JUDGMENT : Mohanty, J. - This is an appeal by the Government against the order of the Sessions Judge, Koraput, acquitting the accused Sunadhar Gouda of the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. 2. The charge against him was that on 28-4-52 at about 10 p.m. in village Muttebeda, the deceased Bhagaban Pujari had been to the place of his uncle. The accused was there. In course of a talk as between Bhagaban and his uncle Bhagaban abused his uncle and gave him slaps. Thereupon the accused remonstrated (Sic with) Bhagaban saying as to why he was assaulting his old uncle. So saying he tried to pacify him and asked him to withdraw from the place. Both the accused and Bhagaban Pujari thereupon went upto the house of P.W. 7 where the deceased Bhagaban Pujari gave him 2 slaps. The accused challenged him. Thereafter Bhagaban brought out a lathi (bamboo pole) and gave him a blow with it. The accused snatched away the bamboo pole and gave two or three blows on the head of the deceased and the deceased fell down on the ground. At that time the village Naik (P.W. 5) arrived there and took away the lathi from the accused. Thereafter, it is alleged the accused shot an arrow on the neck of the deceased and thereby the deceased died there. The Naik (P.W. 5) put two men of the village, viz., Arjun Gouda and Raghunath Gouda to keep watch over the dead body till the arrival of the police. It is said that on the next morning there was a punch in the village in which the accused made an extra-judicial confession before them about the lathi blow on the head of the deceased and the injury on the neck as a result of the arrow shot by him. 3. It appears that the accused made a confession before a Magistrate, but he does not say specifically that it is he who caused the arrow shot on the neck of the deceased. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge before the trial Court. 5. 3. It appears that the accused made a confession before a Magistrate, but he does not say specifically that it is he who caused the arrow shot on the neck of the deceased. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge before the trial Court. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the accused has inflicted the head injuries as well as the injury on the neck caused by the arrow shot but as further held that the injury on the head is justified by the right of private defence of the accused and has therefore given him the benefit of doubt. With regard to the injury on the neck, he says that before the infliction of the injury on the neck, the deceased had died as a result of the injury on the head. He has, on this ground, acquitted the accused of the charge. 6. It appears from the-evidence of the doctor (P.W. 1) that the injury No. 4 situate on the head of the deceased was (Sic-a) grievous one and can by itself cause the death of the deceased. But we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge that that injury was inflicted by the accused in self-defence of his own life. The deceased himself was a dangerous goonda of the village and was in the habit of assaulting several people for nothing. White the deceased gave a lathi blow on the accused practically unprovoked it is justifiable on the part of the accused to snatch away that lathi and to give such blows as to save himself from further blows by the deceased endangering his life. To that extent we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused was justified in giving blows on the head of the deceased. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence on record to show that after the deceased had fallen down on the ground, the accused gave further blows with the lathi on the deceased before the lathi was taken away by P.W. 5. We therefore agree with the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the accused cannot be held liable for an offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. 7. We therefore agree with the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the accused cannot be held liable for an offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. 7. As regards the stab injury on the neck, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a finding that it is the accused who has inflicted that injury, but there is practically no convincing evidence to that effect. The arrow injury was Dot inflicted at the time of the occurrence. No witness has so far said so. It is said that sometime after the occurrence, the accused came there with an arrow and inflicted that injury. That has been deposed to by P.W. 7 before the committing Magistrate. But he has resiled from that statement in the trial Court. Consequently his previous statement before the committing Magistrate- should be taken with caution, unless it is corroborated by any other evidence. Practically there is no evidence of any independent nature to show that sometime after the occurrence, that arrow injury was caused by the accused. No body seems to have seen it. When P.W. 5 came there he took the deceased to be dead. He thereafter posted Raghu and Arjun to watch over the dead body for the whole night. As a matter of fact, they were there throughout but none of them has come forward to say that after the occurrence the accused caused that injury on the neck. The injury on the neck by itself is sufficient to cause death as opined by the doctor. If it were found that he has caused that injury, certainly the accused would be responsible for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. Besides the fact that there is no eye-witness to the infliction of such injury, the prosecution has relied upon the extra-judicial confession before the punch. But we attach little importance to such confession when there is no direct evidence making the accused responsible for it. P.Ws. 4 and 6 are some of the members of the Punch. P.W. 7 was also there. Their evidence appears to be divergent as to how and why such a confession was made by the accused. It being so, we do not think it proper to convict the accused for any injury on the neck. P.Ws. 4 and 6 are some of the members of the Punch. P.W. 7 was also there. Their evidence appears to be divergent as to how and why such a confession was made by the accused. It being so, we do not think it proper to convict the accused for any injury on the neck. Moreover, had the prosecution examined Raghu and Arjun who had been throughout near the dead body that night, they would have explained as to how that injury was caused. In the absence of their evidence and also in the absence of any direct evidence as to the infliction of that injury by the accused, we think we would not be justified in holding that the accused caused that injury which was responsible for the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the accused as to the authorship of the arrow injuries. 8. In the result, we maintain the order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal. Narasimham, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed