The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on consistent and credible witness testimony, rejection of the defense's claim of right of private defense, and the application of Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code to uphold the conviction.

P.N.Yadav, J.

1. Intense fondness, allurement and infatuation for land among the people of the State particularly those belonging to peasantry class has been taking heavy toll of human lives for quite sometime. Innumerable persons lost their lives owing to land dispute and litigations arising thereafter between the deceased and their marauders. The murder of 20 year youth Upendra Singh giving rise to the instant case is one in the series of murder committed over trifling matter emanating from land dispute between the parties.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details factual matrix of the case is : There is a piece of land infront of the cattle-shed of the de-ceased-Upendra Singh. His cattle were fed over the land in question. There was dispute between the parties, over the land and title suit with respect to the same was pending. In the morning at about 9-10 a.m. on 23-12-1987, the deceased was sweeping and cleaning the said land. Just then the accused Rajeshwar Singh alias Kamta Singh happened to reach there and he protested against the act of the deceased saying that the land belonged to him. The deceased did not pay heed to the protest and he continued cleaning the land. There ensued exchange of hot words. In the meanwhile, the accused-Nagina Singh (since dead) got infuriated and enraged and he ordered and instigated elimination of the deceased. Soon Ramshwar Singh went to his house and came back with gun accompanied by Sheoji Singh alias Akshay Singh, Awadhesh Singh (since dead), Sikandar Singh, Harendra Singh, Shankar Singh alias Shiv Shankar Singh and Beshlal Singh alias Banshlal Singh who were also armed with various lethal weapons such as spear, farsa and lathi. After having picked up quarrel and exchange of hot and abusive words the accused Rajehswar Singh resorted to firing against the deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries on his chest, abdomen, arm and forearm. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) rushed to save his brother, the deceased Upendra Singh but to his utter dismay and surprise he was also shot at by Rajeshwar Singh as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head, forehead and cheek. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously on the spot.

3. In pursuance of alarm, certain villagers including Jagish Singh (P.W. 1), Samhoot Singh (P.W. 2), Harihar Singh (P.W. 3) and Chandrama Singh arrived at the scene and they witnessed the incident leading to infliction of injuries on the deceased and his brother Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4).

4. Gupteshwar Singh (P.W. 5), uncle of the deceased rushed to Tarari Police Station and he with the aforesaid accusation against the accused persons including the police lodged the First Information Report at about 1.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. on 23-12-1987 on the basis of which Tarari P.S. Case No. 85 of 1987 was registered u/s. 302 besides some other sections of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The injured Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) and Mahendra Kumar Singh, who were accompanying P.W. 5 also put their signatures on the First Information Report. P.W. 4 was referred to Tarari State Dispensary where he was examined and treated by Dr. Bijay Pratap Singh (P.W. 6).

5. Binay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tarari Police Station took up investigation, recorded subsequent statement of the informant (P.W. 5), tried to record statement of Rajendra Singh (P.W. 4) but he could not make statement owing to shock and mental agony he suffered on account of injuries sustained by him and death of his brother and his statement was recorded later on, visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, caused the dead body of the deceased to be sent to mortuary where Dr. Kamla Prasad (P.W. 7) conducted autopsy, inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, took steps for arrest of the accused persons including the appellants who would also, henceforward, be referred to as the ac