Right of private defense does not justify preemptively causing fatal injuries without provocation, as established by the court.

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants - A - 1 to A - 3 against the judgment, dated 27-07-2006, in SC No. 306 of 2005 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, wherein A - 1 to A - 3 were found guilty for the offence punishable under S.302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows:
A. PW 2 is the mother of the deceased. A - 1 and A - 3 are the sons of A - 2. The deceased and the accused belong to Peddipalem. The deceased owned 12 acres of land. About one year prior to the date of the incident, he mortgaged four acres of land to A - 2 for a period of three years and obtained a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from him. There was also an understanding that A - 2 would enjoy the crop over the said land in lieu of the interest on loan amount. Subsequently, the deceased raised a dispute with A - 2 stating that he was cultivating more than four acres and insisted him to return the same. On the date of the incident, PW 1, PW 4 and one Chinna went to the fields of the deceased to attend their work and take out saplings of banana plants. Then the deceased, who was sitting on the bund, objected them entering into banana tope and informed them that there was a land dispute pending. In the meanwhile, A - 1 and PW 5 went there but they were also not allowed to enter into the banana tope. Then, while they were all sitting on the bund, A - 2 and A - 3 came there and questioned them. Then A - 1 informed them that the deceased objected them, so saying he beat the deceased with a stick on the back side of his head, A - 2 and A - 3 also beat him with sticks indiscriminately. On seeing the same, PWs 1 and 4 ran and informed PWs 2 and 6 (Village Karanam) about the incident. On the said information, PWs 2 and 3 rushed to the fields and then A - 2 informed PW 2 that he caused the death of her son and showed the dead body. Then, PW 6 recorded the statement of PW 1 and forwarded the same to the police station through PW 8 (Village Servant).
B. On 09-05-2005 at 14.00 hours, on receiving Ext. P - 1 report, PW 12 the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 45 of 2005 and issued FIR - Ext. P - 14. Thereafter, PW 13 the then Circle Inspector of Police, Annavaram took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared an observation report - Ext. P - 3 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs 6 and 7. He further got the scene of offence photographed through PW 9. Exts. P - 9 and P - 10 are the photographs and negatives. Then, he forwarded the dead body for post - mortem examination. On 10-05-2005, on requisition, PW 11 the then Civil Assistant Surgeon held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of the death was due to head injury. Ext. P - 13 is the post - mortem report. On 16-05-2005, PW 13 arrested the accused and in pursuance of their statements (Exts. P - 5 to 7) at their instance MOs 1 to 3 (sticks) were recovered in the presence of PW 7 under Ext. P - 8 panchanama. He then got the disputed land measured on 31-05-2005. PW 10 - Mandal Surveyor, surveyed the banana tope land and issued Ext. P - 12 - survey report. Further investigation was taken up by PW 14, the Circle Inspector of Police, who after completi