- (1.)THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28-7-2009 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No. 189/2005 whereby each one of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the jail sentences shall run concurrently and also that in case of recovery of fine, an amount of Rs. 1000/- shall be paid to each one of the injured persons named below as compensation - Convicted under Section Sentenced to 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 7 years and (for attempting murder of to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Gaurishankar) in default to suffer R. I. for 6 months, 307 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 7 years and to pay (for attempting muder of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to Rishikesh) suffer R. 1. for 6 months. 324 read with 34 of I. P. C. undergo R. I. for 6 months. (for sharing a common intention in causing injuries to Ruchita)
(2.)IN the light of the guideline laid down in Nathi Lal v. State of U. P., 1990 (Supp) SCC 145, learned trial Judge, on the same day, delivered judgment in counter-case numbered as S. T. No. 263/2007. IN that case, cognizance of the offence under Section 323 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. for causing injuries to appellant No. 1 Rajeev Lochan (hereinafter referred to as 'A1'), his son Mukesh and appellant No. 2 Rajendra (for short 'A2') was taken upon the complaint made by Al. By that judgment, Gaurishankar, Rishikesh, Ruchita and Shivmurti Prasad (examined as PW9, PW10, PW2 and PW1 respectively in this case), were acquitted of the offences. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal.
The prosecution case may briefly be stated thus - (i) Amongst the injured persons, Gaurishankar is the step-brother of the appellants whereas Ruchita and Rishikesh are his daughter and son. The appellants and the members of the complainant party are descendents of a common ancestor viz. Garud Prasad Shukla. At the relevant point of time, they were residing in village Belwa Sursari Singh where their ancestral land was located. However, their relations were marred with bitterness in the wake of dispute as to piece of the ancestral land known as Lalwawala Khet (for brevity 'Khet'), an agricultural field comprising of lands covered by Revenue Survey Nos. 190 and 191. (ii) On 10-4-2005 at about 2.45 p.m. Shivmurti Prasad (PW-1), the elder brother of Gaurishankar raised alarms to the effect that the wheat crops sown by them and standing in the Khet were being reaped by the appellants and Mukesh and Satish (examined as DW-1 and DW-2), the sons of Al. Hearing the shouts, Ruchita apprised her father Gaurishankar and brother Rishikesh who, in turn, immediately rushed to the field. As they reached near medh (embankment) of Marfiraj's Chauraha Bandh, they saw the appellants as well as Mukesh and Satish coming towards them. The appellants were armed with Gandasa and Ballam whereas Mukesh and-Satish were carrying lathi and tangi respectively. (iii) On being asked as to why they had cut the crops, the appellants along with Mukesh and Satish, while hurling abuses, jointly attacked Gaurishankar and Rishikesh with respective weapons. When Ruchita came forward to save her father and brother, A1 dealt a Gandasa blow that landed on her left wrist. Shivmurti and Kamta Prasad (PW- 8) witnessed the incident. (iv) Ruchita (PW-2) took Gaurishankar and Rishikesh in a Jeep belonging to Umashankar to CHC, Sirmour and after getting them admitted thereto, lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1) at Police Station situated at Sirmour only. Accordingly, a case under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. was registered against the appellants and co-accused Mukesh and Satish (since juvenile). After preliminary examinations, Dr. R. K. Ojha (PW-6) referred the cases to S. G. Medical College, Rewa for further examinations and treatment. Dr. A. S. Siddiqui (PW-7), working as Radiologist in the Medical College, noticed fracture on 8th and 9th ribs of Gaurishankar and Dr. Dipak Purohit (PW- 13), the Resident Surgical Officer, had to perform necessary surgery to repair internal injuries noticed behind the external wound on the right side of Gaurishankar's chest. (v) During investigation, the appellants and the co-accused were apprehended and at their instances, respective weapons were recovered. After due investigation, charge- sheet was submitted before JMFC, Sirmour against the appellants whereas the co-accused namely Mukesh and Satish were prosecuted before the Juvenile Board.

The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded right of private defence of property as well as person by alleging that it was the complainant party that was the aggressor and had come to dispossess them from the Khet that was in their exclusive physical possession. In the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A1 further asserted that - . At the time when he along with Mukesh and Satish was harvesting wheat crops sown by him in the Khet, members of the complainant party led by Gaurishankar carrying lathi, tangi and pharsa, started assaulting him with a view to driving him out of the field and A2, who came forward to save him, was also belaboured. At this point of time only, A1's sons Mukesh and Satish intervened and in order to save their lives, assaulted Gaurishankar and his companions with Tangi and Hansiya which were brought by them for cutting the crops. Whereas A2, while sbustantiating A1's version, confirmed that the injuries to the members of the complainant party were caused by Mukesh and Satish to prevent further assault on him and A1 after they had fallen down.

(3.)THE prosecution sought to prove the charges by producing as many as 13 witnesses including the injured persons and the medical experts. As pointed out already, the defence examined Mukesh and Satish, the co- accused, to establish the plea of private defence. On a critical appraisal of the entire evidence, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, concluded that the charges against the appellants were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legality and propriety of the impugned convictions have been challenged primarily on the ground of what is termed as mis-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants, while inviting attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Subramani v. State of T. N., AIR 2002 SC 2980: (2002 Cri LJ 4102) and Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand, AIR 2008 SC 3284, has submitted that right of private defence of person and property protected the offending acts in question. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has contended that the convictions are fully justified.