PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA, J.:-The Appellants aforesaid stand convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants Doma, Lathua @ Laduwa, Ibrahim and Abdul Samad stand 'also convicted under section 147 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year. The remaining appellants have also been convicted under section 148 of the Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment Further, appellants Amiruddin, Ekram, Nazmul Hoda, Nawab Arfin and Sarif have been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years' each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution as coming out from the Fardbayan of Sk. Noor Alam (Exhibit-1) is that on 14.3.1985 at about 9.30 A.M. when he was harvesting the standing crop on the plots mentioned in the first information report, the appellants, variously armed with lathi, bhala, gun and pistols, reached there and started shooing away the labourers. Nizam Pahalwan and Md. Butan, two 'Sipahis' of the informant, tried to stop them at which appellant Abdul Samad ordered his sons, Nazamul and Ekramul, to fire upon the 'Sipahis'. At this appellant Sarif started firing from his country made pistol which was followed by fleeing away of the labourers and the 'Sipahis'. Sipahi Nizam fled towards east who was followed by Nazmul with gun and by Sarif and Mantu. About 150 yards away Nizam fell down who was hit by Mantu with bhala. Butan was being chased by Nawab Arfin with pistol and Nizam (Nizamuddin) with bhala. Butan also fell down at which he was injured by Nizam with bhala. In the meantime eight to ten shots were fired. The witnesses also came at which the appellants fled away.

3. The defence of the accused/appellants in course of trial was denial of their complicity in any such occurrence.

4. Exhibit-A was proved by the defence witness which was Sanha entry at Amdabad Police Station made on the written statement given by the appellant Abdul Samad at 11.00 A.M. on the date of occurrence claiming that on his lands, description of which was given, which were lands other than those mentioned in the first information report, wheat crop was standing which (informant) Noor Alam, Zahoor Alam and others had gone to loot. A prayer was made to stop the occurrence. As a matter of fact it was at this Sanha entry that the Investigating Police Officer had proceeded to the place of occurrence with Abdul Samad but on reaching there he was confronted with two dead bodies, as aforesaid where after he recorded fardbayan of Noor Alam. It has been argued before us that since the informant side had gone to loot away the crops standing on the land of the appellants aforesaid, if any occurrence thereafter had taken place, that was in exercise of right of private defence.

5. In course of trial a total of twelve witnesses were examined by prosecution and three by the defence. Out of them three prosecution witnesses at serial 2, 4, and 5 had turned hostile and did not fully Support the prosecution case. P.W.1, Umed Ali a labour, not related to the informant, has though named the appellants to have come at the place of occurrence, variously armed and said about the commencement of the firing, he did not support the prosecution story thereafter, claiming that he had fled away but he returned back one and half hours afterwards when he saw two 'Sipahis' dead. He was told by the informant that accused had killed his 'Sipahis'. P.W.3, Zahoor Alam, brother of the informant, P.W.6, Lal Mohammad, cousin of the informant and P.W.7, Manzoor Alam, another brother of the informant, have supported the occurrence as eye-witnesses, apart from P.W.8, Noor Alam, the informant.

6. In this case fardbayan of Noor Alam was recorded by the police at the spot at 1.30 P.M. where as occurrence has been claimed to have taken pla