Judgment

Nanavati, J.-These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal Nos. 334/86, 341/86 and 425/86. Criminal Appeal No. 634/89 is filed by the State of Karnataka against 13 respondents originally accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 16 and who had filed a separate appeal in the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 635/89 is filed against 3 respondents, original accused Nos. 2 to 4 and who had also filed a separate appeal before the High Court.

2. The prosecution case was that P.W. 4 had a share in the land bearing No. 180/1 and that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were obstructing him in culti­vation of the said land. P.W. 4 had, therefore, on the day prior to the day of incident filed an application before the police complaining against accused Nos. 1 to 4. On 4.10.1984 between 12.30 p.m. and 1.45 p.m. all the 16 accused armed with deadly weapons went to the said field to take possession of the land. In the field Rudragowda, Sidda­gowda, Balasaheb Eragowda P.W. 3 Irappa, P.W. 4 Kadappa, P.W. 5 Maha­dev, P.W. 7 Sadashiva and P.W. 9 Ningappa were present. All the ac­cused started beating those persons as a result of which 4 persons namely, Rudragowda, Siddagowda, Balasahed and Eragowda lost their lives and P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 received injuries. All the 16 accused were tried for various offences including the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of PW3 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 held that all the accused had unlawfully confined PWs 3 and 4 and tried them with a rope and that they killed those 4 deceased and injured the prosecution witness and therefore they were all guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC, 342 read with 149 IPC and 323 read with 149 IPC.

3. All the 16 convicted accused challenged their conviction before the High Court. The High Court on reappreciation of the prosecution evi­dence found that really accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of the disputed land and the deceased and their companions wanted to take back forcibly possession of the said land and therefore whatever acts the accused had committed were in exercise of their right of private defence. However, considering the number of injuries found on the dead persons and places from where the dead bodies were found, the High Court held that they were also chased by the accused and given more blows and thus they had exceeded the right of private defence. The High Court had also found that only accused Nos. 1 to 4 were present in the field and it was doubtful if any of the accused Nos. 5 to 18 was present there. The High Court, therefore, giving benefit of doubt acquitted accused 5 to 16 and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I I.P.C.

4. In these appeals, State is challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 5 to 16. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that inspite of the compromise, P.W. 4 had remained in possession of the field and the High Court ought to have accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses in view of the fact that only on the previous day P.W. 4 had given an application to the police complaining about the attempt made by the accused to deprive him of his possession. It is difficult to accept this contention as in view of the compromise the defence version that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of the land appears more probable under the compromise they were to retain possession on payment of certain amounts. It is also an admitted position that amounts which were payable to P.W. 4 and his brothers were in fact paid to them. It is therefore unlikely that P.W. 4 continued to remain in possession of land even after that compromise and payment of the said amount. The version of the defence that P.W. 4 and his brothers had relinquished ­their share in the land appears to be more probable. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in possessio