Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 520-DB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2000 by a common order, as they arise out of Criminal Appeal No. 520-DB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2000 the common judgment/order dated 21.9.1999/24.9.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted Umed Singh son of Shree Ram, Kuldeep son of Shree Ram, Pardeep son of Umed Singh, Mange Ram son of Sheopal, Jai Singh son of Shree Ram, Karan Singh son of Shree Ram, Dharambir son of Shree Ram and Sant Lal son of Sheopal under Sections 302/149/148/323/325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo various terms. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Rohtash given to Banwari Lal ASI, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PM was recorded. Rohtash stated, that he had four brothers. They had 232 Kanals 17 Marlas of ancestral land in Village Rampur Kakar, which was about half kilometre away from his ancestral Village Dohka Hariya. His father Ram Kumar, uncle Jai Karan and his Bua (fathers sister) Sarbati were the co-sharers in the land. From the very beginning his father and uncle were cultivating the land and the land of the share of his Bua. Sarbati sold 9-1/2 acres (about 72 Kanals) land to one Shree Ram son of Baksu Ram without telling them, for Rs. 1-1/2 lacs approximately. When Rohtash and others came to know about the registration (sale deed) of the land, they filed a suit for pre-emption in a Court at Dadri. The next date of hearing was fixed for 29.11.1989. Umed Singh and others wanted to take forcible possession of this land, which his Bua had sold. The police bound down both the parties, as there was an apprehension of breach of peace. On 14.10.1989 Ram Kumar (father of Rohtash), Rohtashs brother Om Parkash, Lala Ram and Santra w/o Lala Ram were getting ploughed their land with a tractor of one Amar Singh. Rohtash, his brother Om Parkash, Lala Ram and Santra were jointly clearing the weeds in the field. Rohtash was standing at a distance of 10-12 paces and watching the work being done. Rohtash, his brother Om Parkash, Lala Ram and Santra were jointly clearing the weeds in the field. Rohtash was standing at a distance of 10-12 paces and watching the work being done. At about 6.00 p.m., Umed Singh, Karan Singh, Jai Singh, Kuldeep and Dharambir sons of Shree Ram, Pardeep son of Umed, Sant Lal, Mange Ram sons of Sheo Lal came towards Rohtashs father Ram Kumar armed with Rapri, Jelly, Kulhari and lathies etc. respectively. Umed Singh asked them to stop ploughing the field. Ram Kumar replied that they would not stop. Jai Singh raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, Jai Singh gave a Kulhari blow from its sharp side on the head of Ram Kumar. Umed Singh gave a Rapri blow on his left shoulder. Kuldeep inflicted a Kamra blow near the left wrist. Sant Lal inflicted a Jelly blow prong-wise on the left hip, Mange inflicted a Jelly blow on the right elbow. Rohtash, his brother and Santro w/o Lala Ram went running to save their father. Umed Singh inflicted a Rapri blow on the left side of the neck of Ram Kumar, while he was lying down. Jai Singh inflicted an axe blow on the collar bone on the left side of the chest of Ram Kumar. Dharambir, Pardeep and Karan Singh inflicted kick blows and fist blows, while Ram Kumar was lying down. Rohtash also received injuries, when he tried to save his father from Sant Lal. Sant Lal gave Jelly blows on his left dorsum and fingers. Pardeep inflicted a blow on the left shoulder with an iron Kamra. Umed Singh and others inflicted injuries to Om Parkash, Lala Ram and Santra. After some time, some persons of the adjoining fields came and thereafter, the accused ran away. Rohtash further stated, that in defence, the complainant party also inflicted injuries on some of the accused. FIR Ex.PM was recorded on 14.10.1989 at 10.25 p.m. at Police Station Badhra. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri, on 15.10.1989 at 3.50 a.m. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Hari Singh as PW1, Jaswant Singh as PW2, Dr. S.S. Kadian as PW3, Bani Singh Patwari as PW4, Som Dutt as PW5, Dr. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri, on 15.10.1989 at 3.50 a.m. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Hari Singh as PW1, Jaswant Singh as PW2, Dr. S.S. Kadian as PW3, Bani Singh Patwari as PW4, Som Dutt as PW5, Dr. M.M. Sharma as PW6, Rohtash as PW7, Om Parkash as PW8, Prabhat Ranjan Dev as PW9, HC Abhey Singh as PW10 and ASI Banwari Lal as PW11. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the bone of contention was Killa No. 22. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellants by Smt. Sarbati (Bua of the complainant) in May 1988 and in May 1989. The total land sold was about 72 kanals. On 7.10.1989 an FIR Ex.DE was registered by appellant Kuldeep against Ram Kumar deceased and the complainant party, when they tried to take forcible possession. The complainant party destroyed the crops sown by the appellants in Killa No. 22. A suit for preemption Ex.PK, had been filed by the complainant party on 6.10.1989, where it had been mentioned that the land in Khewat No. 47 belongs to the complainant party and possession be given to them of that land. Killa No. 22 was a part of Khewat No. 47. It is clear from both these documents Ex.DE and Ex.PK that the appellant party was in possession of the suit land and it is the complainant party, who tried to take forcible possession. 6. Occurrence had not been denied by both the parties. The complainant in FIR Ex.PM has named the eight appellants, while appellants Jai Singh and Karan Singh in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have named Om Parkash PW8, Hawa Singh, Lal Chand and Ram Kumar deceased, who had come to take forcible possession. It was in their right of self-defence of person and property that they inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. Delay in lodging of the FIR was utilised to falsely rope in appellants Umed Singh, Pardeep, Mange Ram, Dharambir, Sant Lal and Kuldeep. Rohtash PW7 in his statement before ASI Banwari Lal PW11, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PM was recorded, has stated, that Ram Kumar deceased, along with him and others were getting the land ploughed from Amar Singh. Rohtash PW7 in his statement before ASI Banwari Lal PW11, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PM was recorded, has stated, that Ram Kumar deceased, along with him and others were getting the land ploughed from Amar Singh. In his testimony before the Court, Rohtash PW7 has stated, that the tractor was driven by Ram Phal son of Amar Singh. Ram Phal the only independent witness, who was cited by the prosecution, was given up as unnecessary. We have only the statements of Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, both being closely related to the deceased and being inimical towards the appellants. These statements cannot be replied upon. Both these witnesses cannot be believed. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. The injury on the person of the deceased, given allegedly by appellant Kuldeep is an incised wound, but as per the eye witness account as spelt out by Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, appellant Kuldeep was carrying an iron rod. As per the testimony of theses witnesses, appellants Pardeep, Dharambir and Karan Singh gave kick and fist blows to the deceased. Dr. Hari Singh PW1 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that there were no kick and fist blow injuries on the person of the deceased. No explanation has come forward from the side of the prosecution as to the injuries on the person of appellants Jai Singh and Karan Singh. ASI Banwari Lal Investigating Officer PW11, in his testimony before the Court, has stated that the accused party had also received injuries in the occurrence. The only thing which has come forward in the FIR Ex.PM, as stated by Rohtash PW7 is that they (complainant party) also gave injuries to the accused in their self defence. Similarly, both Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, in their testimony before the Court, have not given the seat of the injuries. 7. Possession of Killa No. 22 is amply proved by the statement of Bani Singh Patwari PW4. He has stated, that the crop was sown by the appellants-accused. In spite of this statement, he was not declared hostile. In the pre-emption suit Ex.PK, it has been specifically pleaded that the complainant party be put in possession of the suit land. This is mentioned in para No. 9 of the plaint. ASI Banwari Lal PW11 has stated, that the crops had been sown by appellant Kuldeep. In spite of this statement, he was not declared hostile. In the pre-emption suit Ex.PK, it has been specifically pleaded that the complainant party be put in possession of the suit land. This is mentioned in para No. 9 of the plaint. ASI Banwari Lal PW11 has stated, that the crops had been sown by appellant Kuldeep. An application for partition of the land Ex.DS was moved on 13.4.1990, which was decided in 1991 by the Assistant Collector. The Sanat prepared Ex.DB and the Naksha Ex.DT prepared by the Patwari of Killa No. 22, was thereafter shown to be in the possession of the appellants. The possession of Killa No. 22 by the appellants was never challenged during these partition proceedings. Shri K.S.Tomar (retired S.S.P.) DW4, who reinvestigated the case, found appellants Umed Singh, Pardeep, Mange Ram and Kuldeep innocent. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the occurrence had been admitted by both the parties. In Khasra Girdwari Ex.PJ/6 for the years 1986-1990, Ram Kumar deceased and others have been shown as owners in possession. In the pre-emption suit Ex.PK, no number of Killa has been mentioned. The partition proceedings Ex.DS commenced in the year 1991 and concluded in the year 1994. These partition proceedings do not have any relevance to the case. The testimony of both the injured eye witnesses Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8 in the Court is sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the offence. Both these witnesses have received, serious injuries on the head and other parts of their body. It has been admitted by appellants Jai Singh and Karan Singh, that they inflicted injuries on the person of Ram Kumar deceased, in their right of self-defence. There is no mention in the statements of these witnesses regarding the injuries on the person of Rohtash PW7. They have not mentioned anything about the injuries inflicted on the person of Rohtash PW7. This itself shows that they are trying to hide the truth. 8. There is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place on 14.10.1989 at 6.00 p.m. FIR Ex.PM came into existence on the same day at 10.25 p.m. at Police Station Badhra, which is 16 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri at 3.50 a.m., which is 50 K.Ms. away from the police station. Occurrence had taken place on 14.10.1989 at 6.00 p.m. FIR Ex.PM came into existence on the same day at 10.25 p.m. at Police Station Badhra, which is 16 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri at 3.50 a.m., which is 50 K.Ms. away from the police station. The persons injured from the side of the complainant party were Rohtash PW7, Om Parkash PW8, Santra Devi, Ram Kumar deceased and Lal Chand. The first and foremost concern o the complainant party was to get medical aid. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Appellants are closely related to each other as shown as under :- (See Table Below 129164) The bone of contention between both the parties was Killa No. 22 in Khewat No. 47 within the area of Village Rampur Kakar. Sarbati, the Bua of complainant Rohtash PW7 and the sister of Ram Kumar deceased sold her 1/3rd share to the appellants vide two registered sale deeds; one executed in May 1988 and the second in May 1989. On 7.10.1989 appellant Kuldeep registered a complaint in Police Station Badhra, Ex.DE against Ram Kumar deceased and others of the complainant party, for destroying his crops, which had been sown by appellant Kuldeep and others. A suit for pre-emption Ex.PK was filed on 6.10.1989 by the complainant party in which they specifically pleaded in para No. 9, that they be put in possession of the suit property. Though Killa No. 22 was not mentioned, but Khewat No.47 was mentioned, in which Killa No. 22 was situated. Bani Singh Patwari PW4, in his testimony before the Court, has stated that he has brought the original record of Killa No. 22, where occurrence had taken place. He has stated, that Killa No. 22 is owned by Umed Singh, Karan Singh, Jai Singh, Kuldeep, Suresh and others. It is in their possession and self cultivation is being done. He has made the statement on the basis of the sale deeds. According to the sale deeds, the possession of the land sold had been given to the vendees i.e. appellants. In Killa No. 22, Sawni (Kharif) crop was sown; 6 kanal Bajra and 2 kanal Gawar. This crop had been sown by the owners themselves. It has been recorded as Khud Kasht. According to the sale deeds, the possession of the land sold had been given to the vendees i.e. appellants. In Killa No. 22, Sawni (Kharif) crop was sown; 6 kanal Bajra and 2 kanal Gawar. This crop had been sown by the owners themselves. It has been recorded as Khud Kasht. The crop was sown by appellant Umed Singh and others. On his personal knowledge after visiting the spot for the purposes of recording the girdawari, he has further stated that appellant Umed Singh was in possession of Killa No. 22. From the documents on record and from the statement of Bani Singh Patwari PW4, it is not clear as to who was in possession of Killa No. 22, on the date of occurrence. 10 Both the parties have not denied the occurrence. As per FIR Ex.PM, all the appellants were present and they inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Ram Kumar, Rohtash PW7, Om Parkash PW8, Santra Devi and Lal Chand. The version put forward by appellants Jai Singh and Karan Singh is that Om Parkash PW8, Hawa Singh, Lal Chand and Ram Kumar deceased came to take forcible possession of the land with a tractor. The complainant party attacked them and caused injuries to them. In self-defence of person and property, they caused injuries to Om Parkash PW8, Ram Kumar deceased and Lal Chand. As per the defence, appellants Umed Singh, Kuldeep, Pardeep, Mange Ram, Dharambir and Sant Lal were not present. 11. The two injured eye witnesses Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, in their testimony before the Court, have stated, that the injuries were given in self defence to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that specific injuries have not been attributed to anyone. It is most unnatural that when the complainant party is being attacked by a number of persons armed with lathis and other weapons, the injured witnesses could not be in a position to give the specific nature of injuries and the seat of injuries. At that moment of time, Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8 were defending themselves. When blows come in a quick succession, it is not possible for the persons who are being hit by several persons, to notice as to which part of the body blow is hitting. At that moment of time, Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8 were defending themselves. When blows come in a quick succession, it is not possible for the persons who are being hit by several persons, to notice as to which part of the body blow is hitting. In fact both Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, in their testimony before the Court, have specifically mentioned the injuries being inflicted on them. Both Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8 are categorical in their testimony before the Court. They have corroborated the version given in FIR Ex.PM. Dr. Hari Singh PW1, who examined Ram Kumar deceased, found 8 injuries on his person. He also examined Om Parkash PW8 and found 7 injuries on his person. Lal Chand non-examined witness had 8 injuries on his person. Injury No. 8 was declared grievous. Santra has two injuries on his person. 12. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. Seeing the nature of injuries and going through the FIR Ex.PM and the statements of Rohtash PW7 and Om Parkash PW8, it comes out that it is a case of free fight, where both the parties were trying to take possession of the suit land. Occurrence had taken place in Killa No. 22. Both appellants Jai Singh and Karan Singh in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have conceded the case of the prosecution to a certain extent that they gave injuries to Om Parkash PW8, Ram Kumar deceased and Lal Chand. It seems that they have taken the blame on themselves to save the other appellants. The fatal blows have been given by appellants Umed Singh and Jai Singh to Ram Kumar deceased. 13. FIR Ex.PM in this case is prompt. No consultations and confabulations could have been taken place in such a short time. Occurrence had taken place on 14.10.1989 at 6.00 p.m. FIR Ex.PM came into existence on the same day at 10.25 p.m. Statement of Rohtash PW7 was recorded in Police Station Badhra by ASI Banwari Lal the Investigating Officer PW11. Police Station Badhra is 16 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri on 15.10.1989 at 3.50 a.m. Dadri is at a distance of 50 K.Ms. from the police station. There were one deceased and four injured in the side of the complainant party. Police Station Badhra is 16 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. The special report reached the S.D.J.M., Dadri on 15.10.1989 at 3.50 a.m. Dadri is at a distance of 50 K.Ms. from the police station. There were one deceased and four injured in the side of the complainant party. Rohtash PW7, Om Parkash PW8, Ram Kumar deceased and Lal Chand had received serious injuries on their persons, which had to be taken care of first. We cannot overlook this fact, that all this was being done i.e. taking care of the injured, the police coming on the scene and recording the statement of Rohtash PW7 and the special report reaching the S.D.J.M., Dadri were done at night time. In fact there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. 14. It is clear from the observations and discussions made above that it is a case of a free fight, where both the parties wanted to take possession of the suit land. Appellants being the vendees and the complainant party trying to keep the possession, as they had been cultivating the land of their sister Sarbati. Appellants cannot be held liable under Sections 149/148 IPC, as they did not have a common object. It seems that at the spur of the moment, when both the parties came into contact, as already a dispute regarding the possession of the suit land was going on, clashed with each other. They can only be held liable for their individual acts of causing injuries to Ram Kumar deceased, Rohtash PW7, Om Parkash PW8, Lala Ram and Santra. 15. Appellants are convicted as under and after hearing the parties on the quantum of sentence and sentenced as under :- Umed Singh and Jai Singh : Under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months. Pardeep, Dharambir and Karan Singh : Under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months. Kuldeep Singh, Mange Ram, Jai Singh, Karan Singh, Dharambir and Sant Lal : Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for two months. Kuldeep Singh, Mange Ram, Jai Singh, Karan Singh, Dharambir and Sant Lal : Under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. 16. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed. 16 Criminal Revision is also dismissed. 17. Appellants Umed Singh and Jai Singh, if on bail, are directed to be taken in custody, so that they undergo the remaining part of their sentence.