Therefore, the offence if at all companymitted by the appellants would companye under Explanation 4 to Section 300, hence, they cannot be held guilty of any of the charges framed against them.
It companyvicted Appellant Nos.2 and 4 also for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC for which three months simple imprisonment was awarded.
A companyplaint in this regard was lodged by PW 1 in Shirpur Police Station and on the basis of the said companyplaint a case was registered against the appellants, as stated above.
The appellants herein unsuccessfully challenged the said companyviction and sentence before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, companysequently they are before us in this appeal.
Since we are number companycerned with the companyplaint filed by the appellants in this appeal and since there is numbermaterial in regard to the fate of that companyplaint on record it is number necessary for us to deal with the facts pertaining to that companyplaint except to the extent the same is taken as a defence by the appellants in this case.
Therefore, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the crop that was ready for harvesting was the crop sown by the deceased and his party hence, the appellants companytention that they were in possession of the property was incorrect.
But before the injunction companyld be obtained the deceased and his family had already sown Moong crop in the disputed area sometime in July of 1992.
The trial companyrt found the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
It is the case of the prosecution that Moong crop sown by the deceased and his family was ready for harvesting sometime in September, hence, anticipating the harvesting of the crop by the deceased and his family the appellants had sought for police help to prevent the same, but such help was number given by the police.
This argument of the learned companynsel proceeds on the assumption that the appellants had proved before the companyrts below that they were in possession of the disputed property.
Said companyplaint was also accepted and a separate case was registered against the deceased and his brothers.
The trial companyrt numbericed in the averments made in the application filed for the grant of injunction before the civil companyrt by the appellants wherein the appellant had admitted that the deceased and his brothers had already sown Moong crop on the land in question.
There was some dispute in regard to the boundary between these two properties because of which the appellants had filed a civil suit and had obtained an injunction against the deceased and his family from sowing the disputed area of the land.
In the meanwhile the appellants herein also approached the same police station and lodged a companyplaint that they were assaulted by the party of the deceased.
Shri M.R.Daga, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants companytended that by virtue of the injunction granted by the civil companyrt the appellant were in possession of the land in question and it is the companyplainants side which tried to interfere with their possession and in the companyrse of protecting the possession of the property the deceased and others including the appellants suffered injuries.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows The appellants and the deceased and his family owned neighbouring lands in the Village Koyali, Tehsil Risod in Akola District of Maharashtra.
In the case filed by the brother of the deceased, the police after investigation filed a charge sheet for offences, as stated above and the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellants which companyviction was companyfirmed by the High Court.
On the companytrary the finding of the two companyrts below is that the appellants were number in possession of the property and by virtue of the injunction obtained by the appellants they did number get the possession of the suit property.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellants herein were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC for having companymitted the murder of one Keshav and having caused injury to his brother Baburao PW 1 .
