JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal portrays a horrendous picture in which two persons namely Harju Podh and Register Kand became the victims of the circumstances and shed their lives at the place of occurrence. 2. There were spate of litigations between the parties over the land locally known as "Kharibahal" on which the incident had taken place. The Appellants Ghanshyam Kand, Parsu Kand and Tanka Kand had filed a Civil Suit for partition and separate possession in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh and no final decision had been taken on the date of incident. 3. On 25.6.1993 at about 8 A.M. the Appellants along with other accused persons (since acquitted) were ploughing the aforesaid disputed land by two ploughs and Appellant Parsu Kand was watching the said ploughing. The said disputed land was claimed to have been in possession of deceased Register Kand and Harju Podh. Therefore, they came and protested against the high handed action of the Appellants who were allegedly forcibly cultivating at the time of occurrence. It has also transpired from the prosecution story that two days preceding the date of occurrence the deceased persons had cultivated the said land. On the date of occurrence when deceased Register Kand and Harju Podh prevented the Appellants from cultivating the said land, there ensued a severe brawl over possession between them by which the Appellant Ghanshyam being agitated brought out a 'Tabli', Appellant parsu brought out Anr. Tabli and Appellant Tanka brought out an axe which they kept concealed in the land and they assaulted deceased Harju Podh indiscriminately as a result of which he fell down with severe bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the bodies. Deceased Register Kand seeing the assault on Harju Podh rushed to the Spot and attempted to prevent the accused-Appellants from assaulting deceased Harju Podh. At this juncture the other accused persons namely Dalimba, Badu, Kausalya and Tilam obstructed deceased Register Kand. In the process Appellant Parsu Kand came there and assaulted the deceased Register Kand by means of a 'Tabli' on his left side neck as a result of which he received severe cut injuries and thereafter fell down on the land. When Register Kand fell down, the informant Niran Kand (P.w.1), Rukha Podh (P.W.3) and Mena Gahira (P.W.5) arrived at the spot on hearing the outcry. When Register Kand fell down, the informant Niran Kand (P.w.1), Rukha Podh (P.W.3) and Mena Gahira (P.W.5) arrived at the spot on hearing the outcry. When they proceeded to rescue deceased Register Kand who was lying injured, Appellant Ghanshyam dealt a lahti blow on Niran Kand, (P.W.I) on his right fore-arm, Appellant Parsu Kand dealt a 'Tabli' blow on Rukha Podh (P.W.3) on her right arm and one juvenile offender. Dila who is facing trial in the Juvenile Court dealt a lathi blow on the fore- head of P.W.5, Mena Gahira. After P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 were assaulted by the other accused persons they surrounded the deceased Register Kand who was lying injured and assaulted him indiscriminately as a result of which the deceased Register Kand and Harju Podh succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 (Niran Kand), the informant along with the ward member of the village namely Bhosankar Bag and P.W.3 (Rukha Podh) went to Turekela Police Station and reported the matter orally which the O.I.C. of the said Police Station reduced to writing and after it was read over to the informant, the informant lent his L.T.I, thereon and it was treated as F.I.R. The Officer-in-charge, Turekela P.S. proceeded with the investigation of the case. He examined the witnesses, collected the blood stained earth and sample earth, held enquest over the dead bodies of Harju Podh and Register Kand, sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination, seized the wearing apparels of the deceased persons and after completion of investigation placed the charge sheet against the Appellants and other accused persons. 4. The trial Court after resume of the evidence held the Appellants guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The other lady accused Dalimba Kand was convicted u/s 324. I.P.C. accused Gudu Kand, Kausalya Kand and Tilam Kand were convicted u/s 323. I.P.C. and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 324, I.P.C. and R.I. for six months u/s 323, I.P.C. respectively, but they have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with their case on merits in this appeal. 5. Prosecution had examined 14 witnesses, out of whom. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses and presented a vivid picture of the entire prosecution story in Court whereas P.Ws. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with their case on merits in this appeal. 5. Prosecution had examined 14 witnesses, out of whom. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses and presented a vivid picture of the entire prosecution story in Court whereas P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 who were injured in course of the same incident testified the prosecution story with regard to the injuries on deceased Register Kand. P.W.6 is the father of deceased Harju Podh. P.W.7 is a post occurrence witness. P.Ws. 8, 10 and 11 are the seizure witnesses, P.W.9 is a witness to the inquest field over the deadbodies of the deceased. P.W.12 is the I.O. and P.W.13 is the Medical Officer who treated P.Ws.1 and 3 and accused Ghanshyam Kand, Tanka Kand and his wife BuduKand. P.W.14 is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbodies of Harju Podh and Register Kand. There is no dispute that the incident had taken place in the field locally-known as "Kharibahal" Appellant Parsu-Kand son of Sunadhar Kand filed a suit for partition which was pending on the date of incident. In the said partition suit the disputed land was also included for which Appellant Parsu Kand claimed separate possession and allotment. In the current settlement the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Sundhar Kand along with Ors. jointly. P.W.6 (Bichhe Podhen) father of deceased Harju Podh had sold the disputed land to Maniram Bag and Haridas Bag for a consideration of Rs. 3.000/-Bichhe Podhen also sold away other lands under Holding No. 52 to Tulsi Ganda, Agasti Bag, Haridas Bag and Ors. . Appellant Parsu was also in possession of 8 to 9 dulies of land under Holding No. 52 near about the place of occurrence. After the land was sold, the Appellant Parsu Kand started a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. in respect of the disputed land and the purchaser of Bichhe Podhen were restrained from coming over to the said "Kharibahal" land. Two to three days preceding the date of occurrence it is stated that deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand had cultivated the said land. On the date of incident while the Appellants cultivated the said land this unfortunate incident had taken place. 6. Two to three days preceding the date of occurrence it is stated that deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand had cultivated the said land. On the date of incident while the Appellants cultivated the said land this unfortunate incident had taken place. 6. learned Counsel for the Appellants has brought to our notice that since there were several criminal disputes between the parties, there were no justifiable reasons for the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand to go for cultivating the said land without approaching either the criminal or, civil Court for rescinding the order. We do not persuade ourself with the said submission inasmuch as it is equally not tenable on the part of the Appellants to go and re-plough the said land which were being ploughed by deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand, Therefore, in this background we will have to find out whether there is any right of private defence available to the Appellants. 7. It is true that there was a partition suit pending among the Appellants on one hand and deceased Register Kand and Ors. on the other: but there was no preliminary decree passed demarcating the specific portion of the land to be enjoyed by each co-shares. In case the Appellants intended to restrain deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand they could have taken shelter by filing an application before the appropriate Court for an interim order. We also do not find any justification for the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand to cultivate the said land when there was a proceeding u/s 144. Code of Criminal Procedure and an order of prohibition was starting at their face. The land was undisputedly recorded in current settlement in the name of Sunadhar Kand and Ors. . From the narration of the facts, we are however unable to arrive at a definite conclusion as to which party was in possession on the date of occurrence and patently there was a scramble for possession over the disputed land. However, we refrain from discussing further about title and possession of the parties over the disputed land, since, it may influence the mind of the Civil Court as the suit for partition is pending. 8. However, we refrain from discussing further about title and possession of the parties over the disputed land, since, it may influence the mind of the Civil Court as the suit for partition is pending. 8. Assuming that the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand cultivated the disputed land three days preceding the date of occurrence, there was sufficient time available for the Appellants to take recourse to law instead of assaulting the deceased persons mercilessly on the date of incident. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 it has appeared that they assaulted severely while deceased Register Kand was proceeding forward to protect the other deceased Harju Podh. They had been sorrounded by the other accused persons and in the process the Appellants came and mercilessly assaulted by different weapons of offence. So far as the assault on Register Kand is concerned, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 that they had seen the assault by the Appellants on deceased Register Kand. 9. Learned State defence counsel has invited our attention to some contradictions in the statements of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 but since those contradictions are very minor in nature and it is expected that such discrepancies usually do occur, those discrepancies and/or contradictions do not affect the substratum of the prosecution story and the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident cannot however be rejected on that ground alone. Apart from it, we find the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 who presented a cogent, clear and vivid picture with regard to the part played by the Appellants while assaulting both the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The defence counsel was also unable to bring out any circumstance which would impair the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 4 even after leaving aside the evidence of P.Ws.1. 3 and 5. The Prosecution has been able to bring home the charge on the basis of ocular statements of P.Ws. 2 and 4. There is no dispute that both the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand met a homicidal death. The manner in which the Appellants assaulted both the deceased it has appeared that they had a clear intention to do away with the lives of the deceased persons. 10. 2 and 4. There is no dispute that both the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand met a homicidal death. The manner in which the Appellants assaulted both the deceased it has appeared that they had a clear intention to do away with the lives of the deceased persons. 10. From the evidence of P.W. 14 who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased Register Kand it has appeared that there were 7 external injuries and the cranium and spinal canal and skull and other important organ of the body were severally affected. P.W.14 also certified that those multiple injuries could cause death in ordinary course of nature. Similarly the brain matter also came out of the wound. P.W.14 also conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of Harju Podh and found 4 external injuries and also one lacerated wound on the cranium and spinal canal and the brain matter also had come out of the wound. The death was due to hemorrhage by a heavy sharp cutting weapon. Absolutely there has been no cross-examination to P.W.14 challenging her version. Therefore, on a plain reading of the post mortem report of P.W.14 there can be no manner of doubt that the Appellants had an intention to commit the murder of both the deceased. 11. While winding up the arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has invited our attention that the prosecution has significantly tailed to explain the injuries on the persons of the Appellants namely Tanka Kand and Ghanshyam Kand. On a perusal of the Medical report prepared by P.W.13 it appeared that the other accused persons (since acquitted) had sustained only simple injuries. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Titilagarh has also dealt with this aspect of the case in his judgment and no circumstances has been placed to suggest that those injuries were caused in course of the same incident. The prosecution is not obliged to explain each and every injury sustained by other accused persons. Merely because the Appellants had also sustained some minor injuries that by itself could not falsify the prosecution story which has rested with sufficient evidence produced before the Court by P.Ws. 2 and 4 corroborated by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5. 12. The prosecution is not obliged to explain each and every injury sustained by other accused persons. Merely because the Appellants had also sustained some minor injuries that by itself could not falsify the prosecution story which has rested with sufficient evidence produced before the Court by P.Ws. 2 and 4 corroborated by P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5. 12. From the totality of the facts and circumstances and on the resume of the evidence placed by the prosecution, we have least hesitation to hold that the Appellants had committed the ghastly murder of both the deceased Harju Podh and Register Kand and they have been rightly convicted u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Titilagarh against the Appellants are hereby confirmed. P.K. Misra. J. 14. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed