The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the aggressor, the injuries received, and the intention of the accused in determining their guilt under the Indian Penal Code.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar dated 20th May, 1988 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, has convicted the accused-appellant as under:

2. Brief facts of the case giling rise to this appeal are that an FIR was relied on 22nd Jan., 1987 at 1.00 a.m. by PW 1 Melasingh stating there in that on 21st January, 1987 at about 8.30 p.m. accused Bhagel Singh, Charan Singh and Bariansingh along with ladies or their house came to his house and caused beating, as a result of which one Mst. Kammobai, mother of Mela Singh died. His father and other brothers and ladies of his house also received several injuries. Nine persons were named in the FIR as assailants.

3. It is alleged the during the day, the accused Beghelsingh came to their house end he tried to outrage the modesty of Mst. Passobai; PW 2. At that time nobody was in the house. When all the members of the family came to the house in the evening. PW 2 Mst. Passobai informed them about the accused Bhagelsingh. Thereupon, he Melasingh, and ether members of the family went to the house of Charansingh who is the father of Bhagel Singh and protested about the misbehavior of his son Bhagelsingh. This created a commotion and other people of the neighbourhood also came there and intervened. It was decided that let there be a PANCHAYAT which resolve the matter. On this, they withdrew to their house. The house of the complainant and the accused are adjacent to each other. At about 8.30 p.m. in the night, the accused persons about 9 in number including Baghelsingh, Darasingh, Dulesingh, Charansingh & Bariansingh came their house and remonstrated that why they are falsely blaming Baghelsingh for trying to out rage the modestly of Mst. Passobai. There ensued a quarrel in which the accused persons gave a beating to the complainant party. As a result of it, Melasingh's mother died and other members of his family also received various injuries. It may also be mentioned here that the accused part also filed an FIR on 2nd January, 1988 at 12.30 a.m. that Kashmirasingh, Jindasingh, Varim Singh, and Melasingh came to the house of Charansingh and belaboured them and the woman-folk of the family. On this counter case was also registered against the complainant party. The police, after closing of investigation, found that six accused persons were guilty under various offences viz. 302, 4S 0, 354, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code and filed a challan against these persons, namely, Charansingh, Dulesingh, Darasingh, Baghelsingh & Barian Singh and Mst. Bachanobai under the aforesaid sections. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for the trial.

4. The prosecution, is support of its case, examined 13 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, after due trial, convicted all the four accused-appellants under the aforesaid sections and also convicted accused Bariansingh and Mst. Bachanobai but be granted them benefit of probation to both of them. Hence, the four accused-appellant have filed this appeal.

5. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through all the evidence on record and submitted that there is case of over implication as according to the complainant there were nine persons involved in the incident but the Police have filed challan against only 6 accused persons. The learned Counsel further submitted that the complainant party has also received various injuries including incised wound but there is no explanation provided by the prosecution for these injuries. As such the genesis of the dispute is not known and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt In support of his contention the learned Counsel has relied upon 1976 SCC (Cr) 249 Amrithalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu & 1988 RCC 18 Parmod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan . The learned Counsel further submitted that as a matter of fact the complainant had the grouse because Mst. Passabai, daughter of Melasi