JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-State has preferred leave to appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.09.1985. Leave was accepted with regard to accused Ghisya, Ram Lal, Bharat Lal and Jagan. During the pendency of this appeal, accused respondents - Ghisya and Jagan have expired and now, the appeal survives only against accused respondents - Bharat Lal and Ram Lal. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the present case are that a report was lodged by Ram Swaroop son of Shri Ratti Ram Gurjar on 29.06.1983 that at 1:30 PM when Ram Swaroop and Kedar were sowing their field bearing Khasra No.17, then Ghisya and from his family, Bharat Lal, Jagan Lal, Jiya, Ram Sahay, Ram Lal son of Jagan, Ram Ratan, Gangadhar, Ram Lal son of Ghisya, Prithvi Ram, Ramji Lal, Sugani, Jamburi, Prem, Kesar, Resham, Somoti wife of Jiya, Somoti wife of Gangadhar, Janki, Kanchan, Ramdhani, Kampuri, Rampati, Komari armed with lathis and gandasi came to Khasra No.17 and that he, Ram Swaroop and Kedar were surrounded from all sides and were attacked with the intention to kill them. In the alleged incident, Ram Swaroop sustained injuries and expired in the hospital. The Police thereafter registered a case for the offences under Sections 147, 302, 302/149, 447, 447/149, 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short) and after due investigation filed a charge-sheet against 26 persons. As many as 24 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, acquitted all the accused vide its judgment and order dated 10.09.1985, aggrieved by which, the appellant-State filed a leave to appeal and now, the present appeal survives against accused respondents - Bharat Lal and Ram Lal only. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant - State that as many as 6 witnesses have specifically alleged that the accused respondents were armed with lathis and they gave blows to the deceased. Our attention has been drawn towards the statements of Ram Swaroop (PW-1), Kedar (PW-2), Smt. Gajari (PW-8), Smt. Mangali (PW-9), Mst. Dharmo (PW-10) and Smt. Dhapu (PW-11). Our attention has been drawn towards the statements of Ram Swaroop (PW-1), Kedar (PW-2), Smt. Gajari (PW-8), Smt. Mangali (PW-9), Mst. Dharmo (PW-10) and Smt. Dhapu (PW-11). It is contended that all these witnesses are injured witnesses and there was no reason for the Court below to disbelieve their statements wherein they have levelled specific allegations against accused Bharat Lal and Ram Lal, for causing injury on the head of the deceased with lathis. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant - State that other than injured witnesses, there are other 4 witnesses i.e. Ram Sahay (PW-3), Ram Singh (PW-4), Prithvi Raj (PW-5) and Charan (PW-6), who have also stated that Bharat Lal and Ram Lal hit on the head of the deceased and therefore, prayer is made for conviction of the accused respondents. 4. Learned Senior Advocate, Ms. Gayatri Rathore assisted by Mr. Ran Singh appearing on behalf of accused respondents has contended that learned trial Court elaborately dealt with the evidence and has arrived at the conclusion that no offence is made out against the accused. There is no justification for holding the present accused respondents guilty for the alleged offences for the very reason that even if, the statements of witnesses are considered, it is to be noted that a cross-case was registered against the complainant party. It is also contended that Ram Lal sustained injuries on his head and Gulabi sustained 6 blunt injuries including 1 grievous injury. It is further contended that no explanation has been given by the prosecution in regard to the injuries sustained by Ram Lal and Gulabi. 5. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that in the cross-FIR, which was registered, the Court has held the complainant party to be guilty vide its judgment and order dated 31.01.1995 with the finding that they were aggressors. It is also contended that there was a dispute between the parties and that both the sides sustained injuries is also admitted by the Investigating Officer, who has admitted that a cross-FIR was registered in this case. It is further contended that the accused respondents were sowing their field, when the complainant side armed with lathis and farsis attacked the respondents and therein, Ram Lal sustained 1 incised wound and 6 blunt injuries and Gulabi sustained 6 blunt injuries and 1 grievous injury. 6. It is further contended that the accused respondents were sowing their field, when the complainant side armed with lathis and farsis attacked the respondents and therein, Ram Lal sustained 1 incised wound and 6 blunt injuries and Gulabi sustained 6 blunt injuries and 1 grievous injury. 6. It is contended by the counsel for the accused respondents that the accused respondents had a right to defend their person and the case would fall within the ambit of Section 100 of IPC. It is also contended that allegation of causing injuries on the head of the deceased was against 4 persons and only one of the said injury was fatal. The first blow was assigned to Ghisya, who has expired. It is not ascertained as to by which blow, the deceased died, as only injury number 1 was found to be fatal. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record. 8. The present criminal case arises out of an incident, which took place in the year 1983. All the accused in this case were acquitted by the trial Court. As per the prosecution version, the present appellants along with 24 other persons attacked the complainant side. All stand acquitted and the leave was granted only in respect of 4 accused, out of which 2 accused have expired. Accused respondents - Ram Lal has sustained 1 incised wound and Gulabi has sustained 1 grievous injury. Nowhere in the prosecution version, any evidence is adduced as to how the accused respondents sustained injuries. 9. The fact that the complainant party was also armed with lathis and sharp weapons is evident from the injuries sustained by accused respondents - Ram Lal and Gulabi, who was also an accused before the trial Court and the complainant party stands convicted by the trial Court. Thus, every member of the accused party had an apprehension that death or grievous hurt would be consequence of such assault, therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 100 (clause first and second) of IPC. Bihari Lal (PW-23) - Investigating Officer has admitted that for the same event, a cross-case bearing number 40/1983 was registered, which was investigated by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed, pursuant to which, the Court has convicted the complainant party. Bihari Lal (PW-23) - Investigating Officer has admitted that for the same event, a cross-case bearing number 40/1983 was registered, which was investigated by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed, pursuant to which, the Court has convicted the complainant party. Since the Investigating Officer has admitted that a cross-case was filed, in which challan was filed, it is evident that the fight took place and for which the complainant side was also responsible. That is the reason why charge-sheet has been filed against them. It is to be noted that the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has admitted that vide judgment and sentence dated 31.01.1995, complainant party was convicted in cross-case and the Court held therein that persons of complainant party were the aggressors. 10. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan through PP Versus Shyoraj & Ors.: D.B. Criminal Appeal No.13/1990 and connected matters decided on 07.02.2023, faced a similar situation wherein the right of private defence was exercised. The Court held that rustic villagers gave blows to the complainant side on being attacked with lathis and gandasis. Thus, their case would squarely be covered under Section 100 (clause first and second) of IPC. The Court has also held that while exercising right of private defence, it is not required that defence be modulated step by step as held by the Apex Court in Deo Narain Versus State of U.P.: AIR 1973 SC 473 . 11. In the present case in hand, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused; leave was granted with regard to only 4 accused, out of which 2 accused have expired and the matter is relating to year 1983. Since the genesis of the crime has not been revealed by any of the witnesses and there is a cross-FIR of the same incident, in which challan has been filed against the complainant side, from which it can be inferred that the complainant party in fact barged into the land, started the quarrel and caused injuries to the accused side; the accused respondents have rightly exercised their right of private defence of body as enumerated under Section 100 of IPC. 12. The learned trial Court after elaborately discussing the evidence has rightly acquitted the accused respondents, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant - State and the same is accordingly dismissed.