Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 19.5.2000 of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby he convicted appellants Pirtha Singh son of Biba Singh, Baldev Singh son of Biba Singh, Binder Singh son of Baldev Singh and Mandar Singh @ Pedal Singh son of Dalip Singh under Sections 302, 326, 325, 324, 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Pirtha Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for causing the murder of Nachhattar Singh. Appellants Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mandar Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for causing the murder of Nachhattar Singh. Appellant Baldev Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Gurbax Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Gurbax Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Section 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each, for causing grievous hurt to PW Gurdev Singh. Appellant Pirtha Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt to PW Hakam Singh. Appellants Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt to PW Hakam Singh. Appellants Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt to PW Hakam Singh. Appellant Baldev Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Gurbax Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Gurbax Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to PW Gurbax Singh. Appellant Mander Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Bant Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh and Binder Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PW Bant Singh. Appellant Binder Singh was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for caushing injury to PW Pritam Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for caushing injury to PW Pritam Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh, Binder Singh and Mander Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, for caushing grievous hurt to PW Pritam Singh. All the substantive sentences awarded by the trial Court were ordered to run concurrently. However, Sukhwant Singh died during the trial. The learned trial Court has not given any finding to this effect as to whether Sukhwant Singh was a member of the unlawful assembly. Sukhpal Singh son of Sukhwant Singh and Mithu Singh son of Avtar Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them by the trial Court. No appeal was preferred against them by the State. 2. The learned trial Court has not given any finding to this effect as to whether Sukhwant Singh was a member of the unlawful assembly. Sukhpal Singh son of Sukhwant Singh and Mithu Singh son of Avtar Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them by the trial Court. No appeal was preferred against them by the State. 2. The prosecution case is unfolded by Hakam Singh (PW-7). Hakam Singh made a statement before Tek Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector that he is a resident of village Burj Mehma. His sister Murti @ Rajinder Kaur (PW-18) was married to Kartar Singh son of Daan Singh for the last about 25 years. Kartar Singh had died about 15 years back. Kartar Singh and Biba Singh were real brothers. The share of the land of Kartar Singh was being cultivated by his widow Murti @ Rajinder Kaur. Narma (cotton crop) had been sown in 3-1/2 killas. This land was situated on the way to village Jandial. The Narma crop was being looked after by the complainant, his brother Nachhattar Singh, their father Gurbax Singh, and their uncles Pritam Singh and Bant Singh. 3. Pirtha Singh and Baldev Singh appellants raised a dispute that Murti @ Rajinder Kaur had no right on the land of Kartar Singh. In fact, the appellants claimed that Pirtha Singh and Baldev Singh became owners after the death of Kartar Singh. A dispute had arisen and the police had taken preventive measures against both the parties. 4. On 19.6.1993 at about 4.30 P.M., Hakam Singh, his brother Nachhattar Singh, their father Gurbax Singh and their uncles Pritam Singh, Bant Singh and Gurdev Singh had gone to irrigate the field of 3-1/2 Killas as their turn of canal water had come. Appellant Pirtha Singh armed with a Gandhali, Baldev Singh armed with a gandasa, Binder Singh armed with a gandasa, Pedal Singh Mazhabi armed with a gandasa and three other persons, who were relatives of Pirtha Singh, residents of village Beer, armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun, were sitting in the disputed piece of land. When the complainant-party entered the land, appellant Pirtha Singh raised a lalkara that these persons form Burj Mehma should be taught a lesson for disturbing the water. On Hearing the lalkara, the unknown persons, who were armed with guns, started firing in the air. When the complainant-party entered the land, appellant Pirtha Singh raised a lalkara that these persons form Burj Mehma should be taught a lesson for disturbing the water. On Hearing the lalkara, the unknown persons, who were armed with guns, started firing in the air. Pirtha Singh gave a blow with his gandhali on the head of Hakam Singh. Hakam Singh fell down. Then Pirtha Singh gave another gandhali blow on the head of Nachhattar Singh, who also fell down. Binder Singh gave a gandasa blow with its sharp side on the head of Pritam Singh, who fell down. Pedal Singh Mazhabi gave a blow with its sharp side on the head of Bant Singh, who fell down. Baldev Singh gave a gandasa blow with its sharp side on the head of Gurbax Singh, the father of the complainant, who also fell down. These four persons continued to cause injuries with their respective weapons to the complainant-party. Complainant-party shouted that they should not be killed. The unknown persons, who were armed with their fire arms continued raising lalkaras that the complainant party be taught a lesson for irrigating the fields. Appellants then left the complainant-party and caught hold of Gurdev Singh son of Biba Singh and started beating him and thereafter, they ran away towards the village. Hakam Singh (PW-7) further stated that while defending themselves, there was a possibility that they (complainants) may have also caused some injuries on the person of the appellants. Rajinder Kaur got the injured admitted in Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha. Statement of Hakam Singh was recorded by Tek Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector on 20.6.1993 at 10.30 A.M. at Civil Hospital, Giddarbaha. Thereafter a formal FIR was registered on 20.6.1993 at 10.50 A.M. for an offence under Sections 324/323/148/149/336 of the Indian Penal Code. Formal FIR was recorded by Mukhtiar Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Gidderbaha. The pedigree-table of both the parties is reproduced as under to understand the relationship of all the parties. 5. The pedigree-table of Complainant Party is as under : 6. Inder Singh had three sons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Pritam Singh and Bant Singh. Gurbax Singh and Bant Singh PWs were given up by the prosecution being unnecessary. Gurbax Singh had two sons, namely, Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and Hakam Singh (complainant PW-7) and one daughter Murti @ Rajinder Kaur (PW-18). The pedigree-table of the Appellant Party is as under :- 7. Inder Singh had three sons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Pritam Singh and Bant Singh. Gurbax Singh and Bant Singh PWs were given up by the prosecution being unnecessary. Gurbax Singh had two sons, namely, Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and Hakam Singh (complainant PW-7) and one daughter Murti @ Rajinder Kaur (PW-18). The pedigree-table of the Appellant Party is as under :- 7. Daan Singh had two sons, namely, Biba Singh and Major Kartar Singh. Major Kartar Singh died a natural death. It is the property of Major Kartar Singh, which is the bone of contention between both the parties. Major Kartar Singh had two wives. Mohinder Kaur was his first wife and the second alleged wife was Murti @ Rajinder Kaur @ Harjinder Kaur (PW-18). Biba Singh had three sons, namely, Baldev Singh, Pirtha Singh and Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh (injured PW) was won over by the accused and was given up. Baldev Singh and Pirtha Singh are the appellants before us along with Binder Singh, the son Baldev Singh. 8. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-1), Dr. G.P. Mangla (PW-2), Surinder Kumar, Kanungo (PW-3), Sher Singh, Reader to Tehsildar (P-4), Krishan Lal, Ziledar (PW-5), Mohinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6), Hakam Singh (PW-7), Pritam Singh (PW-8), Harnek Singh (PW-9), Dr. Balbir Singh (PW-10) Jagan Nath, Licence Clerk (PW- 11), Dr. G.S. Sandhu (PW-12), Binder Singh, Revenue Patwari (PW-13), Sukraj Singh, Constable (PW-14), Darshan Singh, A.R.C. (PW-15), Mukhtiar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector/Investigating Officer (PW-16), Jarnail Singh, Ahlmad (PW-17), Murti @ Rajinder Kaur (PW-18) and Constable Harjinder Singh (PW-19). 9. Appellant Pirtha Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted the occurrence. Answer to the final question put to him, is reproduced as under :- "I am innocent. My uncle Kartar Singh transferred 54 kanals 11 marlas of land in the name of my father Shri Biba Singh alias Beeb Singh on 22.7.1972 through civil suit No. 294 dated 20.7.1972 and since then that land was owned, possessed and cultivated by me and my brother Baldev Singh and its girdawaris are continuously entered in the name of our father Biba Singh. Murti alias Rajinder Kaur alias Harjinder Kaur wanted to grab his land and she filed a suit to set aside the above decree and started threatening Baldev Singh my brother to lodge complaint with the police on 5.5.1993 and security proceedings were initiated. Murti alias Harjinder Kaur along with her brothers Nachhattar Singh (deceased) and Hakam Singh, their father Gurbax Singh, uncles Banta Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurmeet Singh, Jarnail Singh and Murti herself armed with various weapons i.e., gandasa, soti and kassis came in our aforesaid field in order to take forcible possession where I along with my brother Baldev Singh and our labourers were working in our fields and were mending the water course for irrigation purpose. Murti and her companions instead of going to Nakka came in our field, caused injuries to me, Baldev Singh and our labourer inflicted injuries to Nachhattar Singh, Pritam Singh, Banta Singh and Gurbax Singh in our self defence, of person and property. The turn of water was also in the name of my uncle Kartar Singh. No crop was sown by complainant party. After the incident I took my brother Baldev Singh and Gurdev Singh along with my sister Sito and other family members to Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha where we were medically examined. Brothers Gurdev Singh and Baldev Singh were admitted in the hospital. I went to lodge the report in P.S. Gidderbaha where I was detained. Baldev Singh after treatment of his injuries surrendered in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate on 25.6.1993. The complainant party managed this false case registered against us. Murti alias Harjinder Kaur lost all litigations relating to the said land and the land in question, i.e., site of incident was held to be in my ownership and possession, and that of my brother Baldev Singh also through our father Beeba Singh, by the Court of Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Sub Judge, Gidderbaha vide order dated 28.2.1994 and the same was confirmed by learned District Judge, Faridkot (Sh. Hardial Singh) on 25.9.1996. Murti alias Harjinder Kaur was never married to my uncle Major Kartar Singh who had married only once with Smt. Mohinder Kaur and she died after his death on 19.11.1989." 10. In defence, the appellants produced Jarnail Singh (DW-1), Ahlmad of the Court of Addl. Hardial Singh) on 25.9.1996. Murti alias Harjinder Kaur was never married to my uncle Major Kartar Singh who had married only once with Smt. Mohinder Kaur and she died after his death on 19.11.1989." 10. In defence, the appellants produced Jarnail Singh (DW-1), Ahlmad of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gidderbaha, Shri Shehzada Ram, Advocate (DW-2), Krishan Kumar Dhir (DW-3) and Raj Kumar, Tehsildar (DW-4) apart from tendering of documents, Ex. D-11 to Ex. D-17. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that as per the documents placed on record by the prosecution and also by the defence, it is clear that the possession of land measuring 54 kanals 11 marlas was with the appellants. Originally the ownership of this land was of Major Kartar Singh, who had died somewhere in the year 1972. The ownership and the possession of this land passed on to Biba Singh, after the death of Major Kartar Singh. Appellants were legally in possession of the land. In fact, the complainant party wanted to wrest the possession forcibly from the appellants. Document, Ex. D-13, is a suit filed by Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur @ Murti (PW-18) against appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh and others. This is a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree and judgment dated 22.7.1972 passed in Civil Suit No. 294 of 1972 titled as Biba Singh v. Kartar Singh in the Court of Shri Dina Nath, Sub Judge, Gidderbaha in respect of land measuring 54 Kanals 11 Marlas comprising of khewat No. 282, Khatoni No. 379, Rectangle No. 300 bearing Killa No. 10, Rectangle No. 293, bearing Killa Nos. 11, 19/2, 20, Rectangle No. 300 bearing Killa No. 1, Rectangle No. 293, bearing Killa No. 21 situated in the area of Gidderbaha, tehsil Muktsar, is against law and facts. The alleged decree was passed in favour of Biba Singh. It was further been prayed in the suit that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (appellants) from taking forcible possession of the suit land measuring 54 kanals 11 marlas be passed in favour of the plaintiffs (complainant party) and against the defendants (appellant party) and further to restrain the defendants from alienating and transferring the suit land in any manner. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved on 31.5.1993 in this very suit. The Court passed an interim order of status quo regarding possession of the suit land on 31.5.1993. After hearing the arguments of both the parties on 28.2.1994, the Court decided the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code and passed a final order that the defendants (appellants) before us, are proved to be in possession of the suit land. This order was passed vide Ex. D-13/3, Ex. D-13/4 and Ex. D-13/5. An appeal against this order dated 28.2.1994 was filed by Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur @ Murti (PW-18) in the Court of District Judge, Faridkot. The District Judge vide his order dated 25.9.1996, Ex. D-14, stated that as per entries in the revenue record, Biba Singh was in possession of the suit land. After 1979-80 there are continuous entries regarding his possession. Therefore, the observations of the trial Court that the defendants (appellants) are in possession of the land being heirs of Biba Singh cannot be said to be without any basis. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal for grant of interim injunction and declined to modify the order, Ex. D-13/3, passed by the Sub Judge I Class, Gidderbaha. Learned counsel for the appellants has further stated, that the complainant party taking the cover of the status quo order, in fact, wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land. Complainants belong to Burj Mehma, which is at a distance of not less than 40 KMs., from the place of occurrence. It was strage that six persons armed with deadly weapons would travel 40 KMs to irrigate 3-1/2 killas of land. In fact, they had come to take forcible possession of the disputed land. Complainant Hakam Singh (PW-7) along with Pritam Singh (PW-8), Gurbax Singh, Bant Singh and Gurdev Singh received injuries from appellants Pirtha Singh and Baldev Singh. Appellants Pirtha Singh and Baldev Singh in the exercise of their right to private defence and in the exercise of their right to protect their property, had inflicted injuries on the person of Nachhattar Singh, Pritam Singh, Bant Singh and Gurbax Singh, who had come with deadly weapons, to take possession of the land in dispute. 12. Appellants Pirtha Singh and Baldev Singh in the exercise of their right to private defence and in the exercise of their right to protect their property, had inflicted injuries on the person of Nachhattar Singh, Pritam Singh, Bant Singh and Gurbax Singh, who had come with deadly weapons, to take possession of the land in dispute. 12. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to a document pertaining to suit No. 696 dated 1.8.1992. This suit has been filed by appellant Pirtha Singh and others against Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur and Gurdev Singh. This is a suit for declaration regarding 54 kanals 11 marlas of the disputed land. This suit ultimately was decided in favour of Pirtha Singh (appellant). 13. Documents, relied upon by the prosecution, i.e., Mark `A to Mark `I, are pertaining to after the occurrence. The Khasra girdawaris and jamabandis were changed by the revenue authorities after the occurrence had taken place. The crucial date to be taken into consideration by the Court is, when the occurrence had taken place, i.e., on 19.6.1993 at 4.30 p.m. To come to a correct finding, the Court has to adjudicate as on 19.6.1993, which party was in possession of the land in dispute. Documents Mark `A to Mark `I are the orders of revenue authorities pertaining to the period after the occurrence had taken place. Documents, i.e., the jamabandis and khasra girdawaris have been changed on the basis of the order of the Assistant Collector II Grade, Gidderbaha. The Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the suit land was in possession of Murti alias Harjinder Kaur (PW-18). Learned counsel has stated that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to get into the witness box Shri Gurdip Singh, Assistant Collector II Grade, Gidderbaha, so that he could state before the Court as to the procedure he adopted to come to a finding that Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur was in possession of the disputed land. Then the appellants would have got an opportunity to cross-examine him. 14. Nehri Girdawaris Ex. P-36 are for the years from Sauni (Kharif) 1991 to 1993 Hari (rabi crop). Documents, Exs. D-1 to D-3 and D-4 are for the years from 1989 to 1990 and 1990 to 1993. No document pertaining to the Nehri Girdawari has come on record from Sauni (Kharif) 1993 till 1994 Hari (rabi crop). 14. Nehri Girdawaris Ex. P-36 are for the years from Sauni (Kharif) 1991 to 1993 Hari (rabi crop). Documents, Exs. D-1 to D-3 and D-4 are for the years from 1989 to 1990 and 1990 to 1993. No document pertaining to the Nehri Girdawari has come on record from Sauni (Kharif) 1993 till 1994 Hari (rabi crop). Occurrence had taken place on June 19, 1993. Presumption cannot be made in favour of the complainant party that in June, 1993, they were in possession of the disputed land. In fact, vide orders Exs. D-13 and D-14, the Civil Court, while refusing to grant interim injunction to the complainant party, has categorically observed that appellant Pirtha Singh was in possession of the land in dispute and Biba Singh had become owner of the disputed property in the year 1972. 15. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the Nehri Girdawaris conclusively prove, that the complainant party was in possession of the land in dispute. Documents Mark `A to Mark `I are the orders of the revenue authorities showing the jamabandis and khasra girdawaris, to be in the name of the complainant party. Appellants were armed with deadly weapons. Serious injuries were inflicted on the complainant party, which goes to show that they were the aggressors. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their assistance. 17. The bone of contention between both the parties is land measuring 54 kanals 11 marlas situated in the area of village Gidderbaha. The occurrence in this case, had taken place on 19.6.1993 at 4.30 P.M. FIR, Ex. P-26/A was registered on 20.6.1993 at 10.50 A.M. Special Report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 22.6.1993 at 10.00 A.M. There is an unexplained delay of more than 17 hours in lodging of the FIR. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Gidderbaha is 2-1/2 KMs. Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 22.6.1993 at 10.00 A.M. The fact of the Special Report reaching late need not be taken into consideration, as first a case was registered under Sections 323/324/336/336/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station Gidderbaha is 2-1/2 KMs. Special Report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on 22.6.1993 at 10.00 A.M. The fact of the Special Report reaching late need not be taken into consideration, as first a case was registered under Sections 323/324/336/336/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Appellants Pritha Singh and Baldev Singh have taken a categorical stand that the complainant party came with arms to take possession of the land in dispute and it was in their right of private defence of person and property that they inflicted injuries on the person of Nachhattar Singh (deceased), Gurbax Singh, Banta Singh and Pritam Singh. The statement of appellant Pirtha Singh given under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to this effect has been reproduced earlier. 19. Civil Suit No. 294 dated 20.7.1972 (Plaint Ex. D-18) filed by Biba Singh against Kartar Singh was a collusive suit, vide which the disputed piece of land measuring 54 kanals 11 marlas was decreed in favour of Biba Singh on the statement of Kartar Singh. Decree-sheet, Ex. D-12 was prepared. Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur @ Murti (PW-18) challenged the judgment and decree of civil suit No. 294 dated 20.7.1972, vide civil suit No. 230 dated 31.5.1993 titled Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur @ Murti v. Gurdev Singh and others, Ex. D-13. An application, Ex. D-13/3 was moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendants, i.e., the appellant party from dispossessing the plaintiffs, i.e., the complainants from the suit/disputed land. The Civil Court passed a status quo order on 31.5.1993 regarding possession of the suit land. Application was filed under Order 29 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, Ex. D-13/3. On 19.6.1993, both the parties clashed with each other and inflicted injuries on each other, regarding possession of the disputed land. According to the prosecution, the complainants had come to to irrigate the Narma crop which they had sown when they were attacked by the appellants. Vide his order dated 28.2.1994, Ex. D-13/5, the learned Sub Judge I Class, Gidderbaha passed his order and stated, "Therefore, it is clear that after death of Biba Singh, defendants might have come in possession of the suit property. Vide his order dated 28.2.1994, Ex. D-13/5, the learned Sub Judge I Class, Gidderbaha passed his order and stated, "Therefore, it is clear that after death of Biba Singh, defendants might have come in possession of the suit property. Even otherwise, the entry of Nehri Girdawari cannot be looked into, which shows the plaintiff to be in possession. Under these premises, defendants have been proved to be in possession of the suit property." It is clear from this order of the learned Sub Judge that the defendants (appellants before us) were in possession of the property in dispute as on 19.6.1993 at 4.30 P.M., the day the occurrence had taken place. Against this order dated 28.2.1994, Ex. D- 13/5, Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faridkot. Vide his order dated 25.9.1996, Ex. D-14/3, the District Judge stamped the order of the Sub Judge I Class, Gidderbaha, confirming his finding that it is the defendants (appellants before us), who were in possession of the property in dispute. He has stated in his order dated 25.9.1996, Ex. D-14/3, "Therefore, there is no need to modify the order passed by the trial Court. The appellant is not entitled to the injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into her possession since her possession is not prima facie proved. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal." No revision was filed in the High Court against this order of the District Judge, which thus attained finality. In the main case (Civil Suit No. 230 of 31.5.1993), the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha finally adjudicated the matter vide order dated 19.5.2000. He gave a categorical finding that the defendants (appellants) are in possession of the land in dispute. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under :- "Moreover, according to plaintiff, the suit land was transferred by Kartar Singh during his life time to plaintiff and Mohinder Kaur first wife of Kartar Singh. Record of this case produced by the both sides does not show that Mohinder Kaur ever remained in possession of the suit land. Moreover, revenue record as discussed above has been held to have been illegally prepared. It has been proved that Biba Singh remained in possession of the suit land, during his life time and after his death, his sons, defendants are in possession of the suit land...." 20. Moreover, revenue record as discussed above has been held to have been illegally prepared. It has been proved that Biba Singh remained in possession of the suit land, during his life time and after his death, his sons, defendants are in possession of the suit land...." 20. Learned counsel for the State could not give any categorical answer whether the complainants (plaintiffs) have filed an appeal against this order or not. Final order/judgment dated 19.5.2000 was taken on record in the interest of justice. 21. To further make this position clear on the suit property and to have all the points adjudicated regarding the marriage of Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur with Major Kartar Singh, appellants Pirtha Singh, Baldev Singh and others filed civil suit No. 696 of 1992 against Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur and others, Ex. D-15. In civil suit, Ex. D-15, the issues adjudicated upon were Whether plaintiffs were owners of the land as described in the head note of the plaint. Whether defendant Murti had become owner of 31 kanals 19 marlas of land by adverse possession. Whether Murti defendant is widow of Kartar Singh. All these issues vide order dated 27.10.1997, Exhibit D-15, were decided in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants). Murti @ Harjinder Kaur @ Rajinder Kaur was held to be not in possession of the disputed land. She had taken the plea of adverse possession, which was rejected by the Court. The Court went to the extent of not recognising her as the legally wedded wife of Major Kartar Singh, who was the original owner of the property in dispute. Decree-sheet pertaining to this suit is Ex. D-16. 22. Surinder Kumar, Kaungo (PW-13) has stated on oath that as per jamabandis for the years 1984-85, 1980-90 and khasra girdawaris for the years 1985 to 1993; Rectangle No. 293, Killa Nos. 11, 12/1, 19/2 were the ownership of Biba Singh. In the jamabandis, Biba Singh has been recorded to be in possession of the land in dispute. Place of occurrence has been shown at point `A i.e., in Rectangle No. 293, khasra No. 12/1. It is clear from this, that the occurrence had taken place in khasra No. 12/1, which, as per the order/judgment discussed above of the civil Courts, was in possession of the appellant party. 23. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Nehri Girdawaris, Ex. It is clear from this, that the occurrence had taken place in khasra No. 12/1, which, as per the order/judgment discussed above of the civil Courts, was in possession of the appellant party. 23. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Nehri Girdawaris, Ex. P-36, for the years 1991 to 1993 and khasra girdawaris for the years from 1983 till 1993, Exs. D-1 to D-3, conclusively prove the possession of Murti @ Rajinder Kaur (PW-18) on the disputed land. This, in fact, is not so. The record, Ex. P-36, Exs. D-1 to D-3 pertain to the years 1983 to 1993. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 19.6.1993, i.e., when the kharif season had started. Nehri girdawaris are prepared on or before 30th April of every year. The entries in the Nehri Girdawaris do not help the prosecution in any way. The correct picture qua possession of the disputed land could have been depicted if Nehri Girdawaris for the years from 1993 to 1994 had been brought on record, i.e., from the period Ist May 1993 to April 1994. This has not been done. The only inference one can draw from this, is that the Nehri Girdawaris from the year from 1993 to 1994 were not in the name of Murti alias Harjinder Kaur (PW-18). 24. We have scrutinised the documents Mark `A to Mark `I very minutely with the assistance of the counsel for the parties. These documents are though pertaining to the disputed land, but corrections in the jamabandis and khasra girdawaris have been made after the occurrence had taken place. In document, Ex. Mark `E, there is a noting at the bottom, that the corrections in the girdawaris have been made as per order dated 9.3.1994 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Gidderbaha. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Gidderbaha in his order, Ex. Mark `A has stated that he visited the spot. In his order, he has mentioned the Rectangle numbers and the khasra numbers. Rect. No. 293, pertaining to khasra No. 12/1 (place of occurrence), he states, was also seen by him by going to the spot and by ascertaining from the people present there and he came to the conclusion that the complainant party was in possession. This order is dated 9.3.1994, which is much after the occurrence had taken place. Rect. No. 293, pertaining to khasra No. 12/1 (place of occurrence), he states, was also seen by him by going to the spot and by ascertaining from the people present there and he came to the conclusion that the complainant party was in possession. This order is dated 9.3.1994, which is much after the occurrence had taken place. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Gidderbaha was not brought into the witness box by the prosecution to prove that he had visited the spot and made enquiries to the effect as to who was in possession of the disputed land. In document, Exhibit Mark `E, the noting states that this correction has been made on the direction of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 9.3.1994 pertaining to Sauni crop from 1992 to Hari crop 1993. 25. Learned counsel for the State had vehemently argued that the injuries on the person of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are on the head and facial region. This itself shows that the appellants were the aggressors, as the number of injuries are not less than 04 or 05 on the deceased and witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rebutting this argument rendered in Ram Sawarup and others v. State of Haryana, 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 29, wherein the Honble Apex Court has held as under :- "It was rightly urged on behalf of the appellants that this is not the correct approach for judging in cases of bilateral clash as to which party is the aggressor. This question cannot be determined on basis of the number of injuries found on the side of the complainant or the accused person. For purpose of recording a finding as to whether the prosecution party or the accused party was the aggressor, all the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and relevant circumstances have to be taken into consideration. It need not be urged that there are two parallel versions of the occurrence before the Court. For purpose of recording a finding as to whether the prosecution party or the accused party was the aggressor, all the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and relevant circumstances have to be taken into consideration. It need not be urged that there are two parallel versions of the occurrence before the Court. The real onus is on the prosecution party to prove its case, including the manner of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts; the accused has only to raise a doubt in the mind of the Court or to satisfy the Court that the defence version disclosed by the accused was a probable version of the occurrence." We are of the opinion that the complainants were the aggressors. Civil Courts have finally adjudicated in favour of the appellants, that the appellants were in legal possession of the land in dispute on the day the occurrence had taken place. Appellants in their right of private defence of person and property, inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party. The nature and seriousness of the injuries cannot be taken into account once a person or a party is trying to protect himself from being injured or his property is being forcibly taken over. Appellants were well within their rights to protect themselves. The land in dispute was in the possession of the appellants on the date of the occurrence. The complainant party tried to take forcible possession and in the process suffered injuries. It is unfortunate that Nachhattar Singh died. 26 In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal of the appellants is allowed. They are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellants, if in custody, be released fortwith.