JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by eleven accused-appellants, namely, Onkar S/o Molliya alias Mool Chand, Bansi, Onkar S/o Deviya, Ram Karan, Arjun, Latoor, Sanwalia, Chaturbhuj, Jamnalal, Jagram and Harphool, assailing judgment and order dated 04.10.1990 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Sessions Case No.68/1983, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows :- Conviction under Section Accused-appellants Sentence 148 IPC Onkar S/o Molliya alias Mool Chand, Bansi S/o Gendiya, Onkar S/o Deviya, Ram Karan S/o Kishangopal, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Latoor S/o Deva, Sanwalia S/o Ranglal, Chaturbhuj S/o Jagram, Jamnalal S/o Ramchandra, Jagram S/o Bhoriya, Harphool S/o Nath Each to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment 447 IPC -do- Each to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment 323/149 IPC -do- Each to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment 324/149 IPC -do- Each to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment 325/149 IPC -do- Each to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- each; in default of its payment, each to further undergo one months’ rigorous imprisonment 302 IPC Bansi S/o Gendiya, Onkar S/o Molliya alias Mool Chand To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-; and in default of its payment, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment 302/149 IPC Onkar S/o Deviya, Ram Karan S/o Kishangopal, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Latoor S/o Deva, Sanwalia S/o Ranglal, Chaturbhuj S/o Jagram, Jamnalal S/o Ramchandra, Jagram S/o Bhoriya, Harphool S/o Nath Each to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- each; in default of its payment, each to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment 2. This is a very old case arising out of an incident which took place on 25.02.1983. This is also a classic example how the victim party in their zeal to implicate large number of persons create difficulties for the court to segregate the truth from the falsehood to arrive at the conclusion as to who are the real culprits. The first information report, as per own admission of complainant Sualal (PW-1), was prepared with the help of local advocate Kripa Shankar on the basis of what was stated by Jamna Lal. And surprisingly, Sualal (PW-1) has stated that he was not the eyewitness to the incident. The first information report, as per own admission of complainant Sualal (PW-1), was prepared with the help of local advocate Kripa Shankar on the basis of what was stated by Jamna Lal. And surprisingly, Sualal (PW-1) has stated that he was not the eyewitness to the incident. Be that as it may be, the written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by Sualal (PW-1) on 25.02.1983 at 10:00 AM contains names of as many as 46 accused and finally the charge-sheet was filed against 50 accused persons. The trial court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.1990, acquitted 39 accused and convicted 11 accused-appellants. It may be noted at the outset that out of those 11, six accused-appellants, namely, accused-appellant no.2 Bansi S/o Gendiya, accused-appellant no.3 Onkar S/o Deviya, accused-appellant no.5 Arjun S/o Mooliya, accused-appellant no.6 Latoor S/o Deva, accused-appellant no.10 Jagram S/o Bhoriya and accused-appellant no.11 Harphool S/o Nath have died during pendency of the appeal and therefore the appeal qua them abates and is liable to be dismissed as abated. Now the present appeal survives only in respect of five accused-appellants, namely, Onkar S/o Molliya alias Moolchand, Ram Karan S/o Kishangopal, Sanwalia S/o Ranglal, Chaturbhuj S/o Jagram and Jamnalal S/o Ramchandra. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the basis of said written-report, F.I.R. No.17/83 was registered at Police Station Chauth-ka-Barwara on 26.02.1983. It was alleged that at around 10:00 AM on 25.02.1983 the accused-party consisting of 46 persons had trespassed into the field belonging to Ramniwas, Rajaram and Arjun. The accused-party started cutting gram crop. The complainant-party objected to it, whereupon the accused-party assaulted the complainant-party with sharp as well as blunt weapons giving merciless beating. On the basis of these allegations, the police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and commenced the investigation. In the evening of 25.02.1983, one injured Rajaram succumbed to his injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 IPC was further added. Injured persons, namely, Rajaram, Ramniwas, Arjun, Bansi, Ramswaroop, Smt. Narbada, Swarupi and Gendi were got medically examined. After death of Rajaram, postmortem was conducted. As many as 50 accused-persons were taken into custody. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Finally, the police submitted charge-sheet against all 50 accused-persons in the Court of Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. Injured persons, namely, Rajaram, Ramniwas, Arjun, Bansi, Ramswaroop, Smt. Narbada, Swarupi and Gendi were got medically examined. After death of Rajaram, postmortem was conducted. As many as 50 accused-persons were taken into custody. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Finally, the police submitted charge-sheet against all 50 accused-persons in the Court of Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. Since the case was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. The accused-persons, in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused-persons came out with specific plea that the crop had been sown by them. Since the land was in their settled possession, they had every right to harvest the crop. The complainant party had unlawfully trespassed into the field and prevented the accused-persons from harvesting their crop and thus the accused-persons had a lawful right to resist the unlawful acts committed by the complainant party. The defence examined Tikaram Meena as DW-1, who was posted as ‘Girdawar’ at the relevant time. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge acquitted 39 accused-persons of all the charges and convicted and sentenced 11 accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence the present appeal. 4. Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, submitted that the trial court has gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants on the basis of wholly erroneous appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused-persons had formed an unlawful assembly. There is a total lack of evidence to conclude that the common object of the alleged unlawful assembly was to commit murder of deceased Rajaram. Normally the accused-persons could not have anticipated that Rajaram would trespass into the field and scuffle would ensue. The trial court has gravely erred in holding that the accused-appellants were members of the unlawful assembly, whose common object was to commit murder of deceased Rajaram. 5. It is argued that the trial court has conceded that the witnesses produced by the prosecution have miserably contradicted one another on numerous points and as a result of which, it did not rely upon the testimony of these witnesses to convict as many as 39 of he accused persons. 5. It is argued that the trial court has conceded that the witnesses produced by the prosecution have miserably contradicted one another on numerous points and as a result of which, it did not rely upon the testimony of these witnesses to convict as many as 39 of he accused persons. In other words, the trial court has condemned the testimony of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the implication of 39 accused persons. Normally, no reliance on the self-same evidence should have been placed for convicting the remaining 11 accused persons. 6. It is argued that the complainant party after due deliberations filed the first information report after inordinate delay of one day. This delay has not been explained. Despite inordinate delay, the F.I.R. does not contain the names of four of the 50 accused placed on trial. The incident had taken place in an open field surrounded by many other fields. Many persons were working in those fields at the relevant time. It was the harvesting season and in every field, the crops were being cut. But the prosecution has produced only partisan witnesses belonging to the family of the complainant party. Not even a single independent witness has been produced. No explanation for non-production of independent witnesses has been given out by the prosecution. 7. It is submitted that numerous material witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. Names of such witnesses are Smt. Gendi, Mittha Lal, Kedar, Kajod, Kanwarpal, Prahlad, Smt. Shanti Arjun, Bajranglal, Sheoji, Jagannath, Ramchandra, etc. No explanation for withholding such witnesses have been adduced by the prosecution. The story set up by the prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by any independent source. Site plan renders no assurance to the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 8. Learned counsel argued that the trial court has gravely erred in holding that the complainant party was in possession upon the land in dispute. The prosecution has not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove this significant aspect of the controversy. The trial court has erred in ignoring material evidence appearing in the form of ocular testimony of Tikaram (DW-1), who was ‘girdawar’. His statement is duly corroborated by documentary evidence contained in Exhibit D-11, Exhibit D-12 and Exhibit D-13. No plausible reason has been given by the trial court in discarding this clinching evidence on the point of possession. 9. The trial court has erred in ignoring material evidence appearing in the form of ocular testimony of Tikaram (DW-1), who was ‘girdawar’. His statement is duly corroborated by documentary evidence contained in Exhibit D-11, Exhibit D-12 and Exhibit D-13. No plausible reason has been given by the trial court in discarding this clinching evidence on the point of possession. 9. It is next submitted that before passing of the stay order by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 29.11.1982, the possession over the disputed land had already been handed over to the accused-party on 28.11.1982. The Revenue Appellate Authority had only directed to maintain status quo. Thus, under the directions of keeping status quo, right from 28.11.1982 till 25.02.1983, the land had remained under cultivatory possession of the accused-party. It is also argued that the accused persons thus had every right under law to resist any act of the trespass committed by the complainant party. While resisting such trespass, if persons belonging to the complainant party had received injuries and later on, if one of them had died, then also the act of the accused party was justified in the eye of law. 10. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of the trial court. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State have taken the court through the statements of informant Sualal (PW-1), injured Arjunlal (PW-2), Swarupi (PW-3), Narbada (PW-4), Jamnalal S/o Jairam (PW-6), Dhulilal (PW-7), injured Ramniwas (PW-8), injured Ramswaroop (PW-9), injured Banshilal (PW-10), Brijmohan (PW-12) and Jamnalal S/o Kesra (PW-14). We have also been taken through the statement of Tikaram Meena (DW-1), the then ‘girdawar’ (Land Revenue Inspector) with regard to claim of the parties for possession of the disputed land, apart from the reference to the exhibits. As per the Medico Legal Report (Exhibit P-29) of deceased Rajaram, he sustained 17 injuries, first three of which injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and X-ray was advised for injuries no.1 to 4. According to the postmortem report of deceased Rajaram (Exhibit P-30) the cause of death of Rajaram was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries over his head resulting into the multiple fractures of skull bones, intracranial haemorrhage and laceration of the brain. Dr. According to the postmortem report of deceased Rajaram (Exhibit P-30) the cause of death of Rajaram was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries over his head resulting into the multiple fractures of skull bones, intracranial haemorrhage and laceration of the brain. Dr. P.L. Bansal, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, found in the postmortem report that the deceased sustained 23 injuries and opined that the injuries no.1, 2 and 3 were caused by sharp object and rest of the injuries from 4 to 23 were caused by blunt object. Dr. P.L. Bansal has opined the injuries no.2, 3, 4 and 23 to be grievous and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Dr. P.L. Bansal was examined by the prosecution as PW-15 and he has proved the postmortem report. He has also proved the injury report (Exhibit P-25) of Gendi W/o Lattu, who sustained five injuries. Her X-ray examination report (Exhibit P-31) indicates that there was fracture of her seventh rib of the right side. All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt object. For injury no.5, the doctor reserved the opinion to be given after X-ray. He has also proved the injury report (Exhibit P-26) of Narbada W/o Ramniwas, according to which she sustained six injuries. Except injury no.1, which was caused by sharp object, all other injuries were caused by blunt object, however, all the injuries were simple in nature. For injury no.3, she was advised Xray. X-ray report (Exhibit P-33) of Narbada shows that she sustained fracture of the head of the fourth metacarpal bone (ring finger) and fracture of the first phalanx of the left middle finger. Dr. P.L. Bansal has also proved injury report (Exhibit P-27) of Ramniwas, who sustained 11 injuries. Except injuries no.1 and 10, which were caused by sharp object, all other injuries were found to have been caused by blunt object. For injuries no.1, 6, 8 and 11, the doctor advised him for X-ray. Injuries no.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 were found to be simple in nature. Injury no.6 was opined to be grievous, however, he was advised X-ray for four injuries. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-34, which indicates that he sustained fracture of right mandible at canine line and fracture of shaft of left tibia bone and fracture of left radius bone. Similarly, Dr. Injury no.6 was opined to be grievous, however, he was advised X-ray for four injuries. His X-ray report is Exhibit P-34, which indicates that he sustained fracture of right mandible at canine line and fracture of shaft of left tibia bone and fracture of left radius bone. Similarly, Dr. P.L. Bansal has also proved the injury-report of Dhulya S/o Moharpal (Exhibit P-28), who sustained two simple injuries by blunt object. Dr. P.L. Bansal has also proved the injury-report (Exhibit P-3) of Arjunlal S/o Gangadhar, whose X-ray report is Exhibit P-32, according to which he sustained six injuries. All the injuries were caused by blunt object. He was advised X-ray for two injuries. His X-ray report (Exhibit P-32) indicates that he sustained fracture of left ulna bone at lower part and fracture of 8th and 9th ribs of left side. Dr. P.L. Bansal has further proved Medico Legal Report (Exhibit P-5) of Banshi S/o Rajaram, who sustained four injuries, all of which were caused by blunt weapon, while injuries no.1 to 3 were opined to be simple but X-ray was advised for fourth injury. In his X-ray report, no fracture was found. 13. We have to analyze whether in the facts of the case accused-appellant no.1 Onkar S/o Molliya alias Moolchand has been rightly convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for the alleged murder of Rajaram. Statement of Tikaram Meena (DW-1), the then ‘girdawar’ (Land Revenue Inspector) is quite categorical that possession of the disputed land was with the accused-party and not with the complainant-party. Tikaram Meena (DW-1) has stated that at the relevant time he was posted as ‘girdawar’ (Land Revenue Inspector) in the office of the Tehsildar. He was also holding the charge of the post of Naib Tehsildar on 27.11.1982. On that date he received the order of attachment of the disputed land bearing khasra no.915, 927, 928 and 929 of village Kawad from the Sub Divisional Officer with the direction that if Lattu, Harphool etc. deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per bigha then they may be handed over the possession of the land in question for cultivation. He further stated that he then took the possession of the land in question by way of attachment on 28.11.1982. He also prepared attachment-memo of land of khasra no.915, which is Exhibit D-11. deposit the amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per bigha then they may be handed over the possession of the land in question for cultivation. He further stated that he then took the possession of the land in question by way of attachment on 28.11.1982. He also prepared attachment-memo of land of khasra no.915, which is Exhibit D-11. He further stated that thereafter he handed over the said land to Devlal on ‘supurdgi’. Thereafter, the amount was deposited on 30.11.1982 and the receipt of which is Exhibit D-12, which contained the signature of Surgyan Chand Jain, Naib Tehsildar, from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Exhibit D-11 vide which he took the possession of the land by way of attachment, contained his signature from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and that Exhibit also contained the signature of Hari Shankar Patwari from ‘C’ to ‘D’ and that document also contained signatures of certain persons, namely, Harphool, Moolchand, Ramprasad, Madholal, Madanlal, Sukhpal, Ramkaran, Kanji, Devlal, Jamnalal, Kalyan and thumb impression of Shriniwas. 14. Exhibit D-13 is the application of Devlal, vide which he informed that possession of the land of khasra no.915 has been handed over to Harphool. This document contained the signatures of Devlal from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and the note of receiving possession by Harphool is ‘C’ to ‘D’, which contained signature of Harphool from ‘E’ to ‘F’ and signature of Surgyan, Naib Tehsildar, is from ‘G’ to ‘H’. Similarly, the land of khasra no.927 was taken in possession of the Government by way of attachment vide Exhibit D-14, which contained the signature of this witness from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and signature of Hari Shankar Patwari from ‘C’ to ‘D’. That document also contained signatures of other persons who were present on the spot. Thereafter, the land of khasra no.927 was handed over to Devlal for cultivation. Thereafter, Lattu and others deposited the amount on 30.11.1982, which was received by Surgyanchand, Naib Tehsildar, the receipt of which is Exhibit D-15. Then, the ‘Supurdgar’ Devlal, as per the order, handed over the possession of the land of khasra no.927 to Lattu and Ramphool. The possession of the land was handed over to them with the standing crop. Devlal then submitted an application in the office stating that he has handed over the possession of the land and the application is Exhibit D-16, which contained the signature of Devlal from ‘A’ to ‘B’. The possession of the land was handed over to them with the standing crop. Devlal then submitted an application in the office stating that he has handed over the possession of the land and the application is Exhibit D-16, which contained the signature of Devlal from ‘A’ to ‘B’. The note of thereon about handing over the possession is from ‘C’ to ‘D’ and that note contained the signature of Lattu from ‘E’ to ‘F’ and signature of Ramphool is from ‘G’ to ‘H’ and signature of Surgyan Chand, Naib Tehsildar, is from ‘I’ to ‘J’. This witness further stated that likewise the possession of the land of khasra no.928 was taken in the possession of the State Government by way of attachment vide Exhibit D-17, which contained the signature of this witness from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and signature of Hari Shankar Patwari from ‘C’ to ‘D’. He further stated that this land was then taken in the possession of the State Government and was handed over to Devlal on ‘supurdgi’. Thereafter, Badri and others deposited the amount on 30.11.1982 vide Exhibit D-18 and as per order of the Tehsil the possession of the said land was handed over by Devlal to Badri and others with standing crop. In this way, the land of khasra no.929 with standing crop was taken into possession on 28.11.1982 by way of attachment vide Exhibit D-20. Then this witness handed over the possession thereof with standing crop to ‘supurdgar’ Devlal. Then Ramniwas and others deposited the amount vide receipt Exhibit D- 21, which contained the signature of Surgyan Chand, Naib Tehsildar, from ‘A’ to ‘B’. As per the order of the Tehsil, the possession of the land with standing crop was handed over to Harchanda and Ramniwas on 30.11.1982. The application of Devlal is Exhibit D-22, which contained the signature of Devlal from ‘A’ to ‘B’. The note of handing over the possession of the land with standing crop by Harchanda and Ramniwas is from ‘C’ to ‘D’, which contained their signatures also. This witness, who was holding the charge of the office of Naib Tehsildar on that date, has stated that on 30.11.1982 he handed over the possession of the disputed land to Harchanda, Ramniwas, Badri, Jagram, Lattu, Ramphool and Harphool etc. 15. This witness, who was holding the charge of the office of Naib Tehsildar on that date, has stated that on 30.11.1982 he handed over the possession of the disputed land to Harchanda, Ramniwas, Badri, Jagram, Lattu, Ramphool and Harphool etc. 15. Adverting now to the statement of Harishankar (PW-13), who was Patwari, learned Public Prosecutor has although referred to the statement of Harishankar Patwari to argue to the contrary that the land revenue for Samvat 2039 was deposited by Rajaram S/o Gangadhar Meena and the receipts of depositing the revenue are Exhibits P-21, P-22 and P-23, but in cross-examination this witness has admitted that receipts thereof do not contain the entry with regard to their possession. There was pending revenue litigation between the parties with regard to the disputed land. This witness has then denied for want of knowledge the fact that the land in dispute was handed over to any of the accused- appellants on payment of Rs.150/- per bigha. This witness cannot be said to be a witness of truth as he is making the statement contrary to what has been stated by his superior officer, who was at the relevant time, holding the charge of the post of Naib Tehsildar as well. In view of this finding, conviction of the accused-appellants for offence under Section 447 IPC cannot be said to be just and proper. 16. Coming now to the statements of eye-witnesses as to role assigned to the accused-appellants for causing injuries on the head of the deceased. So far as accused-appellant Onkar S/o Molliya alias Moolchand is concerned, there is denial of fact that accused-appellant Onkar S/o Molliya alias Moolchand was not named in the written report, which contained as many as 46 names and in the typed out report, which as per own admission of complainant Sualal (PW-1), was not based on his personal knowledge but was prepared on the basis of what was told to him by Jamnalal and that too with the help of local advocate Mr. Kripa Shankar. If the report was prepared after so much consultation and did not contain the name of accused-appellant Onkar S/o Mooliya @ Moolchand amongst those accused who caused fatal injuries to the deceased, he, in our view, must be held entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. Kripa Shankar. If the report was prepared after so much consultation and did not contain the name of accused-appellant Onkar S/o Mooliya @ Moolchand amongst those accused who caused fatal injuries to the deceased, he, in our view, must be held entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. Arjunlal (PW-2) has, apart from other allegations, alleged that Onkar S/o Molliya, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Onkar S/o Deviya, Banshi, Jamnalal, Harphool, Latoor, Harchanda, Jagram, Chaturbhuj and Ramkaran encircled Rajaram. Onkar inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Rajaram. Onkar S/o Deviya inflicted a blow on the head of Rajaram. Latoor inflicted a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Rajaram. Banshi inflicted a blow on the head of Rajaram. Ramkaran inflicted a ‘lathi’ blow on the right arm of Rajaram. Jamnalal, Harphool, Chaturbhuj and Jagram inflicted ‘lathi’ blows on the person of Rajaram. Then perusal of statement of Swarupi (PW-3) shows that she in her examination-in-chief has named Onkar, Arjun, Banshi, Onkar S/o Deviya, Ramkaran, Latoor, Harphool, Jamnalal, Chatru, Jagram and it is clear that she has not attributed any head injury of the deceased to anyone of the accused, but in the cross-examination she has stated that it were Arjun, Onkar S/o Deviya, Latoor and Ramkaran who caused ‘gandasi’ blows on the head of Rajaram. Narbada (PW-4) has also stated that Banshi and Onkar S/o Molliya caused ‘gandasi’ blows on the head of Rajaram. Then she has named Arjun, Latoor, Harphool and Jamna as those who gave beating to Rajaram. She did not assign any specific role to any one of them but generally stated that they were armed with ‘lathis’ and ‘gandasis’. Jamnalal S/o Jairam (PW-6) has attributed head injury of deceased Rajaram to Onkar S/o Molliya by ‘gandasi’ and then followed by Banshi and stated that Onkar S/o Deviya has also caused injuries by ‘gandasi’ on his head. Then Arjun, Latoor, Harchanda and Ramkaran also caused injuries to him. Dhulilal (PW-7) has made omnibus statement against all the accused and not specifically named anyone for the head injuries of Rajaram. Ramniwas (PW-8) has alleged that it were Onkar S/o Molliya, Onkar S/o Deviya and Arjun S/o Mooliya, who caused injuries by ‘gandasi’ on the head of Rajaram. Ramswaroop (PW-9) has alleged that Onkar S/o Molliya, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Latoor S/o Deva and Bansi S/o Gendiya inflicted head injuries to deceased Rajaram. Ramniwas (PW-8) has alleged that it were Onkar S/o Molliya, Onkar S/o Deviya and Arjun S/o Mooliya, who caused injuries by ‘gandasi’ on the head of Rajaram. Ramswaroop (PW-9) has alleged that Onkar S/o Molliya, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Latoor S/o Deva and Bansi S/o Gendiya inflicted head injuries to deceased Rajaram. Banshilal (PW-10) has alleged that Onkar S/o Molliya, Onkar S/o Deviya, Arjun S/o Mooliya, Latoor S/o Deva, Bansi S/o Gendiya and Ramkaran caused injuries on the head of deceased. Brijmohan (PW-12) and Harishankar (PW-13), although they claimed to be eye-witnesses, but have made omnibus allegations. 18. Most of them have attributed head injuries but amongst them three of them, namely, Sanwalia S/o Ranglal, Chaturbhuj S/o Jagram and Jamnalal S/o Ramchandra, have not been named as those who caused any injuries to the deceased. Although they are alleged to have caused injuries to other injured. Accused-appellant Onkar S/o Molliya @ Moolchand was not named in the F.I.R. In fact, accused-appellants Bansi S/o Gendiya and Onkar S/o Molliya were admitted to appeal by order of this court during trial only because they were not named as accused in the written report, which contained the names among 46 names as assailants. The allegation against Ramkaran out of 11 eye-witnesses, except Arjunlal (PW-2), Banshilal (PW-10) and Harishankar (PW-13), none has taken the name of Ramkaran, who caused injuries to the deceased. Both of whom are in the age of 70 years. Onkar S/o Molliya is about 70 years old and Ramkaran is 75 years old. In view of the above finding, the complainant-party was aggressor and accused-party was in possession of the land in question under the order of the Sub Divisional Officer having deposited the amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per bigha and were put in possession by Tikaram Meena (DW-1), the then Land Revenue Inspector. Actually the complainant-party was therefore aggressor. In view of the above finding, the complainant-party was aggressor and accused-party was in possession of the land in question under the order of the Sub Divisional Officer having deposited the amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per bigha and were put in possession by Tikaram Meena (DW-1), the then Land Revenue Inspector. Actually the complainant-party was therefore aggressor. The accused-appellants acted in exercise of the right of private defence, though they could not have exceeded such right but then in view of the number of injured and nature of injuries, it cannot be said that they formed unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of Rajaram, who was caused fatal injuries by one or two accused exceeding that right of private defence, the other accused cannot be held responsible, which is also proved from large number of simple injuries, out of which few have resulted into fractures of non-vital parts. All the accused-appellants are thus held entitled to benefit of doubt but in view of the findings recorded all the accused-appellants cannot be held responsible for the act of those who exceeded the common object of unlawful assembly, which could be offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC and not offence of murder. 19. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the statements of various witnesses as also analyzing the Medico Legal Reports of the injured, we are not persuaded to interfere with the conviction of the accused-appellants recorded under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC. For stated reasons, we are also not persuaded to uphold the findings of conviction of the accused-appellants for offence under Section 447 of the IPC. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 447 IPC and their conviction and sentence for this offence is set aside. Conviction and sentence of accused-appellants for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC is maintained and are sentenced to the period already undergone by them during trial and at the time of filing of the appeal. Accused-appellant Onkar S/o Molliya alias Mool Chand is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC but instead he is convicted for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Accused-appellant Onkar S/o Molliya alias Mool Chand is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC but instead he is convicted for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. For offence under Section 302/149 IPC, the accused-appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them during trial and at the time of filing of the appeal. The accused-appellants are on bail as their sentence was suspended during pendency of the appeal. They need not surrender. 21. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants, namely, Onkar S/o Molliya @ Moolchand, Ram Karan S/o Kishangopal, Sanwalia S/o Ranglal, Chaturbhuj S/o Jagram and Jamnalal S/o Ramchandra 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. In the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.