Judgment UMA NATH SINGH, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 94-SB of 1994 (Jassa alias Jaspal Singh V/s. State of Haryana) as both the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 25-1-1994, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in Sessions Case No. 50/1992, holding accused Jassa Singh guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part-I) and sentencing him to RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 4000/- with a direction to further undergo RI for six months in case of default. He has also been held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to RI for three months. However, the trial Court has not found the co-accused persons guilty of offences charged with under Sections 148, 302, and 325 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the State has though filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of eight accused persons but has not questioned the conviction of accused Jassa Singh for a lesser offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. 3. The prosecution case is based on the statement of Baljit Singh (PW 13) an injured witness, recorded by SI SHO Vijinder Singh on 27-6-1990, the date of incident. Complainant Baljit Singh has stated that he was a resident of Village Nidana. He had four brothers. The eldest of all is Ranjit Singh, then the complainant, then Surjit Singh, and the youngest one was Pal Singh. A year before the incident, they had purchased 3½ killas of land in Village Beer Majra (from Diswans of the village. The land was adjoining the dera of Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh also owned further 7 acres land near their purchased land. Kartar Singh had suggested that the complainant side should exchange 3½ killas of land adjoining his dera which they had purchased from the Diwans, and in lieu, he was to give 3½ killas out of his seven killas land and that he was to lease out the remaining 3½ killas of land to them @ Rs. 2800/- per killa. A writing deed was done, but later on, Kartar Singh refused to make the statement for transfer of the land. The parties were cultivating each others land for the past one year. An amount of Rs. 2800/- per killa. A writing deed was done, but later on, Kartar Singh refused to make the statement for transfer of the land. The parties were cultivating each others land for the past one year. An amount of Rs. 2800/- was paid towards lease money by the complainant side to Kartar Singh for the 3½ killas leased land and the rest 3½ killas had been given in lieu of exchange. Accused Lakha Singh and Rup Singh, sons of Kartar Singh, told the complainant side that they would not exchange the land, and complainant side should cultivate their own land and they would cultivate their own. As per their asking the complainant side on 25-6-1990 ploughed their land, and on 26-6-1990 they watered it and planted paddy crop in one killa after smoothening the land. On the date of incident, at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant was cultivating the left out portion of the land for sowing crop, and his two brothers Ranjit Singh and Surjit Singh with one of his relatives Rajbir Singh were also sitting there and gossiping. In the meanwhile accused persons namely Kuldip Singh armed with a kirpan, Jassa Singh with a gandasi, Gurnam Singh and Lakha Singh with barchhi, Subeg Singh and Banta Singh also with gandasis, Bansa Singh with sword and one more person, came out from the dera of Kartar Singh. Accused Lakha Singh and Gurnam Singh raised a lalkara that they would teach the complainant a lesson for cultivating that land. Hearing the lalkara, brothers of complainant, Ranjit Singh and Surjit Singh and his relative Rajbir Singh stood up. When the complainant stopped the tractor and was about to move towards them, then accused Subeg Singh, who was holding a gandasi, wheeled the weapon like a lathi, and gave a blow to Surjit Singh on his head. Surjit Singh fell down. Thereafter, accused Kuldip Singh gave a sword blow to Surjit Singh which hit him on the upper portion of his left eye. Accused Gurnam Singh, Lakha Singh and Banta Singh also gave gandasi and barchhi blows to Surjit Singh while he was lying on the ground. At that time, Ranjit Singh rushed to save his brother Surjit Singh. Then accused Lakha Singh asked accused Jassa Singh to shoot him. Pursuant thereto accused Jassa Singh fired a gun shot at deceased Ranjit Singh from the gun he was holding. At that time, Ranjit Singh rushed to save his brother Surjit Singh. Then accused Lakha Singh asked accused Jassa Singh to shoot him. Pursuant thereto accused Jassa Singh fired a gun shot at deceased Ranjit Singh from the gun he was holding. The gun-shot hit him on his left leg, and he fell down. When the complainant ran towards the accused raising alarm mar diya, mar diya, then all of them went away along with their respective weapons. Rajbir Singh tried to catch hold of them, but accused Bansa Singh gave a sword blow, which hit him on his left hand little finger. Thereafter, while the complainant was taking his brother Ranjit Singh and Surjit Singh, and relative Rajbir Singh to Civil Hospital Karnal in tractor, Ranjit Singh succumbed to the injuries on the way. His dead body was kept in the mortuary, and he got his brother Surjit Singh admitted in hospital. According to the complainant, accused Kuldip Singh, Jassa Singh, Rur Singh, Subeg Singh, Gurnam Singh, Lakha Singh, Banta Singh and Bansa Singh, and one more person whom he did not know, murdered his brother Ranjit Singh, in prosecution of their common object having grudge over the land. They also caused injuries to his brother Surjit Singh and relative Rajbir Singh. As per police proceedings, it appears that the SHO had received a VT message regarding the death of Ranjit Singh, and therefore, with police force he had reached the General Hospital, Karnal, for verification of the occurrence, where he had recorded the statement of Baljit Singh (PW13). The SHO found a prima facie case under Sections 302/148/149/323, IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He sent the statement through Head Constable Illam Singh for registration of FIR. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered and the copies of the police papers along with original writing were sent to the SHO at the spot through special Constable. The copies of FIR and special report were sent to higher authorities by Moharrir Head Constable Gurdial Chand on 27-6-1990 itself through Constable Surinderpal (PW 11). 4. Dr. P. K. Bhatia (PW5), was posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal on 27-6-1990. He medically examined injured Surjit Singh at 6.45 p.m. and found the injuries as reproduced hereunder :- "1. 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. lacerated wound on right side of scalp in anterior aspect. 4. Dr. P. K. Bhatia (PW5), was posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal on 27-6-1990. He medically examined injured Surjit Singh at 6.45 p.m. and found the injuries as reproduced hereunder :- "1. 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. lacerated wound on right side of scalp in anterior aspect. X-ray skull and general surgeon opinion was advised. 2. 2 c.m. x 2 mm sharp incised wound lateral to let ft. eye. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. Small abrasion on dorsem of right hand. 4. Defuse swelling on left wrist. X-ray of the part was advised. 5. Reddish contusion 10 cm. x 1.2 cm x 1.2 cm on the dorsem of right forearm. X-ray advised. 6. Defuse swelling left thigh. Patient was conscious. His BP was 120/80 pulse 96 per minute. Injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were caused by blunt weapon whereas injury No. 2 was caused by sharp weapon." 5. Injury Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were kept under observation, and their nature was to be declared after x-ray report, however, injury Nos.2, 3 and 6 were declared simple. Probable duration of the injuries was within few hours. Ex.PH is the correct carbon copy of the MLR. The doctor proved his hand-writing and signatures. Ex.PH/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. The doctor on seeing the x-ray report of Surjit Singh (Ex.PH/2) identified the signature of Dr. Rakesh Mittal thereon, and on the basis of that report, he declared all the injuries as simple in nature. He did not rule out the possibility that the injury No. 2 could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like sword. 6. The same day i.e. on 27-6-1990, at 7 p.m., he also medically examined witness Rajbir Singh and noticed the injuries which are reproduced hereunder :- "1. 2 cm. x 2 mm. lacerated wound on the dorsem of proximal inter phalangeal joint left little finger. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray of the part was advised. 2. Defuse swelling left forearm." Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation, and was to be declared after x-ray report. Injury No. 2 was declared simple. Probable duration of the injuries was within few hours. Ex.PJ is the correct carbon copy of the MLR prepared during that process by the witness. He has proved his hand-writing and signatures. 7. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation, and was to be declared after x-ray report. Injury No. 2 was declared simple. Probable duration of the injuries was within few hours. Ex.PJ is the correct carbon copy of the MLR prepared during that process by the witness. He has proved his hand-writing and signatures. 7. On 27-6-1990, the date of incident, the inquest proceeding was conducted, and the report (Ex.PG/3) was prepared. The cause of death was shown to be gun shot injury. It is also mentioned in the inquest report that sufficient quantity of blood had by then oozed out from the left thigh and it had clotted. The body was pale. The post- mortem of the dead body (Ex.PG) was conducted by Dr. Amar Singh (PW4) on 28-6-1990. He found the presence of rigor mortis on the lower limbs only. He has noticed and detailed the injuries as are reproduced hereunder :- "1. There was a lacerated wound with inverted margins (entry wound) on the antero-medical aspect of left thigh in middle part. Collar of abrasion was present. Slight tattooing was present. No singeing of hair was seen and no blackening was there. Corresponding part of the trouser was torn and it was preserved. There was no exit wound before starting the dissection of the wound. Wound was measuring 10 cm. long and 8 cm. wide and placed 7 cm. above the sole of foot, the upper border. X-ray (of) left thigh was advised, A.P. and lateral view and also plain x-ray (of) abdomen, all taken in my presence. On dissection of this injury, the underlying tissue including blood vessels, nerves and muscles were all torn and badly damaged (femoral vessels were badly ragged). Some of the pellets were recovered on dissection and preserved. Pellets were found embedded on the torn tissue around the femur bone. 2. There was an incised wound spindle shaped 4.5 cm. x .5 cm. wide in center on the right forearm on the antero lateral aspect 12 cm. above the wrist joint." 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to left thigh, which was ante mortem in nature, and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. above the wrist joint." 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to left thigh, which was ante mortem in nature, and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between injury and death was within few hours and between death and post-mortem about 18 hours. According to the Doctor, the gun-shot was fired from a close range i.e. perhaps 10 to 12 feet. He has also stated that pellets were embedded around femur bone in the wound itself. 9. On 27-6-1990 at about 11.25 p.m., Dr. Shashi Kumar (DW 1), Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Nilokheri had examined accused Kuldip Singh, and had noticed the injuries which are reproduced hereunder :- "1. Diffuse swelling over the whole of the dorsal aspect of the right hand. On palpation the patient felt painful. Movements of the fingers and at wrist joint were restricted. Movements were more so restricted at meta carpo-phalangeal joint. X-ray was advised. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 0.2 cm. over the dorsal aspect of wrist meta-carpo-phalangeal joint of right hand. Wound was bleeding freshly. 3. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1 cm. over the dorsal aspect of the base of the left thumb. Movements were however normal. 4. Contusion reddish in colour measuring 7 cm x 2.5 cm over the back of the neck on the lower two cervical vertebrae and upper to thoracic vertebrae underlying bones were normal and also the movements. 5. Contusion reddish in colour 5 cm. x 2.5 cm. over the back of the left shoulder over the upper border of scapula." 10. According to the Doctor all the injuries on the person of Kuldip Singh could be caused with lathi. According to him, accused Kuldip Singh had been brought in hospital by Rur Singh. However, the Doctor has also opined that the injury No. 3 could be self suffered but it cannot be by friendly hand. He has further stated that none of the injuries except injury No. 4 was located on vital part of the body. From the colour of injuries, the Doctor has opined that these injuries could have been suffered within 12 hours, and more so, when there was fresh bleeding on injury No. 2. He has further stated that none of the injuries except injury No. 4 was located on vital part of the body. From the colour of injuries, the Doctor has opined that these injuries could have been suffered within 12 hours, and more so, when there was fresh bleeding on injury No. 2. The possibility of injury No. 2 being caused within half an hour could not be ruled out. The remaining injuries would have been caused within six hours. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and the result of its nature was to be declared only after x-ray examination. Other injuries were simple in nature, and were caused within 12 hours of medical examination. Dr. R. K. Goyal, (DW2) examined Rur Singh on 29-6-1990 at 3.30 p.m., and noticed the injuries which are reproduced as under :- "1. A reddish blue contusion of 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the outer aspect of left upper arm near the shoulder. 2. A reddish blue contusion of 12 cm. x 3.5 cm. on the outer aspect of the left thigh, approximately in the middle. 3. An oedematous reddish blue contusion of 6 cm. x 4 cm. on the dorsum of the right toe and adjoining it. Advised x-ray. 4. A reddish blue contusion of 8 cm. x 3 cm. on the back of the right side of the chest near the arm pit. 5. An abrasion of 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the middle of the scalp. It had a scab over it." 11. All the injuries except injury No. 3 were simple in nature. The nature of injury No. 3 was to be declared after x-ray report. The weapon used was blunt. 12. On the same day i.e. 29-6-1990, at 3.50 p.m., he also examined accused Subeg Singh and noticed the injuries as reproduced:- "1. A lacerated wound of 5 cm. x 1 cm. deep upto the bone on the back of right side of scalp near the occiput. Inflammatory tissue was present. X-ray was advised." 13. The weapon used was blunt and the nature of injuries was to be declared after x-ray report. 14. After investigation of the case, a challan was laid and the trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons under Sections 148, IPC, and Section 302 against accused Jassa Singh; and 302 read with 149, IPC against eight other co-accused. The weapon used was blunt and the nature of injuries was to be declared after x-ray report. 14. After investigation of the case, a challan was laid and the trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons under Sections 148, IPC, and Section 302 against accused Jassa Singh; and 302 read with 149, IPC against eight other co-accused. They were further charged under Section 324 read with 149, IPC for voluntarily causing simple hurt with swords, barchhis and gandasis to witness Surjit Singh, under Section 325 read with 149, IPC for causing grievous hurt to Rajbir Singh, and under Section 323 read with 149, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Surjit Singh and Rajbir Singh. 15. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On appreciation of evidence on record, learned trial Judge has recorded the order of conviction only against accused Jassa Singh for a lesser offence under Section 304 (Part I), IPC apart from his conviction also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, as aforesaid. The rest of the accused were acquitted. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Learned counsel for appellant Jassa Singh and also for the respondents in the connected appeal submitted that the accused side was in possession of the disputed land vide evidence of Mukand Singh (PW1), Jasbir Singh (PW7), Malkhan Singh (PW8), and Surjit Singh (PW13). Even after the incident, a revenue Court decided a case in their favour holding them to be the tenant since 1985 and the Collector did not agree with the correction of girdawari with effect from the crop season of 1989, and he has admitted the possession of the complainant on the land only with effect from Kharif 1990 when it came under their cultivation. Thus the Collector has affirmed the order passed by the Revenue Courts below. Learned counsel further submitted that a suit for pre-emption was also filed in respect of the purchased land by the accused side. This is also his submission that three of the accused side had suffered injuries in the incident. 18. Thus the Collector has affirmed the order passed by the Revenue Courts below. Learned counsel further submitted that a suit for pre-emption was also filed in respect of the purchased land by the accused side. This is also his submission that three of the accused side had suffered injuries in the incident. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment as regards the conviction and sentence of accused Jassa Singh, and further pleaded that since deceased Ranjit Singh had also suffered an incised wound on his arm and witness Surjit Singh had suffered a number of injuries, apart from another injured person Jasbir Singh (not examined), the impugned judgment of acquittal of the co-accused needs to be set aside. 19. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, and perused the records. The prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses whereas the defence has produced two, who are the doctors said to have medically examined the injured accused persons. Dr. Rakesh Mittal (PW1) is the Doctor who gave the opinion that injured Surjit Singh (PW14) was fit to make a statement on the police request (Ex.PA/1). Spattar Singh (PW2) is a witness of disclosure statements of the accused and the recoveries effected pursuant thereto. Mukand Singh (PW3) has supported the compromise (Ex.PF) between the parties regarding the disputed land in question. Dr. Amar Singh (PW4) is the Autopsy Surgeon, whose evidence has been discussed above. Dr. R. K. Bhatia (PW5) had medico legally examined witness Surjit Singh and one Rajbir Singh (not examined) and gave the medico legal reports (Ex.PII and PH/1). Parveen Kumar was a Licence Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, and he has proved the gun licence used in the offence vide Ex.PM. Jasmer Singh, Patwari, (PW7), prepared a scaled plan (Ex.PN) of the spot of incident and has stated in his cross-examinations that the crop of the year 1990 was in the name of accused Rur Singh son of Kartar Singh. Witness Malkhan Singh (PW8) has also proved a compromise between the parties, being Exhibit PF, besides witness Mukand Singh (PW3). Babu Ram (PW9) is also a witness of disclosure statements and recoveries. Head Constable Baldev Singh (PW10) is connected with the recovery of kirpan from accused Kuldip Singh. Constable Surinderpal (PW11) had delivered the special report (Ex.PV) at 11.30 p.m. on 27-6-1990. Babu Ram (PW9) is also a witness of disclosure statements and recoveries. Head Constable Baldev Singh (PW10) is connected with the recovery of kirpan from accused Kuldip Singh. Constable Surinderpal (PW11) had delivered the special report (Ex.PV) at 11.30 p.m. on 27-6-1990. Ram Lubhaya (PW12) has proved the photocopy of affidavit (Ex.PY) of Kartar Singh. Baljit Singh (PW13) is the complainant. Surjit Singh (PW14) is an injured eye witness. Sub-Inspector Man Singh (PW15) had partly investigated the case. ASI Ram Nivas (PW16) had also investigated the case in part. 20. Dr. Shashi Kumar (DW1) and Dr. R. K. Goyal (DW2) had examined accused Rur Singh, Subeg Singh and Kuldip Singh. 21. The points pleaded before the trial Court by the defence were that there was a delay of five hours in lodging the FIR; the accused side was in possession of the disputed land, therefore, in exercise of their right of self defence, they have caused injuries, and further three persons on the accused side also suffered injuries which have remained unexplained. That apart, it was also contended before the trial Court that the accused had not formed an unlawful assembly and even the names of some of the accused did not find place in the FIR. 22. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it appears that Police Post Taraori was at a distance of 5-6 kilometers from the scene of occurrence. The incident is said to have occurred on 27-6-1990 at 4.30 p.m. There is a sufficient explanation for the delay. Baljit Singh (PW13) who carried the deceased and two other injured in his tractor was more concerned about the deteriorating condition of their and therefore, instead of reporting the matter immediately to the police, he carried them to the hospital. This is supported by the fact that injured Ranjit Singh succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital itself and he was declared brought dead as per ruqa sent by the Doctor to the police. Further, injured eye witness Surjit Singh, brother of the complainant, was not declared fit to make a statement by the Doctor before the police, and therefore, the police recorded the statement of the complainant only. In the circumstances, it may not have been possible for the complainant to have informed the police before getting the injured admitted in hospital. Further, injured eye witness Surjit Singh, brother of the complainant, was not declared fit to make a statement by the Doctor before the police, and therefore, the police recorded the statement of the complainant only. In the circumstances, it may not have been possible for the complainant to have informed the police before getting the injured admitted in hospital. That apart, another injured Rajbir (not examined) was also being carried with the said two injured in the tractor, and he was saved by getting timely medical aid. These facts are proved vide the evidence of Dr. P. K. Bhatia (PW5), who had noticed as many as six injuries on the body of witness Surjit Singh (PW14) and injuries Nos. 1, 4 and 5, being serious in nature were kept under observations. Even injured Rajbir had also suffered two injuries. As mentioned above, Dr. Bhatia (PW15) has stated that he had sent a ruqa to Incharge, Police Post Karnal at 6.55 p.m. on the date of admission i.e. 27-6-1990, giving informations that injured Ranjit Singh son of Inder Singh, was brought dead in the hospital. As regards the other pieces of evidence, the incident took place on account of cultivation of 3½ killas of land purchased by the complainant from some Diwans of Beer Majra, which adjoined the Dera of Kartar Singh, father of accused Rur Singh. Apart from the Dera, said Kartar Singh also owned seven acres of agricultural land adjacent thereto. As per the possession evidence, Kartar Singh offered to give seven acres of his land in exchange of 3½ acres of land of the complainant. The parties entered into an arrangement that out of seven acres, 3½ acres would be given in exchange, and the rest 3½ acres would be given to the complainant on lease basis @ Rs. 2800/- per acre. Further, according to the prosecution evidence, the parties also entered into some written deeds. In this regard, the affidavit sworn by Kartar Singh was Ex.PY/1, and the one sworn by the complainant side was Ex.PZ. The said documents were duly produced and proved by the prosecution in the Court. It appears that they had already exchanged the physical possession of their lands pursuant to the aforesaid documents, and further, there was no document on record to hold that the said agreement had been rescinded and the physical possession of the said lands had been restored back. It appears that they had already exchanged the physical possession of their lands pursuant to the aforesaid documents, and further, there was no document on record to hold that the said agreement had been rescinded and the physical possession of the said lands had been restored back. In the FIR, Ex.PB, it has been noted that Kartar Singh was cultivating 3½ killas of land which was adjoining complainants land for a period of past one year, and the complainant side was cultivating seven killas of land of Kartar Singh in exchange. A lease amount of Rs. 2800/- had been paid to said Kartar Singh for his 3½ killas out of 7 killas of land in that year. PW13 had stated in his evidence that after the purchase of this piece of 3½ killas of land, they had been given the possession thereof, and thereafter they had given the physical possession to the accused side in exchange of their seven killas of land. According to the witness, said Kartar Singh however, backed out from his promise. Another eye-witness, Surjit Singh (PW14), brother of the complainant, has also stated about the exchange of lands between the parties and he has admitted his signatures on the affidavit (Ex.PZ). 23. Moreover, Patwari Jasmer Singh (PW7), in his cross-examinations has stated that he had visited the spot for preparing girdawari records on 7-4-1990, which was prepared only on the basis of available facts. According to him, the Tehsildar had visited the spot in his presence, and only on his order, the khasra girdawari had been changed. In his further cross-examinations, he has clarified that the girdawari of khariff crop is generally conducted between 15th of April to 15th of May each year. Entry regarding kharif 1990 was made by him in the register by visiting the spot, and after verifying their cultivation of crop from the cultivators of neighbouring fields. He has also stated that the girdawari entry about the crop was made in the name of accused Rur Singh son of Kartar Singh. 24. An independent witness Mukand Singh (PW3) has stated that the area of the disputed land sold by Diwans was 3-3-½ acres. This land was situated adjacent to the Dera of the accused. The accused were cultivating the said land for the last 2-3 years prior to the occurrence. Ranjit Singh etc. had exchanged this land with Kartar Singh etc. 24. An independent witness Mukand Singh (PW3) has stated that the area of the disputed land sold by Diwans was 3-3-½ acres. This land was situated adjacent to the Dera of the accused. The accused were cultivating the said land for the last 2-3 years prior to the occurrence. Ranjit Singh etc. had exchanged this land with Kartar Singh etc. He has also stated that he owned a land which was situated at a distance of 14 killas from that land. Further vide the testimony of this witness, the khasra girdawari entries about this land (Exhibits DB, DC and DD) indicated that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of accused Rur Singh since 1985 as gair marusi on payment of 1/3rd batai. The land belonged to Dina. Nath and Deepak. Therefore, the trial Court has reached a correct conclusion that the accused party was in possession of the disputed land even prior to the aforesaid exchange, and the entries of the land in favour of the complainant side was made only since kharif 1990, and prior to that, it was in favour of accused-Rur Singh. Even as per the evidence of complainant-Baljit Singh (PW13) and his brother, injured witness Surjit Singh (PW14), the accused had rescinded the agreement and had backed out after one year of the exchange of physical possession of the said lands. It is also admitted by the complainant side that they started ploughing the land on 25-6-1990, and before that date, the accused party was in possession of the land. The Patwari had visited the spot on 7-5-1990, and had recorded kharif crop in favour of the accused. It is submitted by the prosecution that a compromise was entered into between the parties before a Panchayat after Kartar Singh had backed out from giving a statement regarding transfer of the lands in exchange, in favour of the complainant side. However, it has also come in the prosecution evidence that only a photocopy of the said compromise agreement was given to accused-Rur Singh as the accused side was not agreeable to that compromise. This fact finds mention in the evidence of Malkhan Singh (PW8) Village Lambardar. However, it has also come in the prosecution evidence that only a photocopy of the said compromise agreement was given to accused-Rur Singh as the accused side was not agreeable to that compromise. This fact finds mention in the evidence of Malkhan Singh (PW8) Village Lambardar. Thus, the trial Court is correct in holding that the accused side may not have relinquished the physical possession of land in question in favour of the accused (complainant) on the date of incident, and they alone continued with the possession thereof. Under the circumstances, we hold that the accused side was well within its right in exercising the right of private defence of property and person. 25. Further, three of the accused namely Kuldip Singh, Rur Singh and Subeg Singh had sustained a number of injuries including the ones located on the vital parts of their bodies. This fact finds mention in the testimony of Dr. Shashi Kumar (DW1), Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Neelokheri, and Dr. R. K. Goyal (DW2). For that reason also, the accused side had a right of private defence of their person. Further, the injuries suffered by the accused side have not been explained by the prosecution. For the same reasons, the acts of the accused do not constitute the offence of forming an unlawful assembly. Further, the injuries alleged to have been caused by the accused side on the person of witness Surjit Singh and one Rajbir were found to have been caused only with the blunt weapons. Besides, as discussed above, it has been found that the land in question was in possession of the accused side, and on noticing that the complainant side was cultivating it, if the accused got enraged and picked up quarrel with the complainant side, it cannot be said that the offence was pre-planned or there was a meeting of minds. 26. Further, it has also come to our notice that the accused-respondents Gurnam Singh and Harbhajan Singh have died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, this appeal has abated qua the said respondents. 27. On behalf of one of the accused namely Banta Singh, it was pleaded before the trial Court that he was a mechanic and on that day he had come to repair the tractor of Kartar Singh, therefore, he was falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, this appeal has abated qua the said respondents. 27. On behalf of one of the accused namely Banta Singh, it was pleaded before the trial Court that he was a mechanic and on that day he had come to repair the tractor of Kartar Singh, therefore, he was falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, in his cross-examination, PW 13 has also admitted that Banta Singh is a tractor mechanic at Taraori, and there is also one more tractor repairs shop adjoining the shop of accused-Banta Singh. Banta Singh has a brother and they both only work in that shop. It is further stated by the witness that accused-Banta Singh is a resident of Ramnagar Karnal. Besides, it appears that accused-Banta Singh was not related to accused side in any manner nor had he got any property situated in Village Nidana. Further, accused-Banta Singh did not receive any injury in the occurrence although three on the accused side had received a number of various types of injuries in the said incident. 28. Similarly, accused-Lakha Singh and Harbans Singh alias Bansa Singh also did not receive any injury in the incident, therefore, their presence and participation under the aforesaid circumstances appear to be doubtful. Thus such a finding arrived at by the trial Court seems to be a correct conclusion derived from a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 29. As regards the involvement of accused-Kuldip Singh, Subeg Singh, and Rur Singh, their injuries, alleged to have been suffered in the incident, have already been discussed in great details and it has also been found that they had a right of private defence of property and person. Further, looking to the number and nature of injuries received by them in comparison to the injuries received by the prosecution witness Surjit Singh (PW14) and one Rajbir Singh, we grant them right of private defence and hold that the order of acquittal recorded in their case does not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case, irrespective of the alleged incriminating materials recovered by the police on the basis of their disclosure statements. 30. As regards the appeal of Jassa Singh, he caused a gun shot injury to deceased- Ranjit Singh on his thigh resulting in his death. On a disclosure statement made by him, the gun as well as an empty of a cartridge were recovered. 30. As regards the appeal of Jassa Singh, he caused a gun shot injury to deceased- Ranjit Singh on his thigh resulting in his death. On a disclosure statement made by him, the gun as well as an empty of a cartridge were recovered. The gun has been found to be registered in his name, and the ballistic report indicated that the gun was in working order and the empty recovered by the police was only that of a cartridge which had been fired from his gun. In his explanations under Section 313, Cr. P. C. before the Court, the accused-appellant has adopted the explanation given by co-accused Kuldip Singh. The relevant portion of that explanation suggests that accused Jassa Singh came with his gun and fired a gun shot just to scare deceased-Ranjit Singh, who was climbing down from the bank of minor canal. Thus, he has admitted to have fired at Ranjit Singh. Normally, a bank of a minor canal is not so high as to think that the gun shot would have gone only towards the feet of the deceased. Further, the gun shot was fired only from a distance of 10 to 12 feet and the pellets pierced into the left thigh of the deceased, therefore, we are of the view that the accused intended to cause a gun shot injury only at an upper portion of the body. However, as we have held that the accused side was entitled to claim the right of private defence, accused Jassa Singh had only exceeded in exercise of his such right of private defence of person and property. In this background, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court recording conviction under Section 304, Part I IPC and awarding a sentence of 10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 4000/- to the accused-appellant Jassa Singh is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.