JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals arise out of common first information report, being F.I.R. No.140/1998 (Exhibit P-2), lodged with Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, leading to conviction of accused-appellants under two separate judgments passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur. 2. By judgment dated 28.08.2006 in Sessions Case No.66/1998, impugned in Criminal Appeal No.962/2006, nine accused-appellants - Gyarsilal, Chhoturam, Gadaram, Sumer Singh, Ramsingh, Girdharilal, Suganchand @ Sugga, Chander @ Ramchandra and Bhagwana, were convicted for offence under Sections 147 in alternative Section 148, 447, 341, 302 in alternative 302/149, 323 in alternative 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced them as follows: Section Accused Sentence 147 in alternative Section 148 IPC Gyarsilal, Chhoturam, Gadaram, Sumersingh, Ramsingh, Girdharilal, Suganchand @ Sugga, Chander @ Ramchandra and Bhagwana @ Bhaggu To undergo six months simple imprisonment 341 IPC -do- Sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, each to undergo seven days imprisonment 323 in alternative Section 323/149 IPC -do- To undergo six months simple imprisonment. 447 IPC -do- To undergo one month's simple imprisonment 302 in alternative Section 302/149 IPC -do To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine each to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3. However, they were acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 325 in alternative 325/149, 307 in alternative 307/149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(5), and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. By judgment dated 28.08.2006 in Sessions Case No.69/1999, impugned in Criminal Appeal No.961/2006, five accused-appellants - Radheyshyam, Nanchhuram, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti W/o Shri Suganchand and Smt. Chhima W/o Gadaram, were convicted for offence under Sections 147 in alternative Section 148, 341, 447, 323 in alternative 323/149, 302 in alternative 302/149, of the IPC and sentenced them as follows: Section Accused Sentence 147 in alternative Section 148 IPC Radheyshyam, Nanchhuram, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti W/o Shri Suganchand and Smt. Chhima W/o Gadaram To undergo six months simple imprisonment 341 IPC -do- Sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, each to undergo seven days imprisonment 323 in alternative Section 323/149 IPC -do- To undergo six months simple imprisonment. 447 IPC -do- To undergo one month's simple imprisonment 302 in alternative Section 302/149 IPC -do- To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine each to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 5. However, they were acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 325 in alternative 325/149, 307 in alternative 307/149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(5), and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 6. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted by one Phoolchand Jat to Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpura, on 28.04.1998 regarding the incident, which took place at 10.00 am that day. It was alleged that one Bhura (of complainant party) had purchased a land of Sugaram Bunkar fifteen years ago. He along-with his family was residing on that land. He constructed his house and water tank. He also dug a well there. When Bhura went to cultivate the agriculture field on that day, the accused party attacked him and his companions. They gave severe beating to Bhura and his companions. The accused were armed with 'farsi', 'lathi', 'kulhari', knife etc. The accused, who gave beating, were Gyarsilal, Bhagwan Sahai, Chandraram, Chhoturam, Girdhari, Suganchand, Gadaram, Kanaram, Sumer Singh, Ghisaram, Radheyshyam, Nanchhu, Chhima W/o Gada, Shanti W/o Suganchand @ Sugga and 15 more women were accompanied them. The women were armed with 'lathis', and actively participated in the incident. Initially the FIR was lodged for offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, however, during the course of investigation, Suggaram and Bhagwan Sahai died. Thereafter, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The police filed challan against nine accused, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.962/2006. However, the investigation against five accused, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.961/2006, was kept pending under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, challan was also filed against remaining five accused. The accused-appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused-appellants, though tried in separate trials but the impugned judgments were delivered on the same day i.e. 28.08.2006. In Sessions Case No.66/1998 the prosecution produced 32 witnesses and got sixty documents exhibited. The defence also produced six witnesses and got 31 documents exhibited. In Sessions Case No.69/1999 the prosecution examined 35 witnesses and got 59 documents exhibited. The accused-appellants, though tried in separate trials but the impugned judgments were delivered on the same day i.e. 28.08.2006. In Sessions Case No.66/1998 the prosecution produced 32 witnesses and got sixty documents exhibited. The defence also produced six witnesses and got 31 documents exhibited. In Sessions Case No.69/1999 the prosecution examined 35 witnesses and got 59 documents exhibited. The defence also examined six witnesses and got 35 documents exhibited. The appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated above. Hence these two appeals. 8. We have heard Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate for accused-appellants, Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the complainant. 9. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate for accused-appellants, argued that learned trial court has recorded findings contrary to the facts and material on record. The accused-appellants have been falsely embroiled in this case. Learned trial court has failed to critically scrutinize the evidence on record. It has erred in deciding that the complainant was in possession of the agriculture land where the incident had taken place. It has wrongly relied on the statement of Ashok Trivedi (PW-25) and Anand Shrivastava (PW-26). When, however, their statements are scrutinized in the light of deposition made by Shyam Sunder (PW-13), Patwari of the area, it becomes clear that the incident actually took place in the field bearing Khasra No.1144/1317, which is the land of 'mandir muafi' and is in cultivatory possession of the accused-party since long. 10. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate, argued that Phoolchand (PW-1) has specifically stated that the accused party was cultivating the land of the temple for last two years and this year also they had sown the crop of gram. The evidence proves that the accused party had ploughed the field two days before the date of incident. The complainant party went to the agriculture field to overturn the ploughing. Only eight bighas of land was allotted to Sugga Balai, half of which he gave to complainant Phoolchand for cultivation. Phoolchand and his family members wanted to take forcible possession of temple land, which was in possession of the accused party. This land was adjacent to the field of Sugga Balai. Only eight bighas of land was allotted to Sugga Balai, half of which he gave to complainant Phoolchand for cultivation. Phoolchand and his family members wanted to take forcible possession of temple land, which was in possession of the accused party. This land was adjacent to the field of Sugga Balai. It is the case of the prosecution that first of all Phoolchand and others approached the accused for settling the dispute, but they denied that they have taken possession of the field of Sugga Balai. Then on the next day, the complainant party came there in tractor for uprooting the ploughing. It is thus clear that the complainant were aggressors and not the accused party. The offence under Section 302 IPC therefore can hardly be said to be made out. It is argued that Phoolcahnd (PW-1) Dhunilal (PW-29) and Shankarlal (PW-30) have deposed before the court that the incident had taken place in the land of 'mandir muafi', which was in possession of the accused party. This is corroborated from the documents Exhibit D-30 and Exhibit D-31, which are decree and judgment of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, respectively. It is thus clear that the complainant party had taken the law in their hands and they are the aggressors. 11. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate, argued that as many as nine persons received injuries from the side of the accused at the hands of the members of the complainant party. Injuries of the members of the accused-party indicate that the complainant and their party persons were armed with deadly weapons. So far as the accused are concerned, their presence at the disputed land was natural because their houses were adjacent thereto. But the complainant party came from the distance of two kilometers for uprooting the field. Learned Senior Counsel, citing the site plans Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4, argued that if they are read in the light of statement of the prosecution witnesses, it is proved that the incident did not take place in the agriculture field of Sugga Balai. It was argued that the site plan (Exhibit P-4) prepared by the Investigating Officer, is cryptic and unclear. Another site plan (Exhibit P-12A) prepared by Patwari of the area concerned, according to which the incident took place in the land of 'mandir muafi' bearing Khasra No.1144/1317. The prosecution did not get the land of Sugga Balai, measured. It was argued that the site plan (Exhibit P-4) prepared by the Investigating Officer, is cryptic and unclear. Another site plan (Exhibit P-12A) prepared by Patwari of the area concerned, according to which the incident took place in the land of 'mandir muafi' bearing Khasra No.1144/1317. The prosecution did not get the land of Sugga Balai, measured. If that was done, it could be easily established as to where the incident took place. Initially the complainant party also did not claim that they were in the possession of the land of 'mandir muafi'. Their stand during investigation was that the incident took place in the field of Sugga Balai. However, when it came to their knowledge that the incident actually took place on the temple land, they changed their version. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses have changed their statement from stage to stage and made lot of improvements. They have failed to explain the injuries received by the accused. Thus, they have not come with clean hands. They gave different statements regarding place of incident than what was disclosed during investigation. 12. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate, argued that prosecution witnesses in their statement to the police did not disclose any specific overt act but in their court statement, the witnesses tried to make improvements by attributing specific overt act to the accused. Initially, the case set up by the complainant was the one which was disclosed in written-report but subsequently when investigation of the case as entrusted to Anand Shrivastava (PW-26), he changed the complete story. Earlier the complainant party had alleged that they had purchased the land but after change of the Investigating Officer they took the stand that they were cultivating the same on crop sharing basis. The manner in which the incident took place, does not prove that the accused-appellants formed an unlawful assembly and that they had any common object. It was sudden and spontaneous reaction on the part of the accused-appellants. It was argued that Dhunilal Balai (PW-21) was independent witness, who has disclosed as to how the initial incident started. He has stated that when Gyarsa came forward and asked the complainant party not to plough the field by the accused party, Phoolchand inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head. Since an elder of the family was attacked on his head, the accused had every right to save him. He has stated that when Gyarsa came forward and asked the complainant party not to plough the field by the accused party, Phoolchand inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head. Since an elder of the family was attacked on his head, the accused had every right to save him. They acted in exercise of their right of private defence. Dhapa Devi (PW-3) has also stated that accused came forward and asked the members of the complainant party not to plough the field. Banshidhar (PW-2), in cross-examination, has admitted that they had gone to uproot ploughing of the field by the accused. Shankarlal (PW-30) has also stated that the complainant had gone to forcibly take possession of the land. Banshidhar (PW-2) has proved that the complainant had trespassed into about 2- 2½ bigha of the temple land. 13. Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate argued that accused-appellants Sumer Singh, Bhagwana @ Bhaggu, Suganchand @ Sugga, Ramsingh, Chander @ Ramchandra, Chhoturam, Gyarsilal and Girdharilal, received total 25 injuries. Their injury-reports have been produced in defence as Exhibit-D17A to Exhibit-D24A, respectively. In fact, Sumer, Ramsingh, Chander @ Ramchandra, Chhotu and Girdhari received at-least one injury each on the head. Bhagwana received elodena of fracture proximal phalanx 5th metacarpal on left hand as proved from Exhibit D-25A, Girdhari received fracture of right franto-parietal bone as proved from Exhibit D-26A, and Chander @ Ramchandra received elodena of fracture scapula as proved from Exhibit D-27A. Prosecution has not given any explanation for their injuries. Whereas, as per injury-reports (Exhibit P-13 to Exhibit P-26), there were total thirty eight injuries received by fourteen injured on the side of the complainant including two deceased. Learned Senior Advocate argued that many of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the defence. Citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajaram vs. State of Rajasthan – (2005) 5 SCC 272, it was argued that if any of prosecution witness not declared hostile, his statement would be binding on the prosecution. Learned Senior Advocate, citing from Page 15 and 16 of the judgment in Criminal Appeal of Gyarsilal, argued that the trial court has taken influence from the statements recorded in the trial of cross-case, which is wholly illegal. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. And Others – 1990 SCC (Cri) 638. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal and Others vs. State of U.P. And Others – 1990 SCC (Cri) 638. It was argued that the manner in which Phoolchand has cited the reasons of commencement of the incident and thereafter reaction thereto by the accused and number of injuries on both the sides clearly prove that it was a case of free fight. In such a situation, the accused-appellants cannot be said to have formed an unlawful assembly, although each of the accused may be liable for his individual act. 14. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed as prayed for. 15. Per contra, learned Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, and Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for complainant, argued that the judgments passed by the learned trial court are legally correct. The statements of the prosecution witnesses have correctly been appreciated by the learned court below. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the allegation that the learned trial court has taken influence from the cross-case is without any substance basis. Even if that part of the discussion of the judgment is excluded, remaining part is sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. 16. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, citing the postmortem-reports of Bhagwan Sahai and Sugga Ram, Exhibit P-57 and Exhibit P-58, respectively, argued that they have been proved by Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-29) and Dr. M.D. Qureshi (PW-31). Learned Public Prosecutor denied that it was a case of free fight. Learned Public prosecutor submits that there is no evidence to prove that it was a case of free fight. 17. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for complainant argued that in fact the incident took place in the part of the temple land, which was in possession of the complainant. They were depositing the land revenue on receipt of notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act for last several years. They were always cultivating this land. The accused-appellants could not have taken the law in their hands to dispossess the complainant party from such land. Even if they were trespasser over the land, they could be dispossessed only by due process of law. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to site-plans (Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4) and the statement of Investigating Officer Ashok Trivedi (PW-25). The accused-appellants could not have taken the law in their hands to dispossess the complainant party from such land. Even if they were trespasser over the land, they could be dispossessed only by due process of law. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to site-plans (Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4) and the statement of Investigating Officer Ashok Trivedi (PW-25). Reference is made to the statement of Shyam Sunder Choudhary (PW-13), who was Patwari of the area concerned, who proved that the land of Khsra No. 1140, 1141, 1144/1318, and 1145 was in the khatedari of the temple. 18. Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor, and Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for complainant, referring to statements of eye witnesses, argued that the accused-appellants have been named by the eye witnesses for specific injuries on the body of the deceased and injured. Reference to the statements of the eye witnesses and the injuries of the deceased and injured shall be made at the appropriate place hereinafter. 19. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 20. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and respectfully studied the cited case law. 21. We shall first of all deal with the question of possession. Statement of Shyam Sunder (PW-13), Patwari of the area concerned has proved the trace map of the disputed land, certified copy of which was produced as Exhibit P-12A. He has stated that the land of Khasra No.1143 and 1144/1317 was in fact the land of 'mandir muafi' (temple land). He has stated that the Investigating Officer had called him to take measurement of the land while preparing the site plan (Exhibit P-4). At that time, he told the Investigating Officer that though the land of Khasra No.1144/1317 and 1143/1318 was 'mandir muafi' (temple land), but Sugga Balai has encroached upon the said land. The incident had taken place in the land of Khasra No.1144/1317. As mentioned in the site-plan (Exhibit P-4), which was prepared by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, the land of Khasra Nos.1140, 1141, 1144, 1145 and 1133/1317 was recorded in the name of Sugla @ Suggaram Balai. The land bearing Khasra Nos.1143, 1144/1317 and 1141/1318 was recorded in the name of Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji. The land indicated at place 8 and 8A in the site plan was being cultivated by the accused for last 1-1½ years. The land bearing Khasra Nos.1143, 1144/1317 and 1141/1318 was recorded in the name of Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji. The land indicated at place 8 and 8A in the site plan was being cultivated by the accused for last 1-1½ years. Half land of Sugga Balai was being cultivated by him, whereas remaining half was given to Phoolchand Jat on crop sharing basis. Four bighas out of that was sold by agreement to sell executed in 1988 to Phoolchand for sale consideration of Rs.39,000/-. In the site-plan, it was also mentioned that part of the land bearing Khasra No.1144/1317 and 1141/1318 was encroached upon by Sugga Balai. Murlidhar (PW-17) has however stated that the land on which the incident took place was in possession of Gyarsilal and others. Rameshwar, being the 'motbir' witness has proved the site-plan Exhibit P-4. Dhunilal (PW-21) has proved that at the time of the incident, the disputed land was in possession of Sugga Balai. Shankarlal (PW-30) has however stated that the land of 'mandir muafi' was being cultivated by accused party (Bhuran Jat) for last fifty years and the incident had taken place in that land. But, in view of the site plan (Exhibit P-4), prepared by the Assistant Superintendent of Police on the basis of statement of Shyam Sunder, Patwari of the area concerned, that the land in fact was being cultivated by accused for last only 1-1½ year, the statement of other witnesses, that the accused-appellants were cultivating the land of the temple for last fifty years, appears to be highly exaggerated. 22. What is proved from the statement of Shyam Sunder (PW-13), Patwari of the area concerned, and other evidence is that though the land in which the incident had taken place belongs to the temple but in fact this land was encroached upon by Sugga Balai for many years. The accused party claiming this to be of temple land forcibly ploughed the same and the complainant party then again asserted their right of possession by overturning the ploughing. It is owing to that dispute that the incident had taken place. The accused party claiming this to be of temple land forcibly ploughed the same and the complainant party then again asserted their right of possession by overturning the ploughing. It is owing to that dispute that the incident had taken place. In fact, the order (Exhibit D-31) of the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Shahpura, District Jaipur, dated 30.04.2004, passed in the revenue suit filed on behalf of the temple through Suganchand and Girdharilal of the accused-party against the complainant, clearly shows that the revenue suit was filed with the grievance that Phoolchand and others of the complainant party had trespassed over the part of the temple land. In this view of the matter, therefore, the appellants cannot be held to have acted in exercise of right of private defence of the self or property. In fact, no clear case is established either by the complainant or the accused for exercise of right of private defence. The dispute suddenly took place. It cannot therefore be said that accused had gone there with as much premeditation or preparedness as the complainant could have. In fact the complainant first went to the agriculture field and then the accused followed them to resist their act of uprooting ploughing done by the accused. It is in that process that quarrel started between the parties leading to unfortunate death of two persons, Bhagwan Sahai and Sugga Balai. 23. The evidence has proved that accused had their residence ('dhani') in the adjacent agriculture land, which they were cultivating, and that land was entered in the revenue record as 'mandir muafi' and, as such, their presence at the said agriculture land was quite natural. As against this, the complainant had come there from a distant place. Evidence has also proved that accused had their residence 'dhani' in the agriculture land which they were cultivating. The complainant came on two tractors from distant place. Arrival of sizable number of accused almost matching the number of the members of the complainant party and reaction by them was quite spontaneous on their part. But then what followed thereafter was a free fight. True it is that two persons lost their lives and twelve persons received injuries on the side of complainant party. Total injuries receives by them were 38, of which 15 were grievous. But then what followed thereafter was a free fight. True it is that two persons lost their lives and twelve persons received injuries on the side of complainant party. Total injuries receives by them were 38, of which 15 were grievous. At the same time, the evidence has proved that there were nine injured on the side of the accused, who received total 25 injuries, three of which were fractures received by accused Bhagwana, Chander @ Ramchandra and Girdhari. Ramsingh, Chander @ Ramchandra and Chhoturam (Chhotiya) received one injury each on the head, though simple in nature. The fact that both the parties were armed with 'lathis' and mostly agriculture instruments, like, 'kutka', 'lathi', 'danda', 'geda', 'bamboo lathi', 'jaily', recovered at their instance. But this is also fact that almost similar number and nature of injuries have been received by the complainant party. The evidence thus substantiates the arguments of defence that it was a case of free fight in which each accused would be individually liable for his own act. 24. Dealing now first of all with the case of deceased Bhagwan Sahai, he, as per injury-report (Exhibit P-21), received one lacerated wound in the size in the size 4.5cmx1.0cmxbone deep on right parietal bone of the skull. Though, his postmortem-report, indicates seven injuries, but in fact injuries no.1 to 5 were the effect of single blow with its manifestation. Single head injury is shown in the injury-report (Exhibit P-21). Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-29) has also clarified that injuries no.1 to 3 are stitched wounds, all on left franto parietal region and left side of occipital region, whereas injury no.4 was lacerated wound just anterior to injury no.3 and injury no.5 was diffused swelling on right temporal region. The fact that in the injury-report (Exhibit P-21), proved by Dr. Satish Agnihotri (PW-15) no apparent injury is shown on right temporal region, this swelling could be the result of severe blow inflicted on the head of deceased leading to injuries no.1 to 4, three of which were stitched wound. Sixth injury was having two abrasions on left side on front of chest and at left elbow, which could not be noticed by the medical officer, while preparing injury-report (Exhibit P-21), but this was a simple injury. Seventh injury was wound of tracheotomy present on front of neck, which was due to the procedure applied by the treating doctors. Sixth injury was having two abrasions on left side on front of chest and at left elbow, which could not be noticed by the medical officer, while preparing injury-report (Exhibit P-21), but this was a simple injury. Seventh injury was wound of tracheotomy present on front of neck, which was due to the procedure applied by the treating doctors. Cause of death was opined to be coma, as a result of injuries to the skill and brain. 25. Phoolchand (PW-1) has alleged that Suganchand @ Sugga inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Bhagwan Sahai, whereas Shanti @ Phooli inflicted 'kulhari' blow but there is no 'kulhari' blow on his person, and that no such recovery has been made. Only recovery which is made is of 'bamboo lathi', at the instance of Suganchand @ Sugga. No recovery whatsoever has been made at the instance of Shanti @ phooli. Hence no recovery of 'kulhari' has been made. Banshidhar (PW-2) has also made allegation against Suganchand @ Sugga for inflicting 'lathi' blow on the head of deceased Bhagwan Sahai but he has also additionally named Shanti @ Phooli on such allegation. Dhapa devi (PW-3) has named both Suganchand @ Sugga and Shanti @ Phooli for giving beating to Bhagwan Sahai in the earlier trial but when Shanti @ Phooli went on trial in Sessions Case No.69/99, she has made allegation more specifically by stating that Suganchand @ Sugga had inflicted injury on the person of deceased Bhagwan Sahai by 'jaily' and Shanti @ phooli had inflicted injury by 'kulhari. There is no incised wound, which falsifies the allegation against Shanti @ Phooli of inflicting 'kulhari' blow on the head of deceased Bhagwan Sahai by Phoolchand (PW1), Dhapadevi (PW3) and Bhura (PW11). Nathuram (PW-4) has also alleged that Bhagwan was beaten by Suganchand @ Sugga and Shanti @ Phooli, but while appearing as PW-10 in subsequent trial, he has not made any specific allegation against Shanti @ Phooli. Goti (PW-6), during trial of Suganchand @ Sugga, has not made any specific allegation for injury of deceased Bhagwan Sahai but when appeared as PW-11 in subsequent trial of Shanti, she alleged that Gadaram and Suganchand @ Sugga, both gave beating to Bhagwan Sahai and thereafter Shanti @ Phooli and Chhima gave beating to Bhagwan Sahai. She even suggested that Suganchand @ Sugga also gave beating to Sugga Balai. She even suggested that Suganchand @ Sugga also gave beating to Sugga Balai. Obviously, this witness is making lot of exaggera-tion and not speaking the truth because her statement is not matching with the statement of any other witnesses. No other witness has alleged that Gadaram inflicted injuries to Bhagwan Sahai. Saroj Balai (PW-7) has alleged that Suganchand @ Sugga inflicted blows on the body of deceased Bhagwan Sahai but when she appeared as PW-22 in the trial of Shanti @ Phooli, she has not made any specific allegation against her (Shanti) or anyone for the injuries to deceased Bhagwan Sahai. Girdhari (PW-8) has also not made any specific allegation against anyone for the injuries of deceased Bhagwan Sahai. Babulal (PW-10) has alleged that Suganchand @ Sugga inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Bhagwan Sahai. His wife Shanti @ Phooli also delivered 'lathi' blow on his head. Bhura (PW-11) has alleged against Suganchand @ Sugga of causing 'lathi' blow on the person of deceased Bhagwan Sahai and Shanti @ Phooli inflicted injuries on him by 'kulhari'. Kanaram @ Kanhaiya (PW-18) has also alleged Suganchand @ Sugga that he gave 'lathi' blow on Bhagwan Sahai and his wife Shanti @ Phooli inflicted 'lathi' blow on temporal region of Bhagwan Sahai. He repeated similar allegation when he appeared as PW-15 in the subsequent trial of Shanti. Shivram @ Sheoram (PW-20) has not made any allegation either against Suganchand @ Sugga or his wife Shanti @ Phooli in the first trial but when he appeared as PW-16 in subsequent trial, he has made allegation against both of them of beating deceased. Jairam (PW-23) has also made allegation against Suganchand @ Sugga and Shanti @ Phooli for inflicting 'lathi' blow on his head and repeated similar allegation when he appeared as PW-13 in subsequent trial. 26. Jairam (PW-23) has also made allegation against Suganchand @ Sugga and Shanti @ Phooli for inflicting 'lathi' blow on his head and repeated similar allegation when he appeared as PW-13 in subsequent trial. 26. Analysis of the evidence thus lead to the conclusion that accused Suganchand @ Sugga was solely responsible for causing fatal injury on the body of deceased Bhagwan Sahai and in view of major contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and lack of corroboration by medico-legal evidence as to multiple number of injuries in the injury-report (Exhibit P-21) as also absence of incised wound, despite some of the witnesses alleging that Shanti @ Phooli inflicted 'kulhari' blow, and in the absence of recovery of any weapon at the instance of Shanti, she is held entitled to benefit of doubt, for the injuries for the murder of deceased Bhagwan Sahai. 27. That brings us now to the case of deceased Sugga Balai. Phoolchand (PW-1) and Banshidhar (PW-2) have in this regard have not made any specific allegation. Dhapadevi (PW-3) has alleged that Shanti @ Phooli, Chhima and Gadaram gave beating to Sugga Balai, whereas no other witness has attributed injuries on the person of deceased Sugga Balai to Shanti @ Phooli. Nathuram (PW-4) has alleged that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Sugga Balai. Goti (PW-6) has alleged against Gadaram for causing three injuries on the person of Sugga Balai, but in subsequent trial when she appeared as PW-11 she alleged that Gadaram and Suganchand @ Sugga gave beating to Sugga Balai. Saroj Balai (PW-7), daughter-in-law of deceased Sugga Balai, has however alleged that initially Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of her father-in-law Sugga Balai. Thereafter, Chhima inflicted a blow by 'kuncha' on his head but she has not made any such allegation against accused Chhima in the subsequent trial when she appeared as PW-22 and has only made general allegations and not any specific one, against any accused. Girdhari (PW-8) has alleged Gadaram has caused 'lathi' blow on his father Sugga Balai and thereafter Chhima inflicted 'palta' blow on him. In the subsequent trial when he appeared as PW-21, he made only omnibus allegation against all the accused. He did not make any specific allegation against any accused including accused-appellant Chhima. Girdhari (PW-8) has alleged Gadaram has caused 'lathi' blow on his father Sugga Balai and thereafter Chhima inflicted 'palta' blow on him. In the subsequent trial when he appeared as PW-21, he made only omnibus allegation against all the accused. He did not make any specific allegation against any accused including accused-appellant Chhima. Babulal (PW-10) has also alleged that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Sugga Balai, whereas his wife Chhima inflicted 'kuncha' blow on him. When he appeared as PW-8 in subsequent trial, he stated that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Sugga Balai and his wife inflicted 'palta' below on him. Bhura (PW-11) has also alleged that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the person of Sugga Balai and Chhima gave beating to him by 'kuncha'. Gadaram and Chhima gave beating to Sugga Balai. But when he appeared as PW-7 in subsequent trial, he stated that Gadaram and Chhima gave beating to Sugga Balai. Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal (PW-18) has stated that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Sugga Balai. Chhima gave 'palta' blow on the eye of Sugga Balai. Similar statement was made by him in the subsequent trial when he appeared as PW-15. Shivram @ Sheoram (PW-20) has alleged that Chhima caused injury on the eye of Sugga Balai and Gadaram inflicted a blow on the body of Sugga Balai. He has then stated that Gadaram was armed with 'kulhari' and his wife Chhima had a 'palta'. When he appeared as PW-16 in the subsequent trial, he stated that Chhima inflicted a blow by 'palta' on the eye of deceased Sugga Balai and Gadaram caused beating. Jairam (PW-23) has also alleged that Gadaram inflicted 'lathi' blow on the head of Sugga Balai and Chhima inflicted 'palta' blow on his eye, and similar allegation is made by him when he appeared as PW-13 in the subsequent trial. 28. If this evidence is scrutinized in the light of corroboration that is found from the medico-legal evidence, it becomes clear from the injury-report (Exhibit P-22) of Sugga Balai that he received only two injuries, one of which was lacerated wound on the middle of skull having dimension 4cmx1cmxbone deep, and another was swelling with bruise having dimension 2cmx1cm on the upper eye lid of left eye. The cause of his death has been opined to be coma, as a result of antemortem injuries to skull and brain. That injury is attributed to accused Gadaram. In so far therefore murder of Suggaram Balai is concerned, in view of our finding that it was a case of free fight, where each accused would be individually responsible for his own act, Suganchand @ Sugga would be responsible for his murder. But there is substantial corroboration of the allegation against accused Chhima of causing injury either by 'kuncha' or 'palta', she is liable to be held guilty to the extent of second injury i.e. swelling with bruise on the upper lid of left eye. Statement of prosecution witnesses that eye of deceased Sugga Balai protruded as a result of injury caused by accused-appellant Chhima by 'palta', has not been substantiated either his injury-report (Exhibit P-22) or postmortem-report (Exhibit P-58). Neither Dr. Satish Agnihotri (PW-15) who has proved the injury-report, nor Dr. M.D. Qureshi (PW-31), who has proved the postmortem-report, has proved this fact that on account of the second injury the eye of the deceased came out. In the injury-report (Exhibit P-22) the injury no.2 has been described as swelling with bruise having dimension 2cmx1cm on the upper eye lid of left eye, which is stated to be “simple” in nature caused by blunt weapon. The act of the appellant would therefore fall within Sec.324 IPC and she is liable to be convicted under this Section in view of our finding that it was a case of free fight where each accused shall be responsible for own act. 29. That now leaves us with the case of other twelve injured. Shivram @ Sheoram (PW-20) received one lacerated wound on left parietal bone of skull vide injury-report Ex.P/13, which was simple caused by blunt weapon. He has not made any specific allegation against any accused with regard to his own injury in the earlier trial as well as subsequent one. Banshidhar (PW-2) has also sustained one lacerated wound on left parietal bone of skull vide injury-report Ex.P/14, which was simple caused by blunt weapon. He attributed this injury to Ramsingh in both the trials. Smt. Saroj (PW-7) has received three injuries vide injury-report Exhibit P-15. The first injury was lacerated on the right parietal bone of skull. Second was lacerated on the dorsal side of right index finger. He attributed this injury to Ramsingh in both the trials. Smt. Saroj (PW-7) has received three injuries vide injury-report Exhibit P-15. The first injury was lacerated on the right parietal bone of skull. Second was lacerated on the dorsal side of right index finger. Third was complaint of pain over back. She alleged that Chhima inflicted blow at her back by 'kuncha'. Gadaram inflicted a 'lathi' blow on her head. Chhima inflicted 'kuncha' blow on hand. Narain, one of the injured, received four injuries. One was lacerated wound, two were swelling and one bruise His injury-report is Exhibit P-16. All injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon. He has not been produced as a witness to prove his injuries. Kalu (PW-12) has received four injuries. His injury-report is Exhibit P-17. First was swelling with tenderness on the lateral and dorsal side of left hand. Second was lacerated on the pilnar side of left ring finger. Third was bruise on the middle of back and fourth was complaint of pain over left thigh. He has alleged that Chhotu gave him beating on left hand and Kana gave a blow at his back. He has not supported the prosecution case and therefore has been declared hostile. Goti (PW-6) has sustained six injuries and has attributed her injuries to Gadaram, Chhima and Sumer. Her injury-report is Exhibit P-18. First injury sustained by her was lacerated on the upper and posterior part of right forearm, second was lacerated on the right parietal bone of skull, third was swelling with tenderness on the right ring finger, fourth was bruise with swelling on the right and middle of back, fifth was bruise over left shoulder joint and sixth was bruise over right scapular region. She has named Gadaram for her three injuries and made general allegations against all accused for rest of injuries. Abhay Singh (PW-5) has sustained two injuries vide injury-report Exhibit P-19. One was lacerated wound with swelling over nose and second was swelling with bruise below the left eye. He has alleged that it was Gadaram who inflicted these injuries to him. Phoolchand (PW-1) has received five injuries. He has made for his injuries, general allegation in his statement and not specifically named any particular accused. His injury-report is Exhibit P-20. One was lacerated wound with swelling over nose and second was swelling with bruise below the left eye. He has alleged that it was Gadaram who inflicted these injuries to him. Phoolchand (PW-1) has received five injuries. He has made for his injuries, general allegation in his statement and not specifically named any particular accused. His injury-report is Exhibit P-20. First injury was lacerated wound on the lateral side of right eyebrow, second was lacerated wound on the lateral side of right eye, third was abrasion on the nose, fourth was lacerated on the middle side of right forearm and fifth was bruise on the lateral side of left thigh. Bhura (PW-11) has received three injuries. He has stated that Chander @ Ramchandra inflicted 'lathi' blow at his back. Chhotiya inflicted a 'jaily' blow on his head, but while appearing as PW-7 in subsequent trial he has stated that Ramchandra and brother of Gyarsa delivered blows at his back and head by 'lathis'. His injury-report is Exhibit P-23. Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal W/o Bhuraram (PW-18) has received two injuries. One lacerated wound on right parietal region of skull and another is pain on left shoulder joint. His injury-report is Exhibit P-24. For both of them, the opinion was reserved. He has attributed his head injury to Kana S/o Girdhari. Dhapa Devi (PW-3) has received two injuries, namely, one swelling on left elbow and another bruise on knee but she has not made any specific allegation against any particular accused. Her injury-report is Exhibit P-25. Nathuram (PW-4) has received two injuries, one lacerated on left parietal region skull posteriorly and another abrasion on bridge of nose. Both of which were simple caused by blunt weapon. His injury-report is Exhibit P-26. He has named Gyarsa and Girdhari for his injuries. 30. Total nine accused-appellants have received injuries in the incident. Accused-appellants, namely, Sumer, Bhagwana, Suganchand, Ramsingh, Chander @ Ramchandra, Chhoturam, Gyarsilal and Girdhari have received injuries and their injury-reports are on record as Exhibit D-17A to Exhibit D-24A in Sessions Case No.66/98 and injury-report of accused-appellant Gadaram is on record as Ex.D/28A in Sessions Case No.69/99. Remaining five accused-appellants, namely, Radheyshyam, Nanchhuram, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Shanti, Chhima have not sustained injuries. But, three of them, namely, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti @ Phooli and Smt. Chhima have been assigned specific role by the injured eye witnesses for their injuries. Remaining five accused-appellants, namely, Radheyshyam, Nanchhuram, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Shanti, Chhima have not sustained injuries. But, three of them, namely, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti @ Phooli and Smt. Chhima have been assigned specific role by the injured eye witnesses for their injuries. Accused-appellants, namely, Radheyshyam and Nanchhuram (in Appeal No.961/2006), are neither named by any eye witnesses on any specific allegation nor have they sustained any injury. Their presence on the scene of occurrence and their role in the incident even for individual liability has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Charges against them cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They are thus held entitled to benefit of doubt. 31. Admittedly, the disputed land is the land of 'mandir muafi' and accused, being the licensee, were cultivating the same. But, part of this land, as per the prosecution case, was encroached upon by Sugga Balai for quite long, which was forcibly ploughed by the accused party, and the complainant party had come there to overturn that ploughing. Even if deceased Sugga Balai was in unauthorized occupation of the land in question, the accused could not have taken law into their own hands by ploughing the field forcibly. This justifies their conviction under Section 447 IPC, but such conviction to the extent of the accused, who have not been held guilty of the charge for offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC, cannot be sustained for want of corroboration of allegation against them. While therefore ten of these accused are held guilty of committing offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to different injured. 32. Dr. Satish Agnihotri (PW-15) has proved injury-reports of all other injured on the side of complainant-party except Dhapa Devi (PW3), Nathuram (PW-4) and Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal (PW-18), whose injuries-reports have been proved by Dr. Mahesh Chand Singal (PW-16). All injuries were opined to be simple and mostly caused by blunt weapon, except injury No.2 of Narayn, whose injury-report is Exhibit P-16, and injury no.1 of Kalu on his left forearm, whose injury-report is Exhibit P-17. Narain has not appeared in the witness-box to prove his injuries, therefore, it is difficult to determine who was responsible for causing his injuries. Narain has not appeared in the witness-box to prove his injuries, therefore, it is difficult to determine who was responsible for causing his injuries. Kalu (PW-12) has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case on other aspect, but has stated that Chhotu caused injuries on his left hand and Kanaram inflicted injury at his back. Chhoturam is therefore held guilty for committing offence under Sec. 325 IPC. 33. In the result, appeal of accused-appellants – Radheyshyam and Nanchhuram is allowed. They are acquitted of all the charges giving them the benefit of doubt. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. 34. Appeals of remaining accused-appellants are disposed of as under, 35. Accused-appellants Gadaram and Suganchand @ Sugga, instead of Section 302/149 IPC, are convicted for only substantive offence under Section 302 IPC. They are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of them would further undergo three months simple imprisonment. They are in jail and have to serve out the remaining sentence. 36. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants - Gyarsilal, Chhoturam, Sumer Singh, Ramsingh, Girdharilal, Chander @ Ramchandra, Bhagwana @ Bhaggu, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti and Smt. Chhima for offence under Section 302 in alternative Section 302/149 IPC is set-aside. They are acquitted of this charge. 37. Accused-appellants Gyarsilal, Sumer Singh, Ramsingh, Girdharilal, Chander @ Ramchandra, Bhagwana @ Bhaggu, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal and Smt. Shanti are convicted for offence under Sections 323 and 447 IPC. Accused-appellant Chhoturam is convicted for offence under Sections 325 and 447 IPC. Accused-appellant Chhima is convicted for offence under Sections 324 and 447 IPC. Smt. Shanti and Smt. Chhima remained behind the bars for about four months. Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal remained behind the bars for about eight months. Gyarsilal remained behind the bars for about one year three months, Chhoturam for about 1 year 7 months, Sumersingh for about seven months, Ramsingh, Girdharilal amd Chander @ Ramchandra for about ten months and Bhagwana @ Bhaggu for about one and half year. They are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. They are on bail and need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. 38. They are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. They are on bail and need not to surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. 38. In view of our finding that it was a case of spontaneous free fight, the conviction and sentence of accused-appellants Gyarsilal, Chhoturam, Sumer Singh, Ramsingh, Girdharilal, Chander @ Ramchandra, Bhagwana @ Bhaggu, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti and Smt. Chhima for offence under Section 147 in alternative Section 148, Section 341 and Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the same are set-aside. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants – Gadaram and Suganchand @ Sugga for offence under Section 147 in alternative Section 148, Section 341, Section 323 in alternative 323/149 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and the same are set-aside. 39. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Sec. 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Gyarsilal, Chhoturam, Sumer Singh, Ramsingh, Girdhari, Chander @ Ramchandra, Bhagwana @ Bhaggu (in Appeal No.962/ 2006), Radheyshyam, Nanchhuram, Kanaram @ Kanhaiyalal, Smt. Shanti and Smt. Chhima (in Appeal No.961/2006), are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appe-llants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.