The court established the right to private defense may justify actions resulting in death only if the response does not exceed reasonable necessity.

1. The 10 appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Goalpara under S.148, S.302/149 and 323/149 of the I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced, to rigorous imprisonment for life under S.320/149 and to rigorous imprisonment for one month under each of the other two sections. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge they have now come UD in appeal.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 28-7-1968 at about 6 A.M. the accused - appellants formed an unlawful assembly being armed with various deadly weapons with the common object of committing trespass into the land falling in the share of P.W. 1 Abdul Gani and others situated at village Mowartari within Bilasipara Police Station and in prosecution of the said common object caused the death of two Persons, namely, Raijuddin and Rustom and caused injuries to some other persons including . P.W. 9 Shah Alam and P.W. 10 Ismail Sheikh while they came to protest against the actions of the accused. After the occurrence P.W. 1 Abdul Gani lodged an ejahar at the Bilasipara Police Station. Police registered a case and on completion of investigation sent up all the 10 appellants under S.148, S.323/149 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. they were later committed to the Court of Session by the Additional District Magistrate (J). Dhubri at the conclusion of preliminary enquiry.

3. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges under the aforesaid sections framed against them. Their defence was that the land in question is in possession of accused Kasimuddin since long before and that on the date of occurrence while his sons Osman and Abdul Awal and his son - in - law Habibur Rahman were ploughing the land the complainant party, namely P.W. 1 Abdul Gani, deceased Raijuddin, deceased Rustom. P.W. 9 Shah Alam, P.W. 10 Ismail Shaikh and others came and resisted and in doing so, they assaulted them causing injuries. It was alleged that in the melee the two deceased persons fell in front of some ploughs and received the injuries from the blades of ploughs. The presence of the other accused persons at the time of occurrence was denied.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case including two Police Officers and two Doctors. The defence also examined two witnesses in support of its case. Besides the P.Ws. and D.Ws. one witness was examined as a Court witness. On a consideration of the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the land on which the occurrence took place was in possession of the complainant party at the time of occurrence and that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing trespass into the said land and in prosecution of that common object, some of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the death of Raijuddin and Rustom and also caused injuries to P.W. Shah Alam and P.W. Ismail Sheikh. With these findings the learned Sessions Judge held that all the accused - appellants were guilty of the offences they were charged with and accordingly convicted and sentenced them thereunder, as stated above.

5. Mr. K.M. Lahiri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended before us that the above findings of the learned Sessions Judge are not warranted by the evidence on record and that all the appellants should have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

6. The crucial point that falls for determination in the appeal is who was in actual Possession of the land on which the occurrence took place whether any of the members of the complainant party or the accused. If this question