J.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 15-7-80 passed by Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 1979. All the appellants of these appeals have been convicted and sen­tenced to imprisonment for life under Sec­tion 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. They have further been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Babu appel­lant has also been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. under Section 147, I.P.C. while rest of the appellants have been con­victed under Section 148, I.P.C. and sen­tenced to two years R.I. each. All the sen­tences have been ordered to run concur­rently. By the same judgment accused Harish Chandra and Phool Singh have, however, been acquitted.
(2.) BHAG Singh and his all five sons namely Jarnail Singh, Laxman Singh, Karnail Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Sarjeet Singh are appellants before us. Prosecu­tion also alleged that appellant Babu and acquitted accused Phool Singh and Harish Chandra belonged to the party of accused Bhag Singh and they had their fields near the field of Bhag Singh. One Rajan was owner of land measuring 286 bighas. Much before the incident in question he sold half of it in favour of six sons of accused Bhag Singh whereas the remaining half share was sold to one Gur Bachan Singh and others. The land was however not partitioned by meets and bounds. About two years prior to the incident in questions Gur Bachan Singh sold his half share to witness Jogendra Singh and deceased Mahendra Singh. It is alleged that the vendees themselves demarcated their shares in the said land and perfected their possession according­ly. It is further alleged that both the parties constructed their residential houses in the said land. The residential portion of com­plainant was in South whereas that of Bhag Singh was in North. Both were separated by a wall in the middle. A tube well situated at a distance of about 6-7 paces from the residential accommodations was admittedly jointly used by the parties. This tube well had two water channels, one running from West to East while the other from North to South.
(3.) THE prosecution case further is that since the electric motor of tube well was not working, both the parties used to take water from that tube well with the help of tractors.;