These appeals are directed against the judgment of a High Court whereby an appeal and a criminal revision were disposed of. The appellants were found guilty and sentenced to undergo various terms of sentences. The Criminal Appeal was filed by three appellants questioning the conviction and sentence as recorded. Complainant filed a revision petition stating that she was entitled to compensation. Background facts giving rise to the trial are essentially as follows: "The complainant and the appellants are first cousins, and as such are closely related to each other. Their grandfather was P1. As per site plans Ex. PP prepared by P2, P3 PW4 and Ex. PT prepared by P3 PW9 (I.0.), it shows that the place of occurrence was in the common land owned both by the appellants and the complainant party. The tube well of which the pipes were being taken out by the appellants, was also in the common piece of land. P4 (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was standing in the water-course point B (Ex.PT). Complainant P5 was standing in the common land Point C (Ex.PT) and P6 was standing at Point D (Ex. PT). It is the appellants who went 16 to 35 feet towards the complainants where deceased P4 and the other two witnesses P5 (PW6) and P6 (PW7) were standing and thereafter attacked them. P5 (PW6) asked the appellants not to take out the iron and plastic pipes of the tube well, but firstly to talk to the elders. Malkiat Singh, Patwari (PW4), who is a key witness in regard to the ownership of the piece of land where the tubewell was installed, was not put any question regarding the ownership of the common land. P5 (PW6), in his testimony before the Court, stated that the appellants on 7.1.2001 at about 1.00 P.M. armed with spades came to the tube well and started removing the pipes, which was jointly owned by both the appellants and complainant party. On being stopped, the appellants felt offended and attacked the complainant party. He (PW6) has further stated that there was no dispute regarding the joint property, but the appellants were not on visiting terms with them as far social functions were concerned. P4 was attacked in the joint water channel and across the water channel there was the field of P7, father of P8. After leaving the common pipes of land where the tube well was installed, rest of the land had been divided by both the parties and they were cultivating the land separately and peacefully. The complainant party did not have any weapons in their hands when they had gone to stop the appellants. This witness (PW6) has stated that they did not go near the appellants, but asked them not to remove the pipes. They were at that time standing at a distance of 5-6 karms. P6 (PW7) has also reiterated the same. P5 (PW6) has stated, that P9 and P10 have their fields at a distance of about half a kills from the place of occurrence. Both these witnesses P5 (PW6) and P6 (PW7) corroborate each other inter-se and also corroborate the FIR The medical evidence also corroborates the statements given by the eye witnesses. Dr. D1 (PW 1) has stated in his testimony, that on examining P5 he found that he had received one incised wound injury on the scalp left parietal area vertical in position. Similarly on examining P6, he found the first injury to be an incised wound. Second and third were abrasions on the left shoulder and neck. The fourth injury was a lacerated wound on the right parietal area of scalp. On the post-mortem conducted on P4, an incised wound was found on the parietal area of the scalp, about 12 cms from right ear pinna backwards, traversing part of left parietal area of scalp to left occipital area. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account." Trial court took note of the fact that the appellants and the members of the complainant party are related to each other closely. The dispute arose because of conflicting claims as to the ownership of the land. It was submitted that the occurrence took place when the members of the complainant party came forward and obstructed the appellant from doing the work and restrained them from pulling out the pipe. There was exchange of hot words and in the process, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place. In essence it was submitted that the accused were exercising the right of private defence or in the alternative the occurrence took place in the course of a sudden quarrel. Stand of the State was that there appears to be some exchange of words. The trial court found substance in the plea and found the accused persons guilty. Before the High Court it was submitted that the factual scenario has not been correctly appreciated by the trial court. It noted that the appellants pulled out the iron and plastic pipes which were installed on the land jointly owned by both the parties. Since the accused persons pulled out the pipes it was natural that the members of the complainant party who were standing at a distance of 16 to 35 feets from the appellants intervened and asked them not to pull out the pipes unless the elders take a decision. The appellants did not pay any heed.