JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Since controversy involved in the bunch of these criminal appeals arises out of the same incident; the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 whereby appellants were acquitted for the offence under Sections 323, 323/149, 307, 307/149 and 341 of IPC and convicted and sentenced as hereunder: Appellant-Sukh Dev Singh: (i) For offence under Section 148 IPC - 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. (ii) For offence under Section 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. (iii) For offence under Section 326/149 IPC - 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. (iv) For offence under Section 324/149 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. (v) For offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellants-Munsha Singh, Amar Singh, Smt. Rukman Kaur, Gurudev Singh, Succha Singh and Kulwant: (i) For offence under Section 148 IPC - 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. (ii) For offence under Section 302/149 IPC - Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. (iii) For offence under Section 326/149 IPC - 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. (iv) For offence under Section 324/149 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. (iv) For offence under Section 324/149 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit-P1) was lodged by complainant - Prakash Kaur wife of Charan Singh on 27.09.2012 at Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan, which reads as under: ^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd dy fnukad 26-09-2012 dks lk;adky 6&6%30 cts dh ckr gS fd esjk ifr pj.kflag vius [ksr dks tqrkbZ ;ksX; gksus vFkok ugha gksus gsrq ns[kus x;k Fkk rks ogka mls lqPpkflag iq= lqjs.kflag] fnyhiflag iq= lqjs.kflag] lq[knsoflag] dqyoarflag] mQZ xq:tsUV iq= fnyhiflag] eqU’kkflag iq= fnyhiflag] xq:nso flag iq= Jh bUnj flag o muds lkFk muds ifjokj dh efgyk;sa jk.kkdkSj iRuh Jh fnyhiflag] y{ehdkSj iq=h lqPpkflag] fniksa dkSj iRuh lqPpkflag] :de.kdkSj iq=h fnyhiflag o lqjs.kflag dk nkekn vejflag iq= y{ke.kflag xkao [ksMh gkFkksa esa cUnwd] ryokj] QlkZ] o ykBh;ksa ls ySl gksdj ÁkfFkZ;k ds ifjokj ds [ksr esa VªSDVj ls tqrkbZ djkrs gq, feys ftl ij esjs ifr pj.kflag us mUgsa [ksr tksrus ls euk fd;k rks mldks ?ksj dj o fnyhiflag us viuh cUnwd ls tku ls ekjus ds vk’k; ls Qk;j dj fn;k ftlls mlds NjsZ gkFkksa esa yxs o mldh iRuh :de.kh esjs ifr ds flj o gkFkksa esa Qjlk ekjk] ftlls mlds gkFk dV x;sA blds ckn esjs ifjokj dk xq:ehr flag mDr okjnkr dks ns[kdj igqapk rks mldks tku ls ekjus ds vk’k; ls xq:uhrflag ds flj esa QlsZ dh pksV ekjh o gkFkksa esa ryokj dqycUrflag us ryokj ls pksV igqapkbZA ftlls xq:ehrflag ds gkFk dV x;sA fQj esjs ifjokj ds egsUæflag] fueZydkSj] vt;flag] vejthrflag ikl esa fLFkr vius edku ls [ksr ij igqaps rks mu ij Hkh lHkh eqyftekuksa }kjk QlkZ ryokj ls okj dj xEHkhj pksVsa ekjhA vejnhiflag] dks lq[knsoflag }kjk cUnwd ls xksyh ekjh] tks mlds dqYgsa dks phjrh gqbZ ikj gksdj fudy xbZ o esjs ifjokj ds lHkh yksxksa dks ykBh ryokj QlkZ] cYye ls xEHkhj pksVsa igqapkbZA mDr ?kVuk ds le; lrikyflag] ijthrdkSj] tkxhj dkSj] xq:nsoflag vkfn dkQh xkao ds yksx ekStwn FksA ftUgksaus ;g ?kVuk ns[kh gS ftUgksaus mDr xEHkhj okjnkr dh VsyhQksu ls lwpuk iqfyl Fkkuk tqjgjk dks nh tks ekSds ls esjs ifjokj ds lHkh yksxksa dks ej.kklUu voLFkk esa mBkdj yk;s o tqjgjk vLirky esa ys x;s tgka ?kk;yksa dh xEHkhj voLFkk dks ns[kdj dkeka ds fy, jSQj dj fn;k rRi’pkr dkaek ls Hkjriqj ds fy, jSQj fd;kA tgka Hkjriqj esa mUgsa HkrhZ djok;k x;kA ftuesa ls vejthrflag dks Hkjriqj ls t;iqj ds fy, jSQj dj fn;kA esjs ifjokj ds lHkh lnL; vkjŒchŒ,eŒ gkWLihVy esa ej.kklUu voLFkk esa tSj bykt pys vk jgs gS ftUgsa eSa gkWLihVy esa NksM+dj eqdnek ntZ djokus vkbZ gwaA vr% fuosnu gS fd eqdnek ntZ dj esjs ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dk esfMdy eqvk;uk djok dj mDr vijkf/k;ksa ds fo:) dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dj dBksj ltk fnyokbZ tkosA** 4. On the basis of the said written report (Exhibit-P1), the Police Station Jurhara, registered FIR No. 222/2012 (Exhibit-P2) for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 307 of IPC. After due investigation, police filed challan for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324, 326, 307, 302 of IPC against all the accused-appellants. Against appellant-Sukh Dev Singh, in addition to the above, supplementary challan was also filed under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act before the concerned Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur. 5. Learned Trial Court after hearing the charge arguments, framed charges against the accused. The accused appellants denied the charges and sought trial. As many as 25 witnesses were examined and 58 documents were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Explanation of all the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case. In defence, 4 witnesses (DW-1 to DW-4) were examined and 11 documents (D-1 to D-11) were exhibited. After hearing the arguments, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted 7 accused appellants and acquitted 2 accused i.e. Dilip Singh and Rani Bai and also acquitted Sukh Dev Singh, Suchcha Singh, Gurdev Singh, Smt. Rukaman Kaur, Amarjeet, Munsha Singh, Kulwant @ Kurjant Singh for offence under Sections 323, 323/149, 307, 307/149 and 341 of IPC and sentenced the appellants as above mentioned. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused appellants that the complainant and the accused party belong to the same family. They are sons and grand-sons of Swaran Singh, who was the actual owner of the property in dispute. It is also contended that Swaran Singh was the owner of 40 bighas of land, which was to be divided amongst his sons and daughters. The accused side were in possession of their share and were ploughing the field, when the complainant side attacked the accused side. The complainant side were armed with firearms, lathis and pharsas and attacked the accused side, whereupon the dispute started. Both the sides have sustained injuries. It is further contended that the prosecution has not explained the injuries, which are grievous in nature and have been sustained by the accused side. 7. The complainant side were armed with firearms, lathis and pharsas and attacked the accused side, whereupon the dispute started. Both the sides have sustained injuries. It is further contended that the prosecution has not explained the injuries, which are grievous in nature and have been sustained by the accused side. 7. It is contended that a cross-FIR was registered, which case was also tried by the same Court and 5 persons from the complainant side have been convicted by the learned Trial Court. It is also contended that no effort was made by the Investigating Officer or the complainant side to establish that the land on which the dispute took place, belonged to the complainant. 8. It is further contended that accused-Munsha Singh received a gun-shot injury, which is established from his injury report (Exhibit-D6), which shows that the complainant side were the aggressors, as they came armed with weapons. It is argued that 3 persons from the accused side got injured and have received as many as 4 grievous injuries. 9. It is contended that the learned Trial Court in the present case has erred in coming to the conclusion that both the sides were aggressors. It is argued that when the accused side were ploughing their own field, there was no reason for the complainant side to attack the accused appellants. It is also contended that Dilip Singh and Rani Bai have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. An appeal was preferred by the complainant before the High Court against their acquittal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 13.08.2021. It is argued that case of the prosecution fails for the very reason that there was allegation of firing upon Dilip Singh, who has been acquitted. 10. It is also contended that in fact, Mindarpal @ Mahendra Singh (PW-2) fired, which accidentally hit Amarjeet Singh, as a result of which, he died. This theory was put to all the witnesses. It is further contended that the recovery of firearm at the instance of Sukh Dev Singh is not established. As per the recovery memo (Exhibit-P20), a gun was recovered on 22.10.2012, whereas as per the Malkhana Register (Exhibit-P32A), the first item was entered on 04.10.2012, which means that all the articles recovered on whichever date were deposited after 4.10.2012. It is further contended that the recovery of firearm at the instance of Sukh Dev Singh is not established. As per the recovery memo (Exhibit-P20), a gun was recovered on 22.10.2012, whereas as per the Malkhana Register (Exhibit-P32A), the first item was entered on 04.10.2012, which means that all the articles recovered on whichever date were deposited after 4.10.2012. There is cutting in the Malkhana Register as admitted by the Malkhana Incharge (PW-23). 11. It is contended that name of Sukh Dev Singh was mentioned as an accused in the FIR lodged on 27.09.2012 and he was arrested on 22.10.2012. There is no reason as to why his house was not searched by the police prior to 22.10.2012 i.e. for a period of 1 month from the date of the incident. 12. It is also contended that there is no explanation on behalf of the complainant with regard to the injuries sustained by the accused side. All the witnesses, who have been produced before the Court, have specifically stated that they have not caused any injuries to the accused side. The complainant side was thus trying to conceal important material facts from the Court and therefore, they should be treated as aggressors as they were armed with weapons and gun-shot injury was received by Munsha Singh. 13. It is contended by the counsel for the accused appellants that the complainant side were the aggressors and the accused side only exercised their right of private defence. Gunshot injury was also received by one of the accused and grievous injuries were received by the accused appellants and in exercise of their right of private defence, they caused injuries to the complainant side. It is also contended that in fact, the gun was fired by Mindarpal and it hit the deceased and this suggestion has been given to all the eye-witnesses. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that Charan Singh was in possession of the land. The Investigating Officer-Rishiraj (PW-17) has stated that he had obtained the revenue record, jamabandi, khasra girdawary and naksha trace from the Revenue Officer. As to why it was not produced before the Court has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. It is also contended that witness, Prakash Kaur (PW-1) has initially admitted that the land was in possession of the accused side. 14. As to why it was not produced before the Court has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. It is also contended that witness, Prakash Kaur (PW-1) has initially admitted that the land was in possession of the accused side. 14. It is contended that it is an admitted case that Suchcha Singh was getting the land tilled, meaning thereby he was in possession of the land at the relevant time and it was the complainant side, who were the aggressors and were armed with firearm, lathis and pharsas. It is also contended that eyewitnesses have tried to falsely implicate Sukh Dev Singh for the injury. It is further contended that the entry wound is near the thighs and the exit wound is from kulha, however, the witnesses have stated that Sukh Dev Singh fired at kulha (hip). 15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that nothing was recovered from Suchcha Singh and Kulwant Singh. Rusted swords were recovered from Munsha Singh, Amar Singh and Rukman Kaur. It is also contended that all the recovered articles were sent to FSL, but no FSL report has been produced before the Court, hence, the recovery do not connect the appellants with the alleged crime. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that these appeals may be allowed and accused appellants may be acquitted of charges levelled against them. 16. Learned counsel, Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, appearing for the complainant(s) has vehemently opposed the appeals. However, he has admitted that the parties have a common lineage. They are all sons and grand sons of Swaran Singh, who was the owner of 40 bighas of land. It is contended that Charan Singh was in possession of the disputed land and Suchcha Singh was trying to take over the land, on which, the dispute started. It is also contended that the accused side were armed with firearms and the deceased has received gun-shot injury, which is assigned to Sukh Dev Singh and therefore, the conviction of Sukh Dev Singh under Section 302 of IPC requires to be upheld. 17. It is contended that all the accused appellants were the aggressors, they formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Charan Singh and his family, thus they have been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. 17. It is contended that all the accused appellants were the aggressors, they formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Charan Singh and his family, thus they have been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused appellants for the alleged offences. It is admitted by Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar that two of the accused i.e. Dilip Singh and Rani Bai were acquitted by the learned Trial Court and the appeal filed against their acquittal has been dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court. 18. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record. 19. For consideration of the present matter, it is relevant to quote the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “100. When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death: The right of private defense of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: First - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Secondly - Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Thirdly - An assault with the intention of committing rape. Fourthly - An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. Fifthly - An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting. Sixthly - An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. 102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of the body: The right of private defense 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 it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.” 20. Admittedly, both the sides have received grievous injuries. The complainant side has received 6 grievous injuries and 1 person has expired, whereas, accused side has received 4 grievous injuries, which includes gun-shot injury and injury on the head. It is an admitted position that Suchcha Singh was getting the farm tilled. As to whether the farm belonged to and was in possession of Suchcha Singh is a moot question before this Court. It was the duty of the prosecution to establish that the farm, which was being tilled, was in possession of Charan Singh or that he got that part of the land in family settlement. Neither revenue record nor any family settlement have been produced before the Court to establish that the disputed land, which was being tilled by Suchcha Singh, belonged to the complainant side. In common parlance, one who is tilling the land should be considered to be in possession of the land. Prakash Kaur (PW-1), who is the complainant, has initially admitted that Suchcha Singh was getting his land tilled by a tractor, belonging to a Mev Community person, however, later on, she has stated that Suchcha Singh was getting their farm tilled. Charan Singh (PW-8) in his cross-examination has admitted that the farm, on which, the dispute took place, is in the name of his father-Swaran Singh. He has also stated that the land was given to him by his father, however, in the crossexamination, he has admitted that particular land has not been entered in the name of any person till date. He has further admitted that a partition took place, but as to in whose possession the partition deed is, he does not know. Gurmeet Singh (PW-9) has admitted in his cross-examination that the farm, on which, the dispute took place, is in the name of his grand-father Swaran Singh. He has also admitted that in the record, land is yet not divided. Neither possession of Charan Singh on the disputed land has been established by any witness or any document nor the injuries, which have been caused to the accused side, have been explained by any of the witness except Ajay Singh (PW-7), who has admitted that Suchcha Singh has also received injuries in the fight. 21. Neither possession of Charan Singh on the disputed land has been established by any witness or any document nor the injuries, which have been caused to the accused side, have been explained by any of the witness except Ajay Singh (PW-7), who has admitted that Suchcha Singh has also received injuries in the fight. 21. As to whether the injuries, which have been caused to the complainant side, were caused in exercise of the right of private defence, is to be seen by this Court. In Deo Narain vs. State of U.P. 1973 (1) SCC 347 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case, which was on similar facts, wherein injuries were caused to the accused side by lathis and the accused side used spears, as a result of which, one of the persons of the complainant side expired. The Apex Court after elaborately dealing with the provisions of Sections 100 & 102 of IPC came to the conclusion that when a blow of lathi is caused on the head, it gives a rise to the other side to exercise his/her right of private defence. Even use of the lathi by one side gives right to the other side, as there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body. The Apex Court in that case gave the benefit to the accused side and held that the accused had caused injuries exercising their right of private defence and as a result, the accused was acquitted. 22. This Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shyoraj, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 13/1990, decided on 07.02.2023 faced a similar situation wherein, 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 also held that while exercising the right of private defence, it is not required that defence be modulated step by step as held by the Apex Court in Deo Narain vs. State of U.P. (supra). In State of Rajasthan vs. Bharat Lal, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 327/1986 decided by this Court on 11.05.2023, the Court held that the accused have rightly exercised their right of private defence of body as enumerated under Section 100 of IPC. 23. In State of Rajasthan vs. Bharat Lal, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 327/1986 decided by this Court on 11.05.2023, the Court held that the accused have rightly exercised their right of private defence of body as enumerated under Section 100 of IPC. 23. Though the prosecution has not tried to explain the injuries sustained by the accused side, it is evident from perusal of X-Ray report of Suchcha Singh (Exhibit-D11) that Suchcha Singh, who is said to be present on the field, received 3 grievous injuries including a fracture on the left parietal bone. The possibility that the complainant side initiated the quarrel and gave beating to Suchcha Singh including head injury, thus cannot be ruled out and it is a possibility that in self-defence while exercising the right of private defence, injuries were caused to the complainant side. It is also evident that Munsha Singh received a gun-shot injury and a grievous injury and Rani Bai also received a grievous injury i.e. a fracture was caused to her. No explanation has been given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the injuries, which were caused to the accused side more particularly, the fracture of parietal bone of Suchcha Singh. 24. The prosecution has not even examined the tractor driver, who was tilling the field and who was the most important witness, as he was not related to either side. The complainant side i.e. Charan Singh and his witnesses have failed to establish that Charan Singh was in possession of the land, which was being tilled by Suchcha Singh. They have not produced any document to establish that this land fall in the share of Charan Singh in the family settlement after demise of Swaran Singh. No revenue record and family settlement was produced before the Court to establish as to whom the land belonged. The fact remains that Suchcha Singh was tilling the land meaning thereby that at the relevant time, he was in possession of the land and it was the complainant side, who in fact stopped him from tilling the land and gave beating to him, as a result of which he received 3 grievous injuries including a fracture of the skull. In the fight that ensued, injuries were caused to the family members of Suchcha Singh. In the fight that ensued, injuries were caused to the family members of Suchcha Singh. Thus, the accused side clearly exercised their right of private defence and in exercising their right of private defence, they had caused grievous injuries to the complainant side. 25. As to whether Amarjeet Singh - deceased died due to gunshot injury caused by Sukh Dev Singh is the next question which arises for consideration before this Court. Sukh Dev Singh was arrested after 26 days of the incident and at his instance from his house, a gun was recovered which was in 3 pieces. The recovery of the gun was effected on 22.10.2012 vide exhibit-P20, 4 empty cartridges and 2 live cartridges were recovered from the site on 29.09.2012 i.e. after 3 days of the incident. The empty cartridges and live cartridges, which were recovered on 29.09.2012, were deposited in the Malkhana vide Serial No. 120 and as per Malkhana Register (Exhibit-P32A), the first entry made was on 04.10.2012, however, as per the seizure memos, they were recovered on different dates. In the Malkhana Register, they were numbered from Serial No. 1 to 11 and these shells are shown at Serial No. 10 & 11 meaning thereby that they were either deposited together in the Malkhana, which means that empty shells and live cartridges remained with the Investigating Team, as the last article which was seized, was a sword, which was seized on 23.10.2012, which is shown at Serial No. 9 in the Malkhana Register. Thus, the recovery of empty shells and live cartridges becomes doubtful. 26. The story of the defence that Mindarpal fired and it accidentally hit the deceased and in relation of which, suggestion was given to all the prosecution witnesses and in defence also, defence witnesses have stated that in fact, it was Mindarpal Singh, who fired and accidentally deceased-Amarjeet Singh sustained the injuries. The possibility that in fact it was Mindarpal Singh, who fired, cannot be brushed aside for the very reason that from the very beginning the defence has set up a case that it was Mindarpal Singh, who fired and accidentally that fire hit the deceased. The recovery of gun after 26 days of the incident from the house of Sukh Dev Singh is also under a cloud of doubt, as there is no independent witness to the said recovery. The recovery of gun after 26 days of the incident from the house of Sukh Dev Singh is also under a cloud of doubt, as there is no independent witness to the said recovery. Sukh Dev Singh was accused in this case right from the beginning i.e. his name is appearing in the FIR. As to why his house was not searched till 22.10.2012, is also a question, which needs to be pondered upon. The recovery of empty shells and live cartridges after 3 days of the incident from the place of occurrence is also under a cloud of doubt. There is no independent witness to this recovery as well. It is the case of the prosecution that independent witnesses were available, then as to why they were not made witnesses to the recovery memo, also casts doubt on the prosecution case. 27. Be that as it may, the Apex Court in Deo Narain vs. State of U.P. (supra) was dealing with a similar case wherein the complainant side armed with lathis attacked the accused side and the accused side in defence, caused injury with a spear on the chest of the deceased. The Apex Court held that if someone is attacked with lathis, he has a reasonable apprehension that he may receive injuries, which may result in death and in that case, if someone causes injury and even death, then it could be considered to be act done in exercise of right of private defence. In the present case, three persons from the accused side have received grievous injuries including a fracture of the parietal bone of Suchcha Singh, it is also evident that Munsha Singh has received a gun-shot injury, thus there was reasonable apprehension on the accused side that death may be caused to them, therefore, in exercise of right of private defence, if they have caused any grievous injuries or even death of the complainant side, the same would fall within the ambit of right of exercising private defence. This Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Bharat Lal and Others (supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. Shyoraj and Others (supra) was dealing with similar facts and this Court relying on Deo Narain vs. State of U.P. (supra) held that the accused has exercised their right of private defence and were entitled to acquittal. 28. This Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Bharat Lal and Others (supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. Shyoraj and Others (supra) was dealing with similar facts and this Court relying on Deo Narain vs. State of U.P. (supra) held that the accused has exercised their right of private defence and were entitled to acquittal. 28. If we scan the evidence with regard to the initiation of the dispute as per Prakash Kaur (PW-1), she along with her husband-Charan Singh went to see the farms. As per her version, when her husband objected to the tilling of the field, Dilip Singh fired at him; Smt. Rukman Kaur gave a blow of pharsa on his head; Rano Bai also gave a pharsa blow on his head; Munsha Singh gave a blow of sword on his head; Gurjant Singh also gave a blow of sword on his head; Omi also gave a blow of sword on his head; Deepo also gave a blow of pharsa on his head and Laxmi Bai also gave a blow on his head with a pharsa. She has stated that after raising the alarm, her son Gurmeet Singh, Amar Singh and Mindarpal and her maternal grand-son Ajay Singh and her granddaughter Nirmal Kaur came running. However, Charan Singh (PW-8) has stated that when he objected to tilling of the field, Amar Singh opened a fire in the air and Prakash Kaur (PW-1) started raising an alarm, on which his family members came running to the place of the incident. As per this witness, the dispute started after arrival of his relatives i.e. his sons, grand-daughter and maternal grand-son. 29. As per Mindarpal Singh (PW-2), Suchcha Singh continued tilling the field even after they requested him not to do so. As per Balbeer Kaur (PW-3), after Dilip Singh fired at Charan Singh, her mother raised an alarm and then all the family members reached the place of occurrence. As per Nirmal Kaur (PW-4), immediately after her grand-mother Prakash Kaur (PW-1) reached the farm, she raised an alarm and all the family members immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. As per this witness, the first injury, which was caused to Charan Singh, was caused after they reached the place of incident. She has clearly stated that no incident had occurred before they reached the place of incident. As per this witness, the first injury, which was caused to Charan Singh, was caused after they reached the place of incident. She has clearly stated that no incident had occurred before they reached the place of incident. However, Angrej Singh (PW-5) has stated that Charan Singh had received the injury prior to their reaching the place of occurrence. 30. As per Ajay Singh (PW-7), his grand-mother/Prakash Kaur (PW-1) raised an alarm and all the family members went running to the place of occurrence. As per this witness, the dispute started after they reached the place of occurrence. As per Charan Singh (PW-8), after his family members reached the place, then he received the gun-shot injury. He has clearly stated that before he received the gun-shot injury, he had not received any injury. 31. As per Gurmeet Singh (PW-9) when his grand-mother/Prakash Kaur (PW-1) raised an alarm, the dispute started after they reached the place. As per this witness, when they reached the place, Dilip Singh fired at his father. He has clearly stated that Charan Singh had received the injury after he has reached the place of occurrence. He has also clearly stated that Charan Singh and Prakash Kaur (PW-1) had not received any injury before they reached the place of occurrence. Gurdev Singh (PW-13) has also stated that the dispute took place on the farm, which was being tilled. He has also stated that the dispute lasted for 25 minutes and when they reached the place of occurrence, till then, Charan Singh has not received any injury. He has clearly stated that all the injuries that Charan Singh received, were received after they reached the place of occurrence. 32. From the above evidence, it can be inferred that the dispute started after the family members of Charan Singh reached the place of occurrence. It is also evident from the evidence that the dispute lasted for about half an hour and both the sides gave beating to each other. Though the prosecution witnesses have not stated or explained the injuries caused to the accused side, but from the documents produced in defence, it is clear that the accused side have also received injuries and it is a case where both the sides gave beating to each other. Though the prosecution witnesses have not stated or explained the injuries caused to the accused side, but from the documents produced in defence, it is clear that the accused side have also received injuries and it is a case where both the sides gave beating to each other. Further, the co-accused Dilip against whom allegation of fire arm was levelled, has been acquitted by the trial Court and appeal against acquittal has also been dismissed by this Court. 33. In the present case in hand, Suchcha Singh, who was physically disabled, was mercilessly beaten by the complainant side and he received as many as 3 fractures including a fracture of the parietal bone, Munsha Singh received gun-shot injury, thus the accused side had a reasonable apprehension that death may result by the assault caused by the complainant side and so the accused also caused injuries to the complainant side, which would fall within the ambit of injuries caused while exercising the right of private defence. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the accused side and the complainant side who were belonging to the same lineage had a dispute pertaining to the land, which was being tilled by Suchcha Singh and in exercise of their right of private defence of body as well as property, injuries were caused by the accused side. The fact that the complainant side caused injuries to the accused is also evident, as they have been convicted by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 17.05.2017. 34. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the accused have rightly exercised their right of private defence and the case would fall within the ambit of Section 100 of IPC. The learned Trial Court has clearly erred in convicting the accused appellants for the alleged offences and has also erred in sentencing them. For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 passed against the accused appellants. Consequently, the appeals succeed and the same are, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 is set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellant-Sukh Dev Singh, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. Consequently, the appeals succeed and the same are, accordingly, allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 is set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The appellant-Sukh Dev Singh, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. The bail bonds of the remaining accused appellants, who are on bail, shall be treated as cancelled. 35. Appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that 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 Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months. 36. A copy of this order be placed in each of the connected file.