JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 63/2003, by which learned trial court has acquitted accused-respondents, namely, Bhonrilal, Hanuman, Jaikishan, Sheonarain, Laxmi Narain, of the charges for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325/149 IPC. 2. Facts of the case are that a written-report was submitted by one Panchuram Meena, to Station House Officer, Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur, on 17.06.2000, alleging that Sheonarain S/o Bhonrilal forcibly tried to plough their agriculture field. When then they asked them not to do so, Kishan, Hanuman, Bhonrilal, Shankar, Laxmi Narain, Mohan and female members of their family, namely, Jyana W/o Bhonrilal, Nangi W/o Hanuman, Kamla W/o Jai Kishan, Mangli W/o Sheonarain, all armed with 'lathis', 'kulharis', iron rods and stones, attacked them. Kishan inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the person of Ghasi. Hanuman had a 'kulhari' in his hand and thereby inflicted a blow on the head of Kalyan. Bhonrilal attacked Gaura with 'lathi'. All the family members attacked them. Kamla W/o Jaikishan snatched a gold chain of his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Kalli. Nangi W/o Hanuman snatched gold ear-rings of his mother. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written-report, First Information Report No. 124/2000 was registered with the Police Station Shivdaspura for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447 and 379 of the IPC. 4. After usual investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a final report in the matter before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On protest petition, learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused-respondents for offence under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 325 IPC. After filing challan, the accused were committed to the court of Sessions, wherefrom it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. That court was already ceased with the trial in cross-case against the complainant in the present case. Learned trial court charged the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325/149 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got 17 documents exhibited in order to prove its case. The defence examined two witnesses and got 8 documents exhibited. The learned trial court, however, acquitted the accused-respondents. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got 17 documents exhibited in order to prove its case. The defence examined two witnesses and got 8 documents exhibited. The learned trial court, however, acquitted the accused-respondents. Though in the cross-case, the trial court convicted and sentenced four members of the complainant party herein, out of them, two were convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323 IPC, third was convicted for offence under Sections 302/34, 323 and 379 IPC and fourth was convicted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC in separate trial, and sentenced to life imprisonment. 5. Shri N.C. Choudhary, learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner argued that the learned trial court has fallen in grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges. The findings of the learned trial court acquitting the accused-respondents are based on surmises, conjectures and misreading of evidence. It is trite that the learned trial court ought not to be influenced in any manner, covertly or overtly, by the cross case. In the present case, the learned trial court seems to have been grossly influenced by the facts as also evidence on the record of cross-case. While arriving at the finding that accused-respondents had the right of private defence of body, the learned trial court took into consideration the injuries on the person of accused-respondents as also the factum that one of the member of the accused-party, namely, Smt. Jyana Devi died in the incident. The learned trial court jumped to the conclusions in a very slip shod manner. In spite of overwhelming evidence on record qua the injuries suffered by the complainant party, including grievous onces, the learned trial court has erroneously acquitted the accused-respondents of all the charges. The learned trial court has paid undue heed to innocuous incongruities and contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which do not tend to demolish the intrinsic worth of their testimony. It is therefore prayed that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set-aside. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the stand of the prosecution. 7. Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, opposed the revision petition and submitted that the complainant-party was the aggressor in the cross-case and that it were they who started the 'maar peet' with Sheonarain initially where after his mother Jyana came to his rescue. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the stand of the prosecution. 7. Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, opposed the revision petition and submitted that the complainant-party was the aggressor in the cross-case and that it were they who started the 'maar peet' with Sheonarain initially where after his mother Jyana came to his rescue. The members of the complainant party subjected her to beating leading to her death. It was thereafter that they mercilessly beat number of other persons from the side of the accused-respondents. Five persons, namely, Nangi, Manni, Kamla, Bhonrilal and Laxmi Narain, on the side of accused-respondents, received injuries. Learned counsel argued that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents holding that they were entitled to right of private defence of their person and property. The land in dispute was recorded in their name in the revenue record as per the report of the Patwari of the area. 8. On hearing learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents, we find that the analysis of the evidence clearly shows that it was the complainant-party who were the aggressor and initially subjected Sheonarain, accused-respondent no. 5, to beating and it was thereafter that when his mother came to his rescue, the members of the complainant party inflicted 'lathi' blows on her head leading to her instantaneous death. It is therefor that the accused-respondents intervened and tried to save her. Besides the death of Jyana, there were five more members from the side of the accused-respondents herein, who received injuries. Though, Ghasiram, father of complainant, as per statement of Dr. Usha Jaipal (PW-2), received two fractures, one of shoulder and another of ankle joint, as proved from Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4. Shankarlal received fracture of ulna bone of the right hand, but at he same time, five persons, namely, Nangi, Manni, Kamla, Bhonrilal and Laxmi Narain, on the side of accused-respondents, received injuries. Comparative analysis of the injuries and also of the fact that one persons of the side of accused-respondents lost her life, clearly shows that the accused respondents herein acted in exercise of their right of private defence of person, especially when the members of the complainant-party were aggressors, which has been so held by this court while deciding their appeals in cross case. The number and nature of injuries of both the sides coupled with the fact that one person of the accused-respondents lost her life, does not show that the accused-respondents acted in excess of the right of private defence. In other words, they did not exceed the right of private defence, if not of the property but at-least of the person. Their acquittal by the learned trial court accepting the case of the defence, cannot therefore be said to suffer from infirmity or illegality. 9. The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******