JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated June 2, 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, as under U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 148 IPC: TO suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. U/s. 307/149 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of As. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. U/s. 324/149 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of As. 200/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that on March 9, 1995 informant Ramsharan (Pw.20) submitted a written report (Ex.P-54) at Police Station Todabhim to the effect that on the said day around 7-8 AM while Siya Ram was watering the land inside the land of his own boundary for the purpose of raising a wall, Pyar Singh and all members of his family by making a gang, having common object, came with 12 bore guns and country made pistols. Immediately on their arrival Pyar Singh told Siya Ram that today I will finish him and will not permit him to raise boundary wall in the land. On saying so, he fired at Siyaram by his 12 bore gun which hit him on his chest and Siyaram died at the spot. Gyan Singh, also fired from his 12 bore gun at Hari Singh. Prem Singh fired at Sumran Malke, who is head of the family, stated that family of Ramdhan should be finished and I would deal with everything. He had a country made pistol in his hand. Samay Singh fired at Kedar with country made pistol. Khiladi S/o Hargyan fired at Bharosi with country made pistol. Radhey Shyam s/o Jawan Singh fired at Harveer by country made pistol. Jagdish fired at Mukesh with country made pistol and Laxman fired with 12 bore gun at Kishan which hit him on the hand. Ramavtar fired at Dharme with country made pistol. Khiladi S/o Hargyan fired at Bharosi with country made pistol. Radhey Shyam s/o Jawan Singh fired at Harveer by country made pistol. Jagdish fired at Mukesh with country made pistol and Laxman fired with 12 bore gun at Kishan which hit him on the hand. Ramavtar fired at Dharme with country made pistol. Harroop fired at Dhanwanti and Ganga Kishan fired at Samandar whereas Radhey Shyam threw stones at Harpyari, whereas Hargyan fired from country made pistol and cartridges of which hit Pitram. Ramswaroop, Ramkishan, Guddi also fired from country made pistols, Harpati fired with country made pistol which hit Chandan. Pooran and Kalua also fired. Apanti, Koshula, Kailashi, Kampuri, Somoti, Sufedi, Kesula, Lachho and Kailashi also attacked and fired with country made pistols. On the spot Chaudhariya, Harswaroop, Dharam and Behari were present. On that report a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead bodies of Siya Ram and Hari Singh were subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City. Charges under sections 148, 302, 307/149 and 324/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellants claimed innocence. One witness in support of defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment took us through the material on record. 4. As per Post Mortem report (Ex.P-53) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Siya Ram: 1. Multiple 50 fire arm wounds of entrance 4mm x 4mm x skin, muscle and bone and left lung deep on left front of chest scattered in the area of heart, nipple, mid clavicular, different auxiliary whole frontal part of chest with bleeding white callus of abrasion around the wounds with swelling with surgical emphysema above the left front of chest, 3 fire arms wound of entrance on left back of chest. No blackening, no tattooing. 2. No blackening, no tattooing. 2. Multiple oval about 30 fire arm wounds of entrance 4mm x 4mm on left arm left shoulder and left forearm in front and outer surface of skin, muscle and upto bone deep with callus of abrasion around the wound with swelling and blood clots. In the opinion of Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (Pw.16) the cause of death was internal hemorrhage and cardiac respiratory failure due to severe nature of firearm injuries. Hari Singh as per Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-54) received following ante mortem injuries: 1. Stitched wound one stitch three cm below the umbilicus 2. Wound of size 1/4 x 1/4 x penitential cavity deep 4 cm below umbilicus on Rt. side through which blood stained fluid exceed out. 3. Wound of size 3 x 1/2 on Rt. Lat. side chest in 6th inner coastal space done for intercostal drainage purpose. 4. Multiple punctured wounds of size 1/4cm 4 diameter with blackish card scab formation scattered on Rt. half of body as shown in diagram. 5. In the opinion of Dr. RC. Vyas (Pw. 17) the cause of death was syncop as a result of injury to liver and Rt. side plura. 6. Super structure of prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Harswaroop (Pw.2) and Sumran Singh (Pw.5), who are the star witnesses of the prosecution. Harswaroop (Pw.2) supported the prosecution version only in so far as the role attributed to four accused persons namely Pyar Singh (appellant), Gyan Singh, Prem Singh and Samay Sing is concerned. With regard to others he only stated that they were armed with lathals and gandasis. After giving in detail the part played by the four persons, he only stated that after the incident, the accused went away. Testimony of Harswaroop gets corroboration from the evidence of Sumran Singh. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that appellant and other accused had right of private defence of person and property and while exercising their right two persons died and others received injuries. Contention of learned counsel was that complainant party wanted to block their passage from the house leading to their fields by constructing boundary wall and the appellant and other accused had right to restrain them from doing so, particularly when the boundary wall was to be constructed in the land of appellant and other accused. 8. Contention of learned counsel was that complainant party wanted to block their passage from the house leading to their fields by constructing boundary wall and the appellant and other accused had right to restrain them from doing so, particularly when the boundary wall was to be constructed in the land of appellant and other accused. 8. Having considered the material available on record we find that Siya Ram was watering the area inside his boundary wall for the purpose of constructing wall. It could not be established that the wall was to be constructed in the area owned or possessed by appellant and other accused. There is no evidence on record to suggest that by construction of wall, passage of the appellant and other accused was to be blocked. As per site plan, authenticity of which was neither challenged nor disputed, fields of the complainant party were in the area shown at points ABCD, 4 feet and 1/2'' wall from point 'A' to 'E' was already existed and from mark 'D' to 'E' to foundation had already been dug for the purpose of constructing wall. From the house of complainant party there was a vacant area on the right hand side of the area 'ABCD' which was common passage. The said passage lead to the fields of accused. There was no obstruction at all in the said passage and the accused could well reach their fields through the common passage. If the complainant party was raising wall it was in their own area, which even if constructed, would have got blocked the passage D of accused. Thus the accused had no right of private defence of person or property. The defence of accused that they caused two deaths and injuries to others in exercise of right of private defence of person and property is repelled. 9. As already noticed the witnesses attributed the specific injuries to four accused including the appellant. Co-accused Gyan Singh, Samay Singh and Prem Singh have already been convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC. Since appellant Pyar Singh could not be nabbed along with them, he has been tried separately. The guilt of appellant Pyar Singh is established beyond reasonable doubt and we find that case of appellant is not distinguishable with that of the case of co-accused Gyan Singh, Samay Singh and Prem Singh. 10. Since appellant Pyar Singh could not be nabbed along with them, he has been tried separately. The guilt of appellant Pyar Singh is established beyond reasonable doubt and we find that case of appellant is not distinguishable with that of the case of co-accused Gyan Singh, Samay Singh and Prem Singh. 10. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal and it accordingly stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302 IPC are maintained. We however acquit the appellant of the charges under sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149 IPC and to this extent only the order of learned trial Judge is set aside.Appeal Dismissed. *******