJURIES No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 had been caused by blunt and hard object whereas injury No. 5 had been caused by sharp pointed weapon. ( 11 ) THE injuries of Jai Ram had been examined by PW 11 Dr. R. N. Sharma on 31-8-1984 at 7 A. M. As per the injury report Ex. Ka 22 following injuries were found on his person : 1. Abraded contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm over left side head 8 cm above left ear root. Oblique, contused part reddish. 2. Abraded contusion of 3. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm over posterior aspect of left side head 8. 5. cm away from left ear root. Contused part reddish. 3. Lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep over front of right leg 24 cm below right knee joint. Blood clot present, column reddish. 4. Abrasion of 2 cm x 0. 25 cm over medial side of left foot 2 cm above the root of legs big toe. 5. Abrasion of 2 cm x 0. 3. Lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0. 5 cm x muscle deep over front of right leg 24 cm below right knee joint. Blood clot present, column reddish. 4. Abrasion of 2 cm x 0. 25 cm over medial side of left foot 2 cm above the root of legs big toe. 5. Abrasion of 2 cm x 0. 25 cm over lateral side of left foot 3 cm below lateral malleolus bone (left ). ( 12 ) ALL his injuries were simple and were caused by blunt and hard object. ( 13 ) THE defence of the accused-appellants was that the prosecution had presented a distorted picture and that they had been falsely implicated; that the disputed land was actually plot No. 200 which had been purchased by Satya Narain accused from Roop Dhar; that he had sown the crop of Chari therein; that Shyam Bali, Shyam Deo, Jai Ram, Govardhan and Ram Awadh (on prosecution side) started forcibly harvesting the said Chari crop; that Hari Ram accused (now deceased) asked them not do so whereupon Shyam Bali and others ass-aulted Hari Ram with lathis; that Hari Ram sustained injuries in his head; that on the shouts of Hari Ram, the ladies of his house reached there and then Hari Ram with pharse and the women folk with other weapons assaulted PW 3 Shyam Bali and others in defence; that Hari Ram had gone to lodge the first information report but the same was not taken down and he was shut up by the police. Cumulatively, this was the gist of the defence taken by the accused-appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. ( 14 ) BESIDES relying on documentary evidence the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, PW 1 Ram Badan, PW 2 Dahari. PW 3 Shyam Bali and PW 4 Shyam Deo were examined as eye witnesses. PW 3 Shyam Bali and PW 4 Shyam Deo were themselves injured also. The remaining witnesses were doctors, X-ray technician. Investigating Officer and formal police witnesses. ( 15 ) THE accused-appellants examined DW 1 Dr. Vijay Kumar who had examined the injuries of the accused Hari Ram (now deceased) on 31-8-1984 at 12 O clock in the noon. As per the injury report Ex. Kha 1 the following two injuries were found on his person : 1. Lacerated injury 2. Investigating Officer and formal police witnesses. ( 15 ) THE accused-appellants examined DW 1 Dr. Vijay Kumar who had examined the injuries of the accused Hari Ram (now deceased) on 31-8-1984 at 12 O clock in the noon. As per the injury report Ex. Kha 1 the following two injuries were found on his person : 1. Lacerated injury 2. 5 m x 0. 5 cm x bone deep on the scalp of left side 9 cm around left ear region. 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm present on posterior aspect of left elbow. ( 16 ) BOTH the injuries had been caused by hard and blunt object and were simple. DW 2 Tilaku was examined in support of defence version, the gist of which has already been set out above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and evidence. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved, they have come up in appeal. ( 17 ) WE have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A. G. A. on behalf of respondent-State. The argument from the side of the accused-appellants is that persons on the prosecution side were the aggressors who committed criminal trespass over the land in their possession where the incident took place and even caused injuries to Hari Ram on their side (deceased-accused ). Therefore, the action on the part of accused-appellants was simply in the exercise of their right of private defence of property and person which they could legitimately do under the law of the land and as such they did not commit any offence. On the other hand, the argument of learned A. G. A. is that actually the accused-appellants were the aggressors who formed an unlawful assembly, committed the murder of Ram Awadh and caused injuries to Govardhan, Shyam Bali, Jai Ram and Shyam Deo. According to him, there did not arise any occasion for the accused-appellants to exercise their alleged right of private defence of property or person. He has thus supported in conviction recorded against the accused-appellants by the lower Court and the sentences passed against them. ( 18 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments articulated across the bar from both the sides and have gone through the material and evidence on record. He has thus supported in conviction recorded against the accused-appellants by the lower Court and the sentences passed against them. ( 18 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments articulated across the bar from both the sides and have gone through the material and evidence on record. The right decision of the appeal turns on the point as to which of the parties was actually in possession over the land where the incident occurred. It has come to be revealed from the testimony of PW 1 Ram Badan that he, PW 2 Dahari, PW 3 Shyam Bali, Up-Pradhan, PW 4 Shyam Deo, Govardhan and Ram Awadh (deceased) formed one group. Ram Awadh was his own brother. Both of them are the sons of Govardhan. PW 3 Shyam Bali and PW 4 Shyam Deo are real brothers. PW 2 Dahari Pradhan is the son of their cousin Patiram. All these persons were on the prosecution side. The accused-appellants and the deceased-accused Hari Ram formed another group. The topography of the place of the land where the incident took place may also be taken note of. It was situated in the northern side of the house of Shyam Bali and Shyam Deo and in the western side of the house of the accused-appellant Kharpattu. The agricultural field of Satya Narain accused-appellant was situated on the northern side. We have no hesitation to hold that the number of the disputed land could not be proved by either side. Though the prosecution side contended that it was the Abadi land belonging to Gaon Sabha and was part of plot No. 198 but it could not be established. Similarly, the accused-appellants also could not substantiate their plea that it was actually plot No. 200 which had been purchased by the accused-appellant Satya Narain from one Roop Dhar in 1981. The number of the disputed land apart, the principal and piquant question, as we observed, is as to which of the parties was actually in possession of this land where the incident took place. The number of the disputed land apart, the principal and piquant question, as we observed, is as to which of the parties was actually in possession of this land where the incident took place. It would be recalled that as per the prosecution case and evidence, the origin of the incident was the alleged embedding of hand pump by the accused-appellants on the disputed land which was objected to by Up-Pradhan PW 3 Shyam Bali leading to altercation and ultimate assaulting of PW 3 Shyam Bali by the accused-appellants as also of Ram Awadh (deceased), Govardhan, Shyam Deo and Jai Ram who had come to the rescue of PW 3 Shyam Bali. We note from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that actually the land where the incident took place was in possession of Satya Narain accused-appellant. We find from paragraph No. 15 of the testimony of PW 1 Ram Badan that the Pradhan (PW 2 Dahari), Up-Pradhan (PW 3 Shyam Bali) and the members of the his Gaon Sabha had made an application against Satya Narain accused-appellant before the Tehsildar. Rasra and in those proceedings Satya Narain had stated that he would remove his possession from this land after harvesting the crop of Chari which he had sown there. It is indicative of the fact that Satya Narain accused-appellant was in actual possession of the land where the incident took place. It could only be for this reason that an occasion could arise for the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan to make application before the Tehsildar for his ejectment therefrom wherefor procedure is prescribed under Section 122b of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It further came to be admitted by PW 1 Ram Awadh in his statement that Satya Narain had ploughed the said land and he was in illegal possession thereof since two months before the incident. Indeed, he denied that this land belonged to Roop Dhar and he had sold the same to Satya Narain by some sale deed of 1981. The point of the matter is that possession over the land was of Satya Narain is admitted by this witness which, according to him, was of illegal character. Indeed, he denied that this land belonged to Roop Dhar and he had sold the same to Satya Narain by some sale deed of 1981. The point of the matter is that possession over the land was of Satya Narain is admitted by this witness which, according to him, was of illegal character. The fact of the possession of Satya Narain was admitted by PW 2 Dahari Pradhan also in paragraph 6 of his testimony, though he also described the same to be illegal and spoke about an application having been made to the Tehsildar for his ejectment. He also admitted that in some part of the land the crop of Chari sown by Satya Narain was still there. To the same effect was the testimony of PW 3 Shyam Bali Up-Pradhan that in some part of the land, where the accused-appellants were trying to embed the hand pump, there was crop of Chari. When proceedings under Section 122b of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act had been initiated by Pradhan PW 2 Dahari and Up-Pradhan PW 3 Shyam Bali, they ought to have reached their normal culmination. However, the prosecution has not been able to show that any order was passed in such proceedings against Satya Narain and he had actually been ejected from the land in question in due course of law. The prosecution simply relies on the alleged undertaking given by Satya Narain in those proceedings that he would vacate the land after harvesting the crop of Chari sown by him over there. Assuming in favour of the prosecution that the land where the incident took place was of Abadi belonging to Gaon Sabha, the possession was admittedly of Satya Narain accused-appellant as we have demonstrated by referring to the own testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The crux of the matter is that unless Satya Narain was ejected therefrom in due course of law, the persons from the prosecution side could not take the law in their own hands by asking or compelling Satya Narain and others on his side not to embed a hand pump in a part of that land. Their recourse could only be to law for ejectment of Satya Narain from that land in a lawful manner. Their recourse could only be to law for ejectment of Satya Narain from that land in a lawful manner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that right of private defence of property accrued in favour of Satya Narain and other accused-appellants against the persons on prosecution side whose act of preventing Satya Narain and the persons on his side from embedding hand pump in that land amounted to criminal trespass. ( 19 ) WE need not labour on the point that legal position is well established that right of private defence of property is not required to be pleaded specifically. It may be apparent or may surface from the own evidence of the prosecution and the attending circumstances. Under these circumstances, right of private defence accrued to the accused-appellants to prevent the criminal trespass threatened by the prosecution side on the land in their possession. It would not be material that the persons on the prosecution side thought that the possession of the accused-appellant Satya Narain thereon was illegal as the same was Abadi land according to them. Under the given circumstances the accused-appellants could use force to prevent the criminal trespass threatened by the persons on the prosecution side. Even mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of private defence into operation. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1674 : 1975 Cri LJ 1479 that the right of private defence of property or person could extend to the causing of death also when there was a real apprehension that the aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt. In the present case, it is a fact that on the side of the accused-appellants also Hari Ram (accused-deceased) had sustained injuries as mentioned in earlier part of the present judgment. ( 20 ) REFERENCE may usefully be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Autar v. State, AIR 1954 Allahabad 771 wherein it was held as under :"all that is required to give rise to the right of private defence of property is that a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property should commence. It has always to be found out in the particular circumstances of each case whether in those circumstances the person who claims the benefit of the right of private defence had a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property. If the question is answered in the affirmative the right exists and it is not necessary that the offence or an attempt should actually have been committed. " ( 21 ) HOWEVER, as per Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Sections 100 and 103 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the eventualities in which the right of private defence of body and property may extend to the causing of death. Legal position is also well settled by a catena of decisions that persons exercising the right of private defence do a perfectly legitimate act and the assembly is not an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the provisions of Section 149 IPC cannot be invoked so as to make everyone of those persons vicariously liable for the acts of their companions. If any one of them exceeds that right and gives a blow which causes death, that is his individual act and he alone would be liable for the consequences thereof. If there is no evidence whatsoever to fix the identity of the individual who delivered that blow, no one could be convicted therefor. Short of death, the persons exercising the right of private defence of person or property may commit any offence to save the property or to prevent the aggressor from proceeding towards the property. He may also cause any other harm to the aggressor, short of death, in exercise of right of private defence of body, commensurate to repel the danger. ( 22 ) AS regards the applicability of Section 149 IPC the apex Court has laid down in the case of State of Bihar v. Natthu Pandey, 1969 CAR 214 : ( AIR 1970 SC 27 ) that in order to attract the provisions of Section 149 the prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly and that the crime was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. The assembly cannot be designated as an unlawful assembly if its object was to defend property by use of force within the limits prescribed by law. ( 23 ) WHEN the above legal principles are applied to the facts of the present case, the position emerges out that the accused-appellant Satya Narain was admittedly in possession of the land where the incident took place and with the aid of other accused-appellants he was embedding a hand pump in that land to which the persons on the prosecution side objected and the incident occurred following an altercation between the two sides. One Hari Ram (deceased-accused) on the side of the accused-appellants sustained injuries also. Ram Awadh died on the prosecution side and four others namely, Govardhan, PW 3 Shyam Bali, PW 4 Shyam Deo and Jai Ram sustained injuries as a result of force used by the accused-appellants. It is also to be noted that it was the incised wound sustained by the deceased on his forehead (injury No. 3 as per post-mortem report) which had produced coma and was the cause of his death. ( 24 ) THE topography of the land in question is an indicator that it being situated in the northern side of the house of PW 3 Shyam Bali and PW 4 Shyam Deo (real brothers), they also had a covetous eye on it. May be, it was for this reason that PW 3 Shyam Bali with the aid of his nephew PW 2 Dahari, Pradhan had initiated proceedings (under Section 122b of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act) before the Tehsildar for the ejectment of Satya Narain accused-appellant, it being Gaon Sabha land according to them. Satya Narain accused-appellant was admittedly in possession of the land at the time of the incident and the proceedings initiated against him for his ejectment therefrom having not reached their normal culmination, he (Satya Narain) backed by other accused-appellants had a right to resist the criminal trespass or attempted criminal trespass, the act indulged into by PW 3 Shyam Bali with the backing, support and presence of other persons on the prosecution side. A right of private defence had accrued in favour of the accused-app-ellant Satya Narain and others on his side. A right of private defence had accrued in favour of the accused-app-ellant Satya Narain and others on his side. Such a right of private defence that had accrued was of property as also of body (since injuries also came to be caused to Hari Ram on the side of accused-appellants ). ( 25 ) IT may be stated at the risk of repetition that right of private defence accruing to them could not extend to the inflicting of more harm than was necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence viz. , for driving away the persons on the prosecution side from the land where the incident occurred and which was in possession of the Satya Narain accused-appellant (where he and other accused-appellants were embedding hand pump which was objected to by PW 3 Shyam Bali and others on the side of the prosecution by indulging in criminal trespass ). However, the death was also caused of one Ram Awadh on the prosecution side. The incised wound sustained by the deceased on his forehead produced coma and ultimately resulted in his death. Causing of death of Ram Awadh by the accused-appellants was not at all justified. The right of private defence was obviously exceeded, but the sad feature of the case is that there is no evidence whatsoever to fix the identity of the individual accused-appellant who caused the fatal incised wound on the forehead of deceased Ram Awadh. In the absence of evidence as to who caused the same, no presumption can be drawn against any or all the accused-appellants viz. for attributing causing death of Ram Awadh to any of them. In the exercise of right of private defence, the law permitted the accused-appellants to commit any offence, short of death, vis-a-vis anyone on the prosecution side so as to save the property or to prevent the complainant side from accomplishing criminal trespass over the land which was admittedly in possession of Satya Narain accused-appellant. In view of the evidence on record and the given circumstances, it is not possible to attribute the exceeding of the right of private defence to all or any of the accused-appellants. The situation could be otherwise, had specific and credible evidence been led by the prosecution to the effect as to who of the accused-appellants caused the fatal incised wound on the forehead of Ram Awadh. The situation could be otherwise, had specific and credible evidence been led by the prosecution to the effect as to who of the accused-appellants caused the fatal incised wound on the forehead of Ram Awadh. It should be recalled that since Satya Narain accused-appellant and those backing him were defending the property i. e. , land in their possession, their assembly was not at all unlawful. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the death of one person (Ram Awadh) was caused in this incident. But on legal and factual matrix, the accused-appellants cannot be deemed to have committed any offence within the tentacles of law. What they did is saved by the right of exercise of private defence. Everyone of them is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. ( 26 ) IN the ultimate result, we allow this appeal and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 6-8-1986 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 1984. All the accused-appellants, namely, Kharpattu, Dharam Deo, Ram Awadh, Satya Narain, Mahangi, Harish Chand and Lachhan Deo are acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds and bail bonds are cancelled. ( 27 ) LET a copy of his judgment along with the record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for necessary entries in the concerned registers under intimation to this Court within two months. Appeal allowed. .