Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 242 (JHR)

Yadav Koiri v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-02-07

RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2020
JUDGMENT Ratnaker Bhengra,J. - The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 07.02.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1993 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences Under Sections 148,307/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 2 years for the offence under section 148 I.P.C. and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief as per the fardbeyan of the informant Godhu Koiri PW-5 of Village Tetala, Police station- Sonahatu recorded on 06.11.1990 at 11 a.m. is that on 05.11.1990 at about at 9/10 a.m., he was digging a drain for the purpose of irrigating his chilli plants at a place locally known as Daharbad. Suddenly Pushu Koiri, Dinesh Koiri, Madan Koiri,Bhikha Koiri, Mahi Koiri, Yadav Koiri and Nagen Koiri armed with deadly weapon came there and surrounded him. Pushu Koiri gave a tabala blow on the neck of the informant as a result he sustained injury and he fell on the ground.Thereafter, Dinesh Koiri assaulted the informant with stick on his left leg. Krishna Koiri(PW-3), who was going to harvest his paddy crops was pushed by Koka Koiri and then Madan Koiri assaulted him with tabla. At the time of occurrence other accused persons, namely, Bauri Koiri, Gora Koiri, Dhudha Koiri, Sohrai Koiri, Banka Koiri, Ishwar Koiri and Bhola Koiri were also present near the place of occurrence.On alarm many people assembled there but by that time, the aforesaid assailants had fled away. The further case of the prosecution is that land dispute was going on between the Ghashu Koiri(PW-1) and Pushu Koiri and due to this dispute, the aforesaid occurrence of assault had taken place. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant the police registered Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 60 of 1990 dated 06.11.1990 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.Thereafter chargesheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant the police registered Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 60 of 1990 dated 06.11.1990 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.Thereafter chargesheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The charges were framed under against the accused persons to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of trial the accused persons or appellants herein were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. Altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellants. P.W.-5 Godhu Koiri is the informant. P.W.-1 Ghashu Koiri and P.W.-3 Krishna Koiri are own brothers and cousin brothers of the informant. P.W.-2 Jaleshwari Devi is the mother of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 aunt of the informant. P.W. 4 Haldhar Koiri was declared hostile. P.W.-6 is Dr. N.K. Singh who had treated the injured. One defense witness Dinesh Prasad Koiri D.W.-1(Appellant no.11 herein) was examined from the side of the defense. 5. P.W. 5 Godhu Koiri is the informant of this case. He stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 9.30 a.m. he was making drain to irrigate his chilly field. In the meantime accused persons Pushu Koiri, Koka Koari, Dinesh Koiri, Rajan Koiri, Madan Koiri, Bhola Koiri, Bhikhan Koari, Sohai Koiri, Ghodha Koiri, Yadav Koiri, Nagen Koiri, Mohi Koiri, Banka Koiri, Keshav Koiri, Gora Koiri, Babari Koiri came there and surrounded him. Pushu Koiri assaulted him on the right side of his neck by tabala and on his ear and thumb of right hand. He fell down then he was assaulted by Dinesh Koiri on his left leg by stick. Krishana Koiri who was harvesting paddy at that time was surrounded by Ghasu Koiri and Jaleshari Koiri. Krishana Koiri was pushed by Koka and then Madan Koiri assaulted him on his neck by tabala. Madan Koari was accompained by Nagen Koari, Yadav Koiri, Mahi Koiri, Sohrai Koiri, Ghogha Koari, Bhola Koari, Bhikha Koari, Bauri Koari,Gora Koari, Ishawar Koari, Badha Koari, Dinesh Koari, Rajan Koari and they had also surrounded. On alarm, villagers came then accused persons ran away. Informant further stated that the reason for the occurrence is land dispute going on for the last 3-4 years. 6. On alarm, villagers came then accused persons ran away. Informant further stated that the reason for the occurrence is land dispute going on for the last 3-4 years. 6. P.W. 1 Ghashu Koiri stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at 9/10 a.m. he was going to his Kapilongbad field along with his brother Krishna(P.W-3) to harvest paddy crop. When he reached near the field he saw Koka Koiri, Pusu Koiri, Dinesh Koiri, Bauri Koiri, Gora Koiri, Ishwar, Banka, Mahi Ram, Yadav, Nagen, Dhunda, Sohrai ( all koiries) were harvesting his paddy. They asked them not to harvest paddy but they did not agree. Koka Koiri threw his brother Krishna. Godhu Koiri(P.W-5) who was making drain for irrigating his chilli field was surrounded by the aforesaid accused persons. Pusu Koiri assaulted Godhu Koiri on his neck by tabala. When Godhu Koiri fell down then Dinesh Koiri assaulted him by tabala. Seeing this he ran away towards the east. Mahiram had assaulted Krishna by tabala on his right hand. Kapilongbad land belonged to his maternal grandfather which was given to his mother and therefore they were cultivating the land as his maternal grandfather had no son. A partition suit between his mother and accused Pusu and Koka is pending. In his cross- examination PW-1 stated that Pusu and Koka are not alive. They were killed in the occurrence of harvesting paddy but he had not seen who killed them because he ran away seeing assault. In para 7, he stated that police had not interrogated him and he is giving his statement for the first time in the court. Madan was in his field near the place of occurrence when he ran away.He did not see assault on Madan. At the time of occurrence he was near the place of occurrence. In para-8, PW-1 stated that firstly Godhu was assaulted.Chilly field is after four fields from the paddy field at the distance of 50/60 yards. PW-1 further stated in his crossexamination that he is an accused in the murder case of Pusu and Koka.In para-11 he stated that Godhu was assaulted in chilli field where he was making drain for irrigation. Krishna was assaulted in paddy field. 7. PW-1 further stated in his crossexamination that he is an accused in the murder case of Pusu and Koka.In para-11 he stated that Godhu was assaulted in chilli field where he was making drain for irrigation. Krishna was assaulted in paddy field. 7. P.W. 2 is Jaleshari Devi.In her evidence she has stated that after marriage she was living with her husband at the residence of her father because her father had kept her husband as ghar-damad. Her husband with his sons had been cultivating the land from the beginning. PW-2 further stated that on the day of occurrence at 8 a.m. she and her sons Ghashu(P.W-1) and Krishna(P.W-3) had gone to harvest the paddy of Kapilongabad.There accused persons Koka,Pusu,Bhola,Bhikha,Mahi, Nagen, Yadav, Ishwar, Banka, Dhunda, Sohrai, Bauri, Gora total 15 others persons surrounded them. Accused persons were armed with tangi, farsa,stick etc. Thereafter Koka threw her son Krishna down and when Krishna fall down then Madan assaulted him by tabala which caused injury on his both hands. Then her second son Ghasu ran towards the village raising hulla. Mahi pushed her three times due to which she fell down. Koka was on the body of Krishna pressing him and then Dinesh threw tabala which hit Koka. At that time near the place of occurrence Godhu was in his chilli field. Godhu was restraining the accused persons from assaulting then he was chased and assaulted by Pusu by tabla. Godhu was being pressed by Pusu and then Dinesh gave tabala blow which hit Pusu. Her son Ghashu ran towards village raising hulla and when villagers assembled at the place of occurrence then accused persons ran away. Koka and Pusu sustained injury and died on the place of occurrence itself. She took Krishna and Godhu to hospital. In her cross- examination PW-2 stated that she and her both sons had gone to harvest paddy in kapilongbad. The accused persons were present there from before in that land. The accused persons started to assault them before harvesting paddy. Dinesh was saying that it was his land and they would not let them to harvest. At the time of assault she was at a distance of 30-40 yards.She further stated that her eyes are weak and she cannot see properly in the night and she also can not see clearly in the day time. 8. Dinesh was saying that it was his land and they would not let them to harvest. At the time of assault she was at a distance of 30-40 yards.She further stated that her eyes are weak and she cannot see properly in the night and she also can not see clearly in the day time. 8. P.W. 3 Krishna Koiri has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 8/9 a.m. in the morning he, his brother Ghashu and mother had gone to harvest paddy in Kapilongbad field which belongs to his maternal grand father (nana). When they came down in the field for harvesting paddy then the accused persons Koka,Pusu, Dinesh,Madan,Bhikha Bhola, Mahi, Yadav,Nagen, Sohrai, Dhunda, Banka, Ishwar, Gora and Bauri total 15 persons armed with lathi and tangi surrounded them. Madan gave him tabala blow which caused him injury in his hand. Koka pressed him then Madan gave farsa blow to him which hit Koka because Koka was above him. When the appellants were assaulting him Ghashu ran towards the village raising hulla. Mahiram also assaulted him with farsa. Due to assault he became senseless. His brother Godhu who was in his chilli field also came on hulla and tried to save him from assault then Pusu and Dinesh jumped on him. Pussu assaulted Godhu with tabala on his neck but he sustained injury on his head and ear and his ear was cut. Pusu again pressed Godhu. Dinesh again gave farsa blow which hit Pusu because Pusu was above Godhu. In his cross-examination PW3 stated that when he was being assaulted by the accused persons, Ghashu ran away towards the village. Bhola, Bhikha,Dhunda,Bauri and Sohrai had surrounded him at the time of assault and but they did not assault him. Madan had assaulted him. In para-7 of his crossexamination he stated that he and his brother Ghashu had ploughed the land of Kapilongbad. When they started to harvest the paddy then accused persons assaulted them. Accused persons came and told them to stop harvesting paddy. They said that the land belongs his maternal grandfather and they will harvest the paddy and for this there was assault. His mother was also there at the place of occurrence. During assault when he fell down Koka pressed him. Assault took place in the land which is in share of his maternal grandfather. They said that the land belongs his maternal grandfather and they will harvest the paddy and for this there was assault. His mother was also there at the place of occurrence. During assault when he fell down Koka pressed him. Assault took place in the land which is in share of his maternal grandfather. He was also assaulted by stick by Mahiram Koiri. The chilli field where Ghodhu was present is at a distance of 100 yards from Kapilongbad. 9. (I) P.W. 6 is Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha who examined the injured P.W-5 Godhu Koiri and P.W-3 Krishna Koiri. On examination of P.W-5 Godhu Koiri doctor found following injuries on the person of Godhu Koiri (i) one sharp cut wound 4"x2"x skin deep over the pastero lateral aspect of right side neck just one inch below the ear (ii) one sharp cut wound encircling right side neck 31/2"x 1/2"x1" just below injury no. (I), (iii) One lacerated wound over pitta of right ear with serum and pus formation of size 1/2"x1/4" x skin deep and (iv) One sharp cut wound cutting left enterior portion of thumb with pus formation 1/2" x1" x1/4". He stated that all the injuries caused to Godhu Koiri were simple.The injury report of Godhu Koiri was marked as Ext-1. (ii) PW-6 Doctor further examined Krishna Koiri and found the following injuries on his person- (i) One lacerated wound posterior aspect of mind portion of right forearm size 2.5 cm x 5"x 5" with pus formation, (ii) one lacerated wound just 1" above the injury no. i size 2.5. cm x 3 cm x 2 cm, (iii) one sharp cut wound over posterior aspect of root of left thumb of size 2.5 cm x 3 cm x .5 cm with pus formation. Doctor further stated that all the injuries caused to Krishna Koiri were simple. The injury report of Krishna Koiri was marked as Ext-1. 10. Dinesh Koiri D.W.-1was examined from the side of the defense. The said Dinesh Koiri is the appellant no.11 herein. He is the informant in Sonahatu PS Case No. 59 of 1990 in which his father(Koka) and uncle(Pusu) were murdered. He has proved his fardebyan dated 5-11-1990 which was marked as Ext-A and the FIR of Sonahatu Police station case no.59/1990 which was marked as Ext-B. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 11. He is the informant in Sonahatu PS Case No. 59 of 1990 in which his father(Koka) and uncle(Pusu) were murdered. He has proved his fardebyan dated 5-11-1990 which was marked as Ext-A and the FIR of Sonahatu Police station case no.59/1990 which was marked as Ext-B. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 5-11-1990 of the appellant no. 11 namely Dinesh Prasad Koiri a FIR was lodged being Sonahatu PS Case no.59 of 1990 under sections 147,148,149,302,448,427 and 379 of the IPC against the informant side for the murder of father(Koka) and uncle(Pusu) of the appellant no. 11 herein namely Dinesh Prasad Koiri. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the aforesaid Sonahatu PS Case no.59 of 1990 informant namely Dinesh Prasad Koiri had stated interalia that on 5-11-1990 at about 10a.m. informant Dinesh Prasad Koiri (appellant no.11 herein) with his brother Rajendra Koiri, his uncle Pusu Koiri alongwith villlagers Madan Mohan Koiri, Govind Koiri were harvesting their paddy in the paddy field locally known as Kapilangabad.In the meantime 10-15 persons from southern side of village and 10-15 persons from eastern side of the village surrounded them and started shooting arrows.When they wanted to flee away from the place then accused persons came nearer armed with deadly weapons.The group accused persons consisted of Manki Anant Bhushan Singh Munda, Mangal Singh Munda, Chandi Prasad Singh Munda, Fani Singh Munda, Mahendra Koiri, Ganesh Modak, Sonaram Koiri, Gurupado Koiri, Godhu Koiri (Informant of the present case i.s. S.T. No. 35 of 1993 arising out of Sonahatu P.S. No. 60 of 1990 dated 6.11.1990), Madhu Koiri, Chhutaku Koiri, Madhua Koiri, Mohan Koiri, Bachiram Koiri, Krishna Koiri( PW-3), Ghashu Koiri(PW-1) and Shrikant Koiri and they were all armed with tabala and tangi. Informant (appellant no.11 herein) of the Sonahatu PS Case no.59 of 1990 further stated that Anant Bhushan Singh Manki assaulted his father namely Koka Koiri with a farsa, Chandi Prasad Singh and Mangal Singh @ Tej Narayan Singh assaulted his uncle Pusu with a tabala. Mahiram Koiri was assaulted by Madhu Koiri, Godhu Koiri(PW-5) and Sonaram Koiri. Appellant no.11 Dinesh Koiri was assaulted by Mahendra Koiri and Gurupada Koiri with tabala as a result informant Dinesh Koiri ( appellant no. 11) sustained injury on his neck, head, right hand and on both the legs. Mahiram Koiri was assaulted by Madhu Koiri, Godhu Koiri(PW-5) and Sonaram Koiri. Appellant no.11 Dinesh Koiri was assaulted by Mahendra Koiri and Gurupada Koiri with tabala as a result informant Dinesh Koiri ( appellant no. 11) sustained injury on his neck, head, right hand and on both the legs. When the appellant no.11 Dinesh Koiri fell down then the assailants started assaulting others.Thereafter, appellant 11 Dinesh Koiri ran away from the place of assault and raised alarm. Appellant no.6 Madan Koiri and one Govind Koiri also ran away to save their lives. People assembled at the place of occurrence and then the above named assailants fled away. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the aforesaid two deceased persons namely Koka Koiri and Pusu Koiri have also been named as accused in the present case as they have been named as assailants in the fardbeyan of the informant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that for the same day of occurrence two Sessions Trial being S.T.No. 107 of 1991 and S.T.No. 35 of 1993 commenced in the learned court below.The informant (P.W.-5) and his brother P.W. 1 were facing trial for offences under section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial being S.T. No. 107 of 1991 and in that case, they have been held guilty by the same Court along with 12 others for committing the murder of two persons namely Koka Koiri and Pushu Koiri who happened to be the father and uncle respectively of the appellant no. 11 namely Dinesh Koiri. In S.T. No. 107 of 1991, the appellant no. 11 namely Dinesh Koiri is the informant and he was examined in the said trial as P.W. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as informant sides have been held guilty in double murder of the father(Koka) and uncle(Pusu) of appellant no. 11 Dinesh Koiri and hence appellant side ought to have been extended the benefit of right of private defense. Appellants side were acting in their right of private defense and by convicting the appellants a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned and the finding of the learned court below suffers from perversity. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case of the informant Godhu Koiri has not been supported and corroborated by any other independent witnesses. Appellants side were acting in their right of private defense and by convicting the appellants a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned and the finding of the learned court below suffers from perversity. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case of the informant Godhu Koiri has not been supported and corroborated by any other independent witnesses. One of the witnesses P.W. 1 Ghashu Koiri who happens to be cousin brother of the informant is a coaccused in S.T. No. 107/91 and he has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life together with the informant and 12 others by the same court and on the same date. Out of the rest witnesses, the only independent witness, namely, P.W.-4 Haldhar Koiri has not supported the prosecution case as he has turned hostile. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had contradicted each other in their evidence and material particulars. In the fardbeyan, the above two witnesses were not stated to be present at the place of occurrence and as such, they were set up witnesses for the purpose of saving their skin from the charge of murder. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the factum of assault and the manner and the weapons which are stated in the evidence of the above PWs are virtually contradicted from the injury report and also from the evidence of the Doctor. Doctor had found simple injuries on the person of the injured P.W.-3 and P.W.-5. Hence, the evidence of doctor P.W. 6 do not suggest that the assailants had any intention to commit the murder of the victims. Therefore, the conviction under section 307 of the IPC is wholly unwarranted and against the weight of evidence on record and hence the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, learned APP, submitted that the case of the prosecution laid out by informant P.W. 5 Godhu Koiri is supported by the evidences of P.W. 1 Ghashu Koiri who is the cousin brother of the informant, P.W. 2 Jaleshari Devi who is the aunt of the informant and P.W. 3 Krishna Koiri who is also the cousin of the informant. There is also evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. There is also evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. N.K. Singh who had examined the injured Ghodhu Koiri as well as Krishna Koiri. Learned counsel for the State argues that the FIR indicates that they were almost 15-16 persons present on the scene of the occurrence and they were holding deadly weapons in their hands. Further Pusu Koiri had given a tabala blow on the neck of the informant and Dinesh Koiri had assaulted the informant on his left leg. It is further indicated that Krisna Koiri was pushed by Koko Koiri as a result Krishna Koiri fell down and then he was assaulted by tabala by Madan Koiri. During the occurrence the other accused including these appellants were also present.Learned counsel further submitted that this version of events have been substantially supported by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 in their evidences.Informant P.W. 5 Godhu Koiri who is one of the injured has deposed that Pusu Koiri assaulted him on the right side of his neck by tabala. P.W- 5 also deposed that he was also assaulted by Dinesh Koiri on his left leg by a stick. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that P.W-3 Krishna Koiri is also one of the injured. He has also deposed that he was assaulted by Madan by tabala as a result he sustained injury in his hand. Hence, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence of doctor, the conviction of the appellant under section 307/149 IPC is fully sustainable. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is based on proper evidence and hence requires to be sustained and upheld. F I N D I N G S 14. Having heard both counsels, having gone through the records of the case and the evidences, I find from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there was subsisting land dispute between the informant side and appellant side that ultimately culminated in murder of two persons from appellant side and injury to two persons from informant side and hence resulting in case and counter case. 15. Before proceeding further it would be fruitful to understand the background of the land dispute between informant side and appellant side. P.W.-2 Jaleshari Devi is the mother of PW-1Ghashu Koiri and PW-3 Krishna Koiri and aunt of the informant Godhu Koiri PW-5. 15. Before proceeding further it would be fruitful to understand the background of the land dispute between informant side and appellant side. P.W.-2 Jaleshari Devi is the mother of PW-1Ghashu Koiri and PW-3 Krishna Koiri and aunt of the informant Godhu Koiri PW-5. In her examination-in-chief she stated that after marriage she was living with her husband at the residence of her father because her father had kept her husband as ghar-damad. Her husband had been cultivating her father''s land with his sons from the beginning. Further, in her cross-examination at para-7, she stated that Pusu and Koka are the grandson of his uncle and she has filed partion suit for her father''s land including the Kapilongbad land against the accused persons or appellants herein which is pending in the court. Hence, informant side and appellant side are related to each other and are engaged in land related litigation. 16. (I) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the plea of right of private defense and has submitted that benefit of right of private defense may be extended to the appellant side as father of appellant no. 11 Dinesh Prasad Koiri namely Koka and his uncle namely Pusu were done to death by the informant side on the same day of occurrence. Hence, plea of appellants i.e. right of private defence has to be seen to find the guilt or innocence of the appellants. To answer the question of plea of right of private defence it will be fruitful to see the place of occurrence and FIR lodged by the appellants side. Here it is pertinent to note that finding on the issue of aggressor would be of no help as it has come in evidence of the P.W. 2 that a partion suit regarding the Kapilongbad land is pending in court. (ii) Regarding the place of occurrence learned court below has elaborately discussed it in para-22 to para-26 of its judgment and gave finding that PW-5 Godhu and PW-3 Krishana were assaulted at different places namely in chilli field and in paddy field of Kapilongbad. From the statement of PW-1 Ghashu Koeri given at para-8 of his deposition, I find that the said chilli field and paddy field (Kapilongbad) are very close to each other and are only at a distance of 50/60 yards. From the statement of PW-1 Ghashu Koeri given at para-8 of his deposition, I find that the said chilli field and paddy field (Kapilongbad) are very close to each other and are only at a distance of 50/60 yards. From the record, I also find that the on the basis of the fardbeyan dated 5- 11-1990(Ext-A) of the appellant no. 11 namely Dinesh Prasad Koiri a FIR was lodged being Sonahatu PS case no. 59/1990(Ext-B) under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 448, 427 and 379 of IPC against the informant side for the murder of father(Koka) and uncle(Pusu) of the appellant no.11 Dinesh Prasad Koiri. (iii) Regarding right of private defense Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2005) 9 SCC 705 has held at paragraph-10 that in a particular set of circumstances, a person legitimately acted in exercise of right of private defense is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. In determining this question of fact, the court must consider all the surrounding circumstances. Hon''ble Apex Court further held that if circumstances show that the right of private defense was legimately exercised, it is open to the court to consider such plea . (iv) In the case in hand two person from the informant side P.W-5 Godhu Koiri and PW-3 Krishna Koiri had sustained injury. They were examined by the doctor P.W. 6 Dr. Narendra Kumar Sinha and regarding injury doctor opined that injury sustained by both the injured were simple in nature. As, the injury on to the injured Godhu Koiri and Krishna Koire were simple in nature and were not on the vital part of body and hence conviction of the appellants under section 307 of IPC and its sentence is set aside. (v) The nature of injury on the informant side are simple in nature but from the appellants side two persons Koka and Pusu who are father and uncle respectively of the appellant no. 11 Dinesh Prasad Koiri, were murdered. So, in the case in hand informant side had gone to the place of occurrence fully prepared. The murder of two persons from the appellant side arising out of the same incident suggests that the preparation on the part of the informant side was both mental and also physical. 11 Dinesh Prasad Koiri, were murdered. So, in the case in hand informant side had gone to the place of occurrence fully prepared. The murder of two persons from the appellant side arising out of the same incident suggests that the preparation on the part of the informant side was both mental and also physical. Hence,from the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that appellants side legitimately acted in exercise of the right of private defense. This is also clear from the fact that father and uncle of appellant no. 11 Dinesh Prasad Koiri were done to death by the informant side and in course of their defense only simple injury were caused to P.W-5 Godhu Koiri and P.W.-3 Krishna Koiri. Hence, the conviction of the appellants under sections 148 and 324 of IPC and its sentences are also set aside. 17. Therefore, going through the arguments and the evidences on record and for the aforesaid reasons in my conclusions and in the fact and circumstances, this court is of the view that benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellants. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.2.2003 passed in S.T. 35 of 1993 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti is set aside. The appellants stand acquitted. 18. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.