JUDGMENT : KAUL, J. These two criminal appeals - Criminal Appeal No.134 of 1951 preferred by Dayaram and No.138 of 1951 preferred by Gopal - may conveniently be disposed of by one common judgment. They arise thus: 2. Misarbai a girl aged about 20 years was married to Rajaram s/o Dewa of Jagatpura. In January 1950, she went to the house of her sister who was married to Gopal of Karai Kasba. It appears that once the girl was in Gopal's house he would not let her return to her husband's house. Thereupon her husband Rajaram, along with his cousin Bhagwan Patel, his sister's husband Rajaram s/o Hira and four or five others including one Santokhsingh came to Karai Kasba in two bullock carts. They left the bullock carts at the house of Santokhsingh' s brother who lived in that village. This was on the night between 5th and 6th April 1950. The next morning when Misarbai came to the river to fetch water she was seized by her husband Rajaram s/o Dewa who along with his other companions forcibly carried her away. They directed one of their companions Lalchand to bring the bullock carts which had been left behind. By the time the news of this forcible abduction of Misarbai reached Gopal and he arranged for the rescue of the girl. Misarbai's captors had taken her beyond village Nagziri which adjoins Karai Kasba. They were overtaken by a party of rescuers which included the present two appellants Gopal and Dayaram. This party consisted in all of six or seven persons. The two parties met and it is alleged that Gopal' s party set upon Misarbai' s captors. They threw stones on their opponents and also caused some injuries with lathis. During this clash Rajaram s/o Hira was hit with a stone on the head which though it left no external mark of injury resulted in a fracture at the base of the skull. He dropped down and became unconscious. Gopal' s party succeeded in rescuing the girl. Besides Rajaram s/o Hira, Bhagwan Patel and Rajaram s/o Dewa also received some minor injuries. Misarbai's husband and his companions thereupon lifted Rajaram s/o Hira into one of the bullock carts and took him to the Police Station Balwada where a first information report of the occurrence was made by Bhagwan Patel at 3-30 P.M. the same day i.e., 6-4-1950. Besides Rajaram s/o Hira, Bhagwan Patel and Rajaram s/o Dewa also received some minor injuries. Misarbai's husband and his companions thereupon lifted Rajaram s/o Hira into one of the bullock carts and took him to the Police Station Balwada where a first information report of the occurrence was made by Bhagwan Patel at 3-30 P.M. the same day i.e., 6-4-1950. The report ran as follows: Shortly after at about 3-45 P.M. Rajaram s/o Hira expired. A case under S.302/34, I.P.C., was accordingly registered. As the Station Officer was away at the moment Head Constable Shankarlal started the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and arrested Gopal and Dayaram. They went to Nagziri but as Bhagwan Patel could not identify any person of that village as being among the culprits no other arrests were made. 3. After a Panchanama was prepared the dead body of Rajaram s/o Hira was sent to Burwah where an autopsy of the corpse was made by the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, Shiv Shaktilal. According to him Rajaram's death was due to coma caused by the compression of the brain. 4. The next day investigation of the crime was taken over by Circle Inspector Kartarchand into his own hands. As a result of his investigation 7 persons including the present two appellants were challaned and in due course after the usual Magisterial inquiry were committed to the Court of Session. They all pleaded not guilty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mandleshwar acquitted them of the charge under S.302/149, I.P.C. He convicted Gopal for an offence under S.304, I.P.C. with respect to injuries caused to Rajaram s/o Hira and sentenced him to seven years" rigorous imprisonment. For injuries caused to Rajaram s/o Dewa he was convicted under S.323/149, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. 5. Dayaram was convicted under S.325/149, I.P.C., for injuries caused to Rajaram s/o Hira and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and for injuries caused to Rajaram s/o Dewa he was convicted under S.323/ 149, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were in each case to run concurrently. 6. The main witnesses in the case are Bhagwan Patel P.W.4, Rajaram s/o Dewa P.W.7, Siva Gawali P.W.9 and Misarbai P.W.8. On the evidence before him the learned Additional Sessions Judge held: 1. Both the sentences were in each case to run concurrently. 6. The main witnesses in the case are Bhagwan Patel P.W.4, Rajaram s/o Dewa P.W.7, Siva Gawali P.W.9 and Misarbai P.W.8. On the evidence before him the learned Additional Sessions Judge held: 1. That Misarbai was being forcibly carried away by her husband and his companions when she was rescued by a party of six or seven persons including the two appellants Gopal and Dayaram. 2. They were the members of an unlawful assembly which had as its common object the rescue of Misarbai by use of force: and 3. There was no occasion for exercise of right of private defence inasmuch as the appellants and their companions could have resort to public authorities to secure the release of Misarbai. 7. Dissatisfied with this decision the present appeals have been preferred. 8. It was contended by Mr. Karanjkar learned counsel for Dayaram that even if his client and his companions inflicted the injuries for causing which they have been punished, they did so in exercise of right of private defence of person of Misarbai. He argued that Misarbai's husband had no right to forcibly seize the girl and carry her away from Karai Kasba against her will. Dayaram and his companions accordingly could not be held guilty of any offence if they inflicted some injuries upon the woman's captors in their attempt to rescue her. This contention is not without force 9. There could be no doubt that the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a correct conclusion when he held that Rajaram s/o Hira was forcibly carrying away his wife against her will. This is abundantly proved by the fact that after the parties met Misarbai went to Karai Kasba. It was pointed out that the nature of the injuries inflicted in the present case though they resulted in loss of one life cannot be said to be serious or disproportionate to the requirements of the situation. According to Bhagwan Patel as the appellants approached them they shouted 'catch them and seize the woman.' 'They began to hurl stones at us.' A stone thrown by Gopal hit Rajaram s/o Hira on the head. He fell down. As he attempted to rise he was assaulted with lathis. Gopal caught hold of Misarbai's hand and rescued her. He is definite that Dayaram did not strike Rajaram s/o Hira. He fell down. As he attempted to rise he was assaulted with lathis. Gopal caught hold of Misarbai's hand and rescued her. He is definite that Dayaram did not strike Rajaram s/o Hira. The other witnesses also gave evidence on the same lines. 10. Once it is held that the girl was being carried away forcibly against her will those who attempted to rescue her were entitled to use sufficient force to achieve that purpose. If in doing so they inflicted some injuries they can well claim the benefit of the plea of the right of private defence. 11. Under S.96, Penal Code, nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Under S.97, I.P.C., every person has, subject to the restrictions contained in S.99, a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. 12. It was not disputed by the learned Government Advocate that the present appellants and their companions had a right to rescue the woman provided they did not transgress the limitations imposed by S.99, I.P.C. With his usual fairness the learned Government Advocate made no attempt to support the judgment of the lower Court which held that the accused had no right of private defence inasmuch as they could have resort to public authorities. Obviously if a woman is being forcibly carried away against her will in the manner that Misarbai was abducted from Karai Kasba, those interested in her could not be reasonably expected to wait till the matter had been reported to the Police and action taken by the public authorities. It is true that she was being carried away by force by her own husband. But that would not affect the right conferred by S.97, I.P.C. 13. Once it is held that there was a right of private defence, it cannot be said that the present appellants or their companions were members of an unlawful assembly. The only question which the learned Government Advocate attempted to raise was that the right of private defence was exceeded. I am unable to accept this contention. I have given above what was stated by one of the chief prosecution witnesses Bhagwan Patel in his evidence. The only question which the learned Government Advocate attempted to raise was that the right of private defence was exceeded. I am unable to accept this contention. I have given above what was stated by one of the chief prosecution witnesses Bhagwan Patel in his evidence. We know that the stone which Gopal is said to have thrown and which hit Rajaram s/o Hira on the head did not leave any external mark of injury. Dr. Shiv Shaktilal has said that it was possible that the fracture found at the base of skull could have been caused by such a stone. It is said that lathis were used by the party of Misarbai's. The injuries caused by lathis are of a minor character. The only severe injury received by any member of the complainant's party was that by Rajaram s/o Hira' who was hit by a stone said to have been hurled by Gopal. In the circumstances in which the rescuers were placed it was only natural for them to use stones for achieving their object. If accidentally a stone hits someone on the head and unfortunately resulted in an injury to the base of the skull it cannot be said that the person who threw the stone exceeded his right of private defence. Accordingly disagreeing with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge we hold that the injuries inflicted by Gopal and Dayaram the present appellants upon the captors of Misarbai were inflicted in the exercise of right of private defence and they are not guilty of any offence. 14. The appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellants in each of these appeals is set aside. Both the appellants will be set at liberty. 15. MEHTA, J.:- I agree.