ORDER : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. By this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the appellants seek to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk in Sessions Case No. 58/2004 whereby all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-- 1. Under Section 148 IPC:-- each of the appellants to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month; 2. Under Section 447 IPC: each of the appellants to undergo two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for seven days; 3. Under Sections 302, 302/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 4. Under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Under Sections 325, 325/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months." 2. All substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Facts of case, as summarized, are that on 28.6.2004, Budhalal (PW-16), Sub-Inspector, Police Station Newai recorded Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-56) of injured Shaitan son of Ram Niwas Meena. Said Parcha Bayan, when translated into English, reads as under:-- "Parcha Bayan of Shri Shaitan S/o. Ram Niwas, by caste Meena, aged 24 years, agriculturist by profession resident of Govindpura, Police Station Newai, District Tonk, who stated that I am residing at Govindpura and doing agriculture work. Today i.e. on 28.6.04 at about 8.00 I along with two ploughs, out of which one was to be driven by bullocks and the another by the camel, went to our land known as bolyawali. Today i.e. on 28.6.04 at about 8.00 I along with two ploughs, out of which one was to be driven by bullocks and the another by the camel, went to our land known as bolyawali. Govind son of Bhajjya, Sheyonarain son of Ladu, Harpal son of Ladu, Budh Ram son of Ladu, Ramawatar son of Govinda, Sita Ram son of Govinda, Narvada widow of Ladu, wife of Govinda, Durga D/o Ladu with a common intention came there armed with Lakdi, Gandasi and Kulahadi and started ploughing our field bearing Kharsa No. 29/2. We four brothers, Mool Chand, Kailash, Prahlad and I along with my mother Gula, my sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mahima W/o Mool chand, Santra W/o Kailash, Kajodi, my wife, Kesar and Mamta, Seema D/o Kailash and Jyoti who were grazing goats there told them not to plough our land. Hearing this, they opened attack upon me and my brothers with 'lathi', 'gandasi' and 'kulhari'. Ramavatar had a 'gandasi' in his hand, Sheo Narain had a 'barchi', Sita Ram had a 'kulhari' and others had 'lakdies' and 'lathies' wrapped with wires. Due to the attack Prahlad sustained injuries by 'kulhari' and 'farsis' on his head and Prahlad also sustained injuries by 'lakdis' on his hands and legs. Thereafter, the accused inflicted blows by 'kulhari' and 'farsis' on the head of Kailash and his hands and legs were also broken. Mool Chand inflicted a farsi blow on my head and Ramotar inflicted a 'farsi' blow on my ear and all of them inflicted 'lathi' blows on me due to which I suffered injuries on various parts of my body. When my mother Gulab, my bhabhi Mahima, Santra and niece Kesar came for the rescue they were also beaten by 'lathis', 'gandasi' due to which they also suffered injuries on various parts on their bodies. In the occurrence my niece Seema also sustained injuries. My cousin Durga took all of us in a camel cart and then by the Jeep of Nanda Yadav, to Newai Hospital where my both brothers succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons with common intention to grab our land had opened attack to kill us due to which my elder brothers Prahlad and Kailash died. Sd/- Shaitan sd/- Budha Lal S.I. Police Station Newai 28.6.04. HC Newai." 4. The accused persons with common intention to grab our land had opened attack to kill us due to which my elder brothers Prahlad and Kailash died. Sd/- Shaitan sd/- Budha Lal S.I. Police Station Newai 28.6.04. HC Newai." 4. On the basis of aforementioned parcha bayan (Exhibit P-56) a formal FIR No. 213/2004 (Exhibit P-57), was chalked out for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 307 and 302 IPC on 28.6.2004 at Police Station Newai and investigation commenced. Injured Moolchand also succumbed to the injuries on 12.07.2004. Postmortem on the dead bodies of Prahlad, Kailash and Mool Chand was got conducted. During the course of investigation, site plan (Exhibit P-72) of the place of occurrence was drawn. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the injured persons were got examined for their injuries. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused-appellants in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Upon committal, learned trial court framed charges against the appellants for various offences including offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Appellants denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined thirty six witnesses, and got 87 documents exhibited from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-87. Statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations and claimed that they went to plough their own field and the members of the complainant party attacked them for which criminal case is going on against them. In defence, they got six witnesses examined and also got documents Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-27 exhibited. After going through documentary as also oral evidence and considering rival submissions, learned trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2009, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 6. During pendency of appeal, appellant Sheonarain @ Chuttaya died on 18.10.2015. Photo copy of his death certificate dated 23.10.2015 issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jodhpuria, Panchayat Samiti Newai, District Tonk, has been produced on record. Hence, his appeal stands abated. 7. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the FIR (Ex. 6. During pendency of appeal, appellant Sheonarain @ Chuttaya died on 18.10.2015. Photo copy of his death certificate dated 23.10.2015 issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jodhpuria, Panchayat Samiti Newai, District Tonk, has been produced on record. Hence, his appeal stands abated. 7. Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the FIR (Ex. P/57) discloses that the incident took place on the land of Khasra No. 29/2 and the trial court has also framed the charge on the premise that the incident took place at Khasra No. 29/2 whereas during the trial, the stand of the prosecution has been that the incident took place at Khasra No. 25. Thus, the error in framing the charges has caused prejudice to the appellants and thereby the appellants have been unable to defend their case. He submits that the site map (Exhibit P-72) proves that the incident took place at Khasra No. 25. Blood smeared sand was also recovered from the same Khasra, which proves that the whole story of the prosecution is concocted. The trial court has recorded the finding that the incident has taken place at the boundary of Khasra No. 29/2 whereas according to site map (Exhibit P-72), blood was found at Khasra No. 25. No blood had been found at the boundary of Khasra No. 29/2, nor has there been any symptoms of altercation. He also states that it is proved from Exhibit D-2 to D-6 and Exhibit D-20, Exhibit P-28 and Exhibit P-30 and the Statement of Patwari Puran Singh (PW-9) that Khasra No. 25 is in the Khatedari and possession of the appellants. There is no evidence which may show that complainants have Khatedari or possession of Khasra No. 25. The trial court has fallen in serious error while holding that Khasra No. 25 was in the Khatedari and possession of the complainants. The appellants had the right of private defence in respect of Khasra No. 25 which was in their Khatedari and possession. Learned counsel also submits that simple and grievous hurts have been found also on the body of accused Narvada Meena, Sheo Narayan Meena, Harpal Meena, Budh Ram Meena, Govind Meena, Ramavatar Meena and Rukamani Meena, which is proved by their injury reports. Learned counsel also submits that simple and grievous hurts have been found also on the body of accused Narvada Meena, Sheo Narayan Meena, Harpal Meena, Budh Ram Meena, Govind Meena, Ramavatar Meena and Rukamani Meena, which is proved by their injury reports. No explanation has been given on behalf of prosecution about these injuries, which is fatal for the prosecution and the prosecution has concealed an important vital fact from the court. He submits that prosecution witnesses PW-19 to PW-25 and PW-28 to PW-30 have improved their statements substantially and there are serious and substantive contradictions in their statements. The trial court fell in serious error in convicting the appellants on the basis of the statements of such witnesses. These witnesses have changed the whole story of the prosecution and have also changed the very place of occurrence, thereby suppressing genesis of the incident. The fact that the place of occurrence was in the possession and cultivation of the appellants was concealed from the court. 8. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that in fact complainants were aggressors and they wanted to take Khasra No. 25, which was in the possession and cultivation of the appellants, and therefore the incident took place. Thus, conviction of appellants by the trial court is erroneous. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any human blood found on any of the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants. The trial court fell in error in convicting the appellants relying on such recoveries. Sections 148 and 149 of IPC are not applicable because the appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence. Therefor, appellants could not have been convicted taking recourse to the provisions of Section 148 and 149 of IPC. He also submits that Ramphool (PW-26) has categorically accepted in his statement that disputed land was in possession of appellants and he has been seeing them cultivating it since his childhood. The prosecution has not got this witness declared hostile. Thus, prosecution still relies on the statement of this witness. Hence, possession of appellants over the place of occurrence is proved by witness of the prosecution itself. Shaitan (PW-19) has said more than once in his statement that altercation took place at Khasra No. 29/2. Other prosecution witnesses have also deposed to the same effect. Thus, this stands fully proved that no incident took place at Khasra No. 29/2. Hence, possession of appellants over the place of occurrence is proved by witness of the prosecution itself. Shaitan (PW-19) has said more than once in his statement that altercation took place at Khasra No. 29/2. Other prosecution witnesses have also deposed to the same effect. Thus, this stands fully proved that no incident took place at Khasra No. 29/2. 9. In support of his argument, learned counsel for appellants Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, has placed reliance on Abdul Kadir v. State of AsSam, AIR 1986 SC 305 , State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Ors., AIR 1970 SC 27 , Tek Chand & Anr. v. State of Harayana, AIR 1972 SC 228 , Dev Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 473 , Miter Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1156 , Chanan Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1114 , Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 (1) SC 1316, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2010 (1) SC 1212, Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975 , Devi Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 SC 1444 , Uggar Aheer & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 (1) SC 277, Aalam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423 , Gurunath Manohar Pawaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Sidhappa Nawalgund & Ors., AIR 2008 (1) SC 901, Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272 and Javed Masood and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 979 . 10. Per contra, Shri Sudesh Saini, learned Public Prosecutor, argued that Shaitan (PW-19), Mahima (PW-21), Gulab (PW-22), Santra (PW-23), Seema (PW-25) & Kesar (PW-29) are all members of complainant party and they have received injuries in the incident. Thus, it cannot be disputed that they are eye witnesses and these witnesses support the story of the prosecution. He also submits that there is no contradiction among the statements of the witnesses and it is proved from the statements of all these eye witnesses that appellants-accused came to the place of occurrence armed with dangerous weapons and assaulted the members of complainant side, wherein three members of complainant side, namely, Prahlad, Kailash and Moolchand lost their lives. He also submits that there is no contradiction among the statements of the witnesses and it is proved from the statements of all these eye witnesses that appellants-accused came to the place of occurrence armed with dangerous weapons and assaulted the members of complainant side, wherein three members of complainant side, namely, Prahlad, Kailash and Moolchand lost their lives. He submits that appellants were aggressors and Khasra No. 25, where incident took place, was in possession of complainant party, which is fully proved by Exhibit P-69. He also states that the appellants had no right of private defence. Injuries received by appellants are of simple nature and absence of explanation for these injuries is not fatal for the prosecution. He submits that the fact that all appellants were present at the place of occurrence, they assaulted the members of complainant party and death of three members of the complainant party was caused thereby, is fully proved. 11. Shri N.A. Naqvi, learned senior counsel for complainant, also supported the impugned judgment. He placed reliance on Raj Singh v. State of Harayana, 2015(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 44, Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 , Jassa Singh & Ors. v. The State of Harayana, AIR 2002 SC 520 , State of Rajasthan v. Rambharosi & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3016 , Onkar Nath Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1550 , Bhanwar Singh and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657 , Rajendra v. The State of Haryana, (1995) 5 SCC 187 , Ramnarayana v. The State of Rajasthan - 2003 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1558, Lalji v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1989) 1 SCC 437 , Avatar Singh v. The State of Harayana, AIR 2013 SC 286 and The state of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan, AIR 2013 SC 2342 . 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Sudesh Saini as well as Shri N.A. Naqvi, learned senior advocate for complainants. 13. Before proceeding further to examine the arguments on merits of the case, we first of all deal with the precedents relied on by learned counsel for accused-appellants. 14. In State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Others, supra, the Apex Court observed as under:- "7......... 13. Before proceeding further to examine the arguments on merits of the case, we first of all deal with the precedents relied on by learned counsel for accused-appellants. 14. In State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Others, supra, the Apex Court observed as under:- "7......... Some of the respondents were armed with bhalas but it is not possible to any which of them were so armed and which of them inflicted the fatal wounds on Ramdhari and Ramswarup. Accordingly we cannot convict any of he respondents under Section 302. The only question is whether they can be convicted under Section 302 read with either Section 149 or Section 34. 8. In Order to attract the provisions of Section 149 the prosecution must establish that there was an unlawful assembly and that the crime was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Under the fourth clause of Section 141 an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object of its members is to enforce any right or supposed right by means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person. Section 141 must be read with Section 96 to 106 dealing with the right of private defence......"to enforce any right or supposed right." in the fourth clause of Section 141....... (AIR 1950 FC 80)..... without considering the question as to who was actually in possession of the plot at the time of the occurrence........ The Federal Court se aside the conviction and sentence. It held that the High Court Judge stated the law too loosely "if by the use of the word 'vindicate' he meant to include even cases in which a party is forced to maintain or defend his rights." 9. The charges against the respondents were that they " were members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of.......... The object of the respondent's party was to prevent the commission of theft of the mahua fruits in exercise of their right of private defence of property. This object was not unlawful. Nor is it possible to say that their common object was to kill Ramdhari and Ramswarup. Those who killed them exceeded the right of private defence and may be individually held responsible for the murders. This object was not unlawful. Nor is it possible to say that their common object was to kill Ramdhari and Ramswarup. Those who killed them exceeded the right of private defence and may be individually held responsible for the murders. But the murders were not committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or were not such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The accused respondents cannot be made constructively responsible for the murders under Section 302 read with Section 149. 10. "In a case where the accused person could invoke the right of private defence it is manifest that no charge of rioting under Section 147 or Section 148,Indian penal Code can be established for the common object to commit an offence attributed in the charge under Section 147 or Section 148, Indian Penal Code is not made out....... The High Court rightly found that the respondents wanted to prevent the collection of mahua fruits and that a common intention of all of them to murder Ramdhari and Ramswarup was not established. 11.....In the present case, none of the respondents can be convicted under Section 302. As a common intention to murder Ramdhari or Ramswarup is not established, they cannot be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34." 15. In Dev Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- "5. In our opinion, the High Court does seem to have erred in law in convicting the appellant on the ground that he had exceeded the right of private defence. Really seems to have missed is the provision of law embodied in Section 102, Indian Penal Code. According to that section the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues .......... To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is section. The right of private defence is available for protection against-apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing, the aggressor for the offence committed by him. To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is section. The right of private defence is available for protection against-apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing, the aggressor for the offence committed by him. It is a preventive and not punitive right....... In our view, therefore, as soon as the appellant reasonably apprehended danger to his body even from a real threat on the part of the party of the complainant to assault him for the purpose of forcibly taking possession of the plots in dispute or of obstructing their cultivation, he got the right of private defence and to use adequate force against the wrongful aggressor in exercise of that right...... Again the approach of the High Court that merely because the complainant's party had used lathis, the appellant was not justified in using his spear is no less misconceived and insupportable. During the course of a marpeet......... This, as already stated, is an erroneous approach because at such moments an average human being cannot be expected to think calmly and control his action by weighing as to how much injury would sufficiently meet the aggressive designs of his opponents. As a result there is clear miscarriage of justice." 16. In Mitar Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- "5. Now, there are two serious infirmities in the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which threw grave doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case against the appellants. In the first place, the evidence clearly shows that, on the wide of the accused, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash received injuries in the incident which took place between the parties. The 2nd appellant had three contusions, the 3rd appellant had one lacerated would and Chandra Prakash had two lacerated wounds, two contusions and one abrasion. All these injuries according to Ds. Ram Niwas who examined appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash, could have been caused by a lathi or danda. The prosecution undoubtedly led evidence at the trial to explain how these injuries came to be received by appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash. All these injuries according to Ds. Ram Niwas who examined appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash, could have been caused by a lathi or danda. The prosecution undoubtedly led evidence at the trial to explain how these injuries came to be received by appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash. The witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that on hearing the noise of the fight, Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand came out of the house with lathis and started assaulting the appellants and their companions, suggesting that the injuries must have been received by appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash as a result of lathi blows given by Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand. But when we turn to the first information report which was lodged by Raghubar, Dayal, we do not find in it any mention of the names of Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand came out with Lathis and started assaulting the appellants and their companions in exercise of the right of private defence of the person of Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal. It is indeed strange that if Sun Kumar and Laxmi Chand did in fact come out of the house and start wielding lathis for saving Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal from further attack from the appellants and their companions, their names should not have been mentioned in the first information report The first information report does mention the names of Ram Kishan, Prem Nalwala, Budh Sen, Bhagwan Das and Raj Bahadur, but it makes no mention of Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand. Moreover, there is no explanation offered in the first information report as to how appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and Chandra Prakash came to received the injuries. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in regard to the incident cannot, therefore, be accepted at its face value and it cannot be relied upon implicitly for the purpose of founding the conviction of the appellants." 17. In Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- "7...... No blood was found from the field where the occurrence is stated by the prosecution to have occurred. If the incident had taken place there, some traces of the incident would certainly have been found from the field. In Butta Singh v. State of Punjab, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:-- "7...... No blood was found from the field where the occurrence is stated by the prosecution to have occurred. If the incident had taken place there, some traces of the incident would certainly have been found from the field. The prosecution has not explained the presence of blood near the tubewell of the appellant and the absence thereof in the field. The defence version, therefore, finds corroboration from this objective evidence also. Therefore, apart from the evidence of DW 1, the find of blood from near the tubewell is a factor which the prosecution was obliged to explain more so because it corroborates the defence version. If the defence version has to be rejected, this factor which weighs in favour of the defence ought to have been explained as an innocuous circumstance not affecting the genesis of the prosecution case........ 8. But here again if it is found that the incident occurred near the appellant's 'dera' and the tube well and not in the field as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, the substratum of the prosecution case would stand knocked out. As pointed out earlier the find of the blood and the deposition of DW-1 support the defence case. The reason for shifting the place of occurrence is obvious. If the incident occurred there and not in the disputed field, it would show that the prosecution party was the aggressor and not the appellant and his wife. It also does not stand to reason that the appellant would go to the disputed field with his wife and a 13 year boy to quarrel with men who were armed with deadly weapons. It is difficult to believe that he would expose his wife and son to the risk of being attacked...... 9. When two versions are before the Court, the version which is supported by objective evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly unless it has been properly explained. As stated earlier, the prosecution has not explained how blood was found from near the tube well and no blood was found from the spot v here according to them the incident occurred. 10. Both the appellant and his wife were attacked. They had sustained injuries. In the course of assault on them they caused injuries to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. 10. Both the appellant and his wife were attacked. They had sustained injuries. In the course of assault on them they caused injuries to the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. It is true that the High Court has come to the conclusion that all the injuries caused to the deceased were caused by the appellant Buta Singh. However, that is not the prosecution case. Besides, even if it were so, having regard to the nature of the incident, it is difficult to say that he exceeded the right of private defence for the obvious reason that he could not have weighed in golden scales in the heat of the moment the number of injuries required to disarm his assailants who were armed with lethal weapons. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the submission of the learned Counsel for the State cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. When the appellant's son frustrated their effort, they were annoyed and enraged. They, therefore, went to the 'dera' of the appellant and launched an attack. The appellant and his wife fought to repel the attack and in the course of the incident both sides sustained injuries. The appellant and his wife were clearly defending themselves and hence they had a right of private defence. This version surfaces as a more probable one in the facts and circumstances of the case. At any rate the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt." 18. In Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "When the substratum of the evidence given by the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution was found to be false, the only prudent course, in the circumstances of this case, left to the court was throw out the prosecution case in its entirety against all the accused. 19. In Devi Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Counsel for the appellants was correct in raising the principal contention in the forefront that the accused did never know that this was the prosecution case. It would rightly be said that if the bedrock of the prosecution case that Brijlal and Nathu came armed with guns to throw a challenge to Motaram and his cons could not prove as a fact, the whole prosecution case would fall like a pack of cards. It would rightly be said that if the bedrock of the prosecution case that Brijlal and Nathu came armed with guns to throw a challenge to Motaram and his cons could not prove as a fact, the whole prosecution case would fall like a pack of cards. In criminal trials it is of prime importance for the accused to know as to what exact prosecution case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted a new prosecution case cannot be made to imperial defence." 20. In Uggar Aheer & Ors. v. State of Bihar, supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "It is, therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. That is what the courts have done n this case. In effect, the courts disbelieved practically the whole version given by the witness in regard to the pursuit, the assault on the deceased with lathis, the accused going on a bicycle, and the deceased wresting the bhala from one of the appellants and attacking with the same two of the appellants, the case that the accused attacked the witnesses, and the assertion of the witness of their being disinterested spectators." 21. In Gurunath Manohar Pawaskar & Ors. v. Nagesh Sidhappa Nawalgund & Ors., supra, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "12. A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind." 22. We have analyzed the ratio of aforesaid cited judgments in the facts and circumstances of the present case and we respectfully agree with the proposition of law laid down in aforesaid judgments but on analyze the ratio thereof, none of the judgments would be applicable on the point and same are distinguishable. 23. In order to properly appreciate the matter, it is appropriate to briefly first discuss the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 23. In order to properly appreciate the matter, it is appropriate to briefly first discuss the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Raju (PW-1) proved in his testimony death of Prahlad and Kailash in the incident, Panchanama of their dead bodies (Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 respectively) by the Police, handing over of dead bodies to him under receipt (Ex. P-3 and P-4) and his signatures on the above Exhibits. Natwar Singh (PW-2), in his oral evidence, has mainly testified about preparation of panchanama of the dead bodies of Prahlad and Kailash, seizure and sealing of blood stained clothes of deceased Prahlad and Kailash, arrest of accused Sheo Narayan, Budh Ram, Durga Devi, Narvada and Rukmani and recovery of weapons used in altercation at their instance, by the police. Shankar Lal (PW-3) has, in his oral evidence, made statement about preparation of panchanama of the dead bodies of Prahlad and Kailash, recovery of their blood stained cloths and recovery of blood stained cloths of Shaitan Meena. Prem Chand (PW-4) has, in his oral evidence, proved preparation of panchanama of the dead bodies of Prahlad and Kailash by police on 28th June, 2004 and his signatures thereon. Prabhu Lal (PW-5) stated in his testimony that police seized and sealed the blood stained cloths of Shaitan in his presence. Chhotu (PW-6) has proved in his oral evidence recovery of weapons used in the incident at the instance of accused Sheo Narayan, Harpal, Budh Ram, Narvada, Rukmani and Durga and his signatures on the recovery memos. Ram Rai (PW-7) and Ramkishan (PW-8) have proved the preparation of panchanama of the dead body of deceased Moolchand by police on 12.07.2004 and their signatures thereon. 24. Shaitan (PW-19) has said in his testimony that appellants Govinda, Sheo Narayan, Harpal, Budh Ram, Sita Ram, Ramavatar, Narvada, Rukmani, Durga, etc. came on Neelawal field at 8 AM. They were armed with sticks, axes, hatchets, etc. and they started to cultivate the field soon they reached there. One of the plough was being driven by an ox and another by a camel. When they were asked not to cultivate the field, they started beating with the members of the complainant party and then left. Thereupon, her cousin brought them in camel cart upto the road and therefrom he took them to Newai hospital in a Jeep owned by Nanda Yadav. When they were asked not to cultivate the field, they started beating with the members of the complainant party and then left. Thereupon, her cousin brought them in camel cart upto the road and therefrom he took them to Newai hospital in a Jeep owned by Nanda Yadav. Thereafter, police came and recorded their statements. On the way to the Hospital, his brother Prahlad succumbed to injuries. Kailash also succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. Moolchand has also died on 12th July, 2004 due to these injuries. 25. Durga Lal (PW-20) has mainly said in his testimony that Harpal, Budh Ram, Sita Ram, Ramavatar, Govinda, Rukmani, Durga, Narvada, Sheo Narayan came on 28.6.2004 at about 6 o' clock. They were armed with sicks, axes, hatchets, poleaxes (Barchhi), etc. They were with ploughs driven by camel and ox. They started to cultivate the field. When Prahlad went to ask them not to cultivate, they assaulted him. Thereafter when Kailash went there, they also assaulted him. After that when Moolchand went there, the accused assaulted him with sticks, axes, hatchets, poleaxes (Barchhi) etc. After Moolchand, when Shaitan went there, they also assaulted him. Thereafter, Mahima, Santra, Gulab, Kesar, Mamta, Kajori etc. went there. The accused also assaulted them. In this altercation, Prahlad, Kailash, Moolchand, Shaitan, Mahima, Gulab, Kesar etc. received injuries. After altercation, accused left the place of occurrence. 26. Mahima (PW-21), while reiterating the statements of Durga Lal (PW-20), stated that Govinda, Ramavatar, Sita Ram, his wife Rukmani, Sonaram S/o. Ladu, Harpal, Budha, Durga, Narvada etc. came to their land. They had with them two ploughs, one driven by camel and another by ox. They started to cultivate the land. First of all Prahlad went to ask them not to cultivate the land, thereafter Kailash and after that her husband went there. Subsequently, her brother-in-law Shaitan went there. Those people assaulted all these one by one. They assaulted her mother-in-law, her daughter Kesar and also herself. Sonaram was armed with poleaxe (Barchhi), Ramavatar was armed with axe, Sita Ram was armed with hatchet ('kulhari') and others were armed with sticks wrapped with wire. These people assaulted their family members. After assaulting them, they left the place of occurrence. 27. Gulab (PW-22) stated in her testimony that she had four sons namely Prahlad, Kailash, Moolya and Shaitan. Three of them have died. Only one son Shaitan could survive this attack. These people assaulted their family members. After assaulting them, they left the place of occurrence. 27. Gulab (PW-22) stated in her testimony that she had four sons namely Prahlad, Kailash, Moolya and Shaitan. Three of them have died. Only one son Shaitan could survive this attack. Govinda, his two sons, three sons of Ladu, Ladu's wife, Govinda's wife and daughter of Ladhya came there. The accused murdered her three sons. They came behind the well with a plough driven by camel and another driven by an ox. The land where the well is situated belongs to them. The accused came there to sow millet. To ask them not to sow the field, first Prahlad, then Kailash, then Moolya and then Shaitan went there. The accused assaulted all three of them with axes, poleaxes and sticks and also with hatchets. From their house, she herself, Mahima, Santra, Kesar etc., also went there. These people also assaulted them. They also gave beating to their sons. Wife of Govinda and wife of Ladu beat her with sticks. She received blow of sticks on her head and right shoulder. 28. Santra (PW-23) stated in her testimony that accused Govinda, his son Ramavatar, Sita Ram, his wife Rukmani, Ladu's wife Narvada, his son Harpal, Sita Ram and his daughter Durga, Budh Ram, Harpal, Sheo Narayan etc. came to their field with two ploughs, one driven by camel and another driven by ox. Ramavatar and Sonaram were armed with axes and other accused were armed with sticks. Seeing them there, firstly Prahlad, then her husband, then Moolchand and then her brother-in-law Shaitan went there to forbid them. These all accused assaulted Prahlad, Shaitan, Kailash and Moolchand with axes, poleaxes (Barchhi) and sticks. All of them were assaulted with weapons. The accused started to assault Moolchand with poleaxes, axes and sticks as soon as he reached there. Thereafter they assaulted his brother-in-law Shaitan with hatchets, poleaxes and sticks. They, that is to say she herself, her elder sister-in-law Mahima, her mother-in-law Gulab and her daughter Seema etc. went there from their house. They had also started to assault them as soon as they reached there. She then further stated that Ramavatar assaulted her on head with axe and Sita Ram and Harpal assaulted her left hand with sticks. After the altercation, those people ran from the place of occurrence. 29. went there from their house. They had also started to assault them as soon as they reached there. She then further stated that Ramavatar assaulted her on head with axe and Sita Ram and Harpal assaulted her left hand with sticks. After the altercation, those people ran from the place of occurrence. 29. Mamta (PW-24) said in her examination-in-chief that it was 8 o'clock in the morning, she was grazing goats at the same place. Chuttaya @ Sheo Narayan, Harpal, Ramavatar, Sita Ram, Govinda, Rukmani, Narvada, Durga came there. They brought with them two ploughs, one driven by camel and another driven by ox. Sheo Narayan was armed with poleaxe, Ramavatar was armed with axe, Sita Ram was armed with hatchet and others were armed with sticks. They came with intent to assault. They came to their field and started to ploughing the field. Her father Moolchand and Shaitan came there and these people assaulted them. When her grandmother Gulab and sister Seema came there, these people also assaulted them. They caused injuries to her father Moolchand, uncle Prahlad, Kailash, Shaitan, mother Mahima and aunt Santra. Kesar has also received injury on her head. Her uncle Durga was seeing this incident therefore, he also rushed to the spot. These people ran way after the altercation. The aforesaid land was in the cultivation and possession of her father. 30. Seema (PW-25) deposed that their land is known as Nyolyawali land. She was at her home. Thereafter she went to the field with her mother Santra. There were nine people involved in the altercation. Out of whom, six were men and three were women. She received injury on left hand. This injury was caused to her by a woman. The Doctor examined her injury. 31. Madan (PW-27) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that altercation took place at the field of Sheo Narayan. The altercation took place among Sheo Narayan, Narvada, Rukmani etc. on one hand and Moolchand, Kailash, Prahlad, Shaitan, Santra, Kajori, Kesar and Mamta etc. on the other. He has not seen any injury to anyone. This witness was declared hostile at the instance of Additional Public Prosecutor. 32. Kajori (PW-28) has said in her examination-in-chief that she was grazing goats nearby the well. Jyoti and Mamta were also with her. Six men and three women came to her field. The men were Govinda, Sita Ram, Budha, Sheo Narayan, Durga, Rukmani. This witness was declared hostile at the instance of Additional Public Prosecutor. 32. Kajori (PW-28) has said in her examination-in-chief that she was grazing goats nearby the well. Jyoti and Mamta were also with her. Six men and three women came to her field. The men were Govinda, Sita Ram, Budha, Sheo Narayan, Durga, Rukmani. These people brought with them two ploughs, one driven by camel and another by ox and started to sow the field as soon as they came. First of all her elder brother-in-law Prahlad went to forbid them. They assaulted him with sticks, axes and poleaxes etc. To rescue of Prahlad, her elder brother-in-law went there. They also assaulted him with poleaxes and axes. Thereafter, her eldest brother-in-law Moolchand went there. The accused also assaulted him with sticks and axes, etc. Thereafter, her husband Shaitan went there. The accused also assaulted him. Thereafter her mother-in-law, elder sister-in-law Mahima, Santra and Kesar also came there. The accused also assaulted them. Her elder brother-in-law Durga, who was working in a nearby field, also came there. These people ran away from there after the incident. Kesar (PW-29) and Jyoti (PW-30) have reiterated above statements in their testimony. 33. Puran Singh (PW-9), who was Patwari of Patwar Circle Bidoli on the date of the incident, testified that the place indicated by SHO is Khasra No. 25. He also testified that land comprising of Khasra Nos. 29/2 and 28, measuring 7 Biswa, is of 'gairmumkin chah' category and is having an irrigation well. This land has been recorded in jamabandi as 1/3rd in the name of Narvada, Satyanarayan, Jainarayan, Harpal and Budh Ram, 1/3rd in the name of Ramniwas S/o. Ghasi and remaining 1/3rd in the name of Moolya S/o. Ramniwas. This well is shown in their Khata as common holding of all these persons. Report of the Patwari is Exhibit P-31. This witness has proved issue of Exhibit P-31 by him and his signatures on Exhibit P-30 and Exhibit P-31. Moolchand (PW-10) has deposed that Smt. Narvada Devi W/o Ladu and Smt. Rukmani W/o Govind were arrested by the police in his presence. Similarly, Lala Ram (PW-11) has proved in his testimony recovery of stick (lathi) by the police at the instance of accused Govinda in his presence. Madan (PW-12) has also testified that the police had recovered weapons at the instance of accused Govinda, Ramavatar and Sita Ram. Similarly, Lala Ram (PW-11) has proved in his testimony recovery of stick (lathi) by the police at the instance of accused Govinda in his presence. Madan (PW-12) has also testified that the police had recovered weapons at the instance of accused Govinda, Ramavatar and Sita Ram. Amar Singh (PW-14) has testified that he recorded FIR on 28.06.2004 on the basis of the Statement (Parcha Bayan - Exhibit P-56) of Shaitan Singh S/o. Ramniwas (PW-19). Similarly, Jagmal (PW-15) has testified that after postmortem, body of deceased Moolchand was handed over to his cousin brother Durga Lal. Budhalal (PW-16) has testified about recording of statement of Shaitan Singh (PW-19) on 28.06.2004. Nandlal (PW-17) has testified that he brought the injured members of the complainant side to Newai Hospital by his Jeep No. RJ 14 1C 4538. Ramphool (PW-26) is the witness of site plan and seizure memo of blood smeared sand. He has proved his signature on site plan (Exhibit P-72) and seizure memo of blood smeared soil (Exhibit P-73). Ramavatar (PW-31), who was holding post of constable at Police Station Newai on 30.06.2004, has stated in his testimony that he arrested accused Sheo Narayan @ Chhottya S/o. Ladu and Harpal S/o. Ladu and Budh Ram and Durga Devi vide arrest memos (Exhibits P-7, P-8, P-9 & P-10). Hanuman (PW-32) has stated in his testimony that police did not come in his village. None was arrested in his presence. Police had taken his signature. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile on the request of Public Prosecutor. Sharvan Lal (PW-33) has stated that on 12.07.2004 he received information of death of Moolchand S/o. Ramkishan at 4.35 AM and he got it recorded and sent it to HC Jagamal Singh at SMS Jaipur for the panchanama proceedings. Gopal Lal (PW-35), who was holding post of constable at PS Newai on 28.06.2004, has stated in his testimony that the Statement of Shaitan S/o. Ramniwas, which was recorded by Budhalal, S.I., was taken by him from Hospital, Newai to PS Newai. 34. Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18) proved in his testimony to have conducted medical examination of Moolchand Meena, Kailash Meena, Shaitan Singh, Smt. Kesar, Smt. Santra, Smt. Mahima Meena W/o Moolchand, Kumari Seema D/o Kailash Meena on 28.6.2004 and postmortem of the dead bodies of Kailash Meena and Prahlad Meena. Dr. 34. Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18) proved in his testimony to have conducted medical examination of Moolchand Meena, Kailash Meena, Shaitan Singh, Smt. Kesar, Smt. Santra, Smt. Mahima Meena W/o Moolchand, Kumari Seema D/o Kailash Meena on 28.6.2004 and postmortem of the dead bodies of Kailash Meena and Prahlad Meena. Dr. Pankaj Jain (PW-13) was holding the post of Medical Officer in X-ray Department of Saadat Hospital, Tonk on 3.7.2004. He conducted medical examination of Smt. Santra W/o Kailash Meena, Shaitan Singh S/o. Ramniwas and Smt. Gulab W/o Ramniwas and found a fracture in the middle of left ulna bone of Smt. Santra, a fracture on the upper side of left fibula of Shaitan Singh and a fracture in the middle of right clavicle bone of Smt. Gulab. Dr. N.L. Disania (PW-34) stated in his testimony that he conducted autopsy on the body of Moolchand S/o. Ramniwas, aged 40 years, by caste Meena, resident of Badh ki Dhani PS Newai, Tonk on 12.07.2004 in pursuance of Panchanama presented by PS Motidungari. In his opinion the cause of death was comma which had set in due to the head injury inflicted before the death and which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 35. Rajesh Verma (PW-36), who was holding the post of SHO, PS Newai, on the date of the incident, in his deposition, stated that he received information from hospital on telephone that Shri Govind, Prakash, Shaitan Meena etc. had been brought to hospital in injured condition. On this information, he instructed Budhalal, S.I., to reach there and thereafter he himself reached there for necessary action. When he reached the hospital, Budhalal, S.I., presented before him Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-56), which was given by Shaitan Meena himself, from that it appeared that the matter fell within provisions of Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 307 and 302 IPC. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence. Parchabayan of Shaitan (Ex. P-56) was sent with Constable Gopal for the purpose of registering the crime. An endorsement to that effect was recorded on the statement (Ex. P-56) from 'I' to 'J' and his signatures thereon are from 'K' to 'L'. On the basis of statement (Ex. P-56), a case No. 213/2004 was registered under the aforesaid sections and investigation started. P-56) was sent with Constable Gopal for the purpose of registering the crime. An endorsement to that effect was recorded on the statement (Ex. P-56) from 'I' to 'J' and his signatures thereon are from 'K' to 'L'. On the basis of statement (Ex. P-56), a case No. 213/2004 was registered under the aforesaid sections and investigation started. During the investigation, victims Moolchand, Kailash, Shaitan, Smt. Kesar, Santra, Shanti, Mahima, Gulab and Seema were got medically examined in respect of their injuries. Statements of witnesses Shaitan, Durgalal, Smt. Mahima, Smt. Gulab, Smt. Santra, Smt. Mamta Kumari. Seema, Smt. Kajori and Kumari Jyoti were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After inspection of the place of occurrence, site plan (Ex. P-72) was prepared. The accused were arrested and weapons used in commission of crime were recovered at their instance and were sealed and stamped. After investigation, on the basis of statements of witnesses, revenue record, postmortem report, MLC, etc., offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 IPC were found to have been committed by accused Harpal, Budh Ram, Govinda, Sheo Narayan, Ramavatar, Sita Ram, Smt. Narvada Devi, Rukmani Devi and Durga Devi. Thereafter, challan was submitted before the Court. 36. The accused have examined six witnesses in their defence. Sita Ram (DW-1) stated that he knew both the accused and victim parties. He also knew about the land in respect of which incident had taken place. His field is nearby the place of occurrence. There is a land measuring 25 Bigha, which is in possession of Sheo Narayan and Narvada. Land of Shaitan and others is situated near said land. Land where incident took place belongs to Sheo Narayan. Before Sheo Narayan, that land was cultivated by Ladu. Jagdish (DW-2) stated that he knew both accused and complainants. At the time when incident took place among Sheo Narayan and others, Durga was with him at Bagdoli. Durga and he came to Newai Hospital where Durga's mother and mother's sister Rukmani etc. were admitted. Name of her mother is Narvada. Police arrested her because her name was there in first information report. Durga was arrested in night. Ramlakhsman (DW-3) stated that he knew Sheo Narayan, Govinda and other accused and also the complainants. His house is opposite to house of Shaitan. The disputed land measuring 25 Bigha belongs to Sheo Narayan and others. Name of her mother is Narvada. Police arrested her because her name was there in first information report. Durga was arrested in night. Ramlakhsman (DW-3) stated that he knew Sheo Narayan, Govinda and other accused and also the complainants. His house is opposite to house of Shaitan. The disputed land measuring 25 Bigha belongs to Sheo Narayan and others. He never saw possession of Shaitan and Prahlad over land of Sheo Narayan. Narayan (DW-4) stated that he knew both accused and complainants. His land is nearby land of Sheo Narayan and others. The land, which belongs to Sheo Narayan and others, was earlier cultivated by Samarath and thereafter by Ladu. After Ladu, that land is being cultivated by Sheo Narayan and other. At present, it is being cultivated by Narvada and Rukamni. He never saw possession of Shaitan and others on land belonging to Sheo Narayan and others. Ram Lal (DW-5) stated that he knew both accused and complainants and when incident took place, accused Sita Ram was with him from 7.30 AM to 12.00 AM. Chanda Lal (DW-6) stated that he knew both the accused and complainants. His land is towards northern side of land of accused. Disputed 25 Bigha land of appellants, which was being cultivated by Sheo Narayan and others, was in their possession and he never saw possession of complainants over that land. During the cross-examination, the witness has accepted that in respect of that land, suits are pending in revenue courts, wherein accused and complainants are parties. 37. We have earnestly considered the arguments put forth on behalf of both the sides and have carefully considered the whole record. 38. Main thrust of argument of Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for appellants, is that as per the Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-56) of complainant Shaitan and the FIR (Exhibit P-57) the occurrence took place in the field comprising of Khasra No. 29/2 and the charges against the appellants were also framed on the basis of this evidence, whereas the occurrence had taken place in the land comprising of Khasra No. 25. The prosecution has thus totally changed its case and thus, no reliance can be placed on the prosecution story. The prosecution has thus totally changed its case and thus, no reliance can be placed on the prosecution story. Although, it is true that as per the FIR (Exhibit P-57), the place of occurrence is the field comprising of Khasra No. 29/2 and learned trial court has also framed charges on this premise but, in our view, appellants on that basis could not prove as to what prejudice has been caused to them. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence having taken place between the parties as appellants themselves examined the defence witnesses to prove that occurrence had indeed taken place but in the land comprising of Khasra No. 25. Shaitan Singh (PW-19), in his statement stated that the occurrence took place in their field known as Nooleywala. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that the accused started ploughing the field comprising of Khasra No. 29/2 but later on he has clarified that the occurrence took place in the field comprising of Khasra No. 25. During cross-examination, he was confronted with site plan (Exhibit P-72) and when a question was put to him as to where the occurrence took place, the witness gave out the place of occurrence at 'X', which is a part of Khasra No. 25. Durga Lal (PW-20) stated that the accused came at Nooleywala field and started ploughing the same. To the similar effect is the statement of Mamta (PW-24) that the occurrence took place in the field known as Nooleywala. No cross-examination, on this point, was made to witnesses Seema (PW-25), Jyoti (PW-30) and the Investigating Officer Rajesh Verma (PW-36) whether in fact the occurrence took place in the field comprising of Khasra No. 29/2 and not in the field comprising of Khasra No. 25. Indisputably, when it is proved that the occurrence took place on 28.06.2006 at 8.00 AM then due to mention of different Khasra numbers in the FIR (Exhibit P-57) that occurrence took place on the land comprising of Khasra No. 29/2, it cannot be concluded that incident has not taken place at all, especially when three persons lost their lives and several persons sustained injuries. The members of the complainant party belong to rural area and this possibility cannot be ruled out that due to ignorance of the actual khasra numbers or due to bona-fide omission, wrong khasra numbers of the place of occurrence were mentioned. The members of the complainant party belong to rural area and this possibility cannot be ruled out that due to ignorance of the actual khasra numbers or due to bona-fide omission, wrong khasra numbers of the place of occurrence were mentioned. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to accused on that basis. 39. Adverting now to question of possession over land of Khasra No. 25, it is true that in compromise deed (Exhibit D-2) the land of Khasra No. 25 came in the share of Late Ladu, who was the father of accused Sheo Narain, Harpal and Budh Ram and husband of Narvada. On the basis of this compromise, the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk passed a decree (Exhibit D-3) but there is no evidence on record to the effect whether appellants were put in actual possession of land of Khasra No. 25 or whether others were also put in possession of their respective share in compliance of the decree. Although the mutation of land of Khasra No. 25 was opened in the names of the appellants pursuant to the compromise decree but so long their actual physical possess is not proved, they possibly cannot claim right of private defence of property. In fact, after about eight years of the aforesaid compromise, the court of Assistant Collector (First), Tonk had passed the order dated 16.7.1993 (Exhibit P-69), which reveals that actual physical possession of accused Narvada was still not found proved on the land comprising of Khasra No. 25 and this land was rather found in actual physical possession of Ramniwas, father of the complainant. From this, again it is clear that actual physical possession of the accused was not found on the land in dispute at the time of passing the order or there before, by the court of Assistant Collector, Tonk. There is no rebuttal to this evidence of the prosecution. Had the main suit relating to the temporary injunction application been decided in favour of the accused, the same would certainly have been produced by them on record. From the order dated 16.7.1993 (Exhibit P-69) it is clear that on the date of occurrence, land of disputed Khasra No. 25 was in actual possession of the complainant party. Had the main suit relating to the temporary injunction application been decided in favour of the accused, the same would certainly have been produced by them on record. From the order dated 16.7.1993 (Exhibit P-69) it is clear that on the date of occurrence, land of disputed Khasra No. 25 was in actual possession of the complainant party. Observation of the trial court at page No. 22 of its judgment that the revenue court in a suit (Exhibit P-70) filed by the complainant party, had, vide order Exhibit P-71, restrained the appellants from interfering in possession on that land, also does not prove their possession because order-sheet Exhibit P-71 of revenue court reveals that no order was passed restraining the appellants from interfering in the possession of the complainant party. It is rather proved from the order (Exhibit P-69) that the accused appellants had no possession over the land of Khasra No. 25 but the disputed land was in the possession of the complainant party. Its perusal nowhere shows that the Court had bound down the appellant accused not to interfere with the possession of the complainants. 40. We are fortified in that view from statement of injured persons, namely, Shaintan, Mahima, Gulab, Santra & Mamta. These witnesses have clearly stated that the complainant party was in peaceful possession of the disputed field at the time of the incident. And these witnesses remained unshaken despite lengthy cross examination. In defence, accused persons produced Sita Ram (DW-1), Ram Laxman (DW-3), Shri Narain (DW-4), Chandalal (DW-5). These witnesses have stated that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed field at the time of incident. But their oral testimony cannot be preferred over afore-noted documentary evidence regarding possession. The oral statement of the said witnesses are vague and general whereas the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding possession finds corroboration from documentary evidence. In these circumstances, accused-appellants cannot be held to have acted in exercise of right of their private defence and it is proved from the evidence that they were aggressors. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for appellants on that basis that provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC are not applicable in the matter, has no substance. 41. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for appellants on that basis that provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC are not applicable in the matter, has no substance. 41. Argument that Ramphool (PW-26) has accepted in his testimony that disputed land Khasra No. 25 was in possession of the appellants and the prosecution has not declared this witness to be hostile. That shows that prosecution still relies on this witness, canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants does also not have any substance. Because this witness was examined by the prosecution as a witness of site plan (Exhibit P-72). He never said in his examination in chief that disputed Khasra No. 25 was in possession of appellants. In our opinion, mere acceptances by this witness, in cross-examination that disputed land of which site plan has been prepared, was cultivated by Sheo Narain and Narvada, does not have any significance. And for this lone and stray statement by a single witness, overwhelming evidence otherwise available on record, cannot be overlooked. This witness has not made any statement in his examination in chief, which does not support the version of the prosecution. In our opinion if this witness has made any statement in his cross examination regarding blood smeared sand or about the possession of the land, in the light of other evidence, would have no adverse bearing on the prosecution case. 42. Shaitan (PW.19), Smt. Mahima (PW.21), Gulab (PW.22), Smt. Santra (PW.23), Mamta (PW.24), Seema (PW.25) and Kesar (PW.29) have sustained injuries in the occurrence and are the injured eye-witnesses, whose injuries were examined by Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW.18), Sr. Medical Officer, CHC, Todaraisingh, District Tonk on 28.6.2004 on the request of Station House Officer, Police Station Newai and proved the injuries sustained by them. As per the evidence of this witness, the injured suffered the following injuries:-- "Shaitan Singh (PW.19):-- (a) Incised wound 2x1x1 cm on the back of left hand; (b) Lacerated wound 2x1x1cm on the backside of left ear; (c) Swelling 4x2 cm on back of the left leg and (d) swelling 2x2 cm on lower part of left leg. Smt. Kesar (PW.29):-- Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm in the mid of skull (b) Contusion of red colour 2 x 1 cm on the back of right elbow; (c) Swelling 2x2 cm on the backside of right hand. Smt. Kesar (PW.29):-- Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm in the mid of skull (b) Contusion of red colour 2 x 1 cm on the back of right elbow; (c) Swelling 2x2 cm on the backside of right hand. Smt. Santra (PW.23):-- Incised wound 4x2x2 cm in the middle of the skull, (b) Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left ring finger; (c) Swelling 2x2 cm backside of left knee joint; Smt. Mahima (PW.21):-- Lacerated wound 4x2x2 left side of the scalp, (b) Lacerated wound 4x1x1 cm in the mid of left leg; (c) Incised wound 4x1x1 cm on left side of skull. Smt. Gulab Meena (PW.22):-- (a) Swelling 2x2 cm front side of the skull, (b) Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm on right shoulder; (c) Contusion red colour 4x2 cm right collar bone (d) Swelling 2x1 cm on left shoulder; Smt. Seema (PW.25):-- Abrasion 1x1 cm on backside of left knee join." 43. In view of injuries suffered by injured witnesses, which are duly proved by Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW.18), presence of all these witnesses at the place of occurrence is proved. The Apex Court in series of judgments has held that the evidence of the injured witness is to be considered as an eye witness of the occurrence despite his relationship with the deceased. In absence of material and serious discrepancy, evidence of an injured witness cannot be ignored. We have throughly gone through the evidence of the injured witnesses and found no material or serious discrepancy in their evidence so as to disbelieve them and to say that they were not present at the place or occurrence and had not seen the occurrence. Shaitan (PW.19), Smt. Mahima (PW.21), Gulab (PW.22), Smt. Santra (PW.23), Mamta (PW.24), Seema (PW.25) and Kesar (PW.29) are the injured witnesses, whose presence is fully established. 44. Evidence proves that incident took place in the field of complainant party. There is no denying the fact that the accused persons also sustained injuries in this incident. But further, there is no evidence on record that the complainant party was armed with weapons at the time of the incident. As a matter of fact, the accused persons were not suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger. In other words, neither the accused persons nor their property was faced with a danger. But further, there is no evidence on record that the complainant party was armed with weapons at the time of the incident. As a matter of fact, the accused persons were not suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger. In other words, neither the accused persons nor their property was faced with a danger. Hence, the accused were not entitled to exercise the right of private defence so as to protect their body or property. Assuming, for the sake of arguments, that accused were in possession of disputed field, there is no explanation why were they armed with deadly weapons in the field in dispute, when none of injured person was armed with any such weapons. In our considered view, therefore accused persons were not entitled to exercise the right of private defence. 45. Regarding non-explanation of injuries received by some of accused persons, suffice it to say that accused party had caused murder of three members of complainant party after trespassing in their field and in the scuffle, by way of reprisal if some of them got injuries at the hands of the complainant party, the prosecution is not obliged to minutely explain each and every injury sustained by accused persons in same occurrence. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Jinappa Payappa Kudach and Others, 1993 CrLJ 3915 . Hence, there is no force in the argument advanced by the defence counsel that the provisions of Section 147 and 149 are not applicable in this case. 46. Let us now analyze the statements of eye witnesses, who have been relied on by learned trial court for conviction of nine accused-appellants to find out whether the evidence indeed justifies their conviction. 47. Shaitan (PW-19) has stated that when accused tried to forcibly plough their agriculture field, first of all his brother Prahlad forbade them from doing so, who was beaten by all the accused by 'lakdi', 'gandasi', 'farsi' and 'kulhari'. Thereafter his another brother Kailash also intervened and asked them not to plough their agriculture field, but he too was subjected to severe beating, and lastly his younger brother Moolchand came there; he too was beaten mercilessly. Thereafter his another brother Kailash also intervened and asked them not to plough their agriculture field, but he too was subjected to severe beating, and lastly his younger brother Moolchand came there; he too was beaten mercilessly. As regards overt act of each accused, this witness has assigned specific role to accused Ramavatar with regard to his injuries alleging that he inflicted a 'gandasi' blow on his ear and thereafter inflicted blow from its reverse side on his leg and thereafter Govinda inflicted 'lathi' blow on his person. Then he made general statement with regard to role of all accused in beating his mother Gulab, and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mahima, Santra, niece Kesar, Jyoti, Mamta and his wife Seema etc. Injury report (Exhibit P-61) of Shaitan read with his X-ray report (Exhibit P-43), indicates that he received total four injuries; first was incised wound on left arm in lower part posteriorly, second was lacerated wound on left ear in lateral part posteriorly and remaining two were swelling on left leg. 48. Mahima (PW-21), another eye witness relied by the trial court, has also named Prahlad, Kailash and Moolchand in that order, who were subjected to be beaten by the accused. She has alleged that she too, her mother-in-law and her daughter Kesar were subjected to beating. These persons were armed with 'farsis' etc. Sonaram had 'farsi' in his hand. Ramavatar was armed with 'gandasi'. Sita Ram was armed with 'kharwari' and others were armed with 'lathis' wrapped with wire. Ramavatar inflicted 'gandasi' blow on her head. Durga D/o Ladu inflicted injuries on leg and hand. Her injury-report (Exhibit P-64) indicates that she suffered only three injuries. First injury was lacerated wound on right parietal region of scalp; second was lacerated wound on right leg in mid part anteriorly and third was incised wound on left parietal region of scalp. The opinion about the injuries was reserved for X-ray examination. None of the injuries turned out in the X-ray report and all injuries were simple in nature. 49. Gulab (PW-22), yet another injured witness, has made similar allegation of general nature that when the accused were trying to forcibly plough their agriculture field and Prahlad forbade them from doing so, he was subjected to beating; thereafter Kailash was also similarly subjected to beating and lastly Moolchand was given beating. The accused beat them by use of 'gandasi', 'farsi', 'kulhari' and 'lathis'. The accused beat them by use of 'gandasi', 'farsi', 'kulhari' and 'lathis'. This witness then stated that she too was subjected to beating by wife of Govinda and wife of Ladu by use of 'lathis'. When her injury-report is Exhibit P-65 and X-ray report is Exhibit P-55 are examined in the light of statement of Dr. Pankaj Jain (PW-13), it is noted that she sustained only four injuries, wherefore she was advised to X-ray. One injury was fracture of middle part of right clavicle. Rest three injuries were found to be simple in nature. Santra (PW-23) has also, apart from making similar allegation with regard to beating of three deceased against all the accused by 'kulhari', 'farsi', 'lathi', 'gandasi' etc., stated that Ramavatar, Sita Ram, Harpal, caused injuries to her left hand by 'lathis'. Injury-report of this witness is Exhibit P-63, according to which, she sustained three injuries; one of them was found to be simple and for remaining two injuries, x-ray was advised. Her X-ray report is Exhibit P-38. Statement of Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18) indicates that injury No. 3 was found to be grievous i.e. fracture. That injury was on the left forearm and location of which was in the middle of left forearm posteriorly. 50. Mamta (PW-24) is also cited as an eye witness. She has not received any injury. She has also made similar statement with regard to beating given to three deceased and has also alleged that all these accused also subjected to her grandmother Gulab, sister Seema and Kesar and her mother Mahima, to beating, but she has not assigned any specific overt-act to any of the accused with regard thereto. Seema (PW-25) is also one of the injured witness. She is a child witness. She has given a very brief statement alleging that all the accused (six male and three female) subjected the deceased and other members of the complainant party to beating. Kajori (PW-28), who is not injured, has also made general allegation against all the accused with regard to beating of three deceased. Kesar (PW-29), who is also an injured witness, has made omnibus allegation against all nine accused for beating the deceased by use of 'gandasi', 'farsi', 'lathis' etc. She stated that she herself, her mother Mahima, grandmother Gulab, Santra, tried to intervene but they were subjected to beating. Kesar (PW-29), who is also an injured witness, has made omnibus allegation against all nine accused for beating the deceased by use of 'gandasi', 'farsi', 'lathis' etc. She stated that she herself, her mother Mahima, grandmother Gulab, Santra, tried to intervene but they were subjected to beating. Sheo Narain inflicted 'farsi' blow on her head and females inflicted accused injuries on her hands. Her injury-report is Exhibit P-62, according to which she sustained three injuries; while injury No. 2 was opined to be simple but for other two injuries, she was advised x-ray. Her x-ray report is Exhibit P-42. Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18) has proved these exhibits. He stated that none of these injuries were found to be fracture and therefore they were opined to be simple in nature. Jyoti (PW-30), aged 15 years, has also cited as an eye witness. She too has made general allegation against all the accused for causing severe injuries to the deceased, who has not made any specific allegation against any female accused. 51. If we analyze role of accused with reference to recovery of weapons at their instance, it is to be noted that 'barchhi' has been shown to have been recovered at the instance of Sheo Narain @ Chuttaya vide Exhibit P-13. 'Gandasi' is shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused Ramavatar vide Exhibit P-34, and 'kulharis' are shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused Sita Ram Meena vide Exhibit P-36. 'Lathis' have been shown to have been recovered at the instance of Harpal, Budh Ram Meena, Smt. Narvada Devi, Smt. Rukmani, Smt. Durga Devi, Govinda, vide Exhibits P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18 and P-32, respectively. Thus, as against recoveries made at the instance of male accused, recovery of 'barchhi' is shown to have been made at the instance of accused Sheo Narain @ Chuttaya, 'gandasi' is shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused Ramavatar, recovery of 'kulhari' is shown at the instance of accused Sita Ram Meena. These three weapons are sharp edged and deadly weapons. Rest of the six accused are shown to be wielding 'lathis'. 52. These three weapons are sharp edged and deadly weapons. Rest of the six accused are shown to be wielding 'lathis'. 52. When we see nature and pattern of injuries on the person of deceased and particularly postmortem-report of deceased Kailash (Exhibit P-67), whose injury report is Exhibit P-60, postmortem-report of deceased Prahlad (Exhibit P-68), postmortem-report of deceased Moolchand (Exhibit P-80) whose injury-report is (Exhibit P-59), we find that they succumbed to the fatal injuries. 53. Postmortem-report of deceased Prahlad is Exhibit P-68, which has been proved by Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18), according to which he received total ten injuries, four of which were incised wounds, two were lacerated wounds, three were swelling and one was bruise. On the side of accused party also six injuries were sustained by accused Narvada, whose injury-report is Exhibit D-21A, according to which she received five injuries, out of which two were lacerated wounds, two were abrasions and one was swelling. Dr. Hamid Hussain (PW-18) also proved injuries of members of complainant party, namely, Moolchand Meena, Kailash Meena, Shaitan Singh, Smt. Kesar, Smt. Santra W/o Kailash Meena, Smt. Mahima Meena W/o Moolchand, Smt. Gulab W/o Ramniwas Meena, Kumari Seema D/o Kailash Meena. Exhibit D-22A is injury-report of accused Sheo Narain, who received three injuries, out of which first was lacerated wound, second was abrasion and third was bruise red. Exhibit D-23 is injury report of accused Rukmani, who received three injuries, out of which first was lacerated wound, second was swelling and third was abrasion. Exhibit D-24A is injury-report of accused Budh Ram, who received one injury, which was swelling. Exhibit D-25 is injury report of accused Harpal, who received three injuries, out of which first was bruise red, second was swelling and third was abrasion. Exhibit D-26A is injury report of Ramavatar, who received one injury, which was swelling. Exhibit D-27A is injury report of accused Govinda, who received two injuries, out of which one was swelling and another was complaint of pain. Dr. N.L. Disania (PW-34) has proved the injury report (Exhibit P-59) of deceased Moolchand, who died on 12.07.2004 fourteen days after the incident. His injury report indicates that he received total five injuries; four of which were lacerated wounds, one was blue eye and one was abrasion. His postmortem-report is Exhibit P-80, which however indicated three stitched wounds and one linear abrasion apart from three abrasions. His injury report indicates that he received total five injuries; four of which were lacerated wounds, one was blue eye and one was abrasion. His postmortem-report is Exhibit P-80, which however indicated three stitched wounds and one linear abrasion apart from three abrasions. Injury report of deceased Kailash Meena is Exhibit P-60. His Postmortem report is Exhibit P-67, which has been proved by Dr. Pankaj Jain (PW-13). His injury-report shows that he received total eight injuries. Three were lacerated wounds, four were swellings and one injury was nose bleeding. 54. While, therefore, role of male accused vis-à-vis number and nature of injuries sustained by three deceased, they are fully corroborated. Defence has proved by evidence that Narvada and Rukmani (two female accused) have sustained injuries, thus implying their presence on the scene of occurrence, thus none of three female accused has been so specifically proved by evidence of most of the nine eye witnesses, whose depositions have been scrutinized by us herein-above. Except statements of one or two witnesses, namely, Mahima (PW-21), who has stated that Durga inflicted blow on her leg as also on the hand, has also in the earlier part of statement stated that all the accused subjected not only three deceased to beating but also caused injuries to her i.e. this witness apart from inflicting injuries on the person of mother-in-law and Kesar. Her statement does not find sufficient corroboration from the injury-report, according to which she sustained only three injuries, first was on right parietal region of scalp, second was on right leg and third was on left parietal region of scalp, but none of them was on the hand nor fracture and only one injury was on the right leg. Part of her statement is thus not proved. Gulab (PW-22) has also similarly made allegation of beating the deceased against all the accused and also alleged that all the accused then subjected her as well as other members of the complainant party to beating, which included male accused but this witness has taken care of by additionally stating that wife of Govinda and wife of Ladu also subjected her to inflict injuries on her right shoulder and head. When this witness again has made allegation against all the accused of beating her, her additional allegation specifically against clavicle bone, the wife of accused Govinda and Ladu appears to be intended to also entrap all females of the family. Active participation of female accused, namely, Narvada, Rukmani and Durga Devi in causing the murder of three deceased and injuries to other injured, cannot be in totality of evidence, said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nature and pattern of the evidence seen in entirety therefore entitles these three female accused to the benefit of doubt. 55. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed only to the extent of three female accused. As stated above, appeal of accused-appellant Sheo Narayan @ Chuttaya stands abated and is accordingly dismissed. While upholding conviction of accused-appellants, namely, Harpal, Budh Ram, Govinda, Ramavatar, Sita Ram, for offence under Sections 148, 447, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 of the IPC, appeal filed by them is dismissed. However, appeal filed by accused-appellants, namely, Smt. Narvada, Smt. Rukmani, Smt. Durga Devi stands allowed and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Accused-appellants, namely, Sheo Narayan @ Chuttaya, Harpal, Budh Ram, Govinda, Ramavatar, Sita Ram, are in jail and have to serve out remaining sentence. Appellants, namely, Smt. Narvada, Smt. Rukmani, Smt. Durga Devi, are on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 56. The impugned judgment and order of learned trial court stands modified in aforesaid terms. The appeal is accordingly disposed off. 57. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellants Smt. Narvada, Smt. Rukmani and Smt. Durga Devi, 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, these appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.