Pankaj Naqvi, J. 1. The appellants were put on trial by the learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Session Trial No. 61 of 1982 and by judgement dated 08.06.1983, they were held guilty of committing various offences. Appellants-Narendra and Kehar Singh were charged under Sections 147, 302, 325/149 and 324/149 I.P.C. and they were accordingly convicted of committing those offences. Likewise, appellants Rajendra, Prakashi and Netrapal were tried for committing offences under Section 148 , 307/149, 325/149 and 324/149 I.P.C. and they were also convicted of committing those offences. Appellants Narendra and Kehar Singh on account of being convicted as aforesaid were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 325 /149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 /149 I.P.C. Likewise, appellant Rajendra, Prakashi and Netrapal were also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 /149 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 325 /149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 /149 I.P.C. The present appellants alongwith deceased-appellant-Janak Singh preferred the present appeal to challenge the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.1983. Appellant-Janak Singh died during the pendency of the present appeal and the appeal as on his behalf stood abated. The prosecution case was contained in the written report Exbt. Ka.-1 which was sent by Hans Raj ( P.W.-1) alongwith the injury reports of himself, Madan Singh ( P.W.-4), Jasbir ( deceased), Sarjeet Singh ( not examined) to the police station and on that basis the F.I.R. of the case Ext. Ka.-9 was drawn up. It was stated in the written report that the informant ( P.W.-1) had purchased 14 Bighas of Kham land about 11 years ago by a deed of sale executed by deceased-appellant-Janak Singh and the informant continued to be in possession over the land since the very day of the purchase and was tilling and sowing the same. 2. It was stated in the written report that the informant ( P.W.-1) had purchased 14 Bighas of Kham land about 11 years ago by a deed of sale executed by deceased-appellant-Janak Singh and the informant continued to be in possession over the land since the very day of the purchase and was tilling and sowing the same. 2. It was alleged by the informant that deceased-appellant-Janak Singh raised some objections regarding the genuineness of the deed of sale three years after the execution of the same and alleged that he had been defrauded and, as such, filed a suit in a court seeking, besides others, the relief of retrieval of his possession. The suit was decreed and the consequential appeals were also decreed in favoured of the informant as per his claim. 3. The informant stated that he had planted sugar-cane and he alongwith his sons Madan Singh ( P.W.-4) and Jasbir ( deceased) as also villagers, namely, Sarjeet Singh, Babu Ram, Kripa, Ram Pal, Veer Singh and Mahfooz( all not examined) were cleaning the sugar-cane sticks at about 8.00 am on 09.11.1980. On account of the enmity arising out of the litigation which had taken place in respect of the same land, appellants Janak Singh ( deceased) armed with a lathi, Narendra and Kehar Singh both armed with lathi, Rajendra and Prakashi both armed with Balkatti and Netrapal Singh armed with a lathi, came there and started assaulting the informant and his sons Madan Singh and Jasbir. Sarjeet Singh ( not examined)intervened to save the informant and his sons and he was also assaulted by the accused persons. 4. The prosecution case further was that in order to save themselves, the lathi in the hands of Janak Singh and ballam in the hands of Netrapal, were snatched by the informant and blows were given to the accused persons with the snatched lathi and ballam. It was stated that the informant and his sons were saved by Amar Singh ( P.W.-2), who was the Pradhan of the village, and persons who had come with the informant and his sons to clean the sugar-cane sticks. But, his sons were critical and as such, the informant came with his sons to Saharanpur, Hospital, straight from the place of occurrence, and got himself and his sons treated there. But, his sons were critical and as such, the informant came with his sons to Saharanpur, Hospital, straight from the place of occurrence, and got himself and his sons treated there. The informant further stated that the condition of his sons Madan Singh and Jasbir was highly critical and he himself was not in a condition to move and, as such, he had sent the written report after getting the same scribed by Jai Singh ( not examined) attaching there with the injury reports of himself and other injured persons. 5. As may appear from the evidence of Ikbal Singh ( P.W.-6), the written report was received by him from the said Jai Singh on 09.10.1980 in police station Fatehpur where he was posted as Constable Clerk and on that basis he drew up the F.I.R., under Sections 307, etc. I.P.C. and made the entries in the general diary besides preparing the copies of the report. P.W.-6 further stated that the said Jai Singh had also brought four injury reports of the four injured persons, that's, the informant Hans Raj ( P.W.-1) and his two sons Madan Singh ( P.W.-4) and deceased Jasbir besides that of Sarjeet Singh and the contents of those reports were also copied in the general diary. The injury reports were marked Exts. Ka.-5 to Ka.-8. 6. After the registration of the case the investigation was handed over to S. I. M.P.S. Bana ( P.W.-9) as may appear from his evidence as also from the evidence of P.W.-8 Dilawar Singh who also stated that on receipt of the information of death of Jasbir in the hospital Section 302 was added to the F.I.R. and he, thereafter, took over the investigation himself and copied the contents of the post-mortem examination report and inquest report in the case diary and thereafter, went to the place of occurrence with police force where the Circle Officer had arrived and then the place of occurrence was inspected by Dilawar Singh ( P.W.-8) and the Circle Officer. He went to the house of one Jai Singh at village Baherakhurd and recorded the statements of witnesses to the inquest and other witnesses and arrested the accused persons and sent them for remand to the court of A.C.J.M.. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in the case against accused persons. 7. He went to the house of one Jai Singh at village Baherakhurd and recorded the statements of witnesses to the inquest and other witnesses and arrested the accused persons and sent them for remand to the court of A.C.J.M.. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in the case against accused persons. 7. P.W.-9, S. I. M.P.S. Bana, who had initially taken up the investigation after institution of the case, had stated that he went to the place of occurrence and after being shown the same, inspected it and prepared the sketch-map Ext. Ka.-19. During the course of investigation, he found blood lying there at several places and accordingly, he seized the blood stained earth and prepared the seizer memo. During the course of investigation on 10.11.1980, he went to the Government Hospital, Saharanpur where P.W.-4, Madan Singh was admitted and took his statement. He also learnt there that the deceased appellant-Janak Singh was also admitted in the same hospital and recorded his statement also and arrested him according to law and deputed a constable to keep vigil upon Janak Singh. Another injured-Jasbir was also found there and he attempted to record his statement, but he was not in such a state of health and, as such, his statement could not be recorded. P.W.-9, thereafter, searched for other accused and arrested Netrapal from his village. The charge of investigation was taken over by P.W.-8, S.I. Dilawar Singh from P.W.-9, S.I. M.P.S. Bana, as already noticed, who sent up the six accused persons for their trial. 8. During the course of the trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of whom the informant ( P.W.-1), Hansraj Singh and Madan Singh ( P.W.-4), besides being father and sons, were also injured and they gave an eye witness account to the occurrence. P.W.-2, Amar Singh, who was the Pradhan of the village, does not appear present there from the very inception of incident and rather stated that he reached at the place of occurrence while he was on way to Saharanpur. The other witnesses, like, Sarjeet Singh, was also, allegedly, injured on account of being assaulted by the accused persons and whose injury report had also been annexed to the written report and those who were working in the field with the informant and his two sons, like, Baburam, Kripa, Rampal, Veer Singh and Mahfooz were not examined. The other witnesses, like, Sarjeet Singh, was also, allegedly, injured on account of being assaulted by the accused persons and whose injury report had also been annexed to the written report and those who were working in the field with the informant and his two sons, like, Baburam, Kripa, Rampal, Veer Singh and Mahfooz were not examined. The four injured persons were examined for their respective injuries in the hospital by Dr. G.S. Gupta ( P.W.-5), who had also examined the injured accused Janak Singh and had issued the injury reports Ext. Ka.-2 to Ka-8, besides that of Janak Singh which was marked by the court below as defence Ext. Kha.-1. 9. P.W.-3 Dr. R.C.Vedi had held post-mortem examination of dead body on deceased-Jasbir and had prepared post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka. 2. It has already been been noticed that P.W.-6, Constable Ikbal Singh had drawn up the F.I.R. while P.W.-7 Mangal Singh had prepared the sketch-map of the place of occurrence whereas the case was initially investigated into by P.W.-9, S.I. M.P.S. Bana. 10. The defence of the accused persons was of complete denial as regards the commission of the offence and they claimed that the field was in their possession and they had never parted possession thereof and the informant and his witnesses were trespassers. It was further suggested as may appear from the suggestion given to P.W.-1, the informant that none of the accused persons was present at the time of occurrence in the field and it was the deceased- accused-Janak Singh only, who was there and others had been falsely implicated. It further appears from the trend of cross-examination that the defence was probably setting up a plea that it was the informant party who were aggressors and who had unilaterally come to the field so as to dispossessing the deceased-accused-Janak Singh from his possession and had opened assault initially and, may be, that in retaliation four persons of the informant were injured, out of whom one died. 11. The learned trial judge held that the appellants were never in possession of the land in dispute rather the informant was in possession as was held by a Criminal Court in another trial inter-se the parties on harvesting of the crop prior to the present occurrence. 11. The learned trial judge held that the appellants were never in possession of the land in dispute rather the informant was in possession as was held by a Criminal Court in another trial inter-se the parties on harvesting of the crop prior to the present occurrence. It was also held that the number of injured on the informant side were four, the number of injuries on their persons being 26, some of which were very serious due to which one injured Jasveer died. There was a single injured amongst the accused and he had not lodge any case. It was further held, on these reasons that the informant and his two sons had come peacefully to harvest the sugar-cane plants and had indeed harvested it peacefully, which fact was not challenged. The accused persons had come armed and had taken initiative in opening the assault on the informant, his two sons and another. As such, the deceased were aggressors. They had no right of private defence of person or property acceptable and, thus, committed them. 12. The defence did not examine any witness and rather referred to the court the relevant part of the prosecution evidence so as to indicating admitted facts to show that the defence version was probabilised. 13. We have heard Sri P. S. Pundir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants who submitted that the claim of the informant that the land had been purchased by him in the name of his son P.W.-4, Madan Singh, was not established rather the admitted fact as per the evidence of P.W.-1 the informant, was that the land stood also in the name of Smt. Parbati Devi, who was the wife of deceased appellant-Janak Singh. The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4, his Son Madan Singh, further indicated that the accused persons were continuing in possession of the land and had never parted with it. In that view of the matter, the claim of the prosecution that it had grown sugar-cane and had harvested the same on that date and were cleaning it, was completely false rendering the finding of the court below to that effect unacceptable. In that view of the matter, the claim of the prosecution that it had grown sugar-cane and had harvested the same on that date and were cleaning it, was completely false rendering the finding of the court below to that effect unacceptable. It was also submitted that some of the facts admitted by the P.W.-1 in his evidence shows as if the claim of purchasing the land was not tenable and the informant himself admitted that he had never been in possession of the land. His evidence further indicated that the accused Janak Singh has been continuously in possession and grown and harvested crops from there. As such, the finding of the court below that the accused were aggressors appears meritless. It was submitted that probably the informant, his two sons and his witnesses formed an unlawful assembly being armed with lathi, ballam and other weapons came to resume possession of the property by force which was resisted by accused-Janak Singh ( deceased), who was badly assaulted and may be that in retaliation, the informant and his sons were also assaulted by some unknown person and consequentially Jasbir had died. 14. The learned A.G.A. has submitted that the death of Jasbir and injuries to P.W.-1, P.W.-4 and one Sarjeet Singh indicated that it was a concerted act of assaulting the four persons, out of whom Jasbir succumbed to his injuries. The sugar-cane plants were found harvested and lying at the place of occurrence by P.W.-9, S.I. M.P.S. Bana who had sown the same in the site-plan Ext. Ka.-19 and the injuries were inflicted to Janak Singh in self-defence by deceased Jasbir and P.W.-4 Madan Singh. It was submitted that the judgement of conviction was properly passed. 15. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4, namely, the informant Hans Raj, Amar Singh, the pradhan of the village, and the injured witness Madan Singh, who happened to be the son of the informant, had stated that while the informant ( P.W.-1) alongwith his two sons P.W.-4 and deceased-Jasbir were cleaning the sugar-cane with the help of other persons, like, Sarjeet Singh ( injured), Babu Ram, Kripa, Rampal, Veer Singh and Mahfooz ( all not examined), those accused originally named in the F.I.R., came out of whom Janak Singh, Narendra and Kehar Singh were armed with lathi whereas appellants Rajendra and Prakashi were armed with Balkatti. Appellant Narendra was armed with a ballam. Appellant Narendra was armed with a ballam. As per the evidence of the three witnesses, as soon as appellants alongwith Janak Singh had arrived at the field, they started assaulting the informant and his two sons with their respective weapons. 16. The informant ( P.W.-1) and his son ( P.W.-4) had further stated that Jasbir ( the deceased) had snatched the ballam from the hand of appellant-Netrapal and P.W.-4 Madan Singh had himself snatched lathi from the hand of accused Janak Singh and had assaulted the accused persons with the two weapons in self-defence. The above facts regarding snatching ballam from Netrapal and lathi from Janak Singh had further been supported by P.W.-2 Amar Singh the Pradhan of the village. But, while considering the evidence of P.W.-2 at pages 43 and 44 of the paper book, what was found by us was that the witness ( P.W.-2) had neither seen Jasbir or other persons on the prosecution side being assaulted by accused persons nor he had seen the informant and his men cutting the sugar-cane plants. P.W.-2 stated at the same pages that he remained there for 15-20 minutes and he saw that the prosecution side was armed with garasi and daranti. P.W.-2 saw the above weapons in the hands of the informant and his men when they were retreating to their houses after the occurrence, but none of them wielded either the garasi or daranti in order to save Jasbir and others and within 5-7 seconds of his arrival at the place of occurrence both P.W.-4 Madan and deceased-Jasbir had snatched the weapons ( lathi and ballam) from the accused persons and had wielded them and that only after they had assaulted the accused persons, both Madan Singh and Jasbir had received injuries as a result of which Jasbir fell down. 17. What we find from the above lines of evidence of P.W.-2 at pages 43 and 44 of the paper book is that it appears contrary to his evidence in examination-in-chief as also the evidence at page 40 of the paper book where he had stated that during the 'marpeet' Jasbir ( deceased) had snatched the ballam from Netrapal and Madan Singh had snatched the lathi from Janak Singh and the two had wielded the two weapons in self-defence as a result of which accused Janak Singh had received injuries. What we further find from the evidence of P.W.-2 at pages 43-44 is that it appears that he was not present at the time of the main occurrence when the informant, his two sons and the injured Sarjeet ( not examined) were allegedly assaulted by the accused persons. He could not be a trustworthy witness as his evidence in examination-in-chief is contrary to that at page 43 of the paper book. However, what appears admitted from the prosecution evidence including that of P.W.-2 was that Janak Singh one of the accused persons was assaulted with lathi and ballam. 18. This fact that Janak Singh was injured further appears established from the evidence of P.W.-9, S. I. M.P.S. Bana, the first Investigating Officer, who had stated in paragraph-3 of his evidence that he learnt while he had gone in the hospital to record the statement of injured witness Madan Singh ( P.W.-4) who was hospitalised there that Janak Singh was also hospitalised in the same hospital and he recorded his statement there and formally arrested him. This fact was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-5, Dr. G. S. Gupta, who had also examined accused Janak Singh on 09.11.1980 at 2.05 p.m. for the injuries and had issued the injury report Ext. Kha.-1 in that behalf. 19. The oral evidence of witnesses, like, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 indicates that besides lathi, balkatti and ballam which were used by the appellants in assaulting the four injured including the deceased, appellant-Narendra and Kehar had dealt blows with lathi while appellants Rajendra and Prakashi had given blows with balkatti which is a sharp cutting weapon. Appellant Netrapal was said to have given blows with ballam on the injured persons. There is no inconsistency on the above facts in the evidence of at least two injured witnesses, like, P.W.-1 Hansraj, the informant of the case and his son P.W.-4 Madan Singh, who was also injured as per the prosecution case in the same incident. But, what we find from the evidence of the doctor is that there was no injury, which could be said to be caused by a weapon like a ballam which is a sharp pointed weapon and which is supposed to have caused a penetrating or a piercing wound, especially, when the injuries present on the dead body are considered. The deceased Jasbir was firstly examined in the hospital by Dr. The deceased Jasbir was firstly examined in the hospital by Dr. G. S. Gupta ( P.W.-5) who noted the following injuries on his person:- 1.Lacerated wound 5cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the right side of head, 4 cm. above the right ear. 2.Lacerated wound 4.5 cm. X 1.5 cm. x bone deep, 4cm apart and medial to injury no. 1. this wound was also bone deep. 3.Lacerated wound 4cm. x 2cm. scalp deep, 2cm. medial to injury no.2. 4.Lacerated wound 3cm. x 1.5cm., 6cm. behind injury no. 1. 5.lacerated wound 1cm. X 1.5cm. on the right side of forehead. 1.5 cm. above the right eye brow. 6. Contusion 8 cm. x 4cm. on right forearm in its back and middle. 7. Contused swelling 6cm. X 4cm. left side of face on its upper part. 8.Contusion with swelling 8cm. X 6cm. on the left leg its outer and lower part. 20. In the opinion of doctor ( P.W.-5), all injuries except injury no. 5 were simple caused by hard and blunt substance and the injuries were fresh and bleeding. Jasveer was hospitalised in a semi-conscious state. 21 As regards the injury of Sarjeet, who was not examined in trial, there was a solitary incised wound which was found by P.W.-5, measuring 8cm x 3 cm up to bone deep on left forearm, outside the upper part near elbow. It was also profusely bleeding. In the opinion of the doctor, it was caused by some sharp cutting weapon and was kept under observation. P.W.-5 had also examined P.W.-4, Madan Singh, the son of the informant and had found the following injuries on his person: 1.Lacerated wound 5cm. x 2cm. up to scalp deep with traumatic swelling in an area 8cm. X 6cm. on top of head, in middle. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 1.5 cm on front of head, 11 cm. above left ear. 3. Incised wound 2 cm. X 1/2 cm. muscle deep on the left side of face 1.5 cm away from left ear. 4.Traumatic swelling 8 cm. x 6cm. on left forearm in the middle, with deformation and fracture of both bones underneath the injury. 5.Contused swelling 8cm. x 6cm. on left arm on outer upper part. 6.Abraded contusion 6cm. x 4cm. on left elbow. 7.Traumatic swelling on the whole of left hand including fingers also. 8.Contused swelling 23cm. x 7cm. 4.Traumatic swelling 8 cm. x 6cm. on left forearm in the middle, with deformation and fracture of both bones underneath the injury. 5.Contused swelling 8cm. x 6cm. on left arm on outer upper part. 6.Abraded contusion 6cm. x 4cm. on left elbow. 7.Traumatic swelling on the whole of left hand including fingers also. 8.Contused swelling 23cm. x 7cm. on the left leg including foot. 9.Contusion 6cm. x 4cm. on left buttock. 22. In the opinion of P.W.-5, injury No.-4 was grievous in nature and as regards injuries No. 7 and 8, they were kept under observation. P.W.-5 advised X-ray in respect of those injuries and further opined that injuries other than 4, 7 and 8 were simple in nature. The patient was bleeding profusely and he was hospitalised. 23. So far the informant Hansraj was concerned, he was also having the following injuries on his person at the time of his examination by P.W.-5:- 1.Lacerated wound 6cm. X 2cm. on left side of head, 8cm. above left ear which was up to scalp deep. 2.Lacerated wound 3cm. X 1cm. up to scalp deep on middle of head. 3.Lacerated wound 5cm.x2cm mussel deep up to scalp deep on left side of head. 4.'T' shaped Incised wound on medial side of left hand measuring 5cm. X 3cm. up to muscle deep. The injury was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. 5.Contused swelling on the whole of left hand. 6.Contused swelling 17cm. x 6cm. on left leg on its whole part. 7.Contusion 10cm. x 3cm. on right leg on its middle. 8.Contusion 7cm. x 4cm. on the top of right shoulder. 24. In the opinion of P.W.-5, injuries no. 4, 5 and 6 were kept under observation and other injuries were simple in nature. Injuries no. 4 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon, which was bleeding profusely. Thus, what we find is that there were incised wounds on the person of Sarjeet Singh, who was not examined, Madan Singh and the informant Hansraj. The deceased Jasbir did not have any incised wound. Sarjeet, Madan Singh and Hansraj had one incised injury each on their persons besides none of the four injured had any injury, which could be said to be caused by a sharp pointed weapon, like, ballam. The opinion of P.W.-5 is also silent as he did not find any injury caused by ballam. Sarjeet, Madan Singh and Hansraj had one incised injury each on their persons besides none of the four injured had any injury, which could be said to be caused by a sharp pointed weapon, like, ballam. The opinion of P.W.-5 is also silent as he did not find any injury caused by ballam. As against the above, on perusal of the injuries found on the person of accused Janak Sing, what we find is that P.W.-5, Dr. G.S. Gupta found two penetrating wounds on his person each measuring 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm; one was on the left side of chest 4cm. below the left clavicle bone. The depth of the injury was not probed. The margin of the wound was slit. The other penetrating wound was on the right side of chest 3cm. below the clavicle. The depth of the injury was not not probed and accused Janak Singh was kept under observation. 25. In addition to the above two penetrating wounds noted by P.W.-5, other injuries on the accused Janak Singh were as under: ( 1)Lacerated wound 2cm. X 1/4 cm. upto scalp deep on the top of head in its middle. ( 2)Traumatic contused swelling 6cm. X 4 cm. on the dorsum of left hand, the injury was kept under observation. ( 3)Lacerated wound 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. on the dorsum of left index finger in its middle. ( 4)Abrasion 2cm. X 1cm. on the back of left little figure. 26. In the opinion of P.W.-5, the injuries except the penetrating wounds on the left chest below the left clavicular bone and those on the finger of the left hand of accused Janak Singh, were all simple in nature and the two penetrating wounds had been caused by some pointed object. All the injured persons including accused were examined on 09.11.1980 and it appears that the injuries on the injured, like, P.Ws.-1 and 4 and the deceased besides Sarjeet, were all fresh. So far as the injuries on accused-Janak Singh was concerned, P.W.-5 had stated that they were also caused on 09.11.1980 around 8-00 a.m. 27. From the perusal of the injuries of the accused and the witnesses and deceased what appears is that it could not be said that no occurrence had taken place. So far as the injuries on accused-Janak Singh was concerned, P.W.-5 had stated that they were also caused on 09.11.1980 around 8-00 a.m. 27. From the perusal of the injuries of the accused and the witnesses and deceased what appears is that it could not be said that no occurrence had taken place. The prosecution alleged that it were accused who had come and dealt blows with lathi, balkatti and ballam to them, specially to deceased, the informant and PW-4 as a result of which four persons who were injured, were hospitalised in the Government Hospital, Saharanpur. The injury on Janak Singh was attempted to be explained by alleging that while the accused persons were assaulting the informant and his son, PW.-4 Madan Singh and the deceased-Jasbir respectively, snatched lathi and ballam from Janak Singh and from Netrapal and dealt blows to the accused person in self defence. This is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 as also of P.W.-2 in his examination-in-chief who in cross-examination, as we have noted earlier, stated that before having snatched the weapon, like, ballam and lathi from the hands of Netrapal and Janak Singh and after the accused persons had been assaulted by P.W.-4 and the deceased both of them had not been assaulted. This evidence creates a situation of doubt as regards the evidence of other witnesses who state that it were the accused persons, who had started giving blows with their respective weapons as soon as they had arrived. Lathi and balkatti had been used in giving blows to the three injured persons except the deceased, appears indicated by the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. G.S. Gupta and on perusal of the post-mortem examination report Ext. Ka.-2 the same inference appears raised by it that the deceased had been assaulted only with hard and blunt substance as a result of which he had received as many as 7 injuries as per P.W.-5 Dr. G. S. Gupta and 10 injuries as per P.W.-3 Dr. R.C. Vedi who had performed autopsy on his dead body. The death was caused due to comma, which had resulted on account of the head injuries which were injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 and which undisputedly were caused by hard and blunt substance. These injuries were found both by P.W.-3 and P.W.-5, the two doctors, on the dead body on the person of deceased. The death was caused due to comma, which had resulted on account of the head injuries which were injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 and which undisputedly were caused by hard and blunt substance. These injuries were found both by P.W.-3 and P.W.-5, the two doctors, on the dead body on the person of deceased. Thus, what appears from the reading of the evidence of the two doctors is that no ballam blow was given to any of the four injured persons. 28. The prosecution case was that Netrapal was armed with a ballam and his ballam was snatched by deceased Jasbir as appears from the evidence of P.Ws.-1, 2 and 3, and he gave blows with the weapons to the accused persons in self-defence. Janak Singh was bearing two penetrating wounds which appears as serious in nature as to be dangerous to his life as per the opinion of P.W.-5 Dr. G.S.Gupta and thus, that part of the prosecution evidence that deceased Jasbir had dealt blows with ballam to the accused appears corroborated. The other part of the prosecution story that Netrapal being armed with a ballam had assaulted the injured of the prosecution side appears out and out a false story, which creates a serious doubt regarding the participation of appellant-Netrapal in commission of offence. The other part of the prosecution story that the two, that is, deceased-Jasbir and P.W.-4, Madan Singh had assaulted the accused persons with ballam and lathi respectively, after having snatched those weapons from Netrapal and Janak Singh becomes partly false as Netrapal could not be said to be armed with ballam as just noticed by us. As such, it becomes admitted that deceased Jasbir was armed with ballam. Janak Singh had caused injury to him by lathi also and it appears that P.W.-2 Amar Singh was not making a false and wrong statement in Court when he was stating that before deceased-Jasbir and P.W.-4 Madan Singh started giving blows with ballam and lathi to Janak Singh and other accused persons, he had not seen any of the accused person assaulting either the deceased or any person on the prosecution side ( P.W.-2 at page 40 of the paper book). This appears more probable because none other than Janak Singh was bearing an injury though there was specific story of all five appellants having participated in commission of the offence and they were also alleged to be assaulted by deceased Jasbir and P.W.-4 Madan Singh. The absence of any injury on the person of the five appellants makes the prosecution story yet again doubtful as regards participation of accused persons other than Janak. 29. The above discussion though creates a balance of probabilities regarding the prosecution party being aggressors but that does not give the real picture as to what would have been the reason for them and six others who, as per the F.I.R. and evidence, had come to clean sugar-cane for coming over the the land on the date of occurrence and to have indulged into an act of violence by beating up his opponents. It is true that number of injured persons on the prosecution side was four and injuries were also huge, that's, twenty six. On considering the injuries of informant and his two sons PW.-4 Madan Singh and the deceased Jasbir, and Sarjeet, who was not examined and as such, we do not have any oral evidence coming from him that he was also assaulted and injured in the same occurrence though the evidence of P.W. 5 Doctor G.S. Gupta indicated that it was a solitary wound which was incised in nature and was caused by some sharp edged weapon which might be a balcatti. But, the other evidence as regards the possession of a party over the disputed land makes it all the more clear that the probability could be that the prosecution party had come over the land with a band of persons named in the F.I.R. to cut and clean the sugar-cane plants after having armed themselves fully with a view to taking possession of the land forcibly and might be that they had assaulted Janak Singh who had come to oppose them and the prosecution witnesses were assaulted in retaliation. 30. 30. The above appears more a probability on facts admitted by the prosecution witnesses which makes the very story of purchasing the land not acceptable as the informant has admitted in paragraph -8 of his evidence that at the time of purchasing the land, his relationship with accused Janak Singh was not good and he was suggested that he had forged and fabricated the deed of transfer, which was indeed executed by accused Janak Singh in favour of his wife, by getting inserted the name of his son Madan Singh ( P.W.-4). P.W.-1, initially, denied that the deed was also in the name of any other person than his son ( P.W.-4) Madan Singh. But, in paragraph-16 of his evidence he stated that the sale deed also had the name of Parbati wife of accused Janak Singh as one of the transferees of the land. The claim of the prosecution was that P.W.-1 and his family was in possession of the land through his son Madan Singh( P.W.-4) and had been enjoying possession over it by tilling the land and raising crops. But, this claim of the prosecution also appears not acceptable as the informant ( P.W.-1) has himself admitted in the same paragraph 8 at page 28 of the paper book that after two or two and half years of the execution of the transfer deed or sale deed, as the case may be, he had applied for obtaining the possession over the land in question. As such, he was suggested that he had never been in possession of the land. The land in question covered by the deed of sale being in possession of the accused also appears admitted as he was stating in paragraph 16 that the name of Parbati Devi w/o Janak Singh ( accused) was inserted in the deed of sale for the reason that the name of the purchaser could not have been mutated into the revenue records if the area would have been less than 20 Bighas. Hence, three bigha pukhta land, which was as per submission equal to 12 Bigha of Kham land, was shown in the name of Parbati Devi wife of accused Janak Singh and four Bigha pucca ( Pukhta) land was assigned into the name of P.W.-4 Madan Singh in the same sale deed. The sale deed was not produced during trial. Hence, three bigha pukhta land, which was as per submission equal to 12 Bigha of Kham land, was shown in the name of Parbati Devi wife of accused Janak Singh and four Bigha pucca ( Pukhta) land was assigned into the name of P.W.-4 Madan Singh in the same sale deed. The sale deed was not produced during trial. As such, the court could not find out as to what exact area was transferred to Parvati Devi and Madan ( P.W.-4). But, in view of the admission it is concluded that the name of Parbati Devi was definitely there in the sale deed. What surprises us the most is that P.W.-1 was very well admitting in the same paragraph 16 at page 33 of the paper book that the name of his son was inserted. He stated that the sale deed or transfer deed was created by accused Janak Singh in the name of his wife Parbati and he had indeed inserted his name in it. Thus, the suggestion that the document was forged by the informant to lay a fake claim over the land appears not only a mere suggestion but a concrete fact which appears admitted by P.W.-1, the informant of the case. 31. Apart from the above admissions which we have just noticed, the evidence of the same witness ( P.W.-1) as also that of P.W.-4 Madan Singh indicates as if the accused persons had been in possession of the land and had never parted with it. In this connection we have already referred to the evidence of P.W.-1 in paragraph 8 wherein he had admitted that he had applied for delivery of possession to him in respect of the land after two or two and half years of the execution of the deed by filing an application. The suggestion was that he had done it after four years of execution of the deed of transfer. It becomes immaterial as to what was the period when the application was made by P.W.-1 for obtaining possession over the land. The material conclusion is that he did not come in possession of the land in question ever after the transfer deed was scribed. It becomes immaterial as to what was the period when the application was made by P.W.-1 for obtaining possession over the land. The material conclusion is that he did not come in possession of the land in question ever after the transfer deed was scribed. The reason is apparent from the very evidence of P.W.-1 that the land was indeed transferred to Parvati Devi W/o accused Janak Singh and the informant probably played fraud and got his son's name inserted in it. As such, in spite of the deed being scribed, Janak Singh continued in possession over there. The oral evidence coming from P.W.-1 in paragraph 9 further leads to the same conclusion. P.W.-1 stated in paragraph 9 that wheat crops had been sown prior to the quarrel over 12 Bighas of land and that wheat crop had been harvested by accused Janak. P.W.-1 stated that he had stealthily harvested the crop and he had lodged a case in that respect. But, he admitted that accused Janak Singh had been acquitted in lack of evidence. This fact has also been admitted by P.W.-4 Madan Singh, whose name was inserted in the sale deed, as may appear from page 56 of the paper books. 32. It is true that the witnesses had stated that the sugar-cane plants were raised by P.Ws. 1 and 4 but we have serious reservations in accepting their claim, in view of the evidence, we have just discussed, regarding the real possession over the property of the parties. The evidence convincingly points out that it were the accused persons, who were in possession of the land. 33. The learned trial judge has referred to a decision of this court in Tikam and others Vs. State reported in 1971 A.Cr.R. 279 in which this Court stated that where the happening of the event is almost admitted and both sides have received injuries, the nature and number of injuries also indicate as to which party was the aggressor. In Tikam ( supra) also 4 persons were injured and the total number of injuries was 27. It was held that the above circumstances indicated that the accused persons were the aggressors. 34. In our considered view the above proposition in a case of admitted assault and counter assault may be applied where there was ambiguity about the possession of a party over a disputed land. It was held that the above circumstances indicated that the accused persons were the aggressors. 34. In our considered view the above proposition in a case of admitted assault and counter assault may be applied where there was ambiguity about the possession of a party over a disputed land. In a case where the evidence of witnesses or State of documentary evidence was such which was not presenting a clear picture regarding the claim or counter claim of the parties regarding their individual possession over the disputed property, then the above principle could be applied. But, where evidence, either oral or documentary or both, led to a definite and clear inference that a particular party was in possession over the land, then the court should not adopt the principle laid down in Tikam ( supra). 35. In Antu Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1971 SC 1213 ( also reported in ( 1970) 3 SCC 937 ) the accused persons were shown in the revenue records in forcible-possession or in possession without legal right. The complainant party had come to disturb the possession of the accused and, as such, they were held to be aggressors. 36. The facts of the present case appear nearer to the facts of Biri Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 Supp. ( 2) SCC 264. In Biri Singh, the dispute was for land and it was found to be in possession of the accused and, as in the case in hand, the prosecution party were found having committed criminal trespass into the land in possession of accused to prevent them from ploughing it. The accused party attacked two of the deceased on their vital parts with dangerous weapons. It was held that the deceased-party were aggressors and the accused might have acted in exercise of their right of private defence. 37. Thus, the view of this court in Tikam ( supra) could not be applied to the facts of this case; as I have already noted on considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the informant was never in possession of the land rather he was striving to get possession over it after having forged the deed of transfer. 38. 37. Thus, the view of this court in Tikam ( supra) could not be applied to the facts of this case; as I have already noted on considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the informant was never in possession of the land rather he was striving to get possession over it after having forged the deed of transfer. 38. The learned trial judge had held, by referring to a judgement by the VIth Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 100 of 1978, that the informant was in possession of the disputed property. But, what we find is that the learned trial judge himself has held at page 22 of the impugned judgement that the judgement of a criminal court does not have binding effect. As such, the finding regarding possession of the informant over the disputed land appears shaky. We want to point out that even the judgement by a civil court even if it was in respect of the title of any person, may not be of any consequence, as the essential question in cases of the present nature always concerns the actual possession, even if it is illegal, of a party on the day of occurrence and the case in that behalf has to be recorded as proved or disproved with reference to such possession, which question has to be decided only in view of the evidence which may be available to the trial court. It is why that it has consistently been held by Courts that the contents of a judgement and the findings recorded by it in it are not admissible in another trial-proceedings. The learned trial judge appears, in our view, ignoring the admissions of P.Ws. 1 and 4 and was considering extraneous, inadmissible materials to judge the issue of possession of the sides over the disputed land wrongly in favour of the informant. 39. It is true that out of four persons injured in the occurrence one succumbed to his injuries. But the manner of assault with the use of a weapon by accused appears not established, rather the probability is that deceased Jasveer Singh might have been armed with that weapon and had given blows to accused Janak Singh to cause two injuries which were dangerous to his life. But the manner of assault with the use of a weapon by accused appears not established, rather the probability is that deceased Jasveer Singh might have been armed with that weapon and had given blows to accused Janak Singh to cause two injuries which were dangerous to his life. If the informant was not in possession of the land, as appears the only conclusion to be drawn on evidence, then he appears to have assembled persons named in F.I.R. and further appears coming to the land to dispossess the accused persons. We have doubt regarding participation of the appellants in the occurrence as we are of the view that it was Janak Singh who was present there and was badly assaulted. May be, that the informant and others had been assaulted by persons who could have rushed to save accused Janak Singh and that the four persons got injured. We are further of the view that the prosecution had probably suppressed the true facts as a result of which we allow the appeal and acquit the appellants of the charges they had been found guilty of and were sentenced. They are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 40. The appeal stands allowed in terms indicated above.