Dular Sai were party and the SDO (Revenue) had set aside the mutation in favour of Dular Sai and directed the concerned Tehsildar to pass fresh order, in accordance with law. It is also an admitted position on record that one day prior to the date of the incident i.e. 19.8.2011, Manbodh, father of the appellants, lodged a report at Police Station Patna stating that they had sown the paddy crop in their agricultural field and the deceased party had deliberately taken possession of their land and started ploughing their agricultural field and again sown the paddy crop vide Ex.-D/2. It is also an admitted position that the offence has been registered against Rajaram vide Ex.-D/4. On 20.4.2011, deceased Dular Sai preferred a civil suit against the father of the appellants, wherein he had sought permanent injunction against the appellants and his brother, which was pending consideration on the date of the incident. It is pertinent to note that vide Ex.-D/15 & D/16, after the order of mutation, the deceased had sold the land to Sushil and Anod Kumar, and as such the parties are litigating over the said land since long, and one day prior to the date of the incident, Manbodh, father of the appellants, lodged a report for taking action against the deceased Dular Sai. In that view of the matter, since the dispute over the land was going on till the date of offence by filing mutation proceedings, we are inclined to hold that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the appellants, particularly, appellant No.1 – Balkaran to cause death of the deceased and to cause injury to Meera, however, on grave and
