JUDGMENT : G. D. SAXENA, J. 1. The aforesaid four appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14th August 1998 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 81/1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj district Vidisha (M.P.). Since the judgment and order challenged in these criminal appeals is one, all the appeals are herewith taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellants herein stood their trial on the charges levelled against them before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and they were convicted and sentenced as following :- (a) for the offence punishable under section 147 of Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (b) for the offence punishable under section 148 of Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (c) for the offence punishable under section 427 of Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to suffer two-two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (d) for the offence punishable under section 323/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt with common intention to an injured Khushidas, they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (e) for the offence punishable under section 323/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt with common intention to an injured Narayandas they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (f) for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Radhedas in prosecution of their common object, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment; (f) for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Radhedas in prosecution of their common object, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional two-two years' rigorous imprisonment; (g) for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Uttamdas in prosecution of their common object, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional two-two years' rigorous imprisonment; and (h) for the offence punishable under section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Khumandas in prosecution of their common object, they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional two-two years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently-. By the same judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted Jagannath Singh, Hukum Chand, Bhaiyalal, Ganeshram, Mohan Singh, Mungalal, Mohar Singh, Bhanwarji, Pyarsingh, Chander Singh son of Roop Singh and Dashrath Singh. 3. Facts in short as came out from the evidence led before the trial Court which are just necessary for the disposal of the appeals are that on 11th July 1995 at around 1 o' clock at the agricultural field known as Roopawalal Donga, which was purchased by the complainant side prior to one year ago from Roopa Banjara, when complainant Khushidas accompanied with his four other brothers, namely, Khumandas, Uttamdas, Radhedas and Narayandas went to the said place on a tractor to plaugh the field, at that juncture, accused twenty in number having lathis, farsas and 12 bore guns came there. They restrained them from cultivating the land. It is stated that the accused party were in possession of the land in dispute. The mutation proceeding was pending before the Revenue Courts. The Criminal Proceedings under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code were also pending before the Court of Executive Magistrate. During causing interruption in their cultivation, all the accused attacked on the complainant party with lathis, farsas and gun and caused injuries to Khushidas, Khumandas, Uttamdas, Radhedas, Narayandas. The mutation proceeding was pending before the Revenue Courts. The Criminal Proceedings under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code were also pending before the Court of Executive Magistrate. During causing interruption in their cultivation, all the accused attacked on the complainant party with lathis, farsas and gun and caused injuries to Khushidas, Khumandas, Uttamdas, Radhedas, Narayandas. Resultantly Khumandas, Radhedas and Uttamdas succumbed to death on the spot itself. Tractor of the informant was badly damaged by the accused. Khushidas (PW-1) informed orally on the spot to the police party of the police station Murwas which was on a regular patrolling duty headed by a Head' Constable Banwarilal (PW-13). He recorded Dehati Nalish on the spot marked as Ex.P/43 and forwarded the same to the police station for registration of the crime. On receipt of the report, Indraj Singh, In-charge of the Police Station Murwas wrote the FIR (Ex.P/47) and also lodged Marg Intimation Report (Ex.P/48). Thereafter he proceeded to the spot in village Tokara. He shifted the injured for medical examination and treatment to Primary Health Centre, Sironj. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem. He also seized the articles relating to crime and prepared spot map. During investigation, he recorded case- diary statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused and seized the weapons used in the crime from their possession. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. On committal, the trial was commenced. The learned trial Judge after recording and appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and defence convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned above, hence, the appeals. 4. The appellants in their respective appeals contended that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Judge is against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the present case, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is contended that trial Court has not appreciated the material contradictions as well as discrepancies arising in the Court statements of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence which makes the evidence of witnesses as unreliable. As per medical evidence, there was no injury caused by any firearm on the bodies of the deceased as well as the injured and therefore it is apparent that the accused despite having firearms did not participate in the incident. Apart from the above, the trial Court has not considered the plea of alibi taken by the defence. As per medical evidence, there was no injury caused by any firearm on the bodies of the deceased as well as the injured and therefore it is apparent that the accused despite having firearms did not participate in the incident. Apart from the above, the trial Court has not considered the plea of alibi taken by the defence. It is also contented that in the incident some of the accused were seriously injured and the report from accused side was also lodged against complainant which indicates that there was a free fight on the spot between both the groups. Under such circumstances, each accused can be held liable for his own act and they cannot be held jointly liable against the act of the other persons. According to the learned counsel, individual role of the appellant has to be considered. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for acquittal of accused by setting aside the impugned judgment recording conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants for the alleged offence. In support of their submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of Kanbi Nanji Virji and others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC 219 , Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , Biswas Abha Korane vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 CAR 142, Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1993) SCC (Criminal) 188 and State of Haryana vs. Chandveer & others, (1996) SCC (Criminal) 728. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the contentions put forth above on behalf of the appellants and contented that the guilt against the present accused was proved beyond doubts and hence no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing them. It is submitted that the report was lodged without delay to the police, which was on regular duty of patrolling. It is contended that the land was belonging to the complainant, who acquired possession on the basis of purchase made from the previous owner. The accused-party were the aggressors which with all preparations reached on the spot to cause harm to the complainant side, who were having no arms and came to cultivate their fields. It is contended that the land was belonging to the complainant, who acquired possession on the basis of purchase made from the previous owner. The accused-party were the aggressors which with all preparations reached on the spot to cause harm to the complainant side, who were having no arms and came to cultivate their fields. As regards the contradictions and omissions pointed by the defence, it is submitted that due to lengthy cross-examination, same are bound to come, but it does not effect the root of the case. On the contrary, the ocular evidence of the witnesses finds support from medical evidence. Hence, on the said premised submissions, it is prayed that the appeals of the accused may be dismissed by upholding the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the prosecution evidence and all documents exhibited and proved by the witnesses and gone through the accused statements recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, in particular the plea of alibi taken by the accused Chander Singh, Constable posted in Office of Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Sarangpur (District Rajgarh) together with the statements of defence witnesses and the documents produced and exhibited from their side. 7. To prove the incident, the prosecution examined Khushidas (injured) as PW-1, Narayandas (injured) as PW-2, Heerabai, wife of Radheshyam as PW-7, Laxmibai, wife of Uttamdas as PW-8, Lalaram as PW-9. 8. Khushidas (PW-1) deposed that one year ago, he and his four brothers went to cultivate and sow the soyabeen seeds in their agricultural field, which was purchased from Roopa Banjara by them. As they were cultivating the field by tractor and were sowing soyabeen crops, accused Chander Singh, Gajraj Singh, Ramsing, Dashrath Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Bhanwarji, Nirbhay Singh, Jagannath Singh, Santosh, Raghuveer Singh, Umarao Singh, Amar Singh, Devendra, Pyar Singh, Dashrath Singh, son of Roop Singh, Chander Singh son of Roop Singh, Mungalal, Ganeshram, Bhaiyalal, Mohan Singh, Hukum Chand and Mohar Singh having armed with guns, swords, farsi and lathi came there. They conjointly shouted to kill Babaji. He stated that accused injured all the five of the brothers including him by means of lathi, farsi, and swords, due to which they fell down. One of his brothers, namely, Narayandas fled away from the spot. They conjointly shouted to kill Babaji. He stated that accused injured all the five of the brothers including him by means of lathi, farsi, and swords, due to which they fell down. One of his brothers, namely, Narayandas fled away from the spot. Thereafter all the accused left the spot saying that the four brothers are dead. In the incident, he received injuries on right side of head, right and left elbow joints and on back by means of farsa and lathi. In cross- examination, he stated that after incident, all accused left the spot and his brothers Khumandas and Uttamdas were died while another brother Radhedas was taking his last breath. After few minutes, accused returned back on the spot and they set his tractor on fire. He deposed that after incident, his mother and other ladies of family reached on the spot. He asked them to arrange for shifting him as well as other injured. On their request, Shahjad, Bhagwan Singh Mungalal and Ramcharan came from the village and they brought the injured persons in a vehicle to their residence. In para 4 of his deposition, he stated that on reaching the house, the police enquired him and he informed the police about the incident causing death of his three brothers. Thereafter, he was taken to Police Station. The In-charge of the Police Station referred him to hospital at Lateri for treatment. Accordingly, the report of the incident was written by the Head Constable. For further treatment, he was sent to the District Hospital, Vidisha. He also deposed that he and his four brothers purchased the disputed land by a registered sale-deed from one Roopa Banjara. After purchasing the land, a criminal case under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was initiated against them which was pending before the Court of Executive Magistrate. 9. Narayandas (PW-2) deposed that one year ago at about 10 a.m., he along with his four brothers, namely, Khushidas, Radhedas, Uttamdas and Khumandas went to plough the agricultural field which was purchased by them from Roopa Banjara. When they were cultivating the land and were sowing the Soyabeen seeds by a tractor driven by his brother Radhedas, all the accused by shouting to kill Babajis having armed with guns, swords, farsa, lathis reached there. The accused encircled them and caused injuries by means of lathis, farsa and swords to him and his brothers. When they were cultivating the land and were sowing the Soyabeen seeds by a tractor driven by his brother Radhedas, all the accused by shouting to kill Babajis having armed with guns, swords, farsa, lathis reached there. The accused encircled them and caused injuries by means of lathis, farsa and swords to him and his brothers. Accused Kamal Singh, Devendra Singh and Santosh inflicted him injuries by means of farsa and ballam while rest of the accused caused injuries to his other brothers. Due to oozing of the blood on account of injuries sustained by him, he fled away from the spot and reached to the matrimonial house of his brother Khumandas at village Hingli where from he accompanied with one Rajesh brother-in-law of his brother Khumandas went to police station Sironj to inform the incident. The In-charge of the police station recorded his report in the daily diary of the police station. He was then referred to Civil Hospital Sironj and on referral he was admitted in the District Hospital for treatment. In para 4 he mentioned that his three brothers Khumandas, Uttamdas and Radhedas died in the said incident whereas he and his another brother Khushidas got injured. In cross-examination, he admitted that one month prior to the incident he and his brother purchased the disputed land through a registered sale-deed but he denied that Goverdhan Singh, father of accused Ram Singh, Gajraj Singh, Chander Singh, Bhagwan Singh had old possession over the disputed lands, which were purchased and owned by him and his brothers from Roopa Banjara. He denied that with connivance of Naib Tahsildar, he intended to forcibly dispossess the accused from the disputed lands. 10. Smt. Heerabai, wife of Radheshyam (PW-7) deposed that on the day and time of incident, she was at her residence. Uttamdas along with brothers Radhedas, Khushidas, Narayandas and Khumandas went to cultivate their agricultural fields known as "Dongawala Khet". She saw all named accused having armed with guns, swords, ballams and lathis reaching on the spot. She also followed them. She saw that accused Chander Singh, a Constable was having a gun and sword, Gajraj was having gun, Ram Singh was having a lathi and sword, Jashrath was having farsa and lathi, Bhagwan Singh was having farsa, Jagannath, father of Santosh was having farsa. She also followed them. She saw that accused Chander Singh, a Constable was having a gun and sword, Gajraj was having gun, Ram Singh was having a lathi and sword, Jashrath was having farsa and lathi, Bhagwan Singh was having farsa, Jagannath, father of Santosh was having farsa. Besides this, accused Santosh, Raghuveer, Umrao, Kamal, Devendra, Nirbhay, Mungalal, Ganeshram, Bhaiyalal and Mohan Singh were having farsa. She deposed that in her presence, accused Chander Singh, Gajraj Singh and Jashrath fired which hit Uttamdas, Khumadas, and Radhedas, resultantly, all the three fell down on the earth. Thereafter, Chander Singh went away from the field with his gun leaving rest of the accused, who caused injuries to the injured persons by means of swords and spears. Injured Khumandas and Uttamdas died on the spot while Radhedas died on a way to the hospital. In cross-examination, she stated that at about 9 a.m., her husband with his other brothers went to his agricultural field and during incident she and other women of the family reached on the spot. The police reached on the spot at about 12-1 p.m. Her case-diary statement was recorded on the day of incident and on next she delivered a child. 11. Laxmibai, wife of deceased Uttamdas (PW-8) deposed that one year ago, when she was inside of her house, Uttamdas along with his brothers Radhedas, Khushidas, Narayandas and Khumandas went to cultivate their agricultural fields. She heard and saw all named accused armed with guns, swords, ballams and lathis going towards agricultural field of her husband. They were abusing her husband and brothers. She followed them and reached on the spot. She saw that accused Chander Singh, Constable and Gajraj Singh were having guns. Santosh was having Ballam whereas rest of the accused were having farsa and lathi. As she reached on the spot, she found the accused party returning back. She deposed that when she was on the way, she heard the sound of firing and when she reached on the spot, all accused again reached and in her presence they set the tractor on fire and again assaulted Khumandas. She cried to leave the injured. Accused told her that they have killed them and now she would take their dead-bodies to her house. In cross-examination, she admitted that she reached on the spot after initial incident of assault. She cried to leave the injured. Accused told her that they have killed them and now she would take their dead-bodies to her house. In cross-examination, she admitted that she reached on the spot after initial incident of assault. When police reached on the spot she named all the accused involved in the incident. 12. Lalaram (PW-9) was a chance witness, as he was going to village Dehari through the place of incident known as "Dongawala Khet" purchased by complainant Khushidas and his brothers from one Roopa Banjara. In the said purchasing, the accused Chander Singh at Umarao Singh s/o Goverdhan Singh filed the objections during mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court. He saw that Khushidas and his brothers were cultivating the field by a tractor. He also saw that twelve accused reaching on the spot with guns, Ballams and farsa. They fired by guns held by them and caused injuries to Khumandas, who fell down on earth. He tried to stop the quarrel but the accused Chander Singh replied that they would have to eliminate their family. Then they started beating the complainant party. He stated that accused Santosh and Jagannath caused injuries by means of ballam to deceased Khumandas. It is alleged that accused Chander Singh and Gajraj Singh by using their guns as lathis caused injuries to Radhedas and Uttamdas. Due to injuries sustained Narayandas fled away from the spot. During beating by means of butt of the gun by accused Gajraj Singh, same was broken. The accused also threatened the witness not to report the incident to the police. He thereafter went to village. On next day on return, he came to know that three injured were succumbed in the incident. On 13th September 1995, the police brought accused Umarao Singh, Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Devendra Singh and Santosh in village. The accused informed the police about the weapons used by them vide Memorandums Ex/P/23 to Ex.P/26 in consequence of which recovery of the weapons from the accused vide memos Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/30 was effected, which bear signature of Lalaram (PW-9) as a Panch witness. He also signed on the spot-map (Ex.P/40) prepared by Patwari. In cross-examination, he deposed that Chander Singh and Khuman Singh fired by their guns but he did not see whether the bullets/pallets thereof hit the deceased. His case diary statement was recorded on 12th September 1995. 13. Dr. He also signed on the spot-map (Ex.P/40) prepared by Patwari. In cross-examination, he deposed that Chander Singh and Khuman Singh fired by their guns but he did not see whether the bullets/pallets thereof hit the deceased. His case diary statement was recorded on 12th September 1995. 13. Dr. A. P. Khilwani (PW-6) deposed that on 11th July 1995, he was posted as an Assistant Surgeon in the Primary Health Centre Lateri. On that day at about 10-10 p.m. in night, he examined Khushidas aged 40 years, a resident of village Murwas, who was brought by a Constable Kabul Singh. He found four lacerated wounds on left frontal part of skull, right parietal part of skull, left forearm and right forearm; two contusions on left scapular region, on right side of back and one abrasion on left shoulder. He opined that except injuries Nos. 1 and 2, rest injuries were simple in nature which were caused by hard and blunt object. He advised an X-ray for injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Injury report is Ex.P/31, written and signed by him. Dr. C. L. Jain (PW-16) deposed that on 15th February 1995, he was posted in the District Hospital Vidisha. He conducted X-ray examination for the injuries referred to and also perused the Injury Report (Ex.P/31) of injured Khushidas. He opined that all injuries including injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature. Answer of query is (Ex.P/46-A) written and signed him. 14. Dr. A. P. Khilwani (PW-6) also deposed that on same day at about 12-05 p.m., he conducted post-mortem on the body of Khumandas, which was identified by Purandas Baba and brought by a Constable Hukum Singh No. 259 of the Police Station Murwas. On external examination, he found seven incised wounds and one stab wound on the person of the deceased in the following manner :- "(i) Incised wound admeasuring 7 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. over lower ¼th of right leg; (ii) Incised wound admeasuring 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on right leg below knee, 4 cm. above Injury No. 6; (iii) Incised wound admeasuring 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over middle aspect of right leg; (iv) Incised wound admeasuring 10 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep over dorsal aspect of left wrist; (v) Incised wound admeasuring 10 cm. x 5 cm. x 1 cm. on right leg below knee, 4 cm. above Injury No. 6; (iii) Incised wound admeasuring 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over middle aspect of right leg; (iv) Incised wound admeasuring 10 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep over dorsal aspect of left wrist; (v) Incised wound admeasuring 10 cm. x 5 cm. x bone deep upper part of left arm cutting mussels with fracture of humorous bone; (vi) Incised wound admeasuring 15 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep over right fronto-parietal region; (vii) Incised wound admeasuring 10 cm. x 2.5 cm. x scalp deep over left parietal region. (viii) Stab wound admeasuring 2 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 4 cm. over left iliac region with cut margins." On dissection of the body, fracture of frontal occipital bone was detected underneath Injury No. 7. All the external and internal injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by sharp edged and hard object within 10-20 hours from time of post-mortem. He opined that the cause of death was due to shock as a result of multiple injuries as well as head injury leading to circulatory failure. Mode of death was homicidal. He sealed the blood stained clothes removed from the dead body and handed over the same to the concerning Constable for their chemical examination. Said post-mortem report is Ex.P/32, written and signed by him. 15. He deposed that on same day at 1 p.m, he conducted the post-mortem on the body of Radhedas, son of Shivdas, resident of village Tokra, which was identified by Purandas and brought by a constable Balaram. On external examination he found the following injuries :- "(i) Contusion of size 8 cm. x 2 cm. over forehead on left side obliquely placed; (ii) Contusion of size 10 cm. x 2 cm. on right frontal parietal region oblique in direction; (iii) Lacerated wound of size 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm over middle part of right leg, oblique in direction with dried blood mussels." On dissection of the body, lot of liquid dark blood was seen collected underneath fracture of fronto-parietal region. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon within 12-28 hours from post-mortem. x 1 cm. x 1 cm over middle part of right leg, oblique in direction with dried blood mussels." On dissection of the body, lot of liquid dark blood was seen collected underneath fracture of fronto-parietal region. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt weapon within 12-28 hours from post-mortem. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock as a result of head injury with fracture and ruptured bone anterior to cranial fossa causing excessive haemorrhage leading to circulatory failure. Mode of death was homicidal within 12-24 hours from post-mortem. The said post-mortem report is Ex.P/33 written and signed by him. 16. He deposed that on the same day at 2 p.m., he conducted the post-mortem on the body of Uttamdas, son of Shivdas, resident of village Tokra, which was identified by Purandas, Madandas and brought by a constable Hukum Singh. On examination, he found the external injuries on his body as mentioned below :- "(i) Contusion admeasuirng 12 cm. x 2 cm. over lower part of left side of chest, oblique blue red anterior-laterally; (ii) Contusion admeasuirng 10 cm. x 2 cm. over epigastric region oblique blue red; (iii) Incised wound admeasuirng 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. over left side of chin, oblique anterior laterally dried blood in the injury; (iv) Incised wound admeasuirng 4 cm. x 2 cm. x scalp deep on left supra occipital region, oblique in lateral half, dried blood in injury; (v) Incised wound 6 cm. x 3 cm. x scalp deep over left frontal region, oblique dried blood in the injury." On dissection of the body, a fracture of right frontal with parietal bone detected of piece of 15 cm. x 8 cm. of frontal parietal bone. He opined that cause of death was shock as a result of head injury leading to fracture of frontal and parietal bone. Duration was between 18-30 hours from post-mortem. Mode of death was homicidal. The clothes and shoes stained with blood were sealed and handed over to a constable for chemical examination. Said post-mortem report is Ex.P/34, written and signed by him. 17. Dr. B. L. Sharma (PW-15) deposed that on 11th July 1995 he was posted in the Government Health Centre, Sironj. He examined injured Narayan son of Shivdas, resident of Tokra, P. S. Murwas, who was brought by a Constable Babulal No. 324. Said post-mortem report is Ex.P/34, written and signed by him. 17. Dr. B. L. Sharma (PW-15) deposed that on 11th July 1995 he was posted in the Government Health Centre, Sironj. He examined injured Narayan son of Shivdas, resident of Tokra, P. S. Murwas, who was brought by a Constable Babulal No. 324. During examination, he found the following injuries :- "(i) Incised wound admeasuring 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 cm. over left parietal region of scalp. Margins clearcut; (ii) Lacerated wound admeasuring 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1cm. Over mid part of scalp; (iii) Incised wound admeasuring 4 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep back side of mid line of skull with clearcut margins; (iv) Incised wound admeasuring 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. over occipital; Margins clearcut. (v) Incised wound admeasuring 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 cm. over left supra scapular region; (vi) Bruise of size 4 cm. x 2 cm. over back along vertebra column thoracic part in radish colour; (vii) Bruise of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. on right forearm posterior aspect on 1/3 part radish in colour; (viii) Incised wound admeasuring 2 cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. over left index finger with clearcut margins; (ix) Lacerated wound admeasuring 2 cm. x ½ cm. x ½ cm. over left thumb; (x) Abrasion of size 2 cm. x 2 cm. over left upper aspect mid shaft." The doctor opined that except Injury Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object while rest of the injuries were caused by sharp object within 10 to 12 hours since examination. The nature of injuries except Injury No. 3 were simple in nature. Injury Report is Ex.P/44, written and signed by him. 18. Banwarilal (PW-13) Head Constable, posed in the Police Station Murwas deposed that on 11th July 1995, he proceeded on village patrolling. During patrolling in village Tonkra, he got an information about the incident of violence in the said village. So, he immediately rushed to the spot, which was at a distance of 2 k.m. away and reached there at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening. He wrote the report (Dehati Nalish) at the behest of injured Khushidas. He camped in night in village for safety of dead bodies and spot. So, he immediately rushed to the spot, which was at a distance of 2 k.m. away and reached there at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening. He wrote the report (Dehati Nalish) at the behest of injured Khushidas. He camped in night in village for safety of dead bodies and spot. He sent his colleague Constable Mahesh Pashi to Police Station for information and lodging the FIR on the basis of Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/43). 19. Indraj Singh (PW-19) In-charge of the Police Station Murwas deposed that he wrote the FIR (Ex.P/47) on the basis of Dehati Nalish (Ex.P/43) delivered to him in the Police Station by a Constable Mahesh Pashi. He also wrote the Marg Intimation (Ex.P/48) about the death of two persons. Thereafter, he intimated about the incident of violence occurred in village Tonkra to his Superior Officers and proceeded to the spot. He reached on the spot in night but due to darkness and night he had to conduct the inquiry/investigation in the morning on next day. He sent the injured Khushidas for medical examination and treatment to Government Hospital Lateri. He issued the Safina Form (Ex.P/49) and in the presence of witnesses he prepared the memo of dead body of deceased Uttamdas vide Ex.P/1 and memo of dead body of Khumamdas vide Ex.P/2. He sent the dead body of Khumandas vide memo Ex.P/32-A for post-mortem and dead body of Uttamdas vide Memo Ex.P/34-A to Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Lateri. Radhedas, another brother of complainant Khushidas also died in the night of the incident. The inquest memo and memo of dead body were prepared by Head Constable Rajendra Singh. During investigation, he seized the damaged tractor vide seizure memo (Ex.P/3). He also seized the other articles relating to the incident of violence and blood socked and simple soil from the spot vide seizure-memos Ex.P/4 and P/5. On 12th July 1995, he prepared the spot-map (Ex.P/50) as per version of witness Lalaram. On 13th July 1995, he arrested accused Devendra Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh, Gajraj Singh and Umraosingh vide arrest memos (Ex.P/51 to Ex.P/55) in village Tonkra. After arrest, he inquired into the above five arrested accused about the weapons used in the crime. Accordingly, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P/8) made by the accused Gajraj Singh, the, barrel of the gun was seized from him vide seizure memo 1 (Ex.P/7). After arrest, he inquired into the above five arrested accused about the weapons used in the crime. Accordingly, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P/8) made by the accused Gajraj Singh, the, barrel of the gun was seized from him vide seizure memo 1 (Ex.P/7). He also seized the weapons Farsi, Ballam and Lathi from the arrested accused. On 16he July 1995, he arrested accused Pyar Singh, Jagannath Nai, Bhaiyalal, Ganeshram, Hukumchand and Jaggannath Singh and prepared their arrest memos (vide Ex.P/56 to Ex.P/61) and seized the weapons from these accused after preparation their seizure memos. On 18th July 1995, he arrested accused Chander Singh, son of Roop Singh and Mohan Singh son of Prabhulal and prepared their arrest memos vide Ex.P/62 and 63. After their arrest, on production the weapon Ballam from accused Jagannath Singh and lathis from accused Chander Singh vide Ex.P/7 and Mohan Singh vide Ex.P/6 were seized by him. On 18th July 1995, he arrested accused Mungalal vide arrest memo (Ex.P/64) and on his production he recovered a lathi vide recovery memo (Ex.P/65). On 12th September 1995, he arrested accused Mohar Singh vide arrest-memo (Ex.P/66) and on his production, he recovered weapon Farsa by recovery- memo (Ex.P/20). On 13th September 1995, he arrested accused Jashrath and on his production weapon Lathi was recovered from him by recovery-memo (Ex.P/21). On 25th January 1996, accused Bhanwarji, Nirbhay Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Bhagwan Singh surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Sironj and with permission of the Court formal arrest of these accused was made vide Ex.P/68. On their production he recovered the weapons Lathis and Farsas from the accused. Accused Chander Singh s/o Goverdhan Singh was on anticipatory bail so he was formally arrested by arrest memo (Ex.P/69) and his gun which was deposited in the Police Station Sarangpur, District Rajgarh was recovered by the concerned Police Station vide seizure-memo (Ex.P/70). Case diary statement of Narayandas was recorded on 17th July 1995 and on next day statements of the others namely, Heerabai, Laxmibai, Ramcharan, Shahjad, Mungalal, Laxmibai wife of Shivdas, Bhuribai, Kundanlal, Bhagwan Singh Sonu @ Sanjev were recorded. Case-diary statements of witnesses Tilak Prashad, Dhanlal and Jatav were recorded on 30th July 1995. Case diary statement of Shivlal was recorded on 15th September 1995 and of Roopa Banjara was recorded on 1st August 1995. Case-diary statements of witnesses Tilak Prashad, Dhanlal and Jatav were recorded on 30th July 1995. Case diary statement of Shivlal was recorded on 15th September 1995 and of Roopa Banjara was recorded on 1st August 1995. He sent the weapons used in incident to the State Forensic Laboratory Sagar for chemical examination and seeking opinion from the Expert. The rest articles were also sent to State Forensic Laboratory Gwalior through Police Superintendent Vidisha. In cross-examination, he deposed that in the incident, some of the accused were injured and after their arrest they were sent for medical examination. He also admitted that some of the accused got bone fractures and others received incised injuries. He also admitted to have registered the FIR on the basis of report made by accused for commission of offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code against the complainant party. 20. On perusal of the arrest-memo (Ex.P/51) dated 13th July 1995 of accused Devendra Singh son of Umarao Singh, it appears that he got injuries on head and both hands in incident. So also arrest memo (Ex.P/52) of Ram Singh son of Goverdhan Singh shows that the accused Ram Singh had received injuries on head and both hands. Accused Santosh Singh, son of Jagannath Singh was arrested on 13th July 1995 vide arrest-memo (Ex.P/53) which indicates injuries suffered by him on left hand and left leg in the incident of manhandling. Accused Gajraj Singh, son of Goverdhan Singh Rajput was arrested on 13th July 1995 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/54) which indicated that there were injuries on right leg, right hand and on back suffered in the incident of manhandling. Accused Pyar Singh Rajput was arrested on 13th July 1995 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/55) which shows that accused suffered injury on his right leg and back in the incident of manhandling. So, discussion on the evidence made above shows that in the incident of violence happened on 11th July 1995, from complainant side three persons namely, Radhedas, Uttamdas and Khumandas were succumbed and other two Khushidas and Narayandas were injured. Simultaneously, from opposite side, accused Devendra Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh and Gajraj Singh were injured. So, discussion on the evidence made above shows that in the incident of violence happened on 11th July 1995, from complainant side three persons namely, Radhedas, Uttamdas and Khumandas were succumbed and other two Khushidas and Narayandas were injured. Simultaneously, from opposite side, accused Devendra Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh and Gajraj Singh were injured. It also appears that on the report of the incident lodged by complainant Khushidas, the present crime was registered whereas the factum of lodging the report by the accused side and the reports of the injuries suffered in the same incident by the accused are not on the record of the trial Judge. 21. Rajendra Singh (PW-20) of Police Station Murwas District Vidisha deposed that on 11th July 1995, he wrote the Marg Intimation Report (Ex.D/1) on oral instruction of Khushidas, brother of deceased Radhedas. On second day of incident on 12th July 1995, he issued Safina Form for inviting the witnesses and thereafter prepared the memo of dead body of Radhedas vide Ex.P/41 and sent the dead-body of Radhedas for post-mortem to Primary Health Centre Lateri. He also sent the injured Khushidas for his medical examination and treatment. During investigation on 12th September 1995, he arrested accused Jasrath Singh vide arrest memo (Ex.P/75). He also seized the sealed packet containing the clothes of deceased Radhedas received from Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre Lateri vide seizure memo (Ex.P/76) and further seized the two sealed packets containing the clothes of deceased Uttamdas and Khumandas received from the Medical Officer Primary Health Centre Lateri vide seizure memo (Ex.P/77). 22. On considering over all evidence as discussed earlier, it appears that :- (i) as per statement of witness Khushidas (PW-1), one year ago he and his four brothers went to cultivate and sow the Soyabeen seeds in their agricultural field which was purchased from Roopa Banjara by them. As they were cultivating the field and were sowing Soyabeen crops through tractor, all of a sudden, accused Chander Singh, Gajraj Singh, Ramsingh, Dashrathsingh, Bhagwan Singh, Bhanwarji, Nirbhay Singh, Jagannath Singh, Santosh, Raghuveer Singh, Umarao Singh, Amar Singh, Devendra, Pyar Singh, Dashrath Singh son of Roop Singh, Chander Singh son of Roop Singh, Mungalal, Ganeshram, Bhaiyalal, Mohan Singh, Hukumchand and Mohar Singh came there having armed with deadly weapons. They conjointly shouted to kill Babaji whereupon the accused started beating them by means of lathi, farsi and swords. They conjointly shouted to kill Babaji whereupon the accused started beating them by means of lathi, farsi and swords. There were five brothers, who got injuries and fell down on the earth. One of his brothers, namely, Narayandas fled away, from spot after receiving injury. However the witness is not specific in his evidence that by which particular accused and by which weapon he and his other brother Narayandas and deceased brothers Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas received injuries because as per his statement all of them were injured by all the above named accused who were present on the spot having farsas swords and lathi. (ii) Narayandas (PW-2) deposed that one year ago at about 10 a.m. he with his four brothers went to cultivate and sow agricultural field which was purchased from Roopa Banjara. When they were cultivating the land and were sowing the Soyabeen seeds by a tractor driven by his brother Radhedas, all accused by shouting to kill Babajis armed with guns, swords, farsa, lathis came there and encircled them. They caused injuries by means of lathis, farsa and swords to him and his brothers. Accused Kamal Singh, Devendra Singh and Santosh caused injuries to him by means of farsa and Ballam. Likewise complainant Khushidas injured (PW-1) Narayandas also did not mention that by which particular accused and by which weapon he and his another injured brother Khushidas and deceased brothers Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas received injuries. (iii) Lalaram (PW-9) was a chance witness as by that time he was going to village Dehari through the place of incident named "Dongawala Khet" purchased by Khushidas and his brothers from one Roopa Banjara. He stated that accused Chander Singh and Umarao Singh, son of Goverdhan Singh filed the objections in mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court regarding effecting the names of the complainant-party in the revenue papers. He saw that Khushidas and his brothers were sowing and cultivating the field by tractor. He also saw twelve accused having guns, Ballams, farsa, who after reaching to the spot fired by guns held by them and caused injuries to Khumandas, resultantly, he fell down. He asked the accused why they were causing injuries to which they replied that they have to eliminate their family. He stated that Santosh and Jagannath caused injuries by means of ballam to deceased Khumandas. He asked the accused why they were causing injuries to which they replied that they have to eliminate their family. He stated that Santosh and Jagannath caused injuries by means of ballam to deceased Khumandas. Chander Singh and Gajraj Singh used guns as lathis and caused injuries to Khushidas, Khumandas, Uttamdas, Radhedas and Narayandas. Narayandas due to injuries on his body fled away from the spot. During beating by means of butt of guns by accused Gajraj Singh its wooden part was broken. The accused also threatened the witness about reporting the matter to the police. On perusal of the statement of this witness, it is clear that though he was a chance witness and had an occasion to have visualized the whole incident, but he categorically stated that Santosh and Jagannath caused injuries by means of ballam to deceased Khumandas. Chandar Singh and Gajraj Singh used guns as lathis and caused injuries to Radhedas. Khusidas. Uttamdas and Narayandas. Thus, he specifically stated regarding the involvement of Chander Singh, Gajraj Singh, Santosh and Jagannath and causing injuries by means of ballam and butt of the guns on the persons of deceased Uttamdas, Radhedas, Khumandas and injured Khushidas and Narayandas. (iv) Smt. Heerabai (PW-7), wife of Radheshyam deposed that on the day and time of incident she was at her residence. Uttamdas along with his other brothers Radhedas, Khushidas, Narayandas and Khumandas went to cultivate their agricultural fields namely "Dongawala Khet". She saw all named accused armed with guns, swords, farsas, ballams and lathis reaching from behind the complainant party on the spot. She also went from their back. She saw that accused Chander Singh, Constable was having gun and sword, Gajraj was having gun, Ram Singh was having gun and sword, Jashrath was having farsa and lathi, accused Santosh, Raghuveer, Umrao, Kamal, Devendra, Nirbhay, Mungalal, Ganeshram, Bhaiyalal and Mohan Singh were having farsa. Accused Chander Singh, Gajraj Singh and Jashrath fired at injured Uttamdas. Khumandas and Radhedas and they fell down on the earth. Chandar Sinah fired with his gun. Rest of the accused caused injuries to the dead and injured persons. Khumandas and Uttamdas died on the spot and Radhedas died while on the way to Hospital. (v) Laxmibai (PW-8) wife of deceased Uttamdas deposed that one year ago, she was inside of her house. Chandar Sinah fired with his gun. Rest of the accused caused injuries to the dead and injured persons. Khumandas and Uttamdas died on the spot and Radhedas died while on the way to Hospital. (v) Laxmibai (PW-8) wife of deceased Uttamdas deposed that one year ago, she was inside of her house. Uttamdas along with brothers Radhedas, Khushidas, Narayandas and Khumandas went to cultivate their agricultural field. She heard and saw all named accused armed with guns, swords, farsas, ballams and lathis who were abusing her husband and his brothers and going towards agricultural field of her husband. She followed them and reached on the spot from behind the accused party. She saw that accused Chander Singh, Constable and Gairaj Singh were having guns. Santosh was having Ballam and rest of the accused were having farsa and lathi. As she reached on the spot, the accused party was returning back from the spot. The evidence of witnesses namely, Smt. Heerabai (PW-7) and Smt. Laxmibai (PW-8) clearly goes to show that these witnesses were not present on the spot at the beginning of the incident but reached on the spot in the middle or after the incident, so it cannot be said that they were able to visualize the entire incident. (vi) Medical evidence discussed above also denies possibility of using firearms by the accused either in causing death of the deceased or injuries to the injured.. However, the evidence suggested and supported the evidence of the witnesses in causing injuries by using hard and blunt object of the firearms. 23. Now, we proceed to consider the recovery of weapons from the accused and decide whether the recovered weapons were used in incident for causing the serious injuries to the injured/deceased ? 24. Indraj Singh (PW-19) deposed that on next day morning he seized one pair of shoes, one wooden handle of sword, broken pieces of trigger guard and the butt of gun from the place of spot and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P/4. On 13th September 1995 after arrest, he on information seized the barrel of gun marked as Article-A from Gajraj Singh and prepared seizure memo thereof vide Ex.P/7. The arrest memo (Ex.P/54) of accused Gajraj Singh indicates injury on his right leg, hand and back at the time of arrest. On 13th September 1995 after arrest, he on information seized the barrel of gun marked as Article-A from Gajraj Singh and prepared seizure memo thereof vide Ex.P/7. The arrest memo (Ex.P/54) of accused Gajraj Singh indicates injury on his right leg, hand and back at the time of arrest. On the same day, he arrested accused Devendra Singh by arrest memo (Ex.P/51) which mentioned injuries on left hand and right leg during incident and after arrest on his information, one farsa marked as Article-B was seized from him by seizure memo Ex.P/14. On the same day accused Ram Singh was arrested by arrest memo Ex.P/52. In his arrest memo (Ex.P/52) injuries on head and both hands sustained by him in the incident of violence were mentioned. After arrest on his information during custody weapon farsa marked as Article-C was recovered by seizure memo (Ex.P/15). On same day accused Santosh Singh was arrested by arrest memo (Ex.P/53). In his arrest-memo (Ex.P/53) injuries on head and both hands caused in the incidence of violence were mentioned. After arrest on his information weapon Ballam marked as Article-D was recovered by seizure memo (Ex.P/16). On the same day, accused Umrao Singh was arrested by arrest memo (Ex.P/55) and in his arrest memo (Ex.P/55) injuries on left leg and back caused in the incidence of violence were mentioned. He on the production of the accused recovered weapon Lathi marked as Article-E by seizure memo (Ex.P/17). On perusal of the Report (Ex.P/71) of the Assistant Chemical Examiner of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Gwalior, it appears that the report of the Examiner confirms the presence of blood on Ballam (Article-F) seized from accused Santosh, farsa (Article-G) seized from accused Ram Singh and farsi (Article-H) seized from accused Devendra Singh. It also appears from the report of the Firearm Expert of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Sagar dated 24th January 1996 that the two pieces of the broken wooden parts of butt marked as Article A/2 are belonging to action part of muzzle loaded gun. So also two broken parts of trigger guard marked as Article A/1 are reported to be used always in the muzzle loaded gun alleged to have been seized from the spot. One barrel marked as Article A/3 which was recovered from accused Gajraj Singh are also said to be part of muzzle loaded gun. 25. So also two broken parts of trigger guard marked as Article A/1 are reported to be used always in the muzzle loaded gun alleged to have been seized from the spot. One barrel marked as Article A/3 which was recovered from accused Gajraj Singh are also said to be part of muzzle loaded gun. 25. On detailed discussions on the ocular evidence of the witnesses, the presence of accused Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Dashrath Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Bhanwarji, Nirbhay Singh, Jagannath Singh, Santosh, Raghuveer Singh, Umarao Singh, Amar Singh, Devendra, Pyar Singh, Dashrath Singh son of Roop Singh, Chander Singh son of Roop Singh, Mungalal, Ganeshram, Bhaiyalal, Mohan Singh, Hukum Singh and Mohar Singh is appeared but on looking to the medical evidence and microscopic scrutiny of the evidence of the above eyewitnesses and after taking into account the medical evidence and the recovery of the weapons together with other evidence, it appears that accused Gajraj Sinah by using the butt of gun, Santosh by means of Ballam, Umrao Singh by means of Lathi, Devendra Singh having and using farsa, Ram Singh having and using farsa caused injuries to injured Khushidas and Narayandas and death of Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas. 26. Now, the presence and the role of accused Chander Singh s/o Goverdhan Singh are to be considered in the light of the evidence on record of the trial Judge. All eyewitnesses as mentioned above unanimously stated that accused Chander Singh was present in the mob of accused having armed with gun. Lalalram (PW-9) deposed that accused Chander Singh used his gun as lathi in assaulting the deceased. Heerabai (PW-7) deposed that Chander Singh fired by his gun. Smt. Laxmi Bai (PW-8) stated that as she reached on the spot, she heard the noise of firing. Shiv Narayan (PW-17) Constable No, 592 deposed that at relevant time, he was working in the office of SDO (P) at Sarangpur and accused Chander Singh Constable was also posted in that office. On 10th July 1997, at about 8.30 a.m. in the office accused Chander Singh by informing about illness of his son, left for his quarter and returned on 12th July 1997 and applied for leave and on sanctioned of leave, he left the office. On 10th July 1997 he entered the presence of Chander Singh on duty and on direction of SDO (P) Sarangpur he marked the absence of Chander Singh. On 10th July 1997 he entered the presence of Chander Singh on duty and on direction of SDO (P) Sarangpur he marked the absence of Chander Singh. Shiv Prashad (DW-3) deposed that on 11th July 1997 while he was working in the Police Station Sarangpur, he saw accused Chander Singh in SDO (P) office at Sarangpur and on that day he received the memorandum (Ex.D/18) about strike from the delegation of the employees working in the Electrical Department. 27. In that view of the matter, the presence of accused Chander Singh who was working at the relevant point of time at Sarangpur District Rajgarh, which is far away from the place of incident is not established to demonstrate the fact that he had reached and taken active participation in the incident of violence. Being the member of the accused party and also employed in the police department, this may be a sound cause for his implication in the alleged incident. Thus, the ocular evidence of prosecution and the statements of defence create a suspicion with respect to participation of accused Chander Singh. Under the circumstances, we virtually left with no other choice but to give benefit of doubt to the accused according to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 28. As regards role played by the remainders, on perusal of the deposition of witness Lalaram (PW-9) Kalu Ram Patwari (PW-11), it appears that the complainant party had purchased the disputed land (the spot of incident) from Roopa Banjara and on the day of incident they went for sowing the seeds in their field. The accused party had the objection over their possession on land. There was arose a dispute in mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court. Criminal case under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was also pending before the SDM (R) Court. The evidence on record also supported the fact that the incidence of violence between both the groups arose on the protection of possession and forcibly sowing the crops on the disputed land. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the case of Ranveer Singh vs. State of M. P., AIR 2009 SC 1658 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Only question which needs to be considered is the alleged exercise of right of private defence. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer the case of Ranveer Singh vs. State of M. P., AIR 2009 SC 1658 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Only question which needs to be considered is the alleged exercise of right of private defence. Section 96, IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The section does not define the expression 'right of private defence'. It merely indicates that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of such right. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in the exercise of the right of private defence is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the Court must consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self-defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea. In a given case the Court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the material on record. Under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act1),, the burden of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not possible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence. The Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution. An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not necessarily required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. The question in such a case would be a question of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. The question in such a case would be a question of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. (See Munshi Ram and ors. vs. Delhi Administration ( AIR 1968 SC 702 ); State of Gujarat vs. Bai Fatima ( AIR 1975 SC 1478 ); State of U. P. vs. Mohd. Musheer Khan ( AIR 1977 SC 2226 ), and Mohinder Pal Jolly vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 SC 577 ). Sections 100 to 101 define the extent of the right of private defence of body. If a person has a right of private defence of body under section 97, that right extends under section 100 to causing death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be the consequence of the assault. The oft-quoted observation of this Court in Salim Zia vs. State of U.P. ( AIR 1979 SC 391 ), runs as follows : "It is true that the burden on an accused person to establish the plea of self-defence is not as onerous as the one which lies on the prosecution and that, while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying basis for that plea in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence." The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. Section 97 deals with the subject-matter of right of private defence. The plea of right of self-defence may relate to the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at such offences in relation to property. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by section 99. To claim a right of private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. The burden is on the accused to show that he had a right of private defence which extended to causing of death. Sections 100 and 101, Indian Penal Code define the limit and extent of right of private defence. Sections 102 and 105, IPC deal with commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of body and property respectively. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. The right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt, or threat, to commit the offence, although the offence may not have been committed but not until there is that reasonable apprehension. The right lasts so long as the reasonable apprehension of the danger to the body continues. In Jai Dew vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 612 ), it was observed that as soon as the cause for reasonable apprehension disappears and the threat has either been destroyed or has been put to route, there can be no occasion to exercise the right of private defence. In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Biran Singh vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1975 SC 87 ). (See : Wassan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1996) 1 SCC 458 ; Sekar alias Raja Sekharan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. ( 2002 (8) SCC 354 ). As noted in Butta Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1991 SC 1316 ), a person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation which is commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force. It would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private-defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper-technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper-technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration. But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has disappeared, the plea of right of private defence can legitimately be negatived. The Court dealing with the plea has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It is essentially, as noted above, a finding of fact. The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. (See Vidhya Singh vs. State of M. P. ( AIR 1971 SC 1857 ). Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be inappropriate, as held by this Court, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so natural in a Court room, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times or under normal circumstances." 29. Considering the above, the question that calls for consideration is whether the offence committed by the accused falls within the category of Murder? 30. To answer the question as to whether the offence, on the facts of the case, is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", we must see whether the case is squarely covered within Clause Thirdly of section 300 of Indian Penal Code or the accused are entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of section 300 of Indian Penal Code. It would be preposterous to assume any proposition in law that in a case of solitary blow on a vital part of the body that results the death, the offence must necessarily be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 31. As discussed above, the complainant jointly purchased the disputed agricultural field on which the accused claimed their title and possession. After purchasing the agricultural land, the objections regarding mutation proceedings were filed before the Revenue Court. Meanwhile, looking to the likelihood of breach of peace, the proceedings under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code stood initiated which were pending before the Court of SDM(R). Thus, in the present case, the accused on the basis of previous possession over the disputed land had acquired the right of defence against forcibly taking possession of the land. Under the circumstances, it can be held that the appellants named above were in exercise of their right of private defence, caused injuries to the complainant party and hence they were liable to be held guilty under section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code in place of section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 32. On detailed discussions on legal and factual aspects, we are of the considered view that on the evidence adduced before the trial Judge, the reasonable doubt in respect of participation in incident by accused Chander Singh arose, consequently Cri. Appeal No. 428/1998 filed by him is allowed and he is given benefit of doubt as extended to other acquitted accused. Accordingly, he is acquitted of all the charges under sections 147, 148, 427, 302/149 (on three counts for causing murder of Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas) and section 323/149 (on two counts) for causing injuries to Khushidas and Narayandas. Being on bail, his bail bond and surety bond shall stand discharged. 33. Regarding Cri. Appeal No. 465/1998 filed by accused Gajraj Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Ram Singh, Nirbhay Singh, Jagannath Singh, Santosh Singh, Raghuveer Singh as well as Cri. Appeal Nos. 505/1998 filed by accused Umrao Singh and 535/1998 filed by accused Devendra Singh are partly allowed. Accused Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 465/1998 and accused Umrao Singh, Devendra Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 505/1998 and Cri. Appeal Nos. 505/1998 filed by accused Umrao Singh and 535/1998 filed by accused Devendra Singh are partly allowed. Accused Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 465/1998 and accused Umrao Singh, Devendra Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 505/1998 and Cri. Appeal No. 535/1998 are convicted for commission of offence punishable under sections 304 Part-1/149 of Indian Penal Code (on three counts for causing culpable homicide of Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas) in place of section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer ten years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only), in default of payment of which they have to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of two years. However, their conviction and sentences for rest of the offences under sections 147,148, 427 and 323/149 of Indian Penal Code are hereby maintained. It is also made clear that under section 421(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the fine amount, as imposed above on five of the accused, if not deposited within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, same shall be realized from the movable/immovable properties of the convicted accused named above. On deposit of the amount of fine, same shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased Uttamdas, Khumandas and Radhedas in equal ratio of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid to both the injured, namely, Khushidas and Narayandas in equal ratio, i.e., Rs. 12,500/- (Rs. Twelve thousand five hundred only) to each of the injured. Obviously, the sentences imposed on the accused shall run concurrently. The amount of enhanced fine shall be adjusted against the amount of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the trial Court under its impugned judgment. Accused Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 465/1998 and accused Umrao Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 505/1998 are on bail. They shall surrender within a period of one month from today before the trial Court for undergoing the remaining part of their impugned sentence. Their, bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Santosh Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 465/1998 and accused Umrao Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 505/1998 are on bail. They shall surrender within a period of one month from today before the trial Court for undergoing the remaining part of their impugned sentence. Their, bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled. It is further made clear that the period of detention, if any undergone by the aforesaid convicted accused during investigation, inquiry or trial of the case and before the date of such conviction shall be set off against the term of sentence of imprisonment imposed on them by the judgment of this Court. Appellant Devendra Singh of Cri. Appeal No. 535/1998 was earlier granted bail by this Court, which was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 7-3-2007 and was directed to be arrested through non-bailable warrant. As per the record of the case, it is not clear whether he is lodged in prison or not. Under the circumstances, it is directed that learned trial Court shall cause him to be arrested lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of rigorous imprisonment passed against him under the judgment passed by this Court. 34. As regards, accused Bhagwan Singh, Nirbhay Singh, Jagannath Singh and Raghuveer Singh, they are acquitted of all the charges framed against them and eventually their appeal stands allowed in view of what has been stated above.