Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. The evidence shows that the Bodi was irrigating the lands of 1st accused and that at least from 1901 the lands of the opposite party were not irrigated by it. The Sessions Judge finds that the spout was only capable of irrigating two acres, which is the extent of field No. 418 belonging to 1st accused. The Deputy Magistrate in the counter-case finds that the Kapua went to the field of the accused in the present case with a spear and sticks to enforce their right and repair the Bodi and ready to repel by force any obstruction to their interfering with the Bodi.
2. I have little doubt that the accused had the right to prevent the Kapus from entering upon their fields and interfering with the Bodi on it. It is difficult to see how they lost the right of private defence because they did not send word to the Police Station six miles off. By the time a person could have gone there and returned with Police help, the Kapus would have trespassed on the land of the 1st accused and gained all they would. The 1st accused and those on the land were justified in getting help and resisting the trespass attempted by the Kapus.
3. The only question is whether the accused or any of them exceeded their right of private defence. In this connection I may point out that persons exercising their right are not members of an unlawful assembly by repelling attacks made on them or by exceeding the right of private defence See Knnja Bhuniya v. Emperor 15 Ind. Cas. 481. If any person exceeds his right of private defence he will be individually liable for any injury caused.
4. So far as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, the Deputy Magistrate finds that they did not cause hurt to anybody and the Sessions Judge did not differ from him. They were clearly within their right in resisting the attempt of the Kapus to trespass on their land and, as they have not exceeded their right of private defence, it is difficult to see how they can be convicted of any offence. The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to support the conviction so far as they are concerned. As regards the other accused there is the finding that they exceeded the right of private defence. It would have been more satisfactory if the Sessions Judge had discussed the evidence as against each accused, as he was bound to do: In Re: Ramasamy Naidu 31 Ind. Cas. 825 but I think no useful purpose will be served by sending the case back.
5. I set aside the conviction and sentence against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and confirm the conviction as against the other accused. The security bond executed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 will be cancelled.