Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-In an occurrence that took place on 29.09.1993 at Village Delawas, whereas one person from the side of the complainant party namely Motiram lost his life, 20 others were injured. In the same very occurrence, ten persons from the side of the appellants were injured. The only but significant question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the appellants caused death of one and injured 20 others in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property or that they constituted unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party, thus committing various offences for which they were tried and held guilty. 2. Prosecution put 40 persons on trial out of whom whereas Laxmi Narain @ Latoor has been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life, Ram Swaroop, Narsiram, Gyarsa, Ganga Ram and Punia @ Puniram have been held guilty for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced likewise. All the appellants have also been held guilty and sentenced for various offences as fully detailed below: Accused Laxmi Narain @ Latoor & Ladu Ram Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 2 months to each of them. Laxmi Narain @ Latoor, Ladu Ram, Ram Swaroop, Narsi Ram, Gyarsa, Gangaram and Punya @ Puniram. Under Section 147 IPC One year R.I. Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I. Under Section 447 IPC 3 months R.I. Under Section 427 IPC 6 months R.I. Under Section 323 IPC 6 months R.I. Under Section 325 IPC One years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.-, in default of payment of fine, one months R.I. 326 IPC 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month. 3. Whereas Laxmi Narayan and Ladu have challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Dausa dated 012.2002 by filling D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1643/2002, other appellants Ram Swaroop, Narsi Ram, Gyarsa, Gangaram and Punya @ Puniram have challenged the same very order of conviction and sentence by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1673/2002. 4. Dausa dated 012.2002 by filling D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1643/2002, other appellants Ram Swaroop, Narsi Ram, Gyarsa, Gangaram and Punya @ Puniram have challenged the same very order of conviction and sentence by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1673/2002. 4. Appellants and their co-accused came up with the counter version asserting that they were owner and in possession of the land where the occurrence had taken place and the complainant party had tried to oust them. The complainant party was tried in separate trial and all the accused arrayed in that case have been acquitted resulting into filing of Criminal Revision No. 305/2003. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two criminal appeals and the criminal revision mentioned above. 5. The occurrence leading to the death of one and injuries to 20 as mentioned above took place on 29.09.1993 at 11 a.m. FIR (Exhibit P. 1) with regard to the incident was lodged by Pooran (PW. 1) on the same day at 1 p.m. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that special report with regard to the incident was not sent to the concerned Magistrate at all. In the occurrence aforesaid, whereas Moti Ram lost his life, Kailash, Ramesh, Ram Kishan, Rama, Rukmani, Ramjilal, Gabdu @ Ramavatar, Kalu, Ramjilal, Genda, Manbhari, Devaram, Soni, Manni, Ram Bhajan, Ram Karan and Smt. Bhooli Devi received injuries. From the side of accused, Laxmi Narayan @ Ladu, Lala, Gangaram, Harphool, Puriram, Gyarsa, Revad and Narsi were injured. 6. The FIR lodged by Pooran, when translated into English, reads as follows: "Respectfully, it is submitted that, we were working in our agricultural fields. Suddenly, 200 persons of Singpura, Abhaneri, Todarwas and Pipaliya came there, out of which Chhitar, Ghasi, Bhagwana, Laxminarain, Sanwal Ram, Kishore, Kori Lal, Rooplya, Parsa, Dola, Panchya, Kalu, Sitaram, Moolya, Hari, Gopal, Kalu, Laduram, Narsing, Partyo, Nathu, Ramratan, Revad, Mangya, Badri, Gopal, Chhitar, Chhajyo, Lacchyo, Ganga Ram, Janyo, Laxmi Narain, Lala, Babu, Bhagwana, Chhotu etc. were belonging to Singpura; Mahadeva, Bhagwana, Kishan, Janyo, Ram Karan, Mangla, Pappu were belonging to Todarwas and Revad who came there with his Tractor and driver Ramswaroop were belonging to Pipaliya. One tractor was brought from Maheshpura. Four tractors of Chhitar, Kalu, Rooplya and Sitaram were brought from Singpura. Ten persons were belonging to Abhaneri, names of these persons so also names of other persons I do not know. One tractor was brought from Maheshpura. Four tractors of Chhitar, Kalu, Rooplya and Sitaram were brought from Singpura. Ten persons were belonging to Abhaneri, names of these persons so also names of other persons I do not know. All these persons came there in tractors and they started to plough our crops. Then our persons Motiram, Ramdev, Ramesh, Kishan Lal and Govinda went there to make them understand then they started beating them. When they were beating with lathi, Gandasa, Kharwadia, we apprehending the quarrel ran away from there, then they started beating us. Ladies were also beaten and they drove the tractors towards us to kill us. Then to mediate, Prabhata, Ramchandra Gurjar, Narain, Harsai etc. came there and mediated with great difficulty. If these persons had not been there then our so many persons would have been crushed and killed by tractors. These persons had assaulted us to take away our life. I had brought the injured persons to Hospital. The report is being submitted, the action be taken." 7. The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offences against the appellants and the co-accused who have since been acquitted, examined Dr. B.L. Bhatia (PW. 25) who conduced post mortem of the dead body of Motiram. The doctor found the following injuries on the dead body of Moti Ram: "1. One lacerated wound 5 x 1 ½ cm. Scalp bone deep covered with thick dark blood. 2. Stitched wound 1 ¼ cm. long, on forehead above left eye due to which left eye was found bluish. 3. Stitched wound 1 ½ cm. long. 4. Contusion 1¾ x ½ cm. on right eye, lower and exterior part." 8. In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries sustained by Motiram were caused by blunt weapon within six hours before death and were there at the time of examination. Death in the opinion of the Doctor was result of coma due to extradural haemorrhage caused by head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 9. Dr. B.M. Sharma, who was examined as PW. 21, stated that on 29.09.1993 he had medico legally examined Ramjilal (PW. 7) and found following five injuries on his person: "1. Swelling 3 x 1/5 cm. on the back part of head, pink red coloured. 2. Bruise 4 x 1.5 cm. 9. Dr. B.M. Sharma, who was examined as PW. 21, stated that on 29.09.1993 he had medico legally examined Ramjilal (PW. 7) and found following five injuries on his person: "1. Swelling 3 x 1/5 cm. on the back part of head, pink red coloured. 2. Bruise 4 x 1.5 cm. on middle part of left arm anteriorly, pink-red coloured. 3. Bruise 13 x 2 cm. on right side of back. 4. Bruise8 x 2 cm. pink-red coloured on left side of chest. 5. Bruise 3 x 1 cm. on back part of right shoulder". In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 10. On the same day, the doctor medico-legally examined Kalu Ram (PW. 9) and found following one injury on his person: "1. Abrasion 2.5 x ¾ cm. on let side of chest posteriorly on back." The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 11. On the same day, he also examined Ramdev son of Sukhram and found following three injuries on his person: "1. Bruise 9 x 2 cm. on left side of back, pink-red coloured. 2. Swelling7 x 6 cm. on back side of left hand. 3. Swelling8 x 4 cm. on back side of left forearm." All the three injuries were caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 12. Doctor also examined on the same day Genda (PW. 11) and found the following three injuries on his person: "1. Bruise 8 x 2 cm. on left side of back. 2. Bruise 5 x 2.5 cm. on left side of back below injury No. 1. 3. Swelling5 x 3cm. on left side of back at shoulder bone." All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon, The Doctor advised x-ray for injuries No. 1 and 2. Injury No. 3 was simple. The injuries were caused within duration of 24 hours. 13. The Doctor, on the same day, had examined Rukmani (PW. 6) and found the following two injuries on her person: "1. Lacerated wound 6 x ¾ cm. fresh blood clot was present on scalp, pareital region. 2. Complaint of pain on right arm, shoulder and waist." Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon for which Doctor also advised x-ray. Duration of injury was fresh. 14. Doctor also examined Ramkaran (PW. Lacerated wound 6 x ¾ cm. fresh blood clot was present on scalp, pareital region. 2. Complaint of pain on right arm, shoulder and waist." Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon for which Doctor also advised x-ray. Duration of injury was fresh. 14. Doctor also examined Ramkaran (PW. 27) and found following two injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 2.5 x ¼ cm. left fronto-parietal region of scalp in middle. Fresh blood clot was present. 2. Complaint of pain on left elbow." Injury No. 1 was simple and was caused by blunt weapon, duration of which was fresh. 15. He also examined Ramesh (PW. 3) and found the following two injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 8 x 1.5 cm. on right parieto-temporal region of scalp above right ear posteriorly, fresh blood clot was present. 2. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm. on left forearm, anteriorly." Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for injury No. 1 whereas injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Duration of injuries was fresh. 16. Doctor also examined Smt. Soni (PW. 22) and found the following four injuries on her person: "1. Lacerated wound 4.25 x ½ cm. on left parietal region of scalp posteriorly, fresh blood clot present. 2. Incised wound 2.25 x ¾ cm. on tip of right index finger posteriorly, fresh blood clot present. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 x ½ cm. on upper part of right elbow interiorly. 4. Swelling 4 x 2.5 cm. red pink coloured, on upper part of left forearm posteriorly." Injuries No. 1, 3 and 4 were caused by blunt weapon whereas Injury No. 2 was caused by sharp weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for injuries No. 1 and 2. Injuries No. 3 and 4 were declared to be simple and duration of injuries was fresh. 17. On the same day, the Doctor also examined Smt. Rama (PW. 5) and found following five injuries on her person: "1. Lacerated wound 5 x ¾ cm. on left parietal region of scalp, fresh blood present. 2. Lacerated wound 5 x ½ cm. on right parietal region of scalp. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 x ¾ cm. on the tip of right middle finger. 4. Bruise3 x 1 cm. on left side of waist, pink red coloured. 5. Swelling 4 x 2.5 cm. on left parietal region of scalp, fresh blood present. 2. Lacerated wound 5 x ½ cm. on right parietal region of scalp. 3. Lacerated wound 1.5 x ¾ cm. on the tip of right middle finger. 4. Bruise3 x 1 cm. on left side of waist, pink red coloured. 5. Swelling 4 x 2.5 cm. back side of left shoulder pink red coloured" All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the doctor advised x-ray for injuries No. 1,2,3 and 5 whereas injury No. 4 was opined to be simple. Duration of injuries was fresh. 18. He also examined Motiram (deceased) and found the following eight injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 4 x ½ cm. on left parietal region of scalp, anteriorly, blood was coming. 2. Lacerated wound 2.5 x ½ cm. on left parietal region of scalp, interior side of the injury No. 1. 3. Lacerated wound 2.25 x ½ cm. on right frontal region of scalp. 4. Depressed deformity, 7x3 cm. on right frontal and parietal region of scalp. 5. Swelling and deformity on left parietal and temporal region, 7 x 3 cm. 6. Swelling9 x 6 cm. on right parietal region of scalp. 7. Swelling on upper eye brow of left eye, the eye was not opening. 8. Blood was coming from mouth." The injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for all the injuries. Duration of injuries was fresh. All the injuries were on the head and therefore, there was possibility on his death due to these injuries. 19. On the same very day, Dhapa @ Pooni Devi (PW. 29) was examined by the doctor who found following two injuries on her person: "1. Bruise 2 x 14 cm. on lower part of right forearm red pink coloured. 2. Complaint of pain on right hip bone." Injury No. 1 was simple and caused by blunt weapon. Duration of the injuries was within 24 hours. 20. Doctor also examined Ramavatar @ Gabdu (PW. 8) and found following two injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm. on upper part of left forearm posteriorly, fresh blood clot present. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x ½ cm. on parietal region of scalp posteriorly, fresh blood clot present." Both the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 21. Doctor also examined Rambhajan (PW. Lacerated wound ½ x ½ cm. on upper part of left forearm posteriorly, fresh blood clot present. 2. Lacerated wound 3 x ½ cm. on parietal region of scalp posteriorly, fresh blood clot present." Both the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 21. Doctor also examined Rambhajan (PW. 26) and found following injuries on his person: "1. Bruise 5 x 1.5 cm. on left hip. 2. Bruise 6 x 1.5 cm. on left forearm, pink red coloured." Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature and had been caused within a duration of 24 hours. 22. Doctor also examined Smt. Sangari (PW. 20) and found following three injuries on her person: -"1. Bruise 2.5 x 1 cm. on right shoulder, pink-red coloured. 2. Complaint of pain in waist. 3. Swelling on right upper arm, pink-red coloured. The injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon within a period of 24 hours. 23. Doctor also examined Smt. Bhooli (PW.30) and found following injuries on her person: "1. Swelling 9 x 6 cm. on back side of right hand, red-pink coloured. 2. Swelling3 x 2 cm. on right parietal region of scalp. 3. Complaint of pain on back side of neck and throat." Injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for Injury No. 1. Injury No. 2 was simple and caused within duration of 24 hours. 24. Doctor also examined Ramjilal (PW. 10) and found following four injuries on his person: "1. Swelling 9 x 6 cm. behind the left elbow, pink-red coloured with abrasion 1 x ½ cm. 2. Bruise 9 x 2 cm. on back of chest left side, pink-red coloured. 3. Abrasion 3 x ½ cm. on lower part of back of chest, left side. 4. Lacerated wound 3 x ½ cm. on middle part of left leg, fresh blood clot present." Doctor advised x-ray for injury No. 1. Injuries No. 2,3 and 4 were declared to be simple. The duration was within 24 hours. 25. Doctor also examined Smt. Mangli and found following two injuries on her person: "1. Swelling 7 x 5 cm. bone, deformity on back side of left elbow and on near upper arm, red-pink coloured. 2. Injuries No. 2,3 and 4 were declared to be simple. The duration was within 24 hours. 25. Doctor also examined Smt. Mangli and found following two injuries on her person: "1. Swelling 7 x 5 cm. bone, deformity on back side of left elbow and on near upper arm, red-pink coloured. 2. Complaint on pain in waist." Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon and was grievous but final opinion could be given only after receipt of x-ray report. Duration of injury was 24 hours. 26. On the same day, the same very Doctor examined Smt. Manni (PW. 23) and found the following two injuries on her person: "1. Swelling 4 x 3 cm. on right parietal and occipital region of scalp, red pink coloured. 2. Swelling 6 x 5 cm. on back side of right shoulder and left collar bone pink red coloured, abrasion 1 x ½ cm. on swelling." Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 1 was simple in nature. For injury No. 2 the Doctor advised x-ray. Duration was within 24 hours. 27. Doctor also examined Ram Kishan (PW. 4) and found the following five injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 1.5 x ½ cm. on left parietal region of scalp. 2. Bruise 6 x 1.5 cm. on right side of chest and back red pink coloured. 3. Swelling6 x 5 cm. on left side of back on loin. 4. Bruise4 x 1 cm. on lower part and back side of right leg. 5. Abrasion 2.5 x 1.5 cm. on back side of left shoulder: All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon within 24 hours. 28. On the same day, Doctor examined Kailash (PW. 2) and found the following four injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 5 x 1 cm., on parietal region of scalp, back side. 2. Bruise10 x 1 cm. on left side of throat and on jaw, pink red coloured. 3. Bruise 4 x 1.25cm. on left side of throat below the injury No. 2. 4. Bruise7 x 1.5 cm. on left thigh, in middle part." All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for injury No. 1 whereas remaining injuries were simple. Duration of injuries was fresh. 29. 3. Bruise 4 x 1.25cm. on left side of throat below the injury No. 2. 4. Bruise7 x 1.5 cm. on left thigh, in middle part." All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for injury No. 1 whereas remaining injuries were simple. Duration of injuries was fresh. 29. From the description of injuries sustained by 20 persons from the side of the complainant and as per the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that whereas Smt. Rama suffered one grievous injury, one grievous injury was suffered by Ramjilal also. Smt. Soni also suffered one grievous injury whereas Smt. Manni also suffered one grievous injury. Ramdev, who was not examined as prosecution witness, also suffered two grievous injuries whereas Mangli also received one grievous injury. One grievous injury was also received by Smt. Booli Devi whereas all injuries on the person of prosecution witnesses and Ramdev who was not examined were simple in nature. Most of the injuries caused to the prosecution witnesses and Ramdev. It again appears, were caused by blunt weapon. 30. On 29.09.1993, itself , on the police request, the same very Doctor examined accused Ladu son of Ramdev and found the following four injuries on his person: "1. Incised wound 2 x ¼ cm., soft tissue deep, fresh blood clot on right clavicle region. 2. Incised wound 1.25 x 0.25 cm. soft tissue deep on right clavicle region interior side of injury No. 1, fresh blood clot. 3. Abrasion 2 x 1.4 cm. on interior side of injury No. 2. 4. Swelling 4 x 2.5 cm. on right parieto temporal region." Injuries No. 1 and 2 in the opinion of the Doctor was caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for Injury Nos. 1,2 and 4. Injury No. 4 was declared to be simple. 31. On the same day, Doctor examined Lala son of Hanuta and found the following six injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 1 x 1.4 cm. on occipital region on scalp. 2. Lacerated wound 1 x 1.4 cm. above right ear of scalp. 3. Abrasion 1 x 1.4 cm. on right knee. 4. Abrasion 1.5 x 1.4 cm. upper part of right leg. 5. Abrasion 1 ¼ x ¼ cm. on right leg in middle part. 6. Abrasion 2 x 1.5 cm. on occipital region on scalp. 2. Lacerated wound 1 x 1.4 cm. above right ear of scalp. 3. Abrasion 1 x 1.4 cm. on right knee. 4. Abrasion 1.5 x 1.4 cm. upper part of right leg. 5. Abrasion 1 ¼ x ¼ cm. on right leg in middle part. 6. Abrasion 2 x 1.5 cm. on left middle finger." All the injuries were found to be simple and were caused by blunt weapon. 32. The Doctor also examined Laxmi Narain son of Hanuta and found the following five injuries on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 4 x ¾ cm. on the tip of right little finger. Some part of finger was separated, fresh blood present. 2. Bruise3 x 1 cm. on upper part of right forearm anteriorly, red pink coloured. 3. Abrasion 3 x ½ cm. on right shoulder anteriorly. 4. Abrasion 1 x ½ cm. above the right shoulder. 5. Complaint of pain on left shoulder." All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Doctor however advised x-ray for injury No. 1 whereas other injuries were declared to be simple caused within duration of 24 hours. 33. He also examined Gangaram and founds the following four injuries on his person: "1. Abrasion 1 x ¼ cm. on left index finger in middle part. 2. Swelling4 x 2.5 cm. on back side of left hand in middle part, pink red coloured. 3. Abrasion 1 x ½ cm. on forearm of left hand in middle part posteriorly. 4. Complaint of pain in thigh and knee of left foot." All the injuries were simple and had been caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 34. The doctor also examined Harphool and found the following three injuries on his person: "1. Swelling 4 x 3 cm. on upper part of right forearm, antero posteriorly, red pink coloured. 2. Bruise4 x 1 cm. on right upper arm, antero posteriorly, lower part. 3. Abrasion 1.5 x ½ cm. on right shoulder. Complaint of acute pain on shoulder." Injuries No. 1 and 2 were simple in nature whereas x-ray was advised for Injury No. 3. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 35. He also examined Pooni Ram and found the following injury on his person: "1. Swelling on left leg in the middle part antero posteriorly, red pink coloured." The injury was caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 35. He also examined Pooni Ram and found the following injury on his person: "1. Swelling on left leg in the middle part antero posteriorly, red pink coloured." The injury was caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for the injury. The duration was within 24 hours. 36. Doctor also examined Laxmi Narain son of Jhuntharam and found following one injury on his person: "1. Bruise 3.5 x 1.5 cm. upper part of right shoulder, red pink coloured." The injury was caused by blunt weapon. Doctor advised x-ray for the injury. Duration of injury was within 24 hours. 1.37. Doctor also examined Gyarsa and found the following injury on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 2.25 x ½ cm. on left parietal region of scalp posteriorly." The injury was simple in nature and was caused by blunt weapon within a period of 24 hours. 2.38. Doctor also examined Revad and found the following injury on his person: "1. Complaint on pain, in right shoulder and left side of back." 3.39. Doctor also examined Narsi and found the following injury on his person: "1. Lacerated wound 2.5 x ½ cm. on right parietal region of scalp." The injury was simple in nature and was caused by blunt weapon within duration of 24 hours. 1.40. In his cross-examination, adverted to him by the learned Public Prosecutor with regard to the injuries sustained by the accused party, the Doctor stated that the injuries mentioned by him in injury report Exhibit D. 13-A could be caused by a person himself having strong will power and injuries mentioned in Exhibit P. 12-A could not be sustained due to falling down on hard surface. Injury No. 1 could possibly be sustained due to colliding forcefully with sharp edged broken piece of glass placed vertically. Injury No. 2 could also possibly be caused by failing down forcefully on or colliding with sharp edged glass placed vertically. Injuries No. 3 and 4 could possibly be caused by falling down from different angles. Injury No. 1 mentioned in Exhibit D-14-A could be self caused but other injuries could not be self suffered. Injury No. 2 could not be sustained due to falling down. Injuries No. 1,2 and 3 of Exhibit D-15 could be sustained due to falling down on hard surface. Injury No. 1 mentioned in Exhibit D-14-A could be self caused but other injuries could not be self suffered. Injury No. 2 could not be sustained due to falling down. Injuries No. 1,2 and 3 of Exhibit D-15 could be sustained due to falling down on hard surface. Injuries No. 1 and 3 mentioned in Exhibit D-16 could be sustained due to colliding forcefully with hard surface but injury No. 2 could not be so caused. Injury No. 1 of Exhibit D-17 could not be sustained due to falling down as no marks of abrasion are present. Injuries mentioned in Exhibit D-18 to 21 could be self suffered. Injuries mentioned in Exhibit D-19 and Exhibit D-21 could be possible due to falling down forcefully on hard surface. 2.41. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the basis of medical evidence submit that Ladu had one grievous injury caused by blunt weapon. Most of the injuries suffered by the accused party were by blunt weapon even though some of injuries sustained by them were on vital parts of the body. 42. Pooran Mal, the first informant, who was examined as PW. 1 stated that on 29.09.2003 at about 11-12 in the morning, he, Moti, Ramdev, Govinda, Badri, Ramlal, Ladu, Mst. Soni and Manni were working in their common land known as Beedwali. Five tractors came from the side of Seengpura in which Ghasi, Latoor, Roopliya, Kalu, Chhitar and Ramswaroop were sitting. Besides them, 100-125 more persons came on foot in their fields of Beedwali. In half of their fields, there was crop of groundnut whereas in the remaining half , there was crop of Tarameera which they had sown 15-20 days ago. The persons named above, after arriving at the scene stated that they will uproot our crops, otherwise, we should do it ourselves. They requested these persons not to do so, by folding hands but they did not care and Ghasi gave blow with Gandasi to Moti which hit him on his head. Latoor gave a blow with Gandasi to Moti on his head. When Moti became unconscious and fell down, Ladu gave him a lathi blow. Roopliya, Kalya Chhitar and others also started beating. His mother Soni was given lathi blow by Babulal on the head. Bhagwana gave lathi blow to his grand mother Manni. Latoor gave a blow with Gandasi to Moti on his head. When Moti became unconscious and fell down, Ladu gave him a lathi blow. Roopliya, Kalya Chhitar and others also started beating. His mother Soni was given lathi blow by Babulal on the head. Bhagwana gave lathi blow to his grand mother Manni. They made an attempt to over run Ramdev by tractor but he got entangled with the tyre. The tractor was being driven by Kishore. When Ramdev had fallen down, Gyarsa, and Revad gave him beating,. Bhagwana, Sanvalya, Pappu, Manglya and Ram Karan also gave beating to Ramesh, Kajod, Singari, Rama, Ramotar @ Pappu. He further stated that he had made the report about this incident to the police, which on arrival at the spot had made site plan (Exhibit P2). They had also taken into possession the blood stained earth and broken pieces of bangles. In his cross-examination, he stated that their land known as Beedwali was about 60-62 Bighas out of which in 35 Bighas the crop was standing whereas the remaining land was lying vacant. It was also stated by him that ever since he became the age of discretion, they werein possession of the land. They had papers with them with regard to the possession of the land but he had not seen the papers with regard to the same in the file today. They had not produced those documents as the same were in possession of their father. He was not knowing Khasra No. of the land of Beedwali. The original documents with regard to the land, he stated, were with them and copies thereof were given to the police. He denied for want of knowledge if the land of Beedwali was allotted to Chhittar, Noda and Buddha in 1978 which Buddha might have sold to Laxminarain, Bhagwan Sahai and others for a sum of Rs. 71,000/-on 10.11.1990. He also denied for want of knowledge that out of the land of Beedwali, Chhitar and Noda had sold some land by virtue of registered sale-deed. He also denied for want of knowledge if the land in dispute was first mutated in the name of Chhittar, Noda and Buddha and thereafter, in the name of accused. 71,000/-on 10.11.1990. He also denied for want of knowledge that out of the land of Beedwali, Chhitar and Noda had sold some land by virtue of registered sale-deed. He also denied for want of knowledge if the land in dispute was first mutated in the name of Chhittar, Noda and Buddha and thereafter, in the name of accused. He denied the suggestion given to him that earlier Nanda, Chhitar and others were cultivating the land in dispute and after they sold it, accused are in possession of the same. He stated that they had not given any beatings to the accused. They had not seen any injury on the person of accused party. He also stated that the fight had taken place in the fields of Ramnath which was in Beedwali fields. He, however, denied for want of knowledge as to how much land was in occupation of Ramnath. He also denied for the same reason the area of his own fields as also the area of fields of Ladu and Govinda. He denied the suggestion that before the occurrence, accused party had sown the crop of ground nut and Tarameera or that when the accused came to sow the vacant land, fight had taken place. 3.43. Kailash who was examined as PW. 2, after making deposition in tune with the prosecution case stated in the cross-examination that 13 persons have their land in the fields known as Beedwali. Their fields are separate but he would not know Khasra Nos. of the same. The ownership of this land, he stated, was in their name but the fight had taken place in the field of Rammnath which was measuring 45 Bighas. He also denied the suggestion that the land was owned and possessed by the accused party. 4.44. Ramesh, Ramkishan, Rama and Rukmani PW. 3 to 6 respectively deposed likewise. Rukmani (PW. 6), however, in cross-examination stated that the fight had taken place in the vacant land which adjoins the land which is known as Beedwali land. She would not know as to how much the vacant land measured. She further stated that the cultivation was that of the accused party and they were saying that the land belongs to them and they will sow it whereas we were saying that the land was ours and we will sow it. 5.45. Ramjilal (PW. She would not know as to how much the vacant land measured. She further stated that the cultivation was that of the accused party and they were saying that the land belongs to them and they will sow it whereas we were saying that the land was ours and we will sow it. 5.45. Ramjilal (PW. 7) stated in his cross-examination that accused Revad and others, deceased Moti Ram, he and his brothers had share in the land. He also admitted that there was fight between both the parties and whereas the accused party was saying that they will sow the land, he was saying that he will sow the land. They had sown 40-45 Bighas of land whereas rest was lying vacant. 6.46. PW. 8 Gabdu @ Ramavatar stated in his cross-examination that he would not remember the Khasra No. of the land of Beedwali. He admitted that they had not purchased the land of Beedwali nor the same was allotted to them. It was unallotted land. Kalu examined as PW. 9 supported the prosecution version but denied similar suggestions given to him as were given to other witnesses. Ramjilal (PW. 10) stated in his cross-examination that they were not paying rent of the land in dispute. Genda (PW. 11) deposed likewise. Kajod, who was examined as PW. 12, stated in his cross-examination that there were 13 fields in Beedwali land and the fight had taken place in the land of Ramnath which was in Beedwali land. Manbhari, who was examined as PW. 13, without specifying the part played by various accused, gave almost similar version of the incident. Hazari, who was examined as PW. 14, deposed with regard to the recovery of lathis from various accused by the police. Kishanlal (PW. 15), Harsahai (PW. 16) and Ranjeet (PW. 17) are witnesses with regard to the recovery of blood stained clothes, simple and blood stained earth and lathis. Ramnath, who was examined as PW. 18 deposed that the police after inspection of the spot had made the site plan. (Exhibit P-2) in his presence. In cross-examination, he stated that what was jotted down in the site plan he would not know as he was illiterate and he would also not know the Khasra No. of the land. What was wri