The appellants have impugned order of conviction and sentence passed on them by I Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai on 30-11-2004, convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504, 506 (part-II) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. l,000/- each, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.750/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34; rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/each for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34; and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 (part-II) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that: Sahebrao Khanderao Jadhav has four sons, namely, Khanderao (father of first informant); Baburao (PW-9); Rajabhau (PW-8) and Subhash (PW-7). The family owns 8 acrees of land from Survey No.343, known as Madarpatti, situated at Ambajogai, consisting of two strips, one of 5 acres and 6 gunthas and the other 3 acres. Both the strips are situated at different places. The brothers are living separately but have not partitioned the estate. They jointly cultivate the field but take the income from the field by rotation. At the time of incident, it was the turn of Rajabhau to take income from the piece of 3 acres of land, where the incident took place. The accused are related to Sahebrao Jadhav. The appellants, Babasaheb (PW-5) and the first informant are relatives. Field of appellants adjoin this strip of three acres on the west. Another field of the appellants adjoin the strip of land admeasuring 5 acres and 6 gunthas. Appellants committed an encroachment to the extent of 13 gunthas over the strip of 5 acres of land belonging to Sahebrao Thus, Baburao (PW-9) filed a civil suit against the appellants in the year 1989. After about 7 to 8 years, the suit was decided in favour of Baburao. The appellants preferred an appeal against this decision in or about the year 1989. The appeal came to be dismissed in default. It was, however, subsequently restored to the file on payment of costs of Rs.750/-. The matter is still subjudice. On account of this dispute, there was enmity between the two families.

3. On 20th March, 2002, Jaiprakash requested his maternal uncle, Babasaheb Vitthal Gaikwad (PW-5) for helping him to plough the land by his tractor. Balasaheb, therefore, brought his tractor to the strip of 3 acres at about 6.00 p.m. and started ploughing the land with the help of Bharat Gaikwad. While ploughing was in progress, at about 10.00 p.m., all the appellants entered the field, standing in front of the tractor. Appellant no.3 Pandurang abused Jaiprakash as he was ploughing the land and threatened to kill him. Thereupon all the appellants rushed at the first informant. Appellant no. 1 inflicted sickle blow on his left leg below the knee. On receiving the blow, first informant sat down. Thereafter-appellant no. l inflicted another sickle blow on his head, causing bleeding injury. On account of the assault, first informant raised cries for help. During this period, Baburao, Rajabhau and Subhash, uncles of first informant, were resting near their cattle shed at the distance of about 150 feet from the scene of occurrence. In response to the cries, Baburao first rushed to the help of his nephew. Rajabhau and Subash followed him. When Baburao reached the scene of occurrence, and tried to intervene, appellant no.2 inflicted blow with Katti on his right leg below the knee. Appellant no. I inflicted sickle blow on his head, accused no.2 again inflicted another blow on the right led below the knee of Baburao with Katti, as a result, Baburao also fell down and was shouting for help. By that time,