JUDGMENT

 This appeal is directed by the above four appellants, namely, Hanumantappa Krishnappa Mantur, Basalingappa Hanumantappa Mantur, Yamanappa Hanumantappa Mantur, Mahadevappa Hanumantappa Mantur against the judgment and order dated 21-3-79 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1978 by the Karnataka High Court allowing the State appeal preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court acquitting all the four appellants of the offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC. All these four appellants took their trial on the allegations that on 10- 1 1-77 at about 5.30 P. M. in the land bearing R. S. No. 377 of Talewad Village in Basavan Begewadi Taluka in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of the deceased by AI and A3 cutting the deceased with sickles and A2 and A4 attacking by axes. The deceased, it is stated by the prosecution, on receipt of the injury died on the spot it sell

2. The relevant facts briefly stated are as follows:

The first appellant is the father of the appellants 2 to 4. The second appellant was married to PW 11 Lakkavve who inherited the same portion of the Land from her father. PWs 4 and 7 are related to the deceased.

3. PW 11 along with her husband had been in the actual and physical possession of the property and enjoying the same. PW 1 1 fell ill. Her husband PW 2 refused to meet the medical expenses of PW 11. Therefore, PW 11 was compelled and necessitated to alienate her property. Accordingly PW 11 sold a portion of the property inherited by her from her father on 14-6-77 to the deceased. However, the physical possession of the property continued to be with the appellants 1 to 4 as well as PW 11.

4. On 29-10-77, proceedings under S. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated at the instance of the deceased. On 30-1077 an interim order under S. 145 sub-section (1) was passed which order was subsequently cancelled since the Civil Court before which the deceased instituted a suit, refused to grant an injunction.

5. 0n 10-11-77ataboutlIA.M.which was the fateful day, PW 7 went to the disputed land and objected the appellants 1 to 4 to the cutting the Bajra crops. It may be noted that PW 7 was owning the adjacent land to the disputed land. At the request of the appellant PW 15, Head-Constable came to the scene spot and showed the order of cancellation passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate under S. 145 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and asked them not to create any disturbance. The appellants then started cutting "he crops with the help of the coolies inclusive of PWs 8 to 10.

6. In this connection, it may be stated that in the morning of the day, the deceased and PW 1 had been to the tehsils office and requested the Tehsildar to settle the dispute to which the Tehsildar replied that he would do so within four days.

7. That at about 3 or 4 P.M. when the deceased and PW 4 were coming together, PW 7 informed the deceased that the appellants were cutting the crops in the land in dispute and also asked him to take appropriate action as he liked.

8. At about 4-5 P.M., the deceased and PWs 4 & 7 reached the scene-field. By then the crops had already been cut. The coolies were loading the crops already cut. The deceased objected the removal of the crops. According to the prosecution, during the course of this altercation, appellants 2 and 4 who were each armed with an axe hit the deceased and appellants 1 and 3 who were each armed with a sickle cut the deceased. All of them thus caused the injuries to which the deceased had succumbed. PW 4 reached the post office with PW 6 and telegraphically informed PW 15, the Head constable about the incident at about 8. P.M. PW 15 in turn conveyed this information to PW 16 who was in charge of the Station. Thereafter, the police party reached the scene by about 10.00 P.M. PW 18, the Circle Inspector reached the scene and took up the investigation. PW 18 after holding the inquest over the dead body and completing all other for