JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 3rd December, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 23/2001. The learned Sessions Judge tried the appellants Juber Uddin, Aziruddin, Abu Sufiyan, Sadikur, Lebi Bibi @ Kharirunnessa and Neni Bibi @ Meherunnissa under Sections 147/148/143/447/323/324/302, IPC. On conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants Juber Uddin @ Kuber Uddin, Aziruddin and Abu Sufiyan under Section302, IPC and Sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, further imprisonment for six months. The other co-accused Mayarunnessa @ Neni Bibi, Khoirunnessa @ Ledi Bibi and Sadiqur Rahman were acquitted on benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred challenging the aforesaid judgment on various grounds. 2. One Hazi Sehabur Rahman lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Ratabari police station on 1.8.1998 alleging that around 6.00 a.m. on the 1st day of August, 1998 he went to plough a plot of land which he had taken on mortgage, situated near the homestead of the accused persons. He saw Juber Uddin, Aziruddin and Abu Sufian ploughing his land. Safique Rahman asked the accused persons to refrain from ploughing the land. The accused persons attacked them with dagger, bhojali, dao, etc. The accused Juber Uddin, Aziruddin and Abu Sufian stabbed his brothers Safique Rahman, Sakibur Rahman and his son Lutfur Rahman who died at the place of occurrence. They also assaulted the informant by a dao. 3. The police registered Ratabari PS Case No. 178/98, took up investigation and in due course, on completion thereof, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. On commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused persons as mentioned above. On denial of the charges, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial, recorded the evidence of 15 PWs, examined the accused persons and after hearing the parties, delivered the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 4. We have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned "senior counsel for the appellants and also Mr. K. Munir, learned P.P., Assam. 5. Mr. Goswami submitted, that the occurrence took place over a plot of land measuring two bighas owned and possessed by the accused persons. They were obstructed from ploughing the said land by the members of the prosecution party resulting in a mutual fight amongst themselves. K. Munir, learned P.P., Assam. 5. Mr. Goswami submitted, that the occurrence took place over a plot of land measuring two bighas owned and possessed by the accused persons. They were obstructed from ploughing the said land by the members of the prosecution party resulting in a mutual fight amongst themselves. The accused persons also sustained injuries and they had filed a counter case being Sessions Case No. 72/2003. Mr. Goswami further argued that the accused persons had acted in exercise of their right of defence of property as well as person, and, therefore, are entitled to acquittal. It is also pointed out that the examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is contrary to law and this has resulted into denial of opportunity to the accused persons to explain away the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence. 6. Mr. Munir, learned P.P. submitted that there is no evidence to show that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed land and the evidence on record would show that the accused persons launched the attack on the members of the complainant party for ploughing the land and caused death of 3 persons belonging to the same family. Mr. Munir referred to Ext.6, the seizure list, by which a deed of mortgage allegedly executed by the accused Md. Abu Sufian was seized and argued that the evidence on record clearly indicate that the possession of the land was with the members of the prosecution party and, therefore, the accused persons being aggressors would not be entitled to the right of private defence. 7. In order to appreciate the respective contentions we would now like to embark upon a discussion on the evidence on record. At the first instance, we would like to refer to the evidence of the medical officers, namely - PW1 Dr. Swapan Kumar Sen, PW2 Dr. Ranjit Baidya, PW3 Dr. I.A. Ahmed and PW5 Dr. Lipi Deb. 8. PW1 Dr. Swapan Kumar Sen who had performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Lutfur Rahman, aged about 25 years, found the following injuries: (1) 1(one) ½"× 1" × 5" (deep) penetrating wound on just below the right scapula on the posterior trunk at the level and between the 9th right and 10th rib right side cutting the adjoining vessel muscles leavy and rios. (2) 2" × ½" × 4 (deep) penetrating wound on the left lumber area on the posterior trunks and cutting the adjoining vessels and muscles. (3) 3" × ½" × 5" (deep) penetrating wound on the ulterior aspect of the chest between the 6th and 7th ribs cutting adjoining vessels, muscles and lungs. 9. Ext.1 is the post mortem report and Ext.1(1) is the signature of the doctor. The doctor further opined that all the 3 injuries were caused by a dagger. The death, in his opinion, occurred due to shock and hemorrhage sustained by the deceased from the penetrating injuries, 10. PW2 Dr. Ranjit Baidya who had performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sakibur Rahman, aged about 32 years, found the following injuries: (1) Penetrating injury 2" × ½" × 4" over left lower chest at 7th inter-costals space piercing the chest wall muscle, plurae and left lower lobe of the lungs. Pleural cavity is full of blood. (2) Penetrating injury 2" × ½" × 4" just below the angle of left scapula, piercing the chest wall muscles, plural and left lobe of the lungs. Pleural cavity is full of blood. 11. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante mortem in nature and death occurred due to combined effect of anoxia arid hemorrhages. Ext.2 is the post mortem report and Ext.2(1) is the signature of the doctor. 12. PW5 Dr. Lipi Deb who had performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Safiqur Rahman, aged about 45 years, found the following injuries: One penetrating wound about 2nd ½" x 1 x? over left lateral wall of lower chest wall with blood coming out from the wound. Cranium and spinal Canal. Scalp, skull, vertebrae - health, Membrane healthy , Brain and spinal cord-Pale. Thorax Walls, ribs and cartilages - One penetrating wound present over it. Lower anterior chest as described in 1. Pleurae - Pale, Larynx and tracheae-Pale, Right lung punctured in its lower lobe with hemorrhage. Left lung, pericardium-Pale. Heart-empty, vessels-empty. Abdomen Walls-healthy. Peritoneum -Ple and blood present under penetrating in the peritoneal cavity. Mouth, pharynx, oesophagus-pale, Stomach and its contents - empty, Small intestine and its contents - empty. Contains masoid material. Liver-Penetrating wound over Rt. Lobe of lever and hematoma axis around it pale. Spleen-pale, Kidneys-pale. Bladder-empty, Organs of generation, extreme and internal-healthy. 13. Left lung, pericardium-Pale. Heart-empty, vessels-empty. Abdomen Walls-healthy. Peritoneum -Ple and blood present under penetrating in the peritoneal cavity. Mouth, pharynx, oesophagus-pale, Stomach and its contents - empty, Small intestine and its contents - empty. Contains masoid material. Liver-Penetrating wound over Rt. Lobe of lever and hematoma axis around it pale. Spleen-pale, Kidneys-pale. Bladder-empty, Organs of generation, extreme and internal-healthy. 13. According to the medical officer, the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Ext.7(1) is the signature of the doctor and Ext.7 is the post mortem report. 14. The evidence of the aforesaid three medical officers establish that Lutfur Rahman, Sakibur Rahman and Safiqur Rahman died of the ante mortem injuries sustained by them. There is no dispute with regard to their death out of the injuries sustained by them in the alleged occurrence. The inquest report is corroborative of the medical evidence on record. 15. PW4 Sehabur Rahman also sustained injuries in the occurrence. PW3 who had examined him on 1.9.1998 at Chorgola mini P.H.C. found the following injuries on his person. 1. A longitudinal cut on the anterior aspect of right shoulder. Size 3" × ½" × muscle deep, bleeding. 2. A straight longitudinal cut over left maxi nary region of face. Size 1" × ½" × 1/4" bleeding. 3. A small longitudinal cut in the left anterior axinary fold. Size 1/4" × OX skindeep, bleeding. 16. According to PW3, all the injuries were fresh, simple in nature and were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Ext.3 is the post mortem report and Ext.3(1) is the signature of PW3. 17. This witness also examined Musstt. Karimun Nessa, wife of Late Murfiz Ali and found the following injuries: A penetrating wound in the right groin size ½" × 1/4" × 1/4" bleeding. The patient disposed after stitching, and dressing of the wound. 18. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was simple and caused by sharp penetrating weapon. Ext.4 is the post mortem report and Ext.4(1) is the signature of the medical officer. The evidence of PW3 shows that PW4 and PW7 sustained simple injuries, as alleged by the prosecution. 19. We may now refer to the question of possession of the land. PW4 Sehabur Rahman is the complainant. He filed the ejahar (Ext.5) and identified all the accused persons in the court. The evidence of PW3 shows that PW4 and PW7 sustained simple injuries, as alleged by the prosecution. 19. We may now refer to the question of possession of the land. PW4 Sehabur Rahman is the complainant. He filed the ejahar (Ext.5) and identified all the accused persons in the court. According to him, he had taken 2B of land on mortgage from accused Abu Sufian by an unregistered mortgage deed and used to cultivate the same. He denied a suggestion that no deed of mortgage was executed. He did not admit the defence suggestion that he wanted to forcibly take possession of the land in lieu of ' mohuranna' payable to his daughter by her estranged husband accused Aziruddin. 20. PW6 Atikur Rahman, son of Habi Sihabur Rahman stated that they have taken the land in question on mortgage. There is no effective cross-examination of this witness so far the question of possession over the land is concerned. PW7 Karimannessa, mother of the complainant, did not say anything about the land in her examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination, she stated that the accused persons are the owners of the land and it was mortgaged to them. She further denied that they wanted to take over possession and assaulted the accused persons. PW14 Mubasil Ali stated that the complainant came to his house and told him that his land was being ploughed and asked him to go there. This also shows that the land in question was at the relevant time under possession of the complainant. That apart, Ext.6, the seizure list, shows that the police had seized one deed of mortgage dated 24.3.1996 executed by Abu Sufian in favour of Md. Sehabur Rahman in respect of 2B land covered by settlement survey Dag Nos. 1093/1094 and by Dag No. 2 of Mahaal Elam Patta No. 1962/1, Mouza -Kalachherra for a period of 10(ten) years. The mortgaged deed has not been tendered in evidence. However, Ext.6 shows that a deed of mortgage was seized by police. The defence could not assail above evidence. They have also not adduced any evidence to prove that they were in possession of the land. The appellants during the course of examination under Section313, Cr.P.C. when confronted with the incriminating evidence did not say anything about the possession. However, Ext.6 shows that a deed of mortgage was seized by police. The defence could not assail above evidence. They have also not adduced any evidence to prove that they were in possession of the land. The appellants during the course of examination under Section313, Cr.P.C. when confronted with the incriminating evidence did not say anything about the possession. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the land was with the accused persons. Rather the segment of possession appear to be with the members of the complainant party. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant was in possession of the land and it was being cultivated by Jia, son of accused Abu Sufian at the time of occurrence, as alleged by PW4 and PW7 and supported by PW 14. 21. From PW4, we find that at the time of occurrence, Jia, son of accused Abu Sufian was ploughing the land. Abu Sufian, the accused-appellant; Saddique; Lebhi Bibi; Aziruddin, the accused appellant; Neni Bibi and Jureuddin were standing by the side of the land. PW4 asked Jia not to plough the land. His request was ignored. By that time, his brothers Safiqur and Saikibur and son Lutfur and mother Karimun Nessa arrived there. They were standing on the adjacent land. Mufasil Ali and Abdul Hassan also arrived there and asked both the parties to leave the place of occurrence. The accused persons suddenly attacked this witness and other members of his family with dagger, Sulfi, bhojali, dao, etc. Sadique stabbed his son Lutfur twice with a dagger. Abu Sufian assaulted him with a bhojali. Lutfur fell down on the ground. Aziruddin stabbed his brother Saikibur in the chest and back with dagger. Sufiqur and Saikibur.died at the place of occurrence. Lutfur succumbed to the injuries at Ratabari Hospital. The accused Lebi Bibi assaulted him on his right shoulder and Abu Sufial assaulted him on the left cheek with a dagger. Neni Bibi struck his mother below her waist with a 'sufi'. The entire incident took place in the nearby land of Mufashil Ali. He further asserted that he and the members of his family members were unarmed. 22. The evidence of PW4 shows that all the accused persons attacked them with dagger, sulfi, bhojalil, dao, etc., and Sadique stabbed Lutfur twice with a dagger and Abu Sufian cut him with a bhojali. He further asserted that he and the members of his family members were unarmed. 22. The evidence of PW4 shows that all the accused persons attacked them with dagger, sulfi, bhojalil, dao, etc., and Sadique stabbed Lutfur twice with a dagger and Abu Sufian cut him with a bhojali. His evidence further shows that the accused Azir stabbed his brother Saikibur in the chest and back with dagger. The defence could not bring out any major omission or contradiction in his evidence and nor could point out anything to show that the evidence of this witness is not worthy of credence. 23. PW6 Atikur Rahman went to the place of occurrence a little bit later and he found Safique and Sakibur lying dead on the land of Mutashil and Lutfur was lying in an injured condition. He did not see the occurrence. This witness was declared hostile. It was suggested to this witness that he had told the investigating officer that he had seen from a distance that his father, paternal uncles and brother standing on Mufishil's land and that Sufian's youngest son was ploughing the same which was taken by them on mortgage and that his father and paternal uncles resisted them from doing that. He further denied that he had stated to the investigating officer that Jia raised cries and at that moment accused Sufian, Sadique and Lebi Bibi, all armed with lathi, dagger, sulfi etc., came from the east; Aziruddin, Juberuddin and Neni Bibi armed with lathi, dagger, spsar etc., came from the north and attacked his father, paternal uncles and brother. But this contradiction has not been proved by the prosecution for reasons best known to the Public Prosecutor 24. Without laying any emphasis on the evidence of PW6, we may refer to the evidence of PW7 Karimannessa, mother of the complainant. She stated that her son Safiqur informed her that the accused persons have been ploughing their land. She went to the place of occurrence. Safiqur, Sakibur and her grandson Lutfur Rahman were also present there. They were unarmed. She saw the accused persons Sadique, Sufian, Azir, Juber and Ledi on the land. She further stated that she saw Sadique and Sufian stabbing her grandson Lutfur Rahman. She further deposed that Juber struck her son Safiqur with a spear and Azir stabbed her son Sakibur with a dagger. They were unarmed. She saw the accused persons Sadique, Sufian, Azir, Juber and Ledi on the land. She further stated that she saw Sadique and Sufian stabbing her grandson Lutfur Rahman. She further deposed that Juber struck her son Safiqur with a spear and Azir stabbed her son Sakibur with a dagger. She also deposed that Sufian and his wife Ledi stabbed her son Sehabur with daggers and Juber's wife also struck her lower abdomen with a spear. The defence failed to demolish the evidentiary value of the statement of this witness. It is not understood as to why this old woman would make a false statement against the appellants had they not killed her sons and grandson. 25. PW14 Mubasil Ali stated that the complainant (PW4) informed him that his land was being ploughed. He went there and saw a youth ploughing the land. He found Azir Uddin and other accused persons at the place of occurrence. PW4 Sahabur asked the youth ploughing the land to take away the plough. The accused Azir Uddin replied that the plough would not be withdrawn and asked PW4 to get an injunction to stop ploughing. PW4, the complainant then left the place. Thereafter, his brother Safiqur Rahman arrived there with weapons and asked the youth to take away the plough. The youth refused to withdraw the plough'. At that moment, the youth came and held this witness (PW14). Then a terrible fight broke out between the parties. The accused Aziruddin was armed with a spade. Safiqur Rahman, Sakibur Rahman and Lutfur died of injuries sustained in the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see who had assaulted whom. But the evidence of this witness prove that it was Jia, son of appellant Sufiyan who wanted to cultivate the land under occupation of the complainant. From the evidence of PW4 and PW7 it is established beyond doubt that the appellant along with others had assaulted the complainant and other members of his family and killed Safiqur Rahman, Sakibur Rahman and Lutfur. The medical evidence in this regard lend full corroboration to the evidence of PW4 and PW7. It is further clear that the accused persons wanted to retrieve the possession of the land which they had mortgaged to the complainant by ploughing it through Jia, son of appellant Sufiyan. The medical evidence in this regard lend full corroboration to the evidence of PW4 and PW7. It is further clear that the accused persons wanted to retrieve the possession of the land which they had mortgaged to the complainant by ploughing it through Jia, son of appellant Sufiyan. Therefore, right of private defence of property would not be available to them. The counter case, i.e., Sessions Case No. 72/2003 in which the members of the complainant party were tried ended in acquittal. The copy of the judgment produced shows that the accused persons sustained simple injuries thereby negating their right of self defence and killing of three persons in exercise of such right. On the other hand, three persons died because of injuries sustained by them in the hands of the appellants. PW4 and PW8 also sustained injuries. The extent and magnitude of violence perpetuated by the accused persons are manifest in the death of three persons. Intact, no effective defence was set up in the case at hand at any stage of the trial. The appellants also could not show as to how they are prejudiced in their defence because of some inadequacy in their examination under Section 313, Cr.PC. We, therefore, find no scope for interference with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.