JUDGMENT PRADIPTA RAY, J. — Informant Nrusingha Kumar Panda has filed this Criminal Revision against the judgment and order dated January 30, 1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 275 of 1993 whereby the accused-opp. parties 1 to 3 have been acquitted from all the charges framed against them. 2. The prosecution story in brief is : Informant is the owner of about 1 (one) acre of agricultural land in village Panada while his cousin Simanchal Panda is the owner of about 1½ acres of adjacent land. There was a dispute between the accused Pandab Sahu and Simanchal Panda over the title and possession of the land claimed by Simanchal. On April 18, 1993 at about 9.00 a.m. the informant sent some labourers to cultivate his land. Cultivation of informant’s land was over at about 12.30 p.m.. the labourers engaged by the informant told the informant that they had been paid money in advance by Simanchal to cultivate his land and they were going to cultivate the land of Simanchal. The informant alone returned to the village at about 3.00 p.m. and at about 5.00 p.m. Gajendra Dalei, one of the labourers came running to the village and informed the informant that about 4.00 p.m. Pandab Sahu and his two sons came to the field, assaulted and severely injured two labourers, namely, Ch. Kantaru Patra and Gopi Gouda. Gajendra further told that he protested but the accused persons threatened and chased him with deadly weapons. After hearing the same the informant went to the disputed land with A. Raghunath Rao in a Tempo and found Ch. Kantaru Patra and Gopi Gouda lying in the field with severe bleeding injuries. The said injured persons were removed to M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital in Berhampur in the said Tempo. Ch. Kantaru Patra ultimately succumbed to his injuries at about 7 p.m. The informant lodged a written report with the Officer-in-Charge in Golanthara Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint police took up investigation. The accused Pandab Sahu and Muna Sahu surrendered before the Court and were remanded to jail custody. Accused Prafulla Sahu absconded and could not be arrested during investigation. Initially charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons showing Prafulla as an absconder. Subsequently, Prafulla also surrendered in Court and was taken to custody. The accused Pandab Sahu and Muna Sahu surrendered before the Court and were remanded to jail custody. Accused Prafulla Sahu absconded and could not be arrested during investigation. Initially charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused persons showing Prafulla as an absconder. Subsequently, Prafulla also surrendered in Court and was taken to custody. All the accused persons were charged for committing offence as under Secs. 302/34 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and denied any kind of involvement in the occurrence. 4. To prove the charges against the accused persons the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. P.W.4 - Narasingha Kumar Panda was the informant. P.W. 5 - Gopi Gouda and P.W. 6 - Gajendra Dalei claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 - Pratap Panda was a witness to the inquest. P.W. 3 is the doctor who examined the injured Gopi Gouda and submitted his report. P. W. 7 - Dr. H. K. Sahu conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. P.W.8 was the investigating officer and P.W.2 was a Constable who accompanied the dead body to the hospi¬tal for post mortem examination. 5. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased Kantaru Patra sustained 17 external injuries leading to 7 internal injuries. According to the report, all those injuries were ante mortem, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course and the death was the combined effect of coma, shock and haemorrhage. The trial Court accepted that the death was homici¬dal. Upon examination of the post mortem report and the evidence of P.W.7 we agree with the said finding of the trial Court. 6. The injured Gopi Gouda was examined by a Medical Offi¬cer (P.W.3). According to the medical examination report, Gopi suffered six injuries out of which injury Nos. - 3 and 7 were grievous in nature. 7. P.Ws. 5 and 6 have claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and as such their evidence assume importance. P.W.6 is the Khamari (farm servant) of the informant - Nrusingha Panda. In examination-in-Chief he has given an account of the assaults inflicted by the accused persons on Gopi Gouda and Kantaru Patra, but in cross-examination he has stated that he was working facing opposite direction and when he first turned back he found Gopi Gouda (P.W.5) and deceased-Kantaru lying down on the ground. In examination-in-Chief he has given an account of the assaults inflicted by the accused persons on Gopi Gouda and Kantaru Patra, but in cross-examination he has stated that he was working facing opposite direction and when he first turned back he found Gopi Gouda (P.W.5) and deceased-Kantaru lying down on the ground. He has further stated that he did not see when the accused persons first arrived at the spot. Such statement in cross-examination contradicts his claim in examination-in-Chief that he actually saw the assaults inflicted by the accused per¬sons on the injured and the deceased. 8. P.W.5 - Gopi Gouda himself suffered grievous injuries. He has given an account of the blows inflicted on him by each of the accused persons. He has also stated that accused Prafulla dealt a blow on the head near right ear of the deceased by means of a Katua and Kantaru fell down. According to him, even after Kantaru had fallen down, the three accused persons dealt several blows on different parts of his body and left the place leaving the said witnesses P.W.5 and Kantaru on the field. From the suggestions given on behalf of the accused persons to the materi¬al witnesses, it appears that according to the defence, Kantaru refused to plough the disputed land of Simanchal under order of the informant and being angry the informant Nrusingha Panda and P.W.5 - Gopi Gouda assaulted Kantaru severely to death. 9. The trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons on the view that they came to the field to protect their property and exercised right of private defence of their property. The trial Court has further held that from the evidence on record it is not possible to find out who actually dealt the blows which caused death of the deceased and grievous injuries of Gopi Gouda. 10. As already pointed out P.W. 5 - Gopi Gouda himself suffered grievous injuries. In his evidence he gave an account of different blows inflicted by different accused persons on him and on the deceased. The trial Court is not correct in its view that there is no material to indicate which blow was dealt by which of the accused persons. P.w.5 has described how different persons dealt different blows on him and the deceased. The trial Court is not correct in its view that there is no material to indicate which blow was dealt by which of the accused persons. P.w.5 has described how different persons dealt different blows on him and the deceased. Account of assault given by P.W.6 may be discarded, but evidence of P.W.5 is re¬quired to be reassessed alongwith other evidence on record, particularly those of the doctors P.W.3 and P.W.7. 11. The trial Court has given the accused persons the benefit of exercising right of private defence in respect of property. The accused persons themselves have not taken the plea of private defence. Their defence is of total denial. From the suggestions given on behalf of the defence it appears that they claimed that the deceased was assaulted by the informant-Gopi Gouda and Gajendra Dalei as the deceased refused to plough the disputed land under order of the informant. Excepting the evidence that there was dispute over the ownership of land be¬tween the informant, Simanchal and the accused persons, there is no material or even claim that the accused persons came upon the field to exercise their right of private defence of the said disputed property. True, an accused may or may not take explicit plea of self-defence, but he can succeed in his plea if he can show from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or other pieces of evidence that the criminal act committed by him is justified in exercise of his right of private defence of property or person or both, vide Mohinder Pal Jolly v. Sate of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 57. In the present case, excepting the material that there was dispute over the land and the assault took place on the disputed land there is no material or evidence on record that the accused persons were exercising their private right of defence of property or person. The defence has not adduced any evidence in this regard. There is no material on record to show that there was any clash between the accused persons and the labourers engaged by informant or Simanchal or that there was resistance by the deceased and other labourers. No suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused persons asked the deceased, the injured, and other labourers to stop cultivation and leave the field, but they did not listen to the same. No suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused persons asked the deceased, the injured, and other labourers to stop cultivation and leave the field, but they did not listen to the same. Even assuming that the accused persons came to protect their property it is to be determined whether the criminal acts actually commit¬ted by them caused much more harm than it was necessary for the purpose of private defence. It appears that the trial Court committed error in giving the accused persons the benefit of the right of private defence of property particularly when no such case was put forward or even suggested by them. 12. The trial Court has proceeded upon the view that in a case where the accused persons were exercising right of private defence of person or property it cannot be said that the accused persons came with a common object of causing grievous injury or committing murder. As there is no material to show that the right of private defence was being exercised, the said view of the trial Court cannot flow from the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. For the foregoing reasons we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and send back the case to the Sessions Court for retrial. The trial Court will dispose of the case on the basis of evidence already recorded as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of arrival of the records. The accused persons are directed to surrender before the trial Court which will deal with them in accordance with law. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed. A. S. NAIDU, J. I agree. Crl. Revision allowed.