Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 51715-M of 2001 (Vinod v. State of Haryana), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7324-M of 2002 (Krishan Dutt v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8375 of 2002 (Parmod Kumar v. State of Haryana) as these arise out of the same First Information Report bearing No. 170 dated 21.7.2001 under Sections 304 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of Rajinder Singh. According to his version, on 21.7.2001 at about 1.30 P.M. he along with his nephew Ashok Kumar was present in front of the house of Rohtash son of Rattan Lal resident of village Teha. At that time, they (complainant Rajinder Singh and his nephew Ashok Kumar) were talking with Suresh, Sarpanch, and Rohtash. Soon thereafter, they heard a noise "Le Lo, Le Lo" coming from the side of the house of Krishan Dutt. Upon hearing the noise, they went running towards the house of Krishan Dutt. They were followed by a number of persons. They noticed that accused Krishan Dutt and Parmod were carrying guns with them. Accused Vinod son of Krishan Dutt was having a pistol in his hand. Accused Prem Chand son of Hukam Chand was carrying a sword in his hand while accused Anguri wife of Krishan Dutt and Sunita wife of Parmod were armed with Dandas. All the accused were present in front of their house under a `Neem tree. At that time, Jai Kanwar, brother of the complainant Rajinder Singh, was going towards the house of accused Krishan Dutt. Accused Parmod Kumar, who was standing near the water reservoir, fired two shots at Jai Kanwar and the pallets of the shots hit him on the face and head, as a result of which he fell down. When Ashok Kumar, nephew of the complainant, rushed to rescue Jai Kanwar, accused Krishan Dutt fired a shot from his gun at Ashok Kumar, which resulted in pallet injuries on his right hand and left foot. Thereafter, accused Parmod Kumar and Krishan Dutt fired eight/nine shots from their respective weapons, but none hit any person of the complainant party. Accused Sunita, after taking guns from the other accused, escaped towards the fields. Thereafter, accused Parmod Kumar and Krishan Dutt fired eight/nine shots from their respective weapons, but none hit any person of the complainant party. Accused Sunita, after taking guns from the other accused, escaped towards the fields. Jai Kanwar succemberd to the injuries at the spot. Thereafter, accused Krishan Dutt, Parmod Kumar, Vinod, Prem Chand and Anguri left the spot along with their respective weapons. Ashok Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital at Ganaur. Leaving Rohtash and Suresh, Sarpanch, at the spot in order to guard the dead body of Jai Kanwar, Rajinder Singh went to the Police Station to lodge the report. After completion of investigation, challan has been put in Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused Vinod, Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioners-accused Krishan Dutt and Parmod Kumar, and Mr. Vijay Dahiya, learned Assistant Advocate General. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused Vinod, at the threshold of arguments, stated that the plea raised in the petition that the said accused was a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime, was not pressed by him. His argument, while pressing for bail of petitioner-accused Vinod, was that taking the prosecution allegations at their face value, no overt act has been attributed to him because he is not said to have used the pistol and had not caused any injury to the deceased or the witnesses. Rather, according to the learned counsel, accused Vinod, being the son of accused Krishan Dutt, has been roped in falsely in this case because of the enmity over the land dispute which Krishan Dutt was having with the accused. This was despite the fact that Krishan Dutt was in possession of the land regarding which proceedings under Section 145 of the Code had already taken place. 5. Learned counsel representing petitioners-accused Krishan Dutt and Parmod Kumar, while pressing for their bail, vehemently urged that the incident had taken place because the members of the complainant-party wanted to forcibly dispossess the accused from the land which was in their possession and where their house also located. It was also pointed out by him that the land in dispute was attached by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ganaur, and a civil suit was pending between the parties in which an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the accused. It was also pointed out by him that the land in dispute was attached by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ganaur, and a civil suit was pending between the parties in which an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the accused. Thereafter, possession of the land was given to the accused. The complainant party was aggrieved on this account. For that reason, on the date of occurrence, the complainant, in the company of 30/40 other persons, while armed with deadly weapons like guns, swords, spears etc. came to the house of the accused. They went to the roof of the house of the accused and after sprinkling kerosene oil, set the same on fire. Kalawati, sister of the petitioner Krishan Dutt, who was standing outside the house, had also suffered injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant party. Under these circumstances, the gun shots were fired by accused Krishan Dutt and Parmod Kumar in their self defence. According to the learned counsel, licensed guns were used by them in order to not only protect their property, but also to save their lives and their right of self defence cannot be measured in golden scale. His further grievance is that the petitioners-accused went to lodge the report with the police, but the police adopted a partisan attitude and sided with the complainant party despite the fact that Kalawati was also admitted in the Civil Hospital, having suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant-party. 6. Opposing the submissions made, it has been strenuously urged by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the sequence of events, narrated by the complainant in the report lodged, clearly reveal that the accused, with a pre-determined mind, had used the fire-arms indiscriminately as a result of which not only fatal injuries were suffered by Jai Kanwar (deceased), but Ashok Kumar, nephew of the complainant, had also suffered fire-arm injuries. Further, according to him, the accused wanted to wreck vengeance because they were annoyed with the complainant party who had resorted to legitimate means of invoking the jurisdiction of the courts in order to claim their right over the agricultural land regarding which the accused were creating hindrance. It was also highlighted by the State counsel that the incident had taken place in the street and not in the land possessed by the accused. It was also highlighted by the State counsel that the incident had taken place in the street and not in the land possessed by the accused. It was further submitted by him that the accused persons had set their own house on fire in order to create defence because of the heinous crime committed by them. At the same time, it was not disputed by him that seventeen persons have been summoned to face trial in a criminal complaint filed by the accused in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ganaur, but, according to him, this is a counter-blast to the case registered against the accused. 7. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. The account rendered by the complainant is supported by the other eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code. The Medical Officer, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jai Kanwar, had opined that cause of his death was extensive shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs. These injuries were caused by firearm. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in due course of nature. The Medical Officer, who had examined injured Ashok Kumar, had noticed four injuries on his person. The question whether the petitioners-accused had acceded (exceeded ?) their right of self defence or not, has to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. Simply because Vinod, who was also armed with a pistol at the time of occurrence, had not caused any injury to the members of the complainant-party, would not absolve him of the vicarious liability for the commission of the crime. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.