Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–Instant appeal impugns the judgment dated November 11, 1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu whereby the there appellants Bajrang, Ram Kumar and Sri Ram were convicted and sentenced thus:- U/s. 302/149 IPC Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-. in default to further suffer two Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for there years and fine of Rs. 300/- in default to further suffer there Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/.- in default to further suffer tow months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). As per the prosecution version an information was lodged at Police Station Pilani by Lichhman Ram (PW.3) on July 12, 1989 that Bajrang, Ram Kumar, Sri Ram, Jalu, Mala Ram and Banwari and assaulted Phool Chand, Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Ved Pal with Gandasa, Barchhi, Lathi and axe, as a result of which Phool Chand died and Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Ved Pal sustained injuries. On the basis of such information the case under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 427 IPC was registered and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu Charge under Sections 148, 302 in the alternative 302/149, 427, 325/149, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC was framed against the accused who denied the charge and claimed trial. Accused Jalu, Mala Ram and Banwari died during the pendency of trial and proceedings against them got dropped. As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Sri Ram examined himself and Chunni Lal in defence. On hearing final submission the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Sri Ram examined himself and Chunni Lal in defence. On hearing final submission the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. (3). In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is a case where the conviction is not sustainable as the injuries were inflicted by the appellant while exercising their right of private defence. Deceased Phool Chand, Ved Pal (DW.2), Dharam Pal (PW.4) and Sat Pal (PW.5) were the aggressors and wanted to oust the appellants from the land belonging to the appellants. The injuries received by the appellants Ram Kumar and Sri Ram in the course of the incident were not explained by the prosecution. Sher Singh who would have been the best witness, was not examined by the prosecution. It was also contended y the learned counsel that Jalu Ram submitted cross FIR (Ex.D-8) along with the gun belonging to Phool Chand (deceased) and burden stood discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of plea of self defence on the basis of the material on record. It was also urged that witness Ved Pal (PW. 2) was highly unreliable witness. His statement was recorded after 10 days of the incident and he did not receive any injury caused by sharp edged weapon. Testimony of Dharampal (PW.4) and Satpal (PW.5) had not been considered property. Even from the evidence of Raghuveer (PW.12) the filed where the incident took place was is the possession of the appellants. The learned trial court committed illegality in ignoring the statements of defence witnesses. (4). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and canvassed the there is no reason to doubt the presence of injured eye witnesses. The incident occurred on the way while the deceased and injured persons were returning back in the car. The gun allegedly belonged to Phool Chand was never used and from the record it was established that the appellants and common object to kill Phool Chand and caused injuries to Ved Pal, Dharam Pal and Satpal. There is nothing no record to show preponderance of probabilities in favour of plea of self defence raised by the appellants. (5). The gun allegedly belonged to Phool Chand was never used and from the record it was established that the appellants and common object to kill Phool Chand and caused injuries to Ved Pal, Dharam Pal and Satpal. There is nothing no record to show preponderance of probabilities in favour of plea of self defence raised by the appellants. (5). Before dealing with the rival contention we would like to indicate the nature of evidence led by the prosecution evidence. To being with there is a central evidence consisting of three eye witness viz. Ved Pal (PW.2), Dharam Pal (PW. 4) and Satpal (PW.5). This evidence is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of Raghuveer Singh SHO (PW. 12) and Dr. D.D. Chanana (PW. 7) who performed autopsy on the dead body of Phool Chand and examined injuries sustained by Ved Pal, Dharampal and Satpal. (6). The learned trial Judge based the conviction of the appellants principally on the evidence of Ved Pal (PW.2), Dharampal (PW 4) and Satpal (PW.5). The presence of these witnesses on the scene of occurrence has not been doubted and it impelled the learned Judge to hold these witnesses as eye witnesses of the occurrence. (7). Let us now examine the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and other injured persons. According to post mortem report (Ex.P-20) Phool Chand received as 13 external injuries thus:- 1. Lacerated wound 4" x 1/4" x up bone of the skull at the Rt. fronto parietal region of the skull-blood clotts oblique. 2. Bruise 5" x 2" - diffused swelling on the left arm- fracture of the humerus bone-collection of the blood at left axillary region. 3. L.W. 4" x 3" x - fracture of the bone of the Rt. Leg through the wound fractured ends of both bones are visible & coming out - blood clotts at the upper 1/3rd - diffused swelling at the Rt. Caff region due to collection of blood. 4. Bruise 5" x 1" on the left scapuler region oblique. 5. Bruise 6" x 1" on the Rt. scapular region oblique. 6. Diffused swelling at the Rt. scapular region-blood collection in the swelling. 7. Bruise 5" x 1" at the middle 1/3 of the back oblique. 8. Bruise 4" x 1" at the lumber region outer side oblique. 9. Diffused swelling at the Rt. 5. Bruise 6" x 1" on the Rt. scapular region oblique. 6. Diffused swelling at the Rt. scapular region-blood collection in the swelling. 7. Bruise 5" x 1" at the middle 1/3 of the back oblique. 8. Bruise 4" x 1" at the lumber region outer side oblique. 9. Diffused swelling at the Rt. Leg lower 1/3 just above the Ankle Joint outer side of leg bones. 10. Bruise 4" x 2" Rt. fore arm lower 1/3 outer side. 11. Bruise 3" x 1" on the left hand at the region. 12. Bruise 1" x 1" on the left ahdn dorsal side outer asper. 13. Diffused swelling of the left forearm lower 1/3 outer side # of both bones of the limbs. Fractures of Right Parietal bone, Left humerus upper 1/3, Right tibia and Fibula upper 1/3, Right tibia and Fibula lower 1/3 and left radius and ulna lower 1/3 were found, cause of death was haemorrhage (Ext.) and cumulative effect of multiple injuries to the vital organ like brain. (8). Vide injury report (Ex.P-15) and X-ray report (Ex.P-16) Ved pal received following injuries:- ``1. Lacerated Wound 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the left fronto perietal region of the skull oblique-blood clotts. 2. L.W. 2, 1/4" x scalp deep on the left perietal region of the skull blood clotts oblique. 3. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/8" on the outer side of the left eye brow. 4. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/8" on the left cheek oblique. 5. L.W. 3/4" x 1/8" on the left side of the nose near the alee of nobe. 6. Abrasion 1/8" x 1/8" on the left side of the cheek. 7. Diffused tender swelling on the both eyes bluish discoloration & both the eyes having sub conjunctiva haemorrhage. 8. Bruise 4" x 2, 1/2" on the left deltoid region. 9. Bruise 5" x 2" on the left scapular region oblique. 10. Bruise 5" x 1" on the left scapuler region 2" medial to the injury No. 9th. 11. Bruise 6" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3 oblique. 12. Bruise 6" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3-2" away from the injury No.11. 13. Bruise 12" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3 oblique & 1" away from the injury No. 12. 14. 11. Bruise 6" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3 oblique. 12. Bruise 6" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3-2" away from the injury No.11. 13. Bruise 12" x 1" on the left side of the back middle 1/3 oblique & 1" away from the injury No. 12. 14. Bruise 5" x 1" on the left side of back lower 1/3 oblique. 15. Bruise 3" x 2" on the left arm middle 1/3 outer side. 16. Bruise 5" x 2" on the left glueteal region oblique. 17. Bruise 2" x 1" on the Rt. hypothemar region of the hand. 18. Bruise 4" x 2" on the Rt.forearm upper 1/3- diffused tender swelling. 19. Bruise 2" x 1" on the Rt. deltoid region. 20. Bruise 3" x 2" on the Rt. leg lower 1/3 ant, aspect. 21. Bruise 4" x 1" on the Rt. thing lower 1/3 outer aspect. 22. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the forehead Rt. side. 23. Bruise 2" x 1" on the Rt. side of the back middle 1/3. (9). According to injury report (Ex.P-17) and X-ray report (Ex.P- 18) Satpal sustained following injuries:- ``1. Lacerated Would 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the left fronto perietal region of the skull - blood clotts oblique. 2. Incised would 1/2" x 1/8" x sup. skin deep formation tail oblique downward, the edges, are clean cut on the left side of the chest outer aspect-blood clotts. 3. Bruise 3" x 1" on the left gluteal region outer side. 4. Pt. Complains of pain Epigestric region but no external injury vesibile. (10). Dharam Pal also received injuries vide injury report (Ex.P- 19) as under:- ``1. Bruise 3" x 2" on the left shoulder joint post aspect. 2. Abrasion 2" x 4" on the lower side of the back spinal region. 3. Bruise 6" x 1" on the Rt. side of lumber region outer side. 4. Abrasion 1" x 1/4" on the left leg middle 1/3 ant. aspect. (11). Appellant Sri Ram vide injury report (Ex.P-5) received following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 1, 1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep on the Rt. arm upper 1/3 just below the deltoid region. 2. L.W. 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the Rt. arm middle 1/3 outer side. 3. L.W. 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on the ant auxillary fold Rt. Lacerated wound 1, 1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep on the Rt. arm upper 1/3 just below the deltoid region. 2. L.W. 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the Rt. arm middle 1/3 outer side. 3. L.W. 1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on the ant auxillary fold Rt. side blood clotts. 4. Bruise 7" x 1" on the upper side of the back oblique. (12). Appellant Ram Kumar vide injury report (Ex.D-6) sustained following injuries: 1. Lacerated would 2" x 1/4" xscalp deep obliquely on the top of the skull-blood clotts. 2. L.W. 1, 1/12" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the top of the skull oblique-blood clotts. 1, 1/2" anterior of the injury No. 1. 3. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/4" on the left thumb dorsal side. (13). One Budh Ram who was present at the time of incident also received injures vide Ex.D-7 as under:- 1. Lacerated would 2" x 1/4" x scalp deep on the top of the skull-blood clotts oblique. 2. L.W. 3/4" x 1/4 x scalp deep on the Rt. parietal region of the skull blood clotts. 3. Bruise 5" x 1" on the left thing middle 1/3 outer aspect. (14). Coming to the testimony of Ved Pal (PW.2) it is to be noticed that he is a practising lawyer. In his deposition Vedpal stated that on July 12, 1989 while he along with Satpal, Dharampal and Phool Chand were coming back in his car No.RST 1148, Banwari and Jalu Ram got them halted near the field of Shear Singh and Banwari, Bajrang, Sri Ram, Ram Kumar, Jalu Ram, Budh Ram and Mala Ram started inflicting lathis, Barchhi and Gandasi on the car. Ved Pal then locked the car from inside but the assailants broke open the lock and pushed Ved Pal, Phool Chand, Dharampal and Satpal out of the car. Banwari was armed with Barchhi, Bajrang was having gandasi and others were armed with lathis. They indiscriminately inflicted blows with lathis and Gandasi and Killed Phool Chand. Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal sustained injuries as a result of which Ved Pal became unconscious and regained consciousness after 10 days of the incident. In his cross examination Ved Pal deposed that on the date of incident Sher Singh driver was not driving his car but he himself was driving. Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal sustained injuries as a result of which Ved Pal became unconscious and regained consciousness after 10 days of the incident. In his cross examination Ved Pal deposed that on the date of incident Sher Singh driver was not driving his car but he himself was driving. There was a public way in between the filed and the said say was utilised by them in going to their field and coming back. He admitted that although Phool Chand had a Topidar gun but Phool Chand neither threatened the assailants nor used the gun. Dharam Pal (PW. 4) and Sat Pal (PW.5) almost repeated the version narrated by Ved Pal. All the three witnesses were cross examined at length but their testimony could not be shattered. (15). Fact situation emerges from the material on record may summarised thus:- (i) According to Raghuveer Singh SHO (PW.12) when he reached at the spot he found dead body of Phood Chand lying in the field belonging to Sher Singh under a Khejri tree. A car was standing on the way that crosses the filed and goes from village Lamba Gothra to Dhani. Glasses of car were smashed and its boy had many dents. Vegetable was spreading on the rear seat of the car. (ii) Lathis got recovered at the instance of Bajrang and Sri Ram. Whereas recovery of axe was effected on the basis of information supplied by Ram Kumar. (iii) Appellant Sri Ram examined himself as DW.2. In his cross examination he admitted that when car got stopped, they were at a distance of 50-60 steps and they reached near the car within five-four minutes. (iv) A written report (Ex.D-8A) was lodged by Jalu Ram Saini on July 12, 1989 at the Police Station Pilani against Ved Pal, Satpal and their companions. Along with the report a Topidar gun and a bag containing licence of gun in the name of Phool Chand, some gun power and two bullets were handed over to SHO. (v) Chunni Lal (DW.1) in his cross examination admitted that in between the filed where the incident had taken place, there was a pagdandi (foot-path). (vi) None of the assailants had sustained gun shot injuries. (vii) Neither any blunt weapon was produced along with the written report nor it was found at the place of incident. (16). (v) Chunni Lal (DW.1) in his cross examination admitted that in between the filed where the incident had taken place, there was a pagdandi (foot-path). (vi) None of the assailants had sustained gun shot injuries. (vii) Neither any blunt weapon was produced along with the written report nor it was found at the place of incident. (16). Averting to the submission of learned counsel for the appellants in regard to plea of self defence it is to be noticed that Section 96 IPC merely indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such right. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and in determining such a question it is necessary to consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is well settled that under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof is on the accused who raises the plea of self defence. The accused can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself or he may place necessary material on record in support of such plea. The defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of accused. The burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea on the basis of the material on record. (17). Bearing these principles in mind was proceed to consider the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. On viewing the entire incident with care and in its proper setting we find ourselves unable to accept the plea of self defence. As earlier noticed, th deceased and injured persons had gone to their field in the care and while they were coming back they got halted by the appellants and there other assailants viz. Jalu, Mala Ram and Banwari. The assailants who were armed with lathis, axe, Barchhi and Gandasa, made assault on the car, pushed Phood Chand, Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal out of the car and inflicted injuries indiscriminately. Phool Chand died on the spot. Jalu, Mala Ram and Banwari. The assailants who were armed with lathis, axe, Barchhi and Gandasa, made assault on the car, pushed Phood Chand, Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal out of the car and inflicted injuries indiscriminately. Phool Chand died on the spot. Ved Pal and Sat Pal laid down on the field and injured Dharam Pal some how could reach to the house and informed Lichhman Ram about the incident who lodged the report and admitted Ved Pal and Sat Pal in the hospital. Presence of six assailants at the time of incident is established. It is also established that Phool Chand, Ved Pal, Dharam Pal and Sat Pal neither came out of the car nor threatened any body. Phood Chand had no opportunity to use Topidar gun. From the evidence of Ved Pal it appears that he was the counsel for Sher Singh and because of this the assailants and animus with him. We find no substance in this submission of learned counsel that Phool Chand, Ved Pal, Dharam Pal and Sat Pal were aggressors and wanted to oust the appellants from the land. Had it been a case of getting forceful possession. Tractor with digging instrument would have been used by Phool Chand and other injured persons and not the car on the rear seat of which, fresh vegetables (`lady fingers as per site plan) were spreading. There is nothing on record which could show that Phool Chand, Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal had any blunt or sharp edged weapon. No suggestion was given to the injured witnesses that they were armed with weapons and caused injuries to appellants Sri Ram and Ram Kumar. The car was fond standing on the way in between the field that connects village Lamba Gothra to village Dhani. Undoubtedly there are discrepancies in the statements of injured eye witnesses but they are minor, insignificant, natural and not material. The witnesses sustained injuries in the course of the incident and their presence at the time of incident cannot be doubted. Ved Pal became unconscious after sustaining injuries and if his statement was recorded by the police after ten days, it hardly affects the truthfulness of his testimony. As the incident occurred on the way while Phool Chand, Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal were inside the car, non examination of Sher Singh is not fatal. Ved Pal became unconscious after sustaining injuries and if his statement was recorded by the police after ten days, it hardly affects the truthfulness of his testimony. As the incident occurred on the way while Phool Chand, Ved Pal, Sat Pal and Dharam Pal were inside the car, non examination of Sher Singh is not fatal. Lathis got recovered at the instance of appellants Bajrang and Sri Ram, whereas recovery of axe got effected on the basis of information supplied by appellant Ram Kumar. If no incised wound was found on the dead body of the deceased or the person of injured witnesses, it does not mean that the incident in the manner shown by the prosecution had not happened. Considering the testimony of defence witness, we find that the assailants after making assault took Topidar gun and bag containing licence, gun power and bullets in their possession and went to the police station and lodged the report (Ex.D.-8A). Chunni Lal (PW.1) impliedly supports the prosecution version when he says that in between the filed where the incident occurred there was a pagdandi (Foot-path). Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh (1), indicated thus:- (para 8) ``Section 102 and 105 IPC deal with commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body and property respectively. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or the at or committee offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until that there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. In Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 612 ), it was observed that a soon as the cause for reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or has been put to route there can be no occasion to exercise the right of private defence. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case the appellants along with three other assailants without any apprehension of danger to the body or the property, assaulted the persons who were going in the car. In doing so all six assailants had shared common object. Learned trial Judge on scanning the entire material on record rightly held the appellants guilty. (18). In doing so all six assailants had shared common object. Learned trial Judge on scanning the entire material on record rightly held the appellants guilty. (18). In the back ground of legal and factual position indicated above, the appeal is without any merit and deserves dismissed, which we direct.