Secondly, the occurrence took place on the disputed Khaliyan land which according to the companyplainant Chandraka Rai belonged to him and he was in possession of the same.
Firstly, it held that the four eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution were highly interested, partisan and inimical and their testimony did number inspire companyfidence.
The defence version was that the accused persons were in possession of the disputed land.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were aggressOrs.
The appellant along with 11 other companyaccused stood trial for various offences.
The accused persons resisted the same and in that process the occurrence took place.
They exercised their right of defence.
