JUDGMENT : Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.1982 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.431 of 1980 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 323/149 I.P.C. Police Station Mahrajganj, District Raebareli. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order the accused-appellants, Mata Prasad, Shiv Kumar, Suraj Pal, Ashok Kumar and Bhagat were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years under Section 307/149; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years under Section 325/149 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 323/149 IPC. Accused, Ashok Kumar and Bhagat were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 148 IPC. The accused, Mata Prasad, Shiv Kumar and Suraj Pal each were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months under Section 147 IPC. However, it was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the accused, Mata Prasad was the father of the accused, Suraj Pal and accused, Shiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar were the sons of accused, Suraj Pal and accused, Bhagat was the brother-in-law of accused, Suraj Pal. One Sarjoo Dei was murdered on 07.02.1979 before the incident in question. Ram Singh, P.W.1, Shiv Sharan P.W.-4 and Ram Sharan, all sons of deceased, Ganga Prasad were accused in the case of murder of Sarjoo Dei. Mata Prasad, the accused in this case was the main witness and pairokar. However, the accused in the murder case of Sarjoo Dei were acquitted on 30.01.1980. There was dispute with respect to the property of Smt. Sarjoo Dei after her death and in mutation proceedings, the accused, Mata Prasad and his family on one side and deceased, Ganga Prasad other side were contesting against each other. The case was going on in the Court of competent revenue Court before the occurrence. The deceased, Kamta Prasad was a witness in the murder case of Smt. Sarjoo Dei but later on he sided with the accused by way of filing an affidavit in favour of them which annoyed accused, Mata Prasad and others and his family members. The case was going on in the Court of competent revenue Court before the occurrence. The deceased, Kamta Prasad was a witness in the murder case of Smt. Sarjoo Dei but later on he sided with the accused by way of filing an affidavit in favour of them which annoyed accused, Mata Prasad and others and his family members. Kamta Prasad was also doing pairvi in mutation case on behalf of the deceased Ganga Prasad against accused, Mata Prasad and others and these were causes of enmity between deceased, Ganga Prasad and his family and deceased, Kamta Prasad with that of accused family. 4. There was a grove situated towards East of village Gauhanna. It was said that the complainant and his family members and accused had shares in that grove. It was further said that even the deceased, Sarjoo Dei also had share in that grove. In respect of the share of Sarjoo Dei, there was dispute between the parties. There was a mango tree in that grove known as Khatauwa Aam Ka Pedh. According to the prosecution that mango tree was in share and possession of the deceased, Ganga Prasad. On the date of incident Man Singh, P.W.3 son of the deceased Ganga Prasad was guarding the said mango tree and at about 3:00 P.M. accused, Bhagat and Ashok Kumar armed with axe, accused, Suraj Pal, Shiv Kumar and Mata Prasad armed with lathi reached there. They started plucking mangoes from that Khatuwa Aam tree. Man Singh P.W.-3 raised objection on which accused, Mata Prasad gave him two-three slaps and asked him to call his father. Man Singh, P.W.-3 then came to his house and narrated the incident to his father, Ganga Prasad, the deceased. Ganga Prasad along with his four sons namely Ram Singh P.W.-1, Ram Saran, Shiv Sharan P.W.-4 and Man Singh, P.W.-3 proceeded towards the grove. On the way, the deceased, Kamta Prasad met them and he also joined them. When they reached on trio-junction (Tiraha) near the house of Shitladeen Pasi on the South lane, they met accused, Mata Prasad, Suraj Pal, Ashok Kumar, Bhagat armed with lathies and axes. The father of the complainant inquired into from Mata Prasad etc., that why they had beaten his son and why they had plucked the mangoes. When they reached on trio-junction (Tiraha) near the house of Shitladeen Pasi on the South lane, they met accused, Mata Prasad, Suraj Pal, Ashok Kumar, Bhagat armed with lathies and axes. The father of the complainant inquired into from Mata Prasad etc., that why they had beaten his son and why they had plucked the mangoes. The heated exchange took place and on that Mata prasad etc., started assaulting his father and others with lathi and axe. On alarm and melee, Deva Nand, P.W.-2, Nand Kishore, Om Prakash, Suraj Pal etc., came there. Ganga Prasad fell down after receiving the injuries from lathi and axe and died soon thereafter. He said that other persons in order to save themselves ran towards his house. However, Mata Prasad etc., chased them and near the house of Vishwanath, Kamta Prasad fell down and the accused assaulted him by lathi and axe thereafter he died. It was further said that Ram Singh, Ram Sharan, Shiv Sharan P.W.4 and Man Singh P.W.3 had also received injuries as they were also assaulted by Mata Prasad etc. He said that the complainant side also tried to save themselves and by weilding lathis and, therefore, Suraj Pal had received minor injuries. 5. On the basis of written report, Exk.Ka-1 then head moharrir, Ram Narayan Mishra, P.W.-10 had prepared chik FIR, Exh.Ka-22 and a case was registered at about 5:10 p.m. and its entry was made in GD. True copy of which was exhibited as Exh.Ka- 23. Sri B.K. Singh, P.W.-8, then Station Officer commenced the investigation of the case on the same day i.e. 17.06.1980 and recorded the statement of Ram Singh, P.W.-1 at the police station. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest proceedings of the dead body of Kamta Prasad and prepared its report, Exh.Ka-9. He was accompanied by Sub-Inspector, Jagjit Singh who prepared the sketch map of dead body, Exh.Ka-10. Thereafter, the investigating officer, Sri B.K. Singh, P.W.8 held inquest proceedings of deceased, Ganga Prasad and got his report prepared by Sub Inspector, Jagjit Singh, Exh.Ka-13. Dead bodies of Ganga Prasad and Kamta Prasad were sealed and sent through Constable Krishna Kumar, P.W.-9 and village Chaukidar, Jaggoo to Raibareli for postmortem. 6. Dr. T. N. Puri, P.W.-7 on 18.08.1980 conducted the postmortem on dead bodies of Ganga Prasad and Kamta Prasad. Dead bodies of Ganga Prasad and Kamta Prasad were sealed and sent through Constable Krishna Kumar, P.W.-9 and village Chaukidar, Jaggoo to Raibareli for postmortem. 6. Dr. T. N. Puri, P.W.-7 on 18.08.1980 conducted the postmortem on dead bodies of Ganga Prasad and Kamta Prasad. On the person of Kamta Prasad, he noticed the following antemortem injuries:- "1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep on right side neck 3 cm above right clavical bone. On dissection underneath muscle, carotid artery and vessels underneath are cut and lower portion of the treachea is also cut. Clotted blood present in and around the wound. 2. Incised wound 11 cm x .5 cm muscle deep on left side extending up to chin on dissection underneath the muscle clotted blood present in and around the wound. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x .5 cm muscle deep on left elbow on dissection cuting underneath muscle clotted blood present in and around the wound. 4. Incised wound 2.5 cm x .5 cm muscle deep on left should on dissection underneat muscle is cut. Clotted blood present in and around the wound. 5. Incised wound 9 cm x .5 cm scalp deep left side head 10 cm above left ear. On dissection clotted blood present in and around the wound. 6. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm scalp deep on top of the head. On dissection clotted blood present in and around the wound. 7. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on left fore arm lower part. On dissection clotted blood present underneath. 8. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right elbow. Clotted blood present underneath. 9. Abrasion 3 cm x .5 cm on left lower part." 7. On the same day at around 5:30 he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Ganga Prasad and prepared postmortem report, Exh.Ka-8. He noticed the following antemortem injuries on his person:- "1. Incised wound 5.5. cm x 2 cm bone deep on right side forehead 2 cm above right eye brow. On dissection cutting underneath muscle and fracture of right frontal bone clotted blood present in an around the wound. Haema toma present underneath the fractured bone. 2. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm bone deep on left side head 8 cm above left ear. On dissection cutting underneath and fracture of left parietal bone. On dissection cutting underneath muscle and fracture of right frontal bone clotted blood present in an around the wound. Haema toma present underneath the fractured bone. 2. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm bone deep on left side head 8 cm above left ear. On dissection cutting underneath and fracture of left parietal bone. Clotted blood present in and around the wound. Haematoma present underneath the parietal bone. 3. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm collar bone cut on right side neck. On dissection underneath stinchings including muscles right ear and other vessels are cut. Clotted blood present in and around the wound. 4. Abrasion 6 cm x .5 cm on right side abdomen upper part." 8. Medical examination of injuries on the person of Ram Sharan, Man Singh P.W.-3, Ram Singh P.W.1 and Shiv Sharan P.W.4 was conducted by Dr. S. N. Mishra P.W.-10, Medical Officer In-charge PSC, Maharajganj on 17.08.1980 in between 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and he noticed the following injuries on the persons of Ram Sharan, Man Singh P.W.-3, Ram Singh P.W.1 and Shiv Sharan P.W.4:- "Ram Sharan 1. Brusie 1 cm x .5 cm on the left palm anterior side 1 cm above the left thumb. Colour of ecclymosis red, simple caused by blood object. 2. Brusie 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the right side wrist posterior side. Colour of ecclymosis red, simple caused by blunt object, duration fresh. Man Singh 1. Complain of severe pain in head posterior side. Advised X-Ray, Skull right and lateral view. 2. Bruise and swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on the face left side 1 xm lateral to left angle of mouth. Color of ecchymosis red, simple caused by blunt weapon. 3. Bruise 12 cm x 5 cm on the chest left side 4 cm below the scapula color of ecchynosis red. Simple caused by blunt weapon. 4. Bruise 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the left thigh 7 cm above the left knee joint. Color of ecchymosis red. Simple caused by blunt weapon. 5. Bruise 9 cm x 2 cm on the left leg posterior side 10 cm below left knee joint simple caused by blunt weapon. Ram Singh 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the head left side 7 cm above the left ear. Oozing of fresh blood, simple caused by blunt object. 2. 5. Bruise 9 cm x 2 cm on the left leg posterior side 10 cm below left knee joint simple caused by blunt weapon. Ram Singh 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the head left side 7 cm above the left ear. Oozing of fresh blood, simple caused by blunt object. 2. Bruise 5 cm x 2 cm on the left shoulder joint. Color of ecchymosis Red. Simple caused by blunt object. Shiv Sharan 1. Incised wound 14 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm on the forehead left side cutting the frontal bone left side of face just lateral to left eye brow. Edges of wound smooth, even clean cut well defined, oozing of fresh blood, Line of direction above down wards, grievous caused by sharp edged weapon. 2. Incised wound 5 cm x .5cm x .5 cm on the chest front side 7 cm below the sternoclavicular joint. Oozing of fresh blood. Edges of wound smooth. 3. Bruise 8 cm x 1 cm on the left shoulder, lateral side colour of ecchynosis red, simple caused by blunt object. 4. Abrasion 11 cm x 1 cm on the right thigh. Oozing of fresh blood. Simple caused by friction with hard object. 9. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were fresh in duration. The investigating officer after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet, Exh.Ka-21 on 28.07.1980 against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. 10. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and Mr. Umesh Verma learned AGA for the State. 11. In present case following facts are not in dispute (i) death of Kamta Prasad and Ganga Prasad (ii) injuries on four persons by lathies and axe (iii) place, date and time of the incident (iv) weapons (lathi and axe) used in the crime (v) injury to accused, Suraj Pal 12. The only submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the accused were not the aggressor and they acted in self defence as the complainant side was the aggressor. Had the accused intended to cause the incident, they would have waited the complainant side at the grove itself. The only submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the accused were not the aggressor and they acted in self defence as the complainant side was the aggressor. Had the accused intended to cause the incident, they would have waited the complainant side at the grove itself. Learned counsel submits that after small incident, when the accused party was coming back to their respective houses, the complainant side armed with lathies and axe were going to assault the accused persons and when they met the accused, they started assaulting them and the accused acted in self defence. He further submits that it was a case of free fight between two groups in which both sides received injuries and as a result thereof two persons of complainant side had died. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the accused might have exceeded the self defence and, therefore, they should not be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC but under Section 304 part II IPC. 14. On the other hand, learned AGA, Mr. Verma submits that the prosecution story gets corroborated by the medical evidence and ocular testimony of the injured witnesses. Their testimony has remained unshaken, credible, reliable and unimpeachable. Learned AGA further submits that when there are injured witnesses who had also received grievous injuries and the accused not only killed two persons at two different places chasing them and assaulting with deadly weapons such as axe, it cannot be said that the accused had acted in self-defense or they have exceeded the right of self defence as contended by learned counsel for the accused-appellants. 15. Learned AGA further submits that the accused-appellants were the aggressor inasmuch as they went to the grove where P.W.3, Man Singh was guarding the ripe mangoes and they had beaten him and plucked mangoes forcibly and asked him to call his father and when the complainant side was going towards the grove, the accused met the complainant side and assaulted them with deadly weapon and killed two persons and seriously injured 4 persons. In fact the complainant side had acted in self defence which has resulted in some simple injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. When the accused were aggressor and they had caused two deaths and seriously injured 4 persons, it was not the duty of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. In fact the complainant side had acted in self defence which has resulted in some simple injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. When the accused were aggressor and they had caused two deaths and seriously injured 4 persons, it was not the duty of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. Learned AGA submits that there is nothing on record which would prove the prosecution story false. The case against the accused-appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences they had committed. Learned AGA submits that judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is a well considered judgment in which each and every evidence in detail has been considered. The appeal is without any merit and substance and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 16. We have considered the evidence on record, submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 17. The prosecution story gets established completely by the testimony of ocular injured witnesses coupled with its corroboration by medical evidence. The accused-appellants armed with axe and lathies went to the grove where P.W.3, Man Singh was guarding the mangoes of a tree (Khatauwa Aam Ka Pedh). The accused assaulted him and plucked the mangoes forcibly and challenged him to call his father. He came to his house and narrated the incident to the deceased, Ganga Prasad, four sons and his brother started going towards the grove to confront the accused that why they held assaulted P.W.-4 and plucked mangoes forcibly. On the way they met the accused party and after heated exchange the accused started assaulting the deceased, Ganga Prasad and he fell down. They chased others and after some places they surrounded Kamta Prasad and assaulted him with lathi and axe who also died. Other persons had also received serious injuries which got proved by the medical evidence. In this case ocular testimony of injured witnesses has remained unshaken and completely proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries received on the person of Suraj Pal were simple injuries. It had been caused by the complainant side in their self defence. When the accused appellants were aggressor and they had caused murder of two persons and injured four persons, it was not for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. The injuries received on the person of Suraj Pal were simple injuries. It had been caused by the complainant side in their self defence. When the accused appellants were aggressor and they had caused murder of two persons and injured four persons, it was not for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused, Suraj Pal. From the evidence on record, we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the complainant side was aggressor and the accused appellants had acted in self-defence and even if they had exceeded the right of self-defence, they should be convicted under Section 304 part II IPC. 18. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants inasmuch as the accused-appellants were the aggressor and they did not act in self defence as contended or otherwise. It is established that they were the aggressors, they cannot claim the right of self defence. It was not a case of free fight as the accused side was the aggressor and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. 19. We affirm the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court and dismiss the appeal. 20. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants are cancelled. The accused-appellants shall be taken in custody and sent to jail to serve out remainder of their sentences as awarded by Trial Court.