JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by accused aggrieved by his conviction for committing offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment by the trial Court. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that on December 24, 1985 the present appellant Munna alongwith two other accused Anna and Hakku, at 8.00 a m., in village Banskhera, P. S. Karelli District Narsinghpur, M.P. beat Narayan Singh by farsa and tabbal. All the three accused are real brothers being sons of Roop Singh Lodhi. Complainant Devi Singh (PW 7), Narayan Singh (PW 5), Netram and Ekam are also real brothers. They are also residing at village Banskhera. Netram was not in the house at the relevant time. Prosecution further alleged that prior to fifteen days of the incident accused Munna had taken his bullock-cart from the field of Narayan Singh (PW 5) in which grass were standing. He was stopped by Narayan Singh on which an altercation took place. Munna stated to Narayan Singh that he will take out bullock-cart out of his field even if wielding of weapon axe took place. Thereafter on December 24, 1985 Narayan Singh (PW 5) was taking sugarcane in his bullock-cart for going from Jhumri' to Kulhour alongwith Sibboo (PW 8), Jeetsingh and minor nephew Chhotelal (PW 10). Jeet Singh was hawking the bullock, the elder son Sibboo (PW 10) was sitting above the sugarcane, Chhotelal (PW 10) was ahead of Bullock-cart and Narayan Singh himself was going behind bullock-cart. When bullock-cart reached the field of the accused persons Anna, Munna and Hakam inflicted injury to Narayan Singh (PW 5) by farsa and tabbal. On hearing hue and cry Sibboo (PW 8), Jeetsingh and Chhotelal (PW 10) looked behind and found accused persons were beating Narayan Singh. Sibboo (PW 8) and Chhotelal (PW 10) alongwith Jeetsingh ran away from the spot alongwith the bullock-cart. Narayan Singh was followed by the accused persons when he tried to run away. Narayan Singh fell down even the accused persons did not stop beating him. Devi Singh (PW 7) was informed by Ganesh about the incident who reached the spot. Accused persons also ran behind him in order to beat him and accuse Anna inflicted injury to Devi Singh by farsa and tabbal due to which he suffered injury on his left hand thumb. Devi Singh (PW 7) was informed by Ganesh about the incident who reached the spot. Accused persons also ran behind him in order to beat him and accuse Anna inflicted injury to Devi Singh by farsa and tabbal due to which he suffered injury on his left hand thumb. Devi Singh also thereafter ran away from the spot. Thereafter Devi Singh called Khillu and others on the spot. They brought the tractor trolley in which Narayan Singh was brought. Thereafter, Sibbu (PW 8) also came there and informed the incident to Devi Singh who took Narayan Singh to P. S. Kareli. First information report (Ex. P. 14) was lodged by Devi Singh which was recorded by Chhagan Dabe (PW 12) the Town inspector. Narayan Singh and Devi Singh both were sent for medical examination. Dr. C. S. Chouhan (PW 9) medically examined both of them. Medical report (Ex. P. 15) is of Narayan Singh and medical report (Ex. P. 16) is of Devi Singh. On the person of Narayan Singh three incised wounds were found on the left leg, one incised wound was found on the right leg, on left hand ring finger three incised wounds were found, besides incised wound on left hand ring finger so also an incised wound was detected on left hand index finger, besides incised wound on left hand falling on elbow. Two incised wounds were found on the lateral aspect of the elbow. Incised wounds were found on left thigh. According to medical report all the injuries were caused by sharp edged cutting object. All injuries are simple in nature. 3. On the person of Devi Singh (PW 7) on left hand thumb an incised wound was found. Narayan Singh and Devi Singh were referred for radiological examination. Dr. S. K. Maheshwari (PW 6) had radiologically examined them and opined that there was commuted fracture of shaft of first metacarpal bone on the person of Devi Singh (PW 7). Bony injuries were detected on the person of Narayan Singh (PW 5). Lateral mallcalus of ankle and shaft of left femur were found to be fractured. Police Officer Chhagan Dabe (PW 12) recovered blood-stained shirt as per Ex. P. 11. Accused Munna was arrested on January 17, 1986 and on information furnished by Munna, a farsa was recovered from an open place near Railway line lying in the bush. Lateral mallcalus of ankle and shaft of left femur were found to be fractured. Police Officer Chhagan Dabe (PW 12) recovered blood-stained shirt as per Ex. P. 11. Accused Munna was arrested on January 17, 1986 and on information furnished by Munna, a farsa was recovered from an open place near Railway line lying in the bush. Bush-shirt was recovered from the agricultural out-house and seizure memos Ex. P. 8 was drawn. Clothes were found to be blood-stained by Dr. C. S. Chouhan (PW 9) as per his report (Ex. P. 17). On February 20, 1986 requisition was sent to Dr. C. S. Chouhan (PW 9) to opine whether the injury caused to Narayan Singh was sufficient to cause death. The doctor opined that death may have been caused by the injury. Articles were referred for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Blood was found on the farsa. 4. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was not present at the spot. Acquitted accused Anna took the defence that when they had taken out bullock-cart prior to fifteen days out of the field of Narayan Singh (PW 5) and Devi Singh (PW 7) grass was not standing. when he was taking his bullock cart Narayan Singh and Devi Singh tried to beat him in front of the house of Chunnoo. He ran away. He was abused. Acquitted accused Anna further took defence that on the date of incident Devi Singh and Narayan Singh tried to forcibly take the bullock-cart out of their field where the vegetables were standing. They were taking bullock-cart out of their field on the ground that Accused Anna had earlier taken bullock-cart out of their field they would take their bullock-cart out of the vegetable field of the accused. Both the injured had abused him. Narayan Singh caught hold of his hand and Devi Singh forcibly took away the bullock-cart. Narayan Singh after twisting his hand fell him down and thereafter sat on him. Thereafter Devi Singh (PW 7) threw an axe towards him which he luckily escaped. Thereafter, he lifted the axe thrown by Devisingh wielding it in order to save himself. He could not see whether injuries were suffered by Devi Singh and Narayan Singh. Devi Singh and Narayan Singh had also assaulted him by throwing stone due to which the axe fell down from his hand. Thereafter, he lifted the axe thrown by Devisingh wielding it in order to save himself. He could not see whether injuries were suffered by Devi Singh and Narayan Singh. Devi Singh and Narayan Singh had also assaulted him by throwing stone due to which the axe fell down from his hand. Thereafter he ran away from the spot. Sibboo (PW 8) and Chhotelal (PW 10) were not present on the spot. 5. Learned counsel or the appellant has raised the submission that the incident took place in the field of accused/appellant Munna and Narayan Singh was lying in the said field. Prosecution evidence does not establish the quarrel and it is established by the prosecution evidence itself that on the date and time of the incident complainant Narayan Singh had committed criminal trespass and at that time he had assaulted, he was committing criminal trespass and criminal mischief. The appellant was protected by the right of private defence of property as defined under section 104, Indian Penal Code, as also invited the attention to para-23 of the trial Court judgment wherein it has been found that incident took place in the field of Roop Singh, the father of Munna Singh, (appellant) and complainant was trying to take bullock-cart out of the field of the appellant. His further submission is that Court has found that accused Annu was not present on the spot hence no implicit reliance could be placed on tainted version of the prosecution. His further submission is that on the sane set of prosecution evidence the two accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the appellant conviction is bad his case being, the same as that of the acquitted accused. 6. The learned State counsel has submitted that right of private defence of the property does not extend to the appellant looking to nature of the injuries caused to Narayan Singh, hence the appellant has been rightly convicted for committing the offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code. He has supported the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed. 7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to advert to the deposition of Narayan Singh and Devi Singh (PWs 5 and 7) and the other relevant evidence on record. He has supported the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed. 7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to advert to the deposition of Narayan Singh and Devi Singh (PWs 5 and 7) and the other relevant evidence on record. Initially the witness Narayan Singh has tried to complain of the conduct of accused Munna who tried to take out his bullock-cart prior to fifteen days of the incident. It appears that Narayan Singh has stated in para-3 of his deposition that fact in order to justify their taking of bullock cart out of the field of the accused. He has stated that he was going with sugarcane which was loaded in bullock-cart along with Jeet Singh, Sibboo and Chhotelal. Hakku was going ahead, he was going behind the bullock-cart. When the bullock-cart reached near the field of the accused he found that Munna, Anna and Hakku were standing there armed with farsa and tabbal. When he was crossing near the field of the accused Munna inflicted a farsa injury. He lifted his hand hence farsa fell in between ear and eye and his finger was cut. He started running. Thereafter Anna came running to beat him. He and Anna started beating each other and both of them fell down in the course of altercation. Anna and Hakku caused injury to him by Kulhari and tabbal on his left thigh and legs. Thereafter all the accused continued to beat him. He was taken to P. S. In para-18 of his deposition this witness has admitted that it would be right to suggest that he caught hold of Anna and fell him down only thereafter Hakku came near him. When the witness was confronted with police-statement (Ex D. 1) that Anna tried to save him-self else he was being killed. Contradicting his police statement he deposed that he did not give such statement to the police. According to this witness Jeet Singh, Sibbu and Chhote Sahab ran away as they were young. It appears that they ran away for the reason that they had taken bullock-cart out of the vegetable field and after destroying the considerable part of the vegetable. That appears to be the reason for running away Jeet Singh, Sibbu and Chhote Sahab. Otherwise they would not have run away. They must have tried to save Narayan Singh. It appears that they ran away for the reason that they had taken bullock-cart out of the vegetable field and after destroying the considerable part of the vegetable. That appears to be the reason for running away Jeet Singh, Sibbu and Chhote Sahab. Otherwise they would not have run away. They must have tried to save Narayan Singh. The witness has admitted that Anna was having weaker health than him. There was yet omission in the police statement (Ex. D. 1) that his son Sibbu was going in the bullock-cart. 8. The other injured Devi Singh (PW 7) has deposed that he was informed by Ganesh that Narayan Singh was being assaulted by Anna, Munna and Hakam. Then he ran towards the spot and saw Munna was assaulting with a farsa, Anna with an axe and Hakku with lathi. Anna inflicted injury on him by axe. He tried to run away. He went then to village and called Chunnu and Gayasuddin and came in the tractor in the field of Roop Singh and found Narayan Singh was lying in the agricultural field of Roop Singh. There were several injuries on his person. It appears from the deposition of this witness that incident took place in the field of Roop Singh, i.e., in the field of father of the appellant. Thereafter, Sibbu came and informed that they were taking the bullock-cart and Narayan Singh was assaulted by accused Anna, Munna and Hakam. The witness was confronted with his police-statement (Ex. D. 3) in which he has omitted the material part of the role played by Hakka alias Hakam. This witness has admitted that the place of incident has been shown to be survey No. 162/1 in the spot map prepared by Patwari, The witness further admitted that he had mentioned to Patwari the place of incident to be the Roop Singh's field as he had found Narayan Singh in that field. The witness has admitted the incident. The witness has denied the injury caused to Anna. Thus it is apparent from the evidence of this witness that the incident had taken place as a matter of fact in the field of the accused-appellant and not on the road. 9. Sibbu (PW 8) son of Narayan Singh has deposed that when they reached near the gate of the Badi of the accused Munna had inflicted injury by farsa on Narayan Singh. 9. Sibbu (PW 8) son of Narayan Singh has deposed that when they reached near the gate of the Badi of the accused Munna had inflicted injury by farsa on Narayan Singh. He had not seen earlier what had happened and saw all the accused persons were beating his father. He ran away. It is apparent from the deposition of this witness that as a matter of fact out of badi of accused they had taken the bullock-cart. It was thus a clear case of trespass committed by the injured in collaboration with the other members of his family and that appears to have been done designedly as accused Munna is said to have taken his bullock-cart prior to fifteen days out of the grass field of the injured. The contradiction in the statement of deposition recorded under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code as to role he has attributed to accused Hakku. It appears that they ran away with the bullock-cart. It does not appear that Hakam had also beaten but the witness tried to implicate him. Genesis of incident appears to be clearly suppressed. 10. Chhotelal (PW 10) is another witness who was going with the bullock-cart. He has contradicted the version of Narayan Singh. Narayan Singh's case was that Chhote was going ahead of bullock-cart. He stated that he was going behind the bullock-cart. Thus, it is apparent that witness is lying on the material point and was not deposing the truth that they were crossing the field of accused Munna's father Roop Singh. He has attributed injury caused to Narayan Singh on the left hand to accused Munna. Sibbu took away the bullock-cart and did not stop it. As a matter of fact, it appears that witness police-statement was not recorded for two months though he was available at village Banskhera. The police had reached according to the witness the same day in the village. Late recording of statement itself creates doubt. It appears that prosecution was giving the shape to the story. Witness made out contradiction itself and stated that he was examined the same day and he did not know the reason why he had given the statement earlier of recording of his statement after one-two months. 11. In the case of Hukum Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1541 , the Apex Court considered the right of private defence against criminal trespass. 11. In the case of Hukum Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1541 , the Apex Court considered the right of private defence against criminal trespass. In the said case, the appellants forcibly took two carts loaded with sugarcane through the field of complainant in which there were standing crops, and in transporting the sugarcane to the public road running by the side of the field, so long as they were inside the field, the trespass had not come to an end complainant had right to prevent the appellants from committing the criminal trespass for whatever short distance they had still to cover before reaching the public pathway. It is true that the appellants, party had to get out of the field and that this they could not have done without committing further criminal trespass. But it does not follow that this difficult position in which the party found itself gave them any right for insisting that they must continue the criminal trespass. They had to abide by the direction of Harphool. Whatever be the degree of patience required in case they were not allowed to move in any direction in order to leave the field. It was observed that if Harphool had started attack in the circumstances alleged by the appellants there may have been some scope for saying that he acted unreasonably in taking recourse to force in preference to taking recourse to public authorities or to such action which a less obstinate person would have taken and had therefore lost any right of private defence of property against the offence of criminal trespass. As a matter of fact, in the said case Harphool himself was murdered and the appellant party who was taking forcibly loaded cart was found to be guilty of offence of murder. 12. In the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1674 , question of right of private defence was considered. As a matter of fact, in the said case Harphool himself was murdered and the appellant party who was taking forcibly loaded cart was found to be guilty of offence of murder. 12. In the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1674 , question of right of private defence was considered. It was held that the finding of the High Court that the accused were not in settled possession of the land in order to give them a right of private defence was erroneous in law, and further when the question was considered when the right of private defence of person or property is to be exercised, it should be exercised under the following limitations : (i) that if there is sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities the right is not available; (ii) that more harm than necessary should not be caused; (iii) that there must be a reasonable apprehension of death or of grievous hurt to the person or damage to the property concerned. It has been further observe that it is not the law that a person when called upon to face an assault must run away to the police station and not protect himself or when his property has been the subject-matter of trespass and mischief he should run to the police station or public authorities. Where there is an element of invasion or aggression on the property by a person who has no right to possession, then there is obviously no room to have recourse to the public authorities and the accused had the undoubted right to resist the attack and use even force if necessary. The right of private defence of property or person, where there is a real apprehension that the aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt to the victim, could extent to the causing of death also, and it is not necessary that death or grievous hurt should actually be caused before the right could be exercised. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of private defence into operation. The Supreme Court has relied its previous decisions in the case of Amjad Khan vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 165 and Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612 . A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of private defence into operation. The Supreme Court has relied its previous decisions in the case of Amjad Khan vs. The State, AIR 1952 SC 165 and Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612 . It was further held that the question whether a person having a right of private defence has used more force than is necessary would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 13. In the case of Nathan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1973 SC 665 , question of right of private defence of the appellant party property came to be considered. In the said case possession of the land was not with PW 3 and that the objection raised by the accused party to harvesting of the crop by PW 3 and his men, was genuine the whole occurrence takes on a different aspect. It does not appear that the harvesting party was armed with any deadly weapons and there could not have been any fear of death or grievous hurt on the part of the appellant and his party. Under section 104, Indian Penal Code their right, therefore, was limited to the causing of any harm other than death. It should, therefore, be held that the accused, though they were exercising the right of private defence of property had exceeded that right. The case would, therefore, fall under Exception 2 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. 14. In the circumstances of the instant case, it appear that on the date of incident injured Narayan Singh (PW 5) had come intentionally to take revenge. He did not approach the public authorities through Munna is said to have committed trespass by taking his bullock cart prior to fifteen days. He had no right to trespass the field by taking his own bullock cart through the vegetable field of Munna's father of which Munna was having clearly right to prevent criminal trespass. It is apparent from the deposition of Devi Singh that the incident took place in the agricultural field belonging to Munna's father Roop Singh. Narayan Singh was found in the field of accused Munna's father, though it is clear that complainants have tried to suppress the material fact that they were aggressors. It is also apparent that Anna was objecting of taking of bullock-cart. Narayan Singh was found in the field of accused Munna's father, though it is clear that complainants have tried to suppress the material fact that they were aggressors. It is also apparent that Anna was objecting of taking of bullock-cart. It appears that in the meantime they facilitated the taking of the bullock-cart hurriedly by the sons of Narayan Singh while Narayan Singh was keeping engaged Anna. Thereafter, it appears that Munna and Hakku also joined in the beating though Hakku and Anna have been acquitted by the Court below but it appears that incident started in the circumstances in which the accused was clearly having in the circumstances of the case right to defence the property so as also that Anna was being beaten who was having weak health as admitted by Narayan Singh himself and not only criminal trespass was made but assault was also made on Anna and if Narayan Singh was injured earlier in point of time it would not have been possible for Narayan to twist the hand of Anna and fell him down as admitted by him. Thus, it is a case where right of private defence of property was clearly available as criminal trespass was made. There was no time with the accused to have reported to the public authorities and to lodge the report of the criminal trespass committed by the injured Narayan Singh and his sons while taking out the bullock-cart causing damage to the vegetable. 15. In the circumstances of the case, not only the trespass was being made but Narayan Singh did it intentionally. It was not merely that he was insisted. It was the result of taking revenge of taking out the bullock-cart from the field of accused Anna was caught hold and was beaten. It cannot be said that the accused exceeded the right of private defence of the property as accused Anna was manhandled also such defence cannot be weighed in a golden scale. Thus, the accused is held to be entitled to acquittal as he exercised right of private defence of property. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant Munna is acquitted.