JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. 2. The aforesaid appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, all these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants Ramu Soren, Samu Soren, Satya Besra and Ruplal Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 83 of 2017] and appellant Sudhir Hansda [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 88 of 2017] and appellants Dhalku Soren @ Dholku Soren and Kamoli Murmu @ Komali Murmu [In Cr. Appeal D.B. No. 94 of 2017] have file these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2016 (sentence passed on 23.12.2016), passed by Sri Vijay Kumar-II, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2011, arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 521 of 2010, whereby and wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara held the appellants guilty of offence under sections 148/ 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine the appellants were directed to further undergo R.I. for one month. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Manohar Hembram alleging therein that on 23.10.2010 at about 10:00 a.m. he along with his family members had gone for fishing in the village pond, when the appellants came there and started assaulting them causing injury to the informant, Robin Hembram, Soren Hembram, Malti Murmu, Haradhan Hansda and Ramni Baski. It is specifically alleged that the appellant Sudhir Hansda gave axe blows to informant Manohar Hembram and Soren Hembram due to which they sustained injuries. Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment. The genesis of the occurrences is that both the parties jointly owned the pond where the informant and his family members were fishing but the appellants did not want to give the informant and others their share in fishing. Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment. The genesis of the occurrences is that both the parties jointly owned the pond where the informant and his family members were fishing but the appellants did not want to give the informant and others their share in fishing. It has also been stated that a case relating to the ownership of the pond was Sub-Judice before a competent Civil Court. 4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 302/ 307/ 504/ 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned C.J.M., Jamtara after taking cognizance, committed this case to the court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. 5. Charge was framed against the appellants Sudhir Hansda, Ruplal Hansda, Kamoli Murmu and Satya Besra on 28.06.2011, whereas charge against the appellants Ramu Soren, Samu Soren, Dhalku Soren @ Dholku Soren was framed on 08.06.2012 under sections 147/ 148/ 307/ 149/ 341/ 149/ 302/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Malti Murmu P.W.1, Robin Hembram P.W.2, Ramni Baski P.W.3, Haradhan Hansda P.W.4, Manohar Hembram P.W.5 all are injured witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case. Abu Talib Mian P.W.6, Subodi Tudu P.W.7, Pargan Baski P.W.8 have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case. Dewan Hembram P.W.9 is a hearsay witness. Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10 has examined the injured persons. He has proved the injury report which are Ext.- 1 series. He has also proved the injury sustained by the appellants which are Ext.- A series. Dr. Sunil Kumar P.W.11 is formal witness who had proved the medical reports of Manohar Hembram. Binod Kumar Pandey P.W. 12 is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which is Ext.-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. which is Ext.-5. Dr. Sapan Kumar Sarak P.W. 13 has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Soren Hembram he has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.- 3. Gouri Shankar Ram P.W.14 is another investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which is Ext.-4. He has also proved the formal F.I.R. which is Ext.-5. Dr. Sapan Kumar Sarak P.W. 13 has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Soren Hembram he has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.- 3. Gouri Shankar Ram P.W.14 is another investigating officer of this case. The inquest report of the deceased Soren Hembram was marked as Ext-7 on the application filed by the prosecution to Exhibit it. The inquest report was marked as Exhibit without objection. The appellants have also adduced F.I.R. of Narayanpur P. S. Case No. 88/2010 in evidence which is Ext.- B. 8. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly. 10. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned lawyer appearing for the appellants submitted that the pond where the informant had gone for fishing belongs to the appellants. It was further submitted that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence from before and the informant and his family members had gone for fishing in the pond of the appellants and when appellants protested, they were assaulted by the informant and other witnesses due to which the appellants Sudhir Hansda and Ramu Soren also sustained injuries. It was submitted that the prosecution has suppressed this fact that the appellants have sustained injuries due to assault by the informant and the other witnesses. It was finally submitted that the entire occurrence has taken place in exercise of right of private defence by the appellants. Accordingly, it was prayed that these appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charge. Reliance has been place upon a decision of Patna High Court reported in Sheo Bachan Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2022 SCC Online Pat 1181; (2022) 2 PLJR 815 : (2022) 4 BLJ 250 (PHC) and in State of Rajasthan Vs. Madho and Anr. Reported in 1991 Supp(2) SCC 396. 11. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned special P.P. submitted that the appellants had assaulted the informant and other witnesses while they were fishing in their pond causing injury and one of the injured Soren Hembram later on died during the course of treatment. Madho and Anr. Reported in 1991 Supp(2) SCC 396. 11. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned special P.P. submitted that the appellants had assaulted the informant and other witnesses while they were fishing in their pond causing injury and one of the injured Soren Hembram later on died during the course of treatment. It was submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other on the point of date, time and manner of occurrence. Accordingly, it was prayed that these appeals should be dismissed. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained:- (i) Whether the appellants had caused homicidal death of the deceased Soren Hembram? (ii) Whether the appellants Satya Besra, Sudhir Hansda, Ramu Soren and Sukar Mani Marandi had sustained injury? (iii) Whether the entire occurrence has taken place in exercise of right of private defence? 14. The case of the prosecution is that Soren Hembram died homicidal death. Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10 has stated that on 23.10.2010 he had examined Soren Hembram alongwith other injured person and found following injuries on his person. (i) Lacerated wound 3”X 1½” X1/2” on left parietal region of scalp. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Opinion regarding the nature of the injury was reserved and Soren Hembram was sent to PMCH Dhanbad and x-ray of scalp for further treatment. Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment. 15. From the perusal of the inquest report Ext.- 7, it transpires that the deceased Soren Hembrarm died due to head injuries during the course of treatment. Dr. Sapan Kumar Sarak P.W.13 who has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased had found following injuries on his person. (i) Stitched wound two inch long with four stitches over the parietal region of head. ½ inch, lateral to mid-line (ii) Swelling with bruise 1½”X ½” on frontal region of right side of head. (iii) 1” X 1’’ over upper part outer side of left forearm. (iv) Right upper eyelid found swelled and black. According to this witness the death of the deceased was due to Coma as a result of hard and blunt forced injury of Cranio cerebrum. (iii) 1” X 1’’ over upper part outer side of left forearm. (iv) Right upper eyelid found swelled and black. According to this witness the death of the deceased was due to Coma as a result of hard and blunt forced injury of Cranio cerebrum. From the perusal of the postmortem report Ext.- 3, it transpires that the finding of Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10 regarding the nature of injury found on the person of the deceased Soren Hembram and his cause of death corroborates his oral testimony recorded in the court during the trial. 16. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the deceased Soren Hembram has sustained head injury on his person due to which he died. The nature of the injury manifests that they were neither self-inflicted nor accidental. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the deceased Soren Hembram died a homicidal death. 17. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 23.10.2010, at about 10:00 A.M., the informant Manohar Hembram along with his family members had gone for fishing in the village pond, when the appellants variously armed came there and started assaulting them. It is specifically alleged that the appellant Ramu Soren gave axe blow to Soren Hembram. due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Malti Murmu P.W.1, Robin Hembram P.W.2., Ramni Baski P.W.3 , Haradhan Hansda P.W.4, and Manohar Hembram P.W.5. had sustained injuries. 18. From the perusal of the oral testimony of Manohar Hembram P.W.5, who is the informant of this case it transpires that on 23.10.2010 at about 10:00 A.M., he had gone to village pond for fishing. He was accommodated by Soren Hembram, Robin Hembram, Malti Murmu, Ramni Baski, In the meantime, the appellants Ramu Soren, Sudhir Hansda, Satya Besra, Samu Soren, Ruplal Hansda, Komali Murmu, Dhalku Soren and Lagan Besra variously armed with Tangi and sword surrounded them and started assaulting them. Ramu Soren gave a rod blow on his head due to which he sustained head injury. Satya Besra assaulted him by lathi due to which his right hand was fractured. Sudhir Hansda gave axe blow to Soren Hembram due to which he sustained injuries on his head. Other accused persons assaulted Malti Murmu, Robin Hembram and Haradhan Hansda and Ramni Baski. He has further stated that he was taken to hospital where he was treated. Satya Besra assaulted him by lathi due to which his right hand was fractured. Sudhir Hansda gave axe blow to Soren Hembram due to which he sustained injuries on his head. Other accused persons assaulted Malti Murmu, Robin Hembram and Haradhan Hansda and Ramni Baski. He has further stated that he was taken to hospital where he was treated. Soren Hembram was taken to PMCH Dhanbad where he died during the course of treatment. He has been cross examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has denied that the pond in question belonged to both the parties. However, he has stated that the appellants had filed a civil suit with regard to the said pond which is still sub-judice. The investigating officer Binod Kumar Pandey P.W. 12, has stated that this witness has not stated before him that the pond in question belonged to Manohar Hembram. Malti Murmu P.W.1, Robin Hembram P.W.2, Ramni Baski P.W.3 and Haradhan Hansda P.W.4, are injured witnesses. All have stated that the occurrence took place 10 months ago. They had gone for fishing with the informant in the village pond when the appellants variously armed came there and assaulted them causing injuries. They have further stated that the Soren Hembram died during the course of treatment in PMCH, Dhanbad. 19. All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, Malti Murmu P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that for the same occurrence, no counter case has been filed by the appellants. She has admitted that her husband was in jail for 10 to 15 days. She has further stated that she did not see any injury on the person of the appellants. Robin Hembram P.W.2. in his cross-examination has stated that the pond in question belongs to them and the appellants had no claim over the said pond, he has further stated that he had not seen injuries on the body of the appellants. However, he has admitted that for the same occurrence Manohar Hembram and Haradhan Hansda had also gone to jail. He has denied of having any knowledge that a civil suit regarding the ownership of the pond in question was pending between the parties. Ramni Baski P.W.3 in her cross-examination has stated that she is not aware whether the pond in question was jointly owned by both the parties or not. He has denied of having any knowledge that a civil suit regarding the ownership of the pond in question was pending between the parties. Ramni Baski P.W.3 in her cross-examination has stated that she is not aware whether the pond in question was jointly owned by both the parties or not. Though, she has not stated in her examination-in-chief that the pond belonged to Manohar Hembram. Binod Kumar Pandey, P.W.12, the investigating officer of this case has denied that this witness Ramni Baski has made a statement before him, that the pond in question belonged to Manohar Hembram. She has stated that on hulla, nobody from the locality came there. Haradhan Hansda P.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that he was taken to hospital from where he was sent to jail. He remained in jail for about one and half months. The case in which he has gone to jail was sub-judice in Sessions Trial. Abu Talib Mian P.W.6, Subodi Tudu P.W.7 and Pargan Baski P.W.8 have claimed to be eye witnesses. Abu Talib Mian P.W.6 has stated that two years ago at about 10:00 A.M., he saw the appellants and the prosecution party quarrelling. Both the parties have assaulted each other. Subodi Tudu P.W.7 has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was present in her house. On hulla, she went to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellants Ramu Soren, Sudhir Hansda, Satya Besra, Ruplal Hansda, Samu Soren all of them had assaulted Manohar Hembram and Malti Murmu due to which they succumbed to their injuries. In her cross-examination she has stated that for the same occurrence, Satya besra has instituted a case against Manohar Hembram and others. She has also stated that the parties were involved in land dispute. She has further stated that a civil suit was pending between both the parties with regard to the ownership of the pond. Pargan Baski P.W.8 has stated that the occurrence took place two years ago at about 10:00 A.M., when he was near the place of occurrence, he saw that Manohar Hembram and others were fishing in the pond. Then the appellants variously armed came there and started abusing them. They also assaulted informant and others. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has told the police that the pond in question belonged to ancestors of both the parties. Dr. Then the appellants variously armed came there and started abusing them. They also assaulted informant and others. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has told the police that the pond in question belonged to ancestors of both the parties. Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W. 10 had stated that on 23.10.2010, he was posted as medical officer at Narayanpur PHC. On that day, he examined Manohar Hembram, Haradhan Hansda, Robin Hembram, Soren Hembram, Ramni Baski and Malti Murmu and found following injuries on their person. (i) Lacerated wound size 2”x 1/2" x skin deep frontal region of scalp. (ii) Lacerated wound with swelling near elbow joint size 1”x 1/2" x ½” with swelling size 3”x2” on right forearm. He found the injury no. 1 to be simple and reserved the opinion of injury no. 2 and referred to P.M.C.H. Dhanbad. On the same day at 02:00 P.M., he examined Haradhan Hansda and found one lacerated wound 1/2”x 1/2" x skin deep on frontal region of scalp which was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. On the same day he also examined Robin Hembram and found one lacerated wound 1½ ”x 1" deep skin on middle region of scalp caused by hard and blunt substance which was simple in nature. On the same day he examined Soren Hembram (deceased) and found one lacerated wound size 3”x 1½ x ½ " x up to bone deep on left parietal region of scalp caused by hard and blunt substance. Opinion regarding nature of the injury was kept reserved and referred him to P.M.C.H., Dhanbad for CT Scan and X-Ray of scalp and for further treatment. On the same day he examined Ramni Baski and found one swelling size 4”x3” on left forearm which was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He kept the opinion reserved for nature of injury. On the same day, he examined Malti Murmu and found one lacerated wound ½” x ¼” x ¼” on right forefinger. He has proved the injury reports which are Ext.-1 series. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the same day, he examined Satya Besra, Sudhir Hansda, Ramu Soren and Sukarmani Marandi and found injuries on their person. 20. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence. It is apparent that the occurrence has taken place due to dispute over fishing right between the parties. In his cross-examination, he stated that on the same day, he examined Satya Besra, Sudhir Hansda, Ramu Soren and Sukarmani Marandi and found injuries on their person. 20. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence. It is apparent that the occurrence has taken place due to dispute over fishing right between the parties. A civil suit regarding this matter was pending between the parties. The prosecution witnesses have not stated about the fact that the appellants have sustained injuries in the same occurrence, but have tried to suppress it. 21. From the statement of Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10, it transpires that both the sides had sustained injuries and Soren Hembram succumbed to his injuries. Witnesses Abu Talib Mian P.W.6, Subodi Tudu, P.W.7 and Pargan Baski P.W.8 have stated that they had seen both the parties assaulting each other. From the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Ganesh Prasad Mandal P.W.10, it transpires that both the sides had sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses have also denied that a counter case was also filed by the appellants side with regard to the same occurrence and some of the witnesses had gone to jail, whereas from the record, it transpires that there was a case and counter case between the parties with regard to the same occurrence and some of the prosecution witnesses had also gone to jail in connection with the counter case. It is apparent that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands in this case. The prosecution has suppressed the fact that there was case and counter case between the parties and both the sides had sustained injuries. As discussed above, there was dispute between the parties with regard to the fishing right over the pond in question. 22. From the independent analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is evident that the witness Abu Talib Mian P.W.6 is an independent witness. He has stated that he had seen both the parties assaulting each other. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be gathered that there was dispute over fishery right between both the parties for which a civil suit was sub-judice. He has stated that he had seen both the parties assaulting each other. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be gathered that there was dispute over fishery right between both the parties for which a civil suit was sub-judice. The appellants had also sustained injury by assault by the informant party which reflects that the informant party had gone for fishing, being very well aware and apprehensive that there can be retaliation by the appellants and as such they had gone prepared for any eventuality. The act of the informant party was nothing less than provocation, inviting retaliation from the appellants. Thus, from the entire gamut of the prosecution case, it cannot be ruled out that the appellants had acted in exercise of the right of private defence of their property. 23. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the learned trial court has wrongly held the appellants guilty of offences under sections 302/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. These appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The appellant Sudhir Hansda in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 88 of 2017 is in custody, accordingly, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. The rest of the appellants are on bail they along with their bailors are discharged from the liability towards bail bond. 25. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.