Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Krishan Dutt (56) along with his sons Parmod (32), Vinod (19), wife Angoori Devi (55), Parmods wife Sunita (29), brother-in-law Prem Singh alias Prem Chand (30) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for Jai Kanwars murder. The learned trial Judge convicted Krishan Dutt, Parmod and Vinod and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 etc. IPC. Parmod was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Other lesser sentences of imprisonment and fine were also passed, vide judgment dated October 11, 2004. Angoori Devi, Sunita and Prem Singh alias Prem Chand were acquitted. 2. On the same day the learned Additional Sessions Judge had also concluded the trial based on the complaint filed by Angoori Devi, under Sections 436, 452, 307, 506, 323, 120-B IPC against Ram Kanwar and 16 others. The case ended in the acquittal of the accused. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 894-DB of 2004 has been filed by Krishan Dutt, Parmod and Vinod to challenge their convictions. 4. The occurrence in which Jai Kanwar was killed had taken place on July 21, 2001 at 1.30 p.m. in Teha, District Sonepat. At the outset it would be appropriate to describe the background of the dispute between the two groups i.e. between Krishan Dutt and others on the one hand and Ram Kanwar and his brothers including Jai Kanwar on the other. 5. Krishan Dutts father Ram Diya had owned about 72 kanals of land in Teha, District Sonepat. It appears that Rajinder Singh (PW-8), who was Jai Kanwars brother, and his family lived with Ram Diya at Teha. Ram Diya executed a Will in respect of this land in favour of Rajinder Singhs father Lal Chand. The land had also been transferred by Ram Diya in favour of Rajinder Singh (PW-8), his wife Kaushalaya, his sister-in-law Sama Kaur and nephews Sandeep, Sunil, Ashok and Rajiv sons of Jai Kanwar deceased through a consent decree. A civil suit was pending between Rajinder Singh and the accused. 6. On July 21, 2001 at 1.30 p.m. Rajinder Singh (PW-8) was standing outside Rohtass house in Teha and was engaged in conversation with Rohtas, Sarpanch Suresh Kumar (PW-9) and Ashok Kumar (PW-10). They heard sound of Bachao, Bachao and Ley Lo, Ley Lo coming from the direction of Krishan Dutts house. 6. On July 21, 2001 at 1.30 p.m. Rajinder Singh (PW-8) was standing outside Rohtass house in Teha and was engaged in conversation with Rohtas, Sarpanch Suresh Kumar (PW-9) and Ashok Kumar (PW-10). They heard sound of Bachao, Bachao and Ley Lo, Ley Lo coming from the direction of Krishan Dutts house. They all rushed towards that house and saw Parmod fire two shots with a gun at Jai Kanwar which hit him on his head. Rajinder Singh also saw that Krishan Dutt was armed with a gun, Vinod with a pistol, Prem Singh with a sword while Angoori and Sunita with dandas. When Ashok went ahead to help his father, he was shot by Krishan Dutt on his right hand and left leg. After the occurrence, Parmod handed over his gun to Sunita and Sunita ran away towards the fields with the gun. A few minutes later all the remaining accused also fled from the scene. 7. Rajinder Singh went to where Jai Kanwar lay to check up his injury but found that Jai Kanwar had succumbed to his injuries. Injured Ashok Kumar was sent to Aggarwal Hospital, Ganaur and Rajinder Singh himself went to Police Post, Ganaur to report the matter but on the way he met to ASI Ram Avtar (PW- 15) who recorded his statement at 4 p.m. On the basis of the said statement, a formal FIR was registered at Police Station Ganaur at 4.55 p.m. The special report of the case was received by the learned Divisional Magistrate at 8 p.m. the same evening. 8. ASI Ram Avtar (PW-15) proceeded to the spot for investigation and took along with him Jitender Kumar (PW-12), a photographer of the village to take photographs of the place of occurrence. On reaching the spot, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, picked up a plastic can from the spot and also some ash. He went up to the roof of the tubewell shed and picked up an iron digging instrument lying on the roof and also some soil smelling of kerosene. The inquest report of the dead body of Jai Kanwar was prepared, whereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Blood stained earth also lifted from the place of occurrence. Empty cartridge case and a piece of card-boardwad was found at the spot and also taken into possession. 9. The inquest report of the dead body of Jai Kanwar was prepared, whereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Blood stained earth also lifted from the place of occurrence. Empty cartridge case and a piece of card-boardwad was found at the spot and also taken into possession. 9. Jatinder Kumar (PW-12) had taken 31 photographs of the spot which showed a spear lying near the dead body (exhibit P-10), a plastic container (exhibit P-14), broken wall of the tubewell (exhibit P-18), a hole in the ceiling (exhibits P-20 and P-21), stair case (exhibit P-28), broken roof (exhibit P- 29) and a broken wall (P-32). 10. Ashok Kumar son of Jai Kanwar (PW-10) was medico-legally examined by Dr. G.P. Aggarwal (PW-13) at 3.25 p.m. and found to have the following injuries :- 1. An oval wound of the size 3 mm x 2.5 mm on the antero-lateral aspect of left thigh 6 inches above the left knee joint. Margins were inverted. Collar of abrasion, contusion present around the wound. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 2. An oval wound of the size 3 mm x 2.5 mm on the anterior surface of the left leg 3.5 inch above the left ankle joint. Margins inverted. Collar of abrasion, contusion present around the wound. Fresh bleeing was present. Advised x-ray. 3. A lacerated wound 1" x 3/4" over the back of middle inter- phalangeal joint of middle finger of right hand. Margins were irregular. Blackening of part of skin was present. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 4. A lacerated wound 1" x 0.5" on the back of middle inter- phalangeal joint of index finger of right-hand. Margins were irregular. Blackening of part of the skin was present. Fresh bleeding was present. 11. The post-mortem of the dead body of Jai Kanwar was conducted on the following day at 11.35 a.m. by Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW-1) and Dr. Alankrita Gera. The following injuries were found on the dead body :- "There were multiple punctured wounds with lacerated and inverted margins, approximately 10 to 12 in number present over left frontal region of the skull, left upper eye-lid, eye-brow, left face and chin. The diameter of wounds was 0.5 cm. Margins were blackened and clotted blood present around face, left external auditory canal and left nostril. The diameter of wounds was 0.5 cm. Margins were blackened and clotted blood present around face, left external auditory canal and left nostril. There was diffused swelling over face, left temporal parietal and occipital region of skull and left side of face. On exploration, there was massive haematoma in sub- cutaneous region over left side of skull, face and neck. Two pellets embedded in sub-cutaneous region were removed. On further exploration, there was multiple fracture of skull involving left fronto- parietal region of the skull and left facial bone. On further exploration, brain was lacerated as a whole and there was full of hamotoms formation. Two pellets were removed and sealed." 12. The investigation of the case was taken over by Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-16), P.S. Ganaur on July 22, 2001. Krishan Dutt, Parmod and Vinod Kumar were arrested by him on July 23, 2001. They were interrogated and on the basis of their respective disclosure statements, Krishan Dutts licensed .12 bore gun, Parmods gun and a darhi (an instrument for carrying out minor explosions to scare animals and birds) were recovered. After the completion of the investigation all the accused were sent up for trial. At the trial charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 307, 149 and 148 IPC and under the provisions of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. The prosecution examined Dr. V.K. Gupta (PW-1), ASI Rameshwar Dayal (PW- 2), UGC Nafe Singh (PW-3), C. Virender Singh (PW-6), Draftsman Jagbir Singh (PW-7), Rajinder Singh (PW-8), Suresh Kumar (PW-9), Ashok (PW-10), Reader Satbir Singh (PW-11), Jitender Kumar (PW-12), Dr. G.P. Aggarwal (PW-13), Kamlesh (PW-14), SI Ram Avtar (PW-15) and Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-16). 14. The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Krishan Dutt gave the following statement in his defence :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. On the day of occurrence, Jai Kanwar accompanied by 13/14 persons came to our residence armed with deadly weapons and attacked us with the intention to kill us and to take forcible possession of our land and house. Our whole family was sitting outside the house. We out of fear went into our house. The aggressors put our house on fire and broke open the roof and also put fire inside the house. Our whole family was sitting outside the house. We out of fear went into our house. The aggressors put our house on fire and broke open the roof and also put fire inside the house. Outside the house, gun shots were also fired and police and some other persons rescued us. A false case under Sections 302, 307 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act was planted on us." Similar were the statements made by Parmod and Vinod. 15 On being called upon to enter into defence, the accused examined ASI Ram Kanwar (DW-1) regarding the inquiry conducted in the present case; ASI Ram Singh (DW-2) to prove copy of the FIR No. 40 dated February 22, 2001 registered under Section 447 IPC against Lal Chand, Rajinder, Rajiv @ Nanha, Siri Om and Rajinders wife Kaushlya; Clerk Ram Karan Dahiya (DW-3) testified regarding the ration card issued in the name of Jai Kanwars wife to show the residence of Jai Kanwar and others at Rai; Clerk Ran Singh (DW-4) appeared to prove the ration card issued in the name of Lal Chand to show their residence at Naya Bans; Subhash Chander, Office Kanungo, Ganaur (DW-5); Satbir Singh (DW-6) Reader to S.D.M., Ganaur, who produced the record of the case file of Krishan etc. v. Lal Chand etc. under Section 145 Cr.P.C.; Dr. R.K. Kaushik, (DW-7) had forensically inspected the spot and taken photographs and D.S.P. Bijender Singh (DW-8) who testified that as DSP Ganaur he had agreed with the report of Inspector Randhir Singh, SHO, PS Ganaur and sent it to Superintendent of Police, Sonepat. 16. The learned trial Judge rejected the defence version of self-defence and held that since the complainant party was not armed with the deadly weapons, it could not be said that the accused could have reasonable apprehension of suffering grievous injuries at their hands. Therefore, the injuries inflicted by the members of the complainant party could not be justified in exercise of right of self-defence. The learned trial Judge went on to say that "burden of proof for proving their plea of self-defence was on the accused persons. Such burden could not be discharged by them showing preponderance in favour of their said plea of self defence" but surprisingly went further to discuss how the accused had failed to prove their plea of self-defence. The learned trial Judge went on to say that "burden of proof for proving their plea of self-defence was on the accused persons. Such burden could not be discharged by them showing preponderance in favour of their said plea of self defence" but surprisingly went further to discuss how the accused had failed to prove their plea of self-defence. The learned trial Judge simply concluded that since the complainant party was not armed with deadly weapons, the accused could not have apprehended grievous injury at their hands. The case entitled James Martin v. State of Kerala, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 306 was discussed but found to be inapplicable in this case. Thereafter, learned Judge went on to appreciate the prosecution evidence and concluded that the participation of the three accused namely Angoori, Sunita and Prem Singh @ Prem Chand had not been established. Hence they were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. As regards, Krishan, Parmod and Vinod, the learned Judge held that they shared common intention and inflicted injuries on Jai Kanwar and Ashok Kumar with fire-arms. The case against the three appellants was held to be proved beyond doubt and they were convicted as aforesaid. 17. The original dispute between Lal Chands family on the one hand and Krishan Dutts family on the other hand was of civil nature. Lal Chands son Rajinder Singh and some other members of his family had been bequeathed the property in dispute measuring 72 kanals by Krishan Dutts father Ram Diya. The beneficiaries also obtained a consent decree in their favour. A civil suit was pending between them and the accused. However, the prosecution failed to place on record Ram Diyas Will, copy of the consent decree and the copies of the pleadings before the Civil Court. Therefore, the civil aspect of the dispute need not detain us any further and we can straightaway go to the dispute over the possession of which cognizance had been taken under criminal law. 18. The defence placed on record copy of the report dated November 20, 2000 sent by Tehsildar, Ganaur to SHO, PS Ganaur, wherein it was noted that in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between Parmod etc. 18. The defence placed on record copy of the report dated November 20, 2000 sent by Tehsildar, Ganaur to SHO, PS Ganaur, wherein it was noted that in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between Parmod etc. and Lal Chand etc., land in dispute had been ordered to be attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by SDO (Civil) whereupon the Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver under Section 146 and in compliance with the order land was attached. All the three houses were sealed. The above report mentioned that on November 9, 2000, when SDO (Civil) inspected the disputed land, he found that the seal of one room had been broken and the property occupied by Lal Chand, his sons Rajinder, Nanha, Siri Chand and Rajinders wife Kaushalaya of Naya Bans. 19. On December 6, 2000, Tehsildar again wrote to SHO, giving reference of his previous letter and stating that legal action had been recommended against the persons who had violated the orders but he had not been informed of the action taken. On December 22, 2000, Tehsildar wrote to the SHO for the third time and to remind the police to take action against Lal Chand and others for violating the orders of the Court. On January 12, 2001, Tehsildar wrote to the District Superintendent of Police and recommended that the action be taken against the violators of the orders. SDM had also written to SHO Ganaur on December 27, 2000 complaining that no FIR has been registered against the accused in terms of the Tehsildars letter written to the police. On January 11, 2001, SDM again wrote to DSP for action against the violators of Court orders, namely Lal Chand and others, in respect of which report had already been sent by the Tehsildar. The Ganaur police finally acted on February 22, 2001 and registered FIR No. 40 under Section 447 IPC on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Ganaur dated November 22, 2000. The case had been registered against Lal Chand and others for violating the orders passed under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. by occupying the property in dispute. 20. The property in dispute was about 72 kanals (9 acres of land) in which three rooms had been construed and there was also a water tank to collect water from the tubewell for further distribution to irrigate the fields. 20. The property in dispute was about 72 kanals (9 acres of land) in which three rooms had been construed and there was also a water tank to collect water from the tubewell for further distribution to irrigate the fields. The body of the deceased lay about 15 feet from the water tank. The site plan prepared by ASI Ram Avtar (PW-15) on July 21, 2001 showed the spot where Parmod had stood when he fired at the deceased and the spot from where Krishan Dutt had fired at Ashok Kumar. The site plan also showed holes in the western and northern walls of the rooms, the hole in the roof and the place from where the witnesses had seen the occurrence. 21. The recoveries from the spot had been of an empty 5 litre plastic can smelling of kerosene and ashes lifted from the upper terrace where the roof had also a hole. A spade was found on the roof along with an iron Khodna (bar) with which the parapeet and bricks of the roof had been taken out. Earthen plaster on the roof smelt of kerosene, its sample was lifted along with some straw also smelling of kerosene. 22. Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-16) admitted in his cross-examination that when he visited the spot at 7 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, he found the roof of the house broken and some of the walls also broken. He further admitted that Inspector General of Police, Rohtak had ordered an inquiry which was conducted by him and he furnished his report. He also admitted that he had accompanied SDM Ganaur to hand over possession of the land to the accused on June 29, 2001. 23. At this stage, one may also briefly examine Inspector Randhir Singhs report dated July 31, 2001. In the said report, he described the prosecution version and then went on to state that on June 29, 2001, Shri Jeet Singh Mehra, SDM Ganaur had handed over the possession of 72 kanals 3 marlas to Krishan Dutt after taking it from Rajinder Singh and others under the orders of the Court. According to the Inspector at 1 p.m. on July 21, 2001, Sarpanch Suresh Kumar (PW-9) and Rohtas accompanied by 20/30 persons came to the property in dispute. Krishan Dutt and others closed the doors of the house and bolted them from inside. According to the Inspector at 1 p.m. on July 21, 2001, Sarpanch Suresh Kumar (PW-9) and Rohtas accompanied by 20/30 persons came to the property in dispute. Krishan Dutt and others closed the doors of the house and bolted them from inside. Some of the villagers climbed to the roof through a bamboo ladder and uprooted the roof with a spade and iron bar. They then went on the set fire to clothes and dry straw after pouring petrol and kerosene. The fire was extinguished by Parmod and Krishan Dutt. The intruders set the room on fire which was also extinguished by Krishan Dutt and Parmod. Parmod also exploded the dahri to scare the intruders run away. Krishan Dutt fired about 4 shots from inside through a window to scare the intruders. Krishan Dutt and Parmod broke an intervening wall between two rooms and to go to the adjoining room. The people standing on the roof uprooted the roof of the adjoining room as well as set it on fire. Krishan Dutt tried to extinguish the fire. The entire family gathered in the last room outside which the tractor was parked. Jai Kanwar and Ashok tried to set the tractor on fire and it was then that Parmod fired a shot at them. Jai Kanwar died at the spot and Ashok Kumar received the injuries. Krishan, Parmod, Vinod, Prem Chand and Angoori were removed from the spot by the police. 24. Inspector Randhir Singh also stated in his report that prior to the occurrence, proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. had also been launched against Krishan Dutt, Parmod, Vinod, Angoori, Sunita, Rajinder, Ashok, Lal Chand, Jai Kanwar, Ram Kanwar, Rajbir, Siri Om, Sushila, Ram Kaur, Sama Kaur and Kaushalaya. After the occurrence, Rajinder Singh and others had taken possession of the house, the land and the crops. They had done so forcibly and had also constructed a samadhi in Jai Kanwars memory, after cremating his body on the disputed land. 25. Lastly, reference may be made to the report of the Scientific Officer, who had visited the crime scene and examined the spot. Apart from what was observed by the Investigator, the observations of the Scientific Officer were that there were 6 holes of about 1 inch x 1 inch on the jali (wire gauze) of the front window and lead was detected from the margins of these holes. Apart from what was observed by the Investigator, the observations of the Scientific Officer were that there were 6 holes of about 1 inch x 1 inch on the jali (wire gauze) of the front window and lead was detected from the margins of these holes. The roof had three holes of about 5 ft. x 1 ft. and two holes of 1 x 4 inch. There was about 2.5 x 2.5 feet holes in the wall between room 1 and 2. There was also a hole in the roof No. 2. There was a hole of about 2 x 2 feet size in the side wall adjoining room Nos. 2 and 3. 26. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed that .12 bore DBBL gun, which was sent for examination, was found to be in working order. 5 cartridges had been fired from the right barrel of this gun and 5 from the left barrel. Furthermore, blood stained earth, T-shirt, kurta, pyjama and kachha had human blood. The plastic canister contained 70 ml yellowish liquid, on examination the liquid was identified as diesel. Diesel residue was also present in loose earth, burnt and partially burnt pieces of cloth and the rope etc. Sulphur and radicals of Nitrate were detected in the darhi. Sulphur, radicals of Potassium and Nitrate were detected in the powder which was sent for examination. 27. The learned counsel for the appellants had vehemently argued that the accused were entitled to exercise the right of private self-defence of person and property and had not exceeded the right in any way. The family of the appellants was present in the rooms constructed in the disputed property of which possession had been handed over to them recently. The deceased and other members of his family along with villagers had surrounded the rooms, climbed the roof, made holes in the roof and tried to burn the accused alive. 28. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely Rajinder Singh (PW-8), Suresh Kumar (PW-9) and Ashok Kumar (PW-10) was unanimous to the effect that at 1.30 p.m. on July 21, 2001 they heard the sound of Bachao, Bachao from the direction of the house of Krishan Dutt. They rushed to that house. Parmod fired a shot from his gun at Jai Kanwar. Krishan Dutt, Angoori, Vinod, Parmod, Sunita were also present there. They rushed to that house. Parmod fired a shot from his gun at Jai Kanwar. Krishan Dutt, Angoori, Vinod, Parmod, Sunita were also present there. Krishan was armed with a gun and Vinod was armed with a pistol. Ashok Kumar had gone a little ahead and was shot by Krishan Dutt. They shot him on his right hand and left leg. Vinod had also fired a shot at Rajinder. 29. The ultimate question would be, was the right of private defence of property available ? If answer is yes, then was the force used proportionate to the danger to the property or was it excessive ? 30. Objectivity demands that the case should be seen neither from the angle of the prosecution witnesses nor from the angle of the defence but on the basis of broad examination of the evidence at the spot. The appellants, along with three acquitted accused including two women, were trapped inside a room and were surrounded by a mob which contained some people from the opposite side with whom the appellants had a long history of animosity. There was a hotly contested dispute over possession of the very property where the appellants were trapped. The intruders had earlier taken its forcibly possession and had been dispossessed with great difficulty. The intruders had climbed to the roof and started breaking the roof, later they lit a fire either to burn the inmates alive or smoke them out. Thus there was a real apprehension in the minds of the appellants that their end was nigh. There was also a very real fear that if they are retreated from the property, then Rajinder Singh and others would repossess it as indeed they had done after the occurrence when the appellants were rescued by the police, arrested and lodged in prison. The prosecution offered no explanation whatsoever regarding what investigator had seen at the spot and how did all this carnage take place. 31. The case is not as simple and straight forward as the prosecution witnesses would like the Courts to believe. The details of the dispute have already been discussed above. There was indeed a serious dispute between the two groups over property which originally belonged to Krishan Dutts father Ram Diya. 31. The case is not as simple and straight forward as the prosecution witnesses would like the Courts to believe. The details of the dispute have already been discussed above. There was indeed a serious dispute between the two groups over property which originally belonged to Krishan Dutts father Ram Diya. Neither the Will nor any consent decree were produced before the trial Court to explain how the complainant party acquired title in the property and obtained its possession. The dispute over possession had understandably given rise to a strong apprehension of breach of the peace. This led to action under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The property was attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C. Even after the Court had passed the order, it took nearly three months for the police to act and arrest Rajinder and others under Section 447 IPC for trespassing and forcibly occupying the property. Ultimately, it was on June, 29, 2001 that possession was handed back to Krishan Dutt and others by the SDM Ganaur with the help of police. 32. Therefore, Krishan Dutt and his sons Parmod and Vinod were in lawful and bona fide possession of the property over which they had long standing dispute with the complainant party, and primarily with Rajinder Singh (PW-8). Jai Kanwar deceased was Rajinder Singhs brother. 33. The Investigating Officer found holes in the roof through which kerosene/diesel had been poured in an attempt to set fire to the structure wherein Krishan Dutt and others were hiding. 10 cartridges had been recovered from the spot. The place where Jai Kanwar was shot was a short distance of the rooms and within the range of .12 bore DBBL gun. 34. The question to be asked is at which point does the right of private defence of body and property commence and till when does it continue. Right of private defence of the body extends to causing death under circumstances enumerated in Section 100 IPC. This right commences and continues in accordance with the circumstances described in Section 102 IPC. Likewise, right of private defence of property extends to causing death under the circumstances mentioned in Section 103 IPC. This right commences and continues in accordance with the circumstances described in Section 105 IPC. 35. In the present case, the accused had exercised the right of private defence of property. Likewise, right of private defence of property extends to causing death under the circumstances mentioned in Section 103 IPC. This right commences and continues in accordance with the circumstances described in Section 105 IPC. 35. In the present case, the accused had exercised the right of private defence of property. The case was not covered by any of the restrictions enumerated in Section 99 IPC. The members of the complainant party had surrounded their rooms, committed mischief by fire and attempted to burn the rooms by making holes in the roof. They had also committed house trespass. All this had given reasonable cause of apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if the right of private defence was not exercised. The case was fully covered by clauses "thirdly" and "fourthly" of Section 103 IPC. The right had commenced when the accused apprehended of danger to life and to property and continued till as long as the intruders continued till criminal trespass continued. 36. The case was not one where it could be said that the accused had time to take recourse to the public authorities, as provided by Section 99 IPC. Krishan Dutt and his family members were surrounded by a mob and they had every reason to expect that the opposite party consisting of Rajinder, Jai Kanwar and Ashok and any other would try to retake possession of the property from them. Possession had recently been handed over to the accused by the SDM Ganaur. If the accused had left the property to seek recourse of law they would have definitely lost possession which they had regained with great difficulty. 37. In the background of the case mentioned above, it becomes amply clear that the accused were the aggrieved party while the complainant party were the aggressors. The aggressors tried to commit mischief by fire and house trespass. The evidence in favour of the appellants was overwhelming and their right of self-defence was fully corroborated by the investigations conducted by Inspector Randhir Singh, the forensic evidence and various reports of Tehsildar, Ganaur, described in detail above. 38. The appellants had a valid and bona fide right of private defence of property which extended to causing death. Therefore, they had not committed any offence. 39. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge. 38. The appellants had a valid and bona fide right of private defence of property which extended to causing death. Therefore, they had not committed any offence. 39. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.