1. The incident, because of which the appellants were prosecuted, is said to have taken place on 8-8-1969 in village Rampura, Police Station Chachoda, district Guna, at about 2 P. M. According to the prosecution case, the village Rampura and the adjoining village Peepalia have a common village border which is divided by the Chhapri Nala. The two fields bearing survey Nos. 2 and 12/1 are adjacent to this Nala and it is in these fields that the incident in question is said to have taken place. Ramsingh (P. W. 15) of village Tajpura had informed deceased Raghunath, Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11), both sons of the deceased, that the accused were grazing their cattle in the aforesaid two fields, in one of which there was standing crop of Jwar. The deceased and his two sons Premnarain (P.W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) then left for the field and found accused Mahendra Singh, accused Bhujwalsingh, Balaram (D. W. 3) and a few others grazing their cattle in the Jwar field. Finding the deceased and these two prosecution witnesses coming there, some of those who were grazing their cattle ran away leaving accused Mahendrasingh and Bhujwalsingh on the spot. When the accused and their companions were challenged they raised cries, in response to which the remaining accused also came there. In the meantime, when the deceased and some of the prosecution witnesses were carrying the cattle of accused to the cattle pound the accused Mahendrasingh fired from a 12 bore gun because of which Premnarain (P. W. 10) and the deceased were hit. Because of another fire by accused Mahendrasingh. Dhannalal (P. W. 11) was hit A report of this incident was made by deceased Raghunath on the same day vide Ex- P-26 at Chachoda Police Station Subsequently, Raghunath died and all the aforesaid accused Were tried for offences under Ss. 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act.

2. The defence of the appellants was that the grass land and the field in question belonged to Fateh Singh. their brother; that the cattle of the deceased had trespassed over their grass• land; that when the accused Mahendra Singh objected, deceased Raghunath assaulted Mahendrasingh and that in self-defence accused Mahendrasingh had to fire. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, their defence was that they were not even present when the incident in question took place. The specific defence taken by accused Mardan Singh was that from 7-8-1969, i.e., the day preceding the date of the incident, he was an indoor patient in a hospital where he was being treated by Dr. R. C. Jain (D. W. 1). The accused in support of their defence filed a number of certified copies of orders passed by revenue Courts to show that on the date of the incident the grass-land and the field in which the incident was said to have taken place were in their possession and it was the party of the deceased which had allowed their cattle to trespass over their fields.

3. The learned trial Judge rejected the defence raised by the appellants and concluded that the accused were not responsible for the death of Raghunath inasmuch as he did not die because of the gun-shot injuries received by him in this case at the hands of accused Mahendrasingh; that the accrued deceased Raghunath had only received grievous hurt because of the firing by the accused; that the accused caused hurt to the deceased Raghunath Premnarain (P. W. 10) and Dhannalal (P. W. 11) in prosecution of their common object and that the accused were guilty, as aforesaid.

4. In the High Court it was contended that there was overwhelming evidence that the grass-land and the field in question were in the rightful possession of the party of the accused; that they had every right to drive away the cattle of the deceased which had trespassed over these lands; that the first information report judged by the deceased was erroneously relied upon by the learned trial Judge as legal evi