It is well settled that once it is held that that the accused had the right of private defence and reasonably apprehended that death' or grievous bodily hurt would be the consequences if the right of private defence was not exercised, would be the consequences if the right of private defence of property extended under section 103 IPC, to voluntarily causing the death of the aggressor subject to restrictions mentioned in section 88 IPC.

In this case, if the appellant acted in exercise of their right of private defence of property, it can not be Said , that they committed a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention, because section 96 IPC ,abundantly clear that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. They did not intend to commit any criminal act or to do anything which may be described as unlawful.

Their objects was not to kill the deceased but to protect their property. It may be, that in a given case it may be found on the basis of material in record that some of them may have exceeded their right of private defense and for that they may be individually held responsible. But it could not be Said that the murder was committed pursuant to the common intention to commit such crime. In somewhat similar circumstances in State of Bihar vs Madhu Pandey and other's,this court considered the question as to whether the accused could be convicted under section 302 read with Section 149 or Section 34 IPC.