JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by six accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentences passed against them by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur on 11.9.1995 for various offences under Indian Penal Code. Each one of them was convicted and sentenced as follows: (1) Under Sec. 304-11 r/w 149 IPC Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. (2) Under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC Five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. (3) Under Section 325 r/w 149 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. (4) Under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. (5) Under Section 323 r/w 149 IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. (6) Under Section 148 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, Ramu Das lodged first information report at Police Station Jayal on 16.7.1992 to the effect that at about 5.00 p.m. he alongwith his wife Bhanwari, son Jetha Ram, nephews Manak Das, Banwari, Sundaram and Gokul Das was sitting at his dhani. Gokul Das had gone to ease. The complainant saw that Ganpat Das and six other persons were constructing a 'tapri. Gokul Das asked them not to carry on that work. Then all of them gave beatings to Gokul Das. Gokul Das made hue and cry. Thereupon Chain Das, Satya Narain, Kesar, Lichhma, Sita and Chaina Ram came. They were armed with pharsi, ballam and lathis. They also started beating the complainant party. It were Gokul Das and Sunda Ram who suffered injuries on their heads and were serious. 3. A case under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323 & 307 IPC was registered vide Ex.P/57. Investigation was started, injured persons were admitted in hospital where Gokul Das succumbed to his injuries and on 19.7.1992 his post-mortem was performed by Dr. V.K. Mittal. Then Section 302 IPC was added. 3. A case under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323 & 307 IPC was registered vide Ex.P/57. Investigation was started, injured persons were admitted in hospital where Gokul Das succumbed to his injuries and on 19.7.1992 his post-mortem was performed by Dr. V.K. Mittal. Then Section 302 IPC was added. After investigation police submitted challan against the appellants as well as accused-Sohan Das, Ram Narain and Munna Das. The last named three persons have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The charges were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the accused-appellants denied their indictment when they were read over to them. Then prosecution examined 33 witnesses in support of its case. Accused-appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They have produced five witnesses in their defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant at length and have gone through the record. 5. Main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the field where occurrence took place was in possession of the accused-appellants and it was the complainant party who was aggressor. His second contention is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case even under section 304-11 IPC and even if it is found that the accused-appellants did anything, they did so in private right of defence of their property and life. He submitted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution were interested and that PW 4 Bhugana Ram and PW 26 Dula Ram are such witnesses whose names were not given in the first information report. Their statements have been recorded after a long time of lodging of the first information report and hence they are unreliable. He also contended that all the accused-appellants could not have been convicted and sentenced for offence under section 304-II IPC as there could be no common object to commit this offence. It has also been submitted that there are contradictions In medical evidence and statements of witnesses and that the injuries on the bodies of the accused persons have not been explained and that genesis of the case has been withheld. In the last he submitted that the accused-appellants may be acquitted. 6. It has also been submitted that there are contradictions In medical evidence and statements of witnesses and that the injuries on the bodies of the accused persons have not been explained and that genesis of the case has been withheld. In the last he submitted that the accused-appellants may be acquitted. 6. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge. He cited a latest judgment of the Supreme Court Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SCW page 962 , in which the accused persons exceeded the right of private defence. They were armed with dangerous weapons that meant that it showed intention of the accused and not of the complainant to attack. It was further held that it was the accused party and not complainant party which was aggressor. 7. First of all I will like to discuss the most vital point as to who was in possession of the field on the date of occurrence? Learned trial Court after appreciating evidence on record came to the conclusion that Doliwala field measuring 50 bighas was in possession of Ramu Das as the same fell to his share. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the field was in possession of the accused-appellants and that the finding of trial Court is incorrect. He has tried to convince from the statements of defence witnesses as well as from some portions of the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that the field was in possession of the accused-appellants. But the finding of the trial Court is different. The case of the defence was that the field was entered in revenue record in the name of daughters of Haru Das i.e. Smt. Pushpa and Sita who were in physical possession and when the accused-appellants went to perform agriculture operations they were attacked by the complainant party. 8. The most material witness in this regard is PW 30 Ramu Das whose statement is very relevant for the purpose. He has stated that the field measuring about 48 big has fell to his share and he was in its possession and was having a dhani since last 17-18 years. He has further stated that it was he who was cultivating the field for last 30-35 years. He was cross-examined at length wherein he admitted that his father had two brothers named as Janki Das and Mohan Das. He has further stated that it was he who was cultivating the field for last 30-35 years. He was cross-examined at length wherein he admitted that his father had two brothers named as Janki Das and Mohan Das. His father was a son of Gopi Das. Sita and Pushpa are the daughters of Haru Das. He has explained that Ugariawala field fell to the share of Haru Das who sold it to some Jats.This was done some time 25 years ago. He did admit that after the death of his father Mohan Das, the Doliwala field was entered in his name and somehow in the name of his brother Haru Das. Even in cross-examination it was admitted on behalf of accused-appellants that only 25 bighas of this field was in possession of this witness. He denied that 25 bighas of land of this field wits left by him for Haru Das and he denied that it was Haru Das who was cultivating this field since 1987 till he died and after his death it was Sita who cultivated it. He did admit frankly that the field was attached during the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. but he denied that Sita had constructed a 'tapri' in the field a month before the incident. The other relevant documents considered by learned Sessions Judge in para No. 26 of his judgment also show that the field was in possession of PW 30 Ramu Das. PW 4 Bhugana Ram and PW 26 Dula Ram, who are independent witnesses, have supported the version that the field was in possession of Ramu Das. The defence witnesses have completely denied the possession of Ramu Das while Ramu Das v/as himself suggested on behalf of the defence that he was having possession only on 25 bighas. In these circumstances I concur the finding of the learned Sessions Judge arrived at para No. 27 of his judgment to the effect that it was Ramu Das who was in possession of the filed on the day of occurrence and Ramu Das constructed his 'tapri' five years ago and that Ramu Das was exclusively cultivating the field. 9. So when the field was not in possession of accused-appellants, they had gone there as aggressors armed with lethal weapons. 9. So when the field was not in possession of accused-appellants, they had gone there as aggressors armed with lethal weapons. Once it is established beyond doubt that it were the accused- appellants who were aggressors, it is to be seen as to what are their actions at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injured witnesses viz. PW 17 Sunda Ram, PW 27 Banwari, PW 29 Manak Chard, PW 31 Bhanwari Devi and PW 32 Jetha Ram are interested witnesses and are not independent. He further submitted that the alleged independent witnesses viz. PW 4 Bhugana Ram and PW 26 Dula Ram are such witnesses whose names do not appear in the first information report and that their statements have been recorded after pretty long time of the occurrence and hence they should not be believed. 10. So far as related witnesses are concerned, they are the persons who were present at the place of occurrence and are natural and could have seen the occurrence. It may be possible that they might have exaggerated at some places because they are related witnesses. Their evidence has been read with great care and caution. So far as evidence about beatings given by accused-appellants to the deceased is concerned, PW 17 Sunda Ram, PW 27 Banwari, PW 29 Manak Chand, PW 30 Ramu Das, PW 31 Bhanwari Devi and PW 32 Jetha Ram have deposed in unequivocal words that first of all Ganpat Das appellant gave a pharsi blow in the head of Gokul Das and it was Chain Das who inflicted injury by ballam to the head of Gokul Das. So the main role is of Ganpat Dass. There is some contradiction in relation to the weapon used by Chetan Das but when it is stated that it were all the accused-appellants who took part in the 'Maarpeet' to all the injured persons including Gokul Das, it was not possible for the witnesses to depose as to which weapon was used by while accused and on which part of the body which injury was caused. The Court has to see the ground realities. It is not possible for every witness to remember after a long time as to which of the accused persons used what weapon and inflicted injury at what place. PW 28 Dr. Jai Karan Charan and PW 3 Dr. The Court has to see the ground realities. It is not possible for every witness to remember after a long time as to which of the accused persons used what weapon and inflicted injury at what place. PW 28 Dr. Jai Karan Charan and PW 3 Dr. V.K. Mittal had examined Gokul Das. Dr. Mittal have deposed that they found two wounds on the head of Gokul Das. These injuries were found at the time of performing post-mortem by Dr. V.K. Mittal and he stated that they were sufficient to cause his death. The post-mortem report is Ex.P/2 on record. It was submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that these injuries could not have been caused by sharp weapon but as I have stated earlier it is not possible for the witnesses to remember as to which weapon was used by which accused when such incidents take place. It is on record that Gokul Das died and his post-mortem was performed on 19.7.1992. The cause of his death was shock and internal haemorrhage resulting from the head injuries. The fact that all the accused-appellants were armed with weapons is well proved from the evidence of these witnesses who cannot be discarded merely because they are relations. All appellants took part in the incident as they had come as aggressors. Sunda Ram has stated that all the injured persons were taking tea together and when his father Gokul Das went to urinate, he found that the appellants were constructing a 'tapri' and when Gokul Das objected to it they attacked on him. When these witnesses reached to save Gokul Das, they were also given beatings by the appellants who surrounded them and who were armed with lethal weapons. When the appellants had come armed with lethal weapons and attacked and gave blows on the vital parts of the deceased, it were they who were aggressors in view of Jaipal's case (supra). 11. It was submitted that no charge under section 447 IPC was made against the accused-appellants and, therefore, it cannot be held that it were the accused-appellants who were the aggressors. I do not agree with this contention. It was not necessary to frame a charge under section 447 IPC as even without it, it could be decided as to who was the aggressor. I do not agree with this contention. It was not necessary to frame a charge under section 447 IPC as even without it, it could be decided as to who was the aggressor. Of course the accused-appellants had come with an intention to construct a 'tapri' and when they were objected to by the deceased, they attacked on him without any predetermination to kill him as they had not come to kill. It so happened that such injuries were caused to him which caused his death, therefore, a case under section 304-II IPC was made out. The main culprit is Ganpat Dass. 12. It has been submitted that the two so called eye-witnesses Bhugana Ram and Dula Ram were not named in the first information report and as such they should not be believed. A number of citations have been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. Ram Kumar Pande v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC page 1026 , is a citation in which it was held that the first information report is a previous statement which can strictly speaking be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. In this case the names of the daughters who had allegedly seen the occurrence were not given in the first information report by the father of the deceased who had lodged the report. It is distinguishable on facts. FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is an engine to start investigation. It need not contain all details. In the case in hand it was PW 30 Ramu Das who lodged the first information report Ex.P/57 and has stated that he got the report scribed from a person infront of Tehsil jayal to whom he had told the names of Bhugana Ram and Dula Ram. He further states that when he lodged the report, the Station House Officer enquired from him to whom he also disclosed the names of these two witnesses. But I find that no such interrogation was made at the five of lodging the report Ex.P/57. The explanation of Ramu Dass appears to be reasonable Is he is corroborated by all injured eye-witnesses so far as presence of these two witnesses is concerned. But I find that no such interrogation was made at the five of lodging the report Ex.P/57. The explanation of Ramu Dass appears to be reasonable Is he is corroborated by all injured eye-witnesses so far as presence of these two witnesses is concerned. It was PW 33 Ratan Lal Verma who recorded the statements of these two witnesses viz.. Bhugana Ram and Dula Ram. But in the cross-examination nothing was elicited as to how he came to know that these were the witnesses who had seen the occurrence. Injured witness PW 17 Sunda Ram has named in unequivocal words that Bhugana Ram and Dula Ram had come there to save the injured persons. Similarly PW 27 Banwari, PW 29 Manak Chand, PW 31 Bhanwari Devi and PW 32 Jetha Ram all have named these two witnesses and there appears to be no reason to disbelieve them on this count as each one of them corroborates. In the facts and circumstances of this case when the first information report was lodged by PW 30 Ramu Das, he did tell the names of these two witnesses to the person who scribed the report but the reason of omission has not come as scribe has not appeared in witness box. The presence of these two witnesses cannot be doubted in view of the fact that all the injured persons have named them. These two persons were in no way related to the injured family or the deceased. There appears to be no reason why they would be named by the injured witnesses unless they were present in the facts and circumstances of this case. The citation relied by the learned counsel on Ram Kumar Pande's case (supra) does not help the accused-appellants. 13. The next contention was that the statements of these two witnesses viz. PW 4 Bhugana Ram and PW 26 Dula Ram were recorded late by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, these witnesses should not be believed. Reliance has been placed on Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC page 804 and Ganesh Bhuvan Patel & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC page 135 . In Ganesh Bhuvan Patel's case (supra) it has been held that delay of a few hours in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may not by itself amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC page 135 . In Ganesh Bhuvan Patel's case (supra) it has been held that delay of a few hours in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may not by itself amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. But in the facts and circumstances of this case there is nothing to suggest that such a step was going to be taken by the Investigating Officer. All the injured witnesses have named these two witnesses and the first informant did say that he told the names of these two witnesses to the person who scribed the first information report. It appears that their names were inadvertently omitted to be mentioned in the first information report. In Balakrushna Swain's case (supra) it was held that if the Investigating Officer records statements of material eye-witness late, it may render evidence of such witness unreliable. In the facts and circumstances of that case it was found that delayed examination of PW 5 had given an opportunity to the witness to concoct a different version than what actually took place. I am of the view that these citations do not help the accused-appellants at all. There is nothing to suggest that these two eye-witnesses have given a different colour to the story. Therefore, it cannot be held that these two witnesses are in any way interested in the case of the prosecution. They are independent and are reliable. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant raised an issue that all the accused-appellants could not been convicted for offence under section 304-11 r/w 149 IPC as they had not come with an object to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and only those persons who are alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased could be liable. To which, the learned Public Prosecutor replied that the argument is not tenable as all the accused-appellants were present and committed various offences and had come with a common object and evidence of them is responsible for the act of other with the aid of Section 149 IPC. To which, the learned Public Prosecutor replied that the argument is not tenable as all the accused-appellants were present and committed various offences and had come with a common object and evidence of them is responsible for the act of other with the aid of Section 149 IPC. There is definite evidence that Ganpat Dass and Chain has had caused injuries on the head of the deceased which caused the death of Gokul Das as proved by Dr. V.K. Mittal PW 3. It meant that they had intended to cause such bodily injury to Gokul Das by which his death could be possible and for which all the accused-appellants had a common object as they also took part in the occurrence and caused different injuries to different injured persons and two of them caused such injuries to Gokul Das because of which he died and they new that his death was possible. All the appellants can very well be held responsible with the aid of Section 149 for offence under section 304-11 IPC. In Affrahim Sheikh & ors. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 196.4 SC page 1263 , Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of legality and validity of conviction under section 304-11 r/w Section 34 IPC. It was held that second part of Section 304 IPC no doubt speaks of knowledge and does not refer to intention which has been segregated in the first part. But knowledge is the knowledge of the likelihood of death. Can it be said that when three or four persons start beating a man with heavy la this, each hitting his blow with the common intention of severely beating him and each possessing the knowledge that death was likely result of the beating that the requirements of Section 304 Part II are not satisfied in the case of each of them? If it could be said that knowledge of this type was possible in the case of each one of the appellants, there is no reason why Section 304 Part II cannot be r/w Section 34. It was further held that the common intention is with regard to the criminal act i.e. the act of beating. If it could be said that knowledge of this type was possible in the case of each one of the appellants, there is no reason why Section 304 Part II cannot be r/w Section 34. It was further held that the common intention is with regard to the criminal act i.e. the act of beating. If the result of the beating is the death of the victim and if each of the assailants possesses the knowledge that death is the likely consequence of the criminal act, i.e. bating, there is no reason why Section 34 of Section 35 should not be read with the second part of Section 304 to make each liable individually. When a person can be held liable for Section 304-11 IPC, I am of the view that he can also be held liable with the aid of Section 149 IPC. In Parmeshwar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1986 Cr.L.J. page 1968 (Patna) , the accused-appellants were convicted under section 304 Part II r/w Section 149 IPC. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that all the accused-appellants could not be liable for Section 304-11 with the aid of Section 149 IPC is not acceptable. 15. Now I will take up the injuries caused to other injured persons and the injuries caused to the accused-appellants. 16. PW 3 Dr. V.K. Mittal examined Banwari and found as many as seven injuries on his body out of which injury No. 7 was grievous. He prepared injury Ex.P/3 with regard to this injured. He also examined Manak Chand and found as many as five injuries on his body and also found that there was a fracture of the index finger of right hand and there was another fracture of metacarple bone. Thus there were two fractures on his body. His injury report is Ex.P/4. Sunda Ram had 13 injuries out of them there were various fractures on various parts of his body including his head. There were fractures of 4th and 5th metacarple bones of left hand and fractures of 3rd, 4th and 5th proximal falenges as well as thumb of the left foot. It was PW 16 Dr. Jagdish Narain Mathur who performed the X-ray Examinations of the grievous injuries of the injured persons. PW 23 Jogendra Kumar Mittal is a Radiographer who took X-Rays of the various parts of the body of Sundaram. It was PW 16 Dr. Jagdish Narain Mathur who performed the X-ray Examinations of the grievous injuries of the injured persons. PW 23 Jogendra Kumar Mittal is a Radiographer who took X-Rays of the various parts of the body of Sundaram. PW 28 Dr. Jai Karan Charan was the first doctor who had examined injured persons Sunda Ram, Banwari and Smt. Bhanwari. According to him Smt. Bhanwari had an injury on her right arm in the area of 2" x 1". It was simple in nature. He prepared injury report Ex.P/63. The injuries on the bodies of these injured persons were stated to have been caused by various accused-appellants. Statements of the injured persons themselves which are supported by two independent witnesses Bhugana Ram and Dula Ram prove it beyond doubt. Recoveries of various weapons of offence at the instance of accused-appellants have also been proved. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in drawing the conclusion that all the accused-appellants also committed offences under sections 326 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 324 Sr 323 r/w 149 IPC. It is proved beyond doubt that the accused-appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and they have been rightly convicted for offence under section 148 IPC. I concur with the various findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. The most important material argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it were the accused-appellants who also suffered injuries for which there is no explanation. He in order to get benefit has relied on Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , in which it has been held that when there is no explanation of injuries sustained by accused, the following inferences can be drawn:- "(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus presented the true version, (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable, (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." 18. He also relied on State of Rajasthan v. Shivarant alias Shivlal & Ors., 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 389 , which has followed Supreme Court judgment cited above: It may be stated that some of the accused-appellants did have injuries and this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment from para No. 47 onwards. Admittedly accused-appellants-Lichhma, Ganpat Das, Satya Narain and Sita suffered injuries. It was PW 28 Dr. Jai Karan Charan who had examined the accused-appellants. No doubt some of the prosecution witnesses have denied the injuries on the bodies of the accused- appellants but it has come in evidence that Smt. Sita had filed a cross case. Investigating Officer PW 33 Ratan Lal Verma has admitted that during investigation he came to know that the accused-appellants had suffered injuries in this incident. But it was found that these injuries were suffered by the accused- appellants when they were giving beatings to the complainant party. PW 24 Shiv Bhagwan, a police officer, does say that Smt. Sita had submitted a first information report on the basis of which FIR No. 42 was registered. The case of the defence was that Smt. Sita right from the very beginning was in possession of the disputed land and when the accused-appellants went to perform agriculture operations on the field it were the members of complainant party who attacked on them. Lichhama did suffer a grievous injury but there is definitely explanation of the prosecution that the accused-appellants suffered injuries during 'Maarpeet' at the time of occurrence. The argument that there is no explanation of the injuries caused to the accused- appellants is fallacious. It were the accused-appellants who were aggressors as they were armed with lethal weapons while none of members of the complainant party was armed with dangerous weapon. It shows that it were the accused-appellants who had attacked on the complainant party. The version of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely because Smt. Sita had suffered a grievous injury. When the case of the prosecution itself is that some of the accused-appellants suffered injuries during incident, the prosecution has explained the injuries and has not suppressed the genesis of the case. The version of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely because Smt. Sita had suffered a grievous injury. When the case of the prosecution itself is that some of the accused-appellants suffered injuries during incident, the prosecution has explained the injuries and has not suppressed the genesis of the case. It is proved beyond doubt that it were the accused-appellants who formed an unlawful assembly, surrounded the members of the complainant party and attacked on them with lethal weapons with the result Gokul Das suffered such injuries that he died after 2-3 days and other injured persons suffered grievous injuries as well as simple injuries. I concur with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accused-appellants have committed various offences under which they have been convicted. 19. So far as right of private defence is concerned, firstly it was not available to the accused-appellants as it is proved beyond doubt that it was PW 30 Ramu Das who was in possession of the property and the accused-appellants had no right to disturb it or interfere in his possession. Counsel for the appellants relied on Mana v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 RLW page 245 , and Puran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC page 1674 . In Mana's case (supra) there was a dispute of possession and the defence had proved the title and possession by documentary evidence on the day of occurrence. It was held that in the circumstances the natural inference would be that the complainant party wanted to take forcible possession and the accused would, therefore, be within their right to protect their possession of the disputed field. In Purim Singh's case (supra) it was held that right of private defence of person and property is to be exercised under some limitations which are:- "(1) that if there is sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities the right is not available, (2) that more harm than necessary should not be caused, (3) that there must be a reasonable apprehension of death or of grievous hurt to the person or damage to the property concerned." 20. None of these citations apply to the facts of this case as it is proved beyond doubt that it was the complainant party which was in possession of the disputed land. None of these citations apply to the facts of this case as it is proved beyond doubt that it was the complainant party which was in possession of the disputed land. As such the right of private defence of person and property was not available to the accused- appellants. It is well settled that aggressors have no right of private defence. Even if it was so, they have exceeded as they caused death of Gokul Das. I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused-appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 21. So far as sentence is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the sentences passed under various heads are excessive in this case looking to the facts and circumstances. Learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted this argument and I also feel that it is so. Besides the offence took place on 16.7.1992, eight years ago. This is a mitigating circumstance in this case as the appellants have undergone mental tension during this period. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction I reduce the sentences as follows : (1) Ganpat Dass has undergone sentence for more than seven years under section 304 Part II IPC. He is sentenced to the period already under-gone. He has also undergone the sentence in lieu of fine. (2) For offence under section 30441 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants excluding Ganpat Dass will undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (3) For offence under section 326 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants will undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (4) For offence under section 325 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants will undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (5) For offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants will undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (6) For offence under section 323 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants will undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (7) For offence under section 148 IPC each one of the accused- appellants will undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (8) All the sentences shall run concurrently. 22. (6) For offence under section 323 r/w 149 IPC each one of the accused-appellants will undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (7) For offence under section 148 IPC each one of the accused- appellants will undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine is maintained. (8) All the sentences shall run concurrently. 22. Appellant-Ganpat Das has already undergone the sentence, therefore, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rest of the accused-appellants shall surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Their bail bonds are cancelled. 23. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction, the sentences are reduced to the period as stated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******