JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:-On 24.10.1991 at about 9.45 a.m., an incident is said to have occurred in which appellant Daya Ram and four other persons, namely, Jiya Lal, Rakesh Kumar alias Kaka, Vijay Kumar alias Kala and Dharamender Kumar alias Billa are said to have caused the following injuries to Surinder Kumar Chawla :- 1. Lacerated wound on the right side of the forehead 7 cm x 1 cm bone deep. Bleeding was present. Pupils were constricted bilaterally, sluggish reaction to light. Advised x-ray skull AP & lateral view. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x .25 cm. over the upper part of the nose. Bleeding from the nose was present. Advised x-ray nasal bone AP and lateral. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x .5 cm. over the right upper leg in the lower 1/3rd. Bleeding was present. 2. The cause for dispute related to the possession of some property of which Daya Ram and Jiya Lal were in possession. They had sought protection of their possession from the civil court as well. 3. The property belonged to one Ishar Dass of Delhi of which Rajinder Kumar Chawla, brother of the injured, was the power of attorney. 4. The possession was being hotly contested which resulted in bad blood between the parties. The FIR was lodged on 25.10.1991 at 10.40 a.m. by PW9 Virender Kumar Chawla, another brother of the injured. 5. The police, after completing the investigation, submitted a challan against all the five accused persons under the provisions of Sections 323, 506, 148, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, one of the injuries on the person of the injured was declared to be dangerous to life and the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The trial court charged them accordingly. 6. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, which included the testimony of the injured Surinder Kumar Chawla as PW8 as also the medical testimony in the shape of PW1 Dr. Usha Rungta and PW13 Dr.Mrs.N.Sandhu. 7. All the accused persons in their defence pleaded false implication on account of the enmity which was existing regarding possession of some property. It was also pleaded that Daya Ram was in fact assaulted by injured Surinder Kumar Chawla and they in order to protect their possession and themselves had inflicted injuries on Surinder Kumar Chawla. 8. 7. All the accused persons in their defence pleaded false implication on account of the enmity which was existing regarding possession of some property. It was also pleaded that Daya Ram was in fact assaulted by injured Surinder Kumar Chawla and they in order to protect their possession and themselves had inflicted injuries on Surinder Kumar Chawla. 8. The trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants had committed the offence under sections 307 read with section 34 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted Vijay Kumar alias Kala and Dharamander alias Billa. The remaining three accused, namely Daya Ram, Jiya Lal and Rakesh Kumar alias Kaka were sentenced as under :- “ U/S 307 read with Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Section 34 of the Indian Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine the defaulter(s) Penal Code. to undergo further imprisonment for one year. U/S 506read with Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Section 34 of the Indian Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine the defaulter(s) Penal Code. to undergo further imprisonment for six months.” 9. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off. 10. The present appeal is directed against the aforesaid order by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 11. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Daya Ram has admitted that the incident had taken place but has pleaded that it was in self defence. The other two persons, namely Jiya Lal and Rakesh have been falsely implicated on account of the dispute which was concededly there on account of the possession of property. It was then contended that the case of Daya Ram appellant deserves to be dealt with leniency as concededly there was animosity between the parties and since the appellants were in possession of the property, it cannot be entirely ruled out that they had reacted to the aggression of the injured and had acted in self defence as a normal prudent person would do when threatened with disruption of his possession or injury to his person. Besides, it was pleaded that at the time of occurrence, which took place in the year 1991, appellant Daya Ram was said to be of 60/62 years of age and by now he would be well advanced in age and similarly Rakesh Kumar alias Kala was aged about 34 years and Jiya Lal was 54 years. Having regard to the fact that the appellants are not given to any criminal activity and the incident is the result of the circumstances in which they were trying to protect their possession, all of them deserve to be dealt with leniently. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the appellants have been rightly convicted as they had caused serious injuries to the injured and injury no.1 was said to be dangerous to life and in view of this once Daya Ram does not deny the incident, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is perfectly in order. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have peruse the record. 14. Concededly, there is sufficient material on record to show that there was an ongoing dispute between the parties regarding the possession of property of which Daya Ram and Jiya Lal were in possession. They had also sought protection from the civil court in so far as their possession was concerned. 15. Once a plea of self defence is raised and especially in the peculiarity of the circumstances of the present case, when an ongoing serious tussle over possession of the property is going on, and the parties reside in close proximity to each other, the fact whether the complainant was the aggressor or the accused, would be lost in a haze of allegations and counter allegations. 16. In these circumstances the prosecution has to remove that cloud of haze by conclusively establishing as to who is the aggressor so that the right of private defence can be tested. 17. If the evidence on record is short of clearly establishing the aforesaid fact, then the court is to lean somewhat towards what prudence would dictate. A person who is in possession of a property which is claimed by the other as his own, is more in the threatened zone, than the one who merely claims but is out of possession. If the evidence on record is short of clearly establishing the aforesaid fact, then the court is to lean somewhat towards what prudence would dictate. A person who is in possession of a property which is claimed by the other as his own, is more in the threatened zone, than the one who merely claims but is out of possession. Desire to possess and oust the other from what is perceived to be rightfully his, can be a strong motivator and instigator of aggression. 18. In the present case also the evidence is short of clearly establishing as to who is the aggressor as the houses of the parties are so close by, so as to dim the chances of finding out the said fact. Hence it is quite possible that accused might have acted in self defence, but this cannot be conclusively answered. Therefore, one needs to travel to the ocular evidence. 19. The testimony of Daya Ram is forthright. He does not deny the incident but only pleads that he was in possession and when threatened with its disruption he reacted. 20. He could also have pleaded false implication simpliciter. 21. In any eventuality the ocular evidence regarding the occurrence is provided by the injured Surinder Chawla PW8, his brother Virender Chawla PW9 and Rakesh Bhatia PW11. They also attributed lathi blows to two other persons, namely Kala and Dharamender who were acquitted. These two persons and Daya Ram were said to be armed with lathis while the remaining two were armed with iron rods. 22. The trial court disbelieved the role given to Kala and Dharamender. It is obvious that the complainant had the propensity to exaggerate the version to involve more persons. 23. A perusal of the injuries shows that all three were lacerated wounds, which have been attributed to Daya Ram, Rakesh Kumar and Jiya Lal who were armed with iron rods. But it is also possible that the same were caused by one person only. 24. Since a doubt has crept in because of the complainant trying to implicate more persons on account of his previous enmity, his testimony therefore becomes not entirely creditworthy. 25. Possession was of Daya Ram, and therefore he cannot escape the liability of causing injuries more so when he has admitted the occurrence. It seems that others have simply been roped in. 26. 25. Possession was of Daya Ram, and therefore he cannot escape the liability of causing injuries more so when he has admitted the occurrence. It seems that others have simply been roped in. 26. Daya Ram acted to defend his possession but considering that there is no evidence to show that the complainant was armed, he has clearly acted in excess of his defence. 27. Consequently, the court concludes that the appeal qua Rakesh Kumar alias Kaka and Jiya Lal deserves to succeed and they are accordingly acquitted of the charges against them. 28. In so far as the case of appellant Daya Ram is concerned, he was aged 60/62 years at the time of occurrence and the quarrel had erupted on account of the dispute regarding possession of the property. Apparently, the parties are not given to any criminal activity and it is only on account of bad blood that the present incident had taken place. 16 years have been elapsed since he has been facing the brunt of the criminal proceedings and by now he would be well settled in life and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him in custody at this stage. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant Daya Ram to that of already undergone, provided he pays a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the injured. The aforesaid amount be deposited before the trial court within four months and the same shall be disbursed to the injured after due notice. Failure to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period shall result in the revival of the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. —————————