JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in Sessions Trial No. 72-D of 1983 whereby he convicted Appellants 1 to 5 u/s 324 I.P.C. and Appellant No. 6 u/s 304, Part-r I.P.C. He sentenced Appellants 1, 4 and 5 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, Appellants 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and Appellant No. 6 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30th July, 1983 at about 6 A.M. when deceased Gopal Behera and deceased Govind Behera along with P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 with some labourers came and ploughed the land in question, accused-Appellants came there with bullocks to cultivate their land which stands adjoining the land of the prosecution party. Accused-Appellant Kapila Sahu asked Gopal Behera (deceased) and Ors. as to why he was transplanting paddy seedlings in the field which belonged to him. But deceased Gopal Behera told him that he was ploughing his own land and in case they feel that the field in question belonged to them, then they may get the land demarcated through an Amin. This answer provided Kulamani (Appellant No. 4) and he directed Nilamani (Appellant No. 3) to call their supporters of the village. Accordingly, Nilamani went to the village and called Ors. . All of them arrived at the spot being armed with Tangias and lathis. Thereafter, on being directed by Kulamani (Appellant No. 4) other accused-Appellants assaulted the prosecution party. It is further alleged that at first accused-Appellant No. 2 Kapila Sahu assaulted on the head of Gopal Behera with a Tangia. As a result, Gopal Behera sustained bleeding injuries and was going away from the place of assault, when Kulamani snatched away the Tangia from the hand of Kapila Sahu and gave three to four blows on the back of Gopal Behera. Gopal Behera fell down on the ground. Govind Behera was then coming to the land with a head load of seedlings. On seeing the assault on Gopal, he threw the seedlings and ran to the rescue of Gopal. At that time Akhaya Sahu assaulted Govind Behera with a Tangia on the right side of his head near the ear. Gopal Behera fell down on the ground. Govind Behera was then coming to the land with a head load of seedlings. On seeing the assault on Gopal, he threw the seedlings and ran to the rescue of Gopal. At that time Akhaya Sahu assaulted Govind Behera with a Tangia on the right side of his head near the ear. Govind moved a few steps to save his life, but Akhaya chased him and assaulted him with the Tangia. This was followed by a free fight between the two groups. Govind and Gopal died at the spot and persons from both sides received injuries. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 and police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants and Ors. under Sections 148, 302/149, 302, 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. A counter case was also registered against the prosecution party on the F.I.R. lodged by accused-Appellant Kapila Sahu. 3. The plea of the accused-Appellants was complete denial of the allegations. In their statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure they stated that on the date of occurrence, the prosecution party forcibly cultivated the disputed land of which they were never in possession at any point of time. Accused Kapila, Nabina, Kulamani and Nilamani went there with plough and protested. Kapila suggested to call Bhadraloks but his suggestion was not heard. One Ghadei Sethi and P.W.3 of the prosecution party instigated to assault and being instigated, prosecution party surrounded Kapila, Nabina, Kulamani and Nilamani being armed with Thengas, Tangias, etc. and assaulted them. Gopal assaulted on the head of Kulamani with a Tangia. Akhaya, Kalandi and Indramani arrived at the spot with cooked rice and they were also assaulted by the prosecution party. As a result of such assault, the accused persons suffered serious injuries. To save themselves from further assault, the accused persons assaulted the prosecution party. Thus, their plea is that they acted in exercise of their right of private defence to person and property and as such are not responsible for the death of Govind and Gopal or the injuries sustained by the other members of the prosecution party. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seventeen witnesses including the medical officer and exhibited 31 documents. Defence did not choose to examine any witness, but exhibited seven documents including the injury report. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seventeen witnesses including the medical officer and exhibited 31 documents. Defence did not choose to examine any witness, but exhibited seven documents including the injury report. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, by his judgment dated 31.01.1986 acquitted accused Akhaya (Appellant No. 6) of the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. but convicted him u/s 304, Part-1 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six years. He also convicted Nabina Sahu (Appellant No. 1), Kulamani Sahu (Appellant No. 4) and Indramani Sahu (Appellant No. 5) u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year. Kapila Sahu and Nilamani Sahu (Appellant No. 2 and 3 respectively) were also convicted u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The trial Court acquitted accused Prasanna Sahu, Bisei ' Biswanath Sahu, Beda ' Benudhar Sahu, Kalia ' Kalandi Sahu and Sirini ' Srinivas Sahu of the charge u/s 323 I.P.C. and also acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Sections 148/302/149 I.P.C. on the ground that the assault was not premeditated and it was the result of a sudden free fight and the blows were given by accused Akhaya in the heat of passion. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellants, submits that the prosecution party had already trespassed into the disputed land for which the incident took place. The prosecution party were the aggressors and they assaulted the accused-Appellants, as a result of which the accused-Appellants sustained grievous injuries. He also submits in any case such injuries have not been explained by the prosecution and non-explanation of the injuries is fatal to the prosecution case. He further submits that prosecution has not presented the true version of the incident and suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence since the injuries sustained by the accused Appellants have not been explained by the prosecution. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions in the case of Maheswari Malati v. The State; 197 and (42) C.L.T. 827, Lakshmi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar Hema Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan Subramani and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and Judhistira Nayak and Anr. V. State 1991 (4) OCR 222. 7. Mr. R.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. State of Bihar Hema Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan Subramani and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and Judhistira Nayak and Anr. V. State 1991 (4) OCR 222. 7. Mr. R.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the plea of the accused-Appellants with regard to private defence cannot be accepted in view of free fight between the parties. He submits that these accused-Appellants were the aggressor and they had no right over the land. He also submits that the trial Court was justified in assessing the liability of each convict under various Sections as per their individual actions. Learned additional standing counsel further submits that the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable and nothing has been elicited by the accused-Appellants to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses.Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the decisions in the case of Jumman and Others Vs. The State of Punjab Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala, ; Ram Karan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, . 8. Perused the L.C.R. and decisions cited by the parties. There is no dispute that the death of Gopal Behera and Govind Behera is homicidal in nature. P.W.1, the son of deceased Gopal Behera stated in his evidence that he orally reported at the Police station. He specifically stated that his father and uncle were possessing the disputed land. When his father and uncle were working in the case land, accused Akhaya Sahu, Kulamani Sahu, Nilamani Sahu, Biswanath Sahu, Kapila Sahu arrived at the spot with their bullocks and yokes and challenged deceased Gopal to which the deceased replied that the land belonged to him and that in case they felt that the land belonged to them, they might get the land demarcated by taking the help of an Amin. If the Amin would find that an area belonged to them, he would give up the same. On hearing this, Kulamani Sahu (Appellant No. 4) became angry and directed Nilamani (Appellant No. 3) to call their people. After half an hour, Nilamani returned to the spot along with Nabin Sahu (Appellant No. 1), Kalia Sahu, Akhaya Sahu (Appellant No. 6), Indramani Sahu (Appellant No. 5), Benudhar Sahu, Srinibas ' Sirini Sahu and Prasanna Sahu. All of them were armed with Tangia and badi. After half an hour, Nilamani returned to the spot along with Nabin Sahu (Appellant No. 1), Kalia Sahu, Akhaya Sahu (Appellant No. 6), Indramani Sahu (Appellant No. 5), Benudhar Sahu, Srinibas ' Sirini Sahu and Prasanna Sahu. All of them were armed with Tangia and badi. Then Kulamani (Appellant No. 4) instructed them to assault the prosecution party. Kapila Sahu assaulted on the head of Gopal Behera with a Tangia. Then, Kulamani snatched away the Tangia from kapila Sahu and gave three or four blows on the back of Gopal Behera as a result of which Gopal Behera fell down on the ground. At the, time. Govind Behera was coming to the land with a hand load of seedings. Accused Akhaya (Appellant No. 6) assaulted Govind Behera with a Tangia on his right side head near the right ear. Out of fear Govind Behara moved a few steps but Akhaya chased him and assaulted him on the side below the arm pit. Thereafter, Kalandi assaulted on the head of P.W.1. Seeing the assault, some outsiders rushed to the spot and snatched away the weapons from the accused-Appellants and assaulted them. P.W.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that there is inimical relationship between the parties and one criminal case is pending. He specifically stated that Kalandi gave a blow to his head and he was examined by the doctor. One swelling injury was there on his head and there were some other simple injuries on his person. The evidence of P.W.2, the injured and Anr. eye-witness to the occurence corroborated the statement of P.W.1. P.W.2 specifically stated that accused Prasanna Sahu assaulted him by a lathi. According to the doctor (P.W.17) the nature of injuries are simple. P.W.3, Anr. eye-witness also corroborated the above statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and stated that he was present at the time of recovery of Tangias from the accused-Appellants. P.W.4 is Anr. eye-witness. He was engaged as labourer to transplant the paddy seedlings. He is not related to the deceased. During the course of incident, he was also injured. He corroborated the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. He vividly described the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. P.W.5, Anr. son of deceased Gopal Behera and also an ocular witness, specifically stated that accused Akhaya Sahu assaulted Govind Behera by giving three to four blows by means of Tangia. He corroborated the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. He vividly described the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. P.W.5, Anr. son of deceased Gopal Behera and also an ocular witness, specifically stated that accused Akhaya Sahu assaulted Govind Behera by giving three to four blows by means of Tangia. When Govinda was going away out of fear, Akhaya chased him and assaulted him by Tangia. When he went to the rescue of his uncle Govinda, Nabina Sahu (Appellant No. 1) assaulted him with a Tangia. P.W.6, the son of deceased Govind Behera and an ocular witness, also corroborated the statement of P.W.1. He further stated that Nilamani (Appellant No. 3) assaulted him with a Tangia on his left fore-arm. He also admitted that to save himself he assaulted Kulamani by giving two to three blows with a Tangia. He also stated that when he left the place, a fight was going on between the prosecution party and accused party. P.W.7, Anr. son of deceased Govind and an ocular witness, also corroborated P.W.6. He also specifically stated that while Akhaya chased his father and gave blows to the head of his father he ran towards the spot. At that time, Indramani (Appellant No. 5) assaulted him with a Tangia. Accused Biswanath also gave a lathi blow on his back. He further stated that he had snatched away the Tangia from Indramani and with that Tangia assaulted Kulamani and Nilamani. 9. Undisputedly, Ext.1, the Record of Rights, relates to Plot No. 1531/2345 which stands recorded in the name of the prosecution party. This document is of the year 1974. P.Ws.1, 2, 14 and other witnesses also stated about the possession of the land by the prosecution party. Defence has filed the report of the Revenue Inspector. In the said report it is mentioned that Ac. 1.50 decimals of land is in possession of Nabina Sahu (Appellant No. 1) and Ors. and they are also possessing some portion of Plot No. 1531/2345. The correctness of this report is admitted by P.Ws.1, 3, and 13. They also admitted about the pendency of a G.R. Case regarding this disputed land. A bare reading of the F.I.R. reveals that accused party was aggressors, but this is not the real fact. and they are also possessing some portion of Plot No. 1531/2345. The correctness of this report is admitted by P.Ws.1, 3, and 13. They also admitted about the pendency of a G.R. Case regarding this disputed land. A bare reading of the F.I.R. reveals that accused party was aggressors, but this is not the real fact. From the scanning of the evidence it is clear that on the date of occurrence i.e. 30th July, 1983 both the parties arrived at the land to assert their right with their relations and labourers for which an altercation developed and it ultimately resulted in a mutual fight and both sides also sustained injuries. Two persons from the prosecution side died. Of course, some developments have been made by the prosecution at the stage of trial. On the whole, it is not possible to hold as to who was the aggressor and who was not. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a case of mutual fight between two rival groups. In view of the above, it is not open to the parties to claim the right of self defence. There are some minor contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses about the number of blows given by the accused persons. The medical evidence however goes to show that the deceased Gopal received more than one injury on his head and injuries on the head are not direct cause of death. So far as accused-Appellant Akhaya is concerned who, according to the eye witness, is responsible for the death of Govind Behera, the evidence of the doctor (P.W.14) reveals that he found two incised injuries on the body of Govind Behera. One incised wound was found behind the root of the right ear and the other on the chest. Injury No. 1 was fatal and injury No. 2 was simple. All the prosecution witnesses stated that the fatal injury was inflicted by accused Akhaya Sahu by a sharp cutting weapon, namely, Tangia on the vital part of the body during the mutual fight. It is also clear that the assault was inflicted by accused Akhaya in a heat of passion during a free fight. 10. All the prosecution witnesses stated that the fatal injury was inflicted by accused Akhaya Sahu by a sharp cutting weapon, namely, Tangia on the vital part of the body during the mutual fight. It is also clear that the assault was inflicted by accused Akhaya in a heat of passion during a free fight. 10. After scrutinizing the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 coupled with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8), this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the Appellants, as imposed by the trial Court. As already stated earlier, Appellants 1 to 5 have been convicted u/s 324 I.P.C. and Appellant No. 6, u/s 304, Part-1 I.P.C. 11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said judgment. However, since in the meantime 25 years have elapsed, this Court reduces the sentence of Appellants 1 to 5 to the period of imprisonment already undergone and pay a fine of Rs. 3, 000/-(three thousand) each in default to R.I. for 3 (three) months. So far as Appellant No. 6 (Akhaya) is concerned, this Court modifies the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.20, 000/- (twenty thousand) in default to R.I. for 2 (two) years. The criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.