CHHANGANI, J.—Kalu Singh, the appellant, has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, of offences under secs. 302, 324, and 323, Indian Penal Code, by his order dated May 5, 1960, and has been awarded the following sentences:— u/s 302 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. u/s 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s 323 IPC Rigoruos imprisonment for two months. (Sentences to run concurrently) He has filed the present appeals one a represented appeal and the other through jail challenging his conviction and sentences. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:— 3. It is alleged that on September 3, 1956, at about sun-set, the accused Kalu Singh was sitting some-where near a temple called "Rajmandir" in village Dudhalia. Daula (PW/1) happened to pass there while returning from his field and proceeding on his way home. The accused asked Daula to call one Durga Lal Tamboli. Daula, who was drenched to the bone on account of rains and was shivering with cold, refused to comply with the instructions of the accused and proceeded on his way. The accused appears to have been annoyed and assaulted Daula with a lathi which he had with him. He is alleged to have struck three blows on the head and two on the back. Daula cried for help whereupon Gangaram Teli (PW/8) came to his rescue and saved him. Daula left for his house but the accused followed him and beat him also there with kicks and fists. Moti Singh (PW/14), Amra (PW/9) and his wife intervened and Daula was shut up in a room in the house. Moti Singh and Amra brought the accused to a place near the house of one Nagu Nut. The prosecution story further is that Gopal also happened to come there and on seeing him, the accused turned upon him and inflicted four injuries with knife. In the meanwhile his wife Mst. Samari hearing his out-cry, came there and made a protest to the accused. The accused did not heed the protest but on the other hand, inflicted two knife injuries on her also as a result of which she fell down and died. In the meanwhile his wife Mst. Samari hearing his out-cry, came there and made a protest to the accused. The accused did not heed the protest but on the other hand, inflicted two knife injuries on her also as a result of which she fell down and died. The accused was then over-powered by Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) chowki-dars who tied his hands with a rope and kept him in the Rajmandir. The knife was thereafter taken away by his mother from his hand. At the instance of Moti Singh (PW/14), Uda (P.W/10) went to the Police Station, Dag, and lodged the first information report (Ex.P-1) at 2 AM in the night on the same day which was recorded by Head Constable Gulabchand (PW/17). The report is very brief one. All that was mentioned in the report is that the accused Kalu Singh inflicted injuries with knife on Gopal and Mst. Samari and that the latter had died and that Gopal was lying unconscious. It was also recited that Daula too had been beaten by the accused. The Head Constable Gulabchand (PW/17) immediately rushed to the scene of the occurrence. As it had rained in the meantime, he could not find any signs of the incident, but he inspected the site and prepared the plan (Ex.P-8). He also prepared an inquest report on the dead body of Mst. Samari and sent it for post-mortem examination. After noticing the injuries on the persons of the injured Gopal and Daula and preparing cards, he sent them also for medical examination. He also took into custody the accused Kalu Singh who was till then in Moti Singh chowkidars custody. The accused was bleeding from his head and knee cap. Doctor Kalyan Singh (PW/12), Medical Officer, Gangadhar, performed the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Mst. Samari. The deceased had the following injuries on her person:— 1. Incised punctured wound slanting at upper heart area 1-1/2" x 1/3" broad puncturing the heart reaching upto the left lung. This was 2" away from the external border of sternum. 2. Incised punctured wound above the left eye-brow on fore-head 1-1/2" in length, 1/3" breadth x cutting the bone reached the brain. The cause of death, according to the Doctor, was excessive haemorrhage. This was 2" away from the external border of sternum. 2. Incised punctured wound above the left eye-brow on fore-head 1-1/2" in length, 1/3" breadth x cutting the bone reached the brain. The cause of death, according to the Doctor, was excessive haemorrhage. The Doctor was further of the opinion that injury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 3. The Doctor also examined the injuries on the persons of Daula and Gopal and found the following injuries:— Daula—1. Injury with inflamation 3" x 1/2" breadth. Injury was Vertical on the left side of the forehead. 2. Bruises two with inflamation 4." x 1/2 at the back on left side at 9th, l0th ribs slanting in direction. Gopal —1. Incised wound at lower lip on right side 3/4" slanting in length. 2. Incised wound at right side of the neck 1-1/2" x 1/3" x 1/4" deep injury was vertical. 3. Incised wound at left side of chest in between 4th and 5th ribs, 3/4" away from sternal border vertical in direction 1/2" long 1/3" broad 1/4" deep. 4. After the usual investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet against the accused in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, Bhawanimandi who after inquiry, committed the accused to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial under secs.302, 326, 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses including a number of eye witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied his guilt. At the committal stage, he merely stated that the witnesses falsely implicated him and that one Rama Maharaj had made him drunk and that Daula, Gopal and Mst. Samari had beaten him. At the trial, he further stated that all the Chamars had surrounded him and wanted to know why he beat Daula Chamar. He told them that he had not beaten Daula Chamar but it was Daula Chamar who had beaten him. At that time Gopal struck him with a kulhari at his head and other Chamars also beat him with lathis. His further case was that Mst. Samari, wife of Gopal, also wanted to assault him with a Daranti and that he pushed her aside and she fell down. However, he had no idea whether he had struck her with knife or not. His further case was that Mst. Samari, wife of Gopal, also wanted to assault him with a Daranti and that he pushed her aside and she fell down. However, he had no idea whether he had struck her with knife or not. He admitted that he was overpowered by the chowkidars but denied that the knife was taken away from his hand by his mother. He further admitted the presence of blood on his payjama, kameej and safa but pleaded that the clothes were stained with his own blood as he had bled on account of the result of the kulhari blow. Further, according to him, he received lathi blows on his knees at the hands of Daula Chamar. He examined five witnesses in all in his defence. Substantially and ignoring the minor differences of details, their testimony is that Gopal injured demanded to know from the accused as to why he beat his brother-in-law (PW/1) and thereupon the accused explained that it was Daula who had inflicted injuries upon him. Gopal then suddenly struck an axe blow on the head of the accused which caused profuse bleeding. The accused then, according to some witnesses, inflicted some knife injuries (there is no agreement as to number) upon Gopal and according to others, merely stretched his hands in consequence of which Gopal received injuries. As regards Mst. Samari, their evidence is that Mst. Samari also wanted to strike the accused with a daranti, when according to some witnesses the accused merely stopped her with a knife, whereas, according to others, he struck a knife blow at her in the chest. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge, after the trial, substantially accepted the prosecution case. He held that the accused was responsible for inflicting injuries upon Daula with a lathi and upon Gopal and Mst. Samari with a knife. He was not, however, prepared to accept that part of the prosecution case according to which the accused, without any reason or rhyme attacked Gopal and that the accused did not receive any injuries during the incident. He purports to hold that there might have been some quarrel between them and that during that the accused also received the head injury. At the same time, he completely disbelieved the defence story that Gopal inflicted a blow upon the accused with an axe and that Mst. He purports to hold that there might have been some quarrel between them and that during that the accused also received the head injury. At the same time, he completely disbelieved the defence story that Gopal inflicted a blow upon the accused with an axe and that Mst. Samari raised a Daranti against the accused and that accused merely brandished the knife in order to defend himself and that the accused either intentionally or accidentally caused injuries to them only in an attempt to defend himself. In the result, he held the accused guilty of the various offences and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 7. Mr. C.L. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, in challenging the correct ness of the judgment and order of the lower Court had advanced various arguments which may be analysed as follows: — (1) There are sufficient materials on record to prove that the accused also received injuries during the incident which has led to the present prosecution and the Additional Sessions Judge also has found in favour of the defence on this point. The eye witnesses relied upon by the prosecution categorically denied that the accused was inflicted any injury during the course of the incident. They even deny to have seen the injuries. The only two prosecution witnesses, Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) of course state that the accused received injuries on account of an axe blow given by the injured Gopal (PW/2) but prosecution does not rely upon their testimony. The prosecution has thus failed to satisfactorily explain the injuries on the person of the accused and in the absence of such an explanation the prosecution evidence is not complete and cannot sustain the conviction. Sebastian David and another V. Sirkar Prosecutor (1) has been relied upon by the defence in support of this submission. (2) That on a consideration of the testimony of Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) and the defence evidence coupled with the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, the accused should be deemed to have reasonably proved that he was acting in the exercise of the right of private defence and, consequently, cannot be held guilty. It was pointed out in this connection by the learned counsel that according to the well settled law, the accused need not prove that exception to the hilt and that he should prima facie prove the exception. (3) In the alternative, it was submitted that in any case, it is a case of the accused having merely exceeded the right of private defence and his case conies within the scope of Exception II to Sec. 300, Indian Penal Code. (4) Lastly, the learned counsel relied upon Exception IV of Sec. 300, Indian Penal Code, and contended that the accused having inflicted injuries in a sudden fight in the heat of the passion, he can be guilty at the most only under Sec. 304, Indian Penal Code. 8. The first question that arises for consideration is : whether the accused received injuries during the course of the incident? The Additional Sessions Judge appears to have taken the view that the accused received the injuries including the head injury in the same incident and "that the prosecution witnesses do not want to give a full and unreserved account of the incident and did not explain how the accused came by the injuries." After considering the materials on record, we feel inclined to agree with the Additional Sessions Judge on this point. Stating the reasons for our conclusion, we may at the very outset refer to Ex, P-6, a memo prepared at the time of the arrest of the accused. This memo reveals that at the time of the arrest, the turban, the shirt and the payjama of the accused were stained with blood and they were taken into custody. The Investigating officer further noticed the following injuries on the person of the accused:— 1. An injury on the head above the forehead. 2. An abrasion slightly above the right elbow on the anterior side. 3. An abrasion on the right knee. 4. An abrasion on the left elbow. It is regrettable that the investigating Officer took no steps to get the accused medically examined. We cannot but deplore the action of the investigating Officer. The need of fairness on the part of the investigating authorities can never be over stressed and we cannot help observing that an impression that the investigation has not been fair may sometimes reasonably create doubts in the prosecution case and expose it to grave risk. We cannot but deplore the action of the investigating Officer. The need of fairness on the part of the investigating authorities can never be over stressed and we cannot help observing that an impression that the investigation has not been fair may sometimes reasonably create doubts in the prosecution case and expose it to grave risk. It further appears that after the accused was challaned, one Dulesingh, maternal uncle of the accused, put an application in the Court of the Magistrate on 19.9.1959 stating that the accused had marks of injuries on his person and praying for a medical examination. The Magistrate addressed a letter to the jail authorities at Jhalawar to arrange for the medical examination of the accused but unfortunately no medical examination of the accused was arranged. On 1.10.1959 the advocate for the accused again submitted an application to the Magistrate referring to the earlier prayer for a medical examination of the accused and reiterating the same. The Magistrate in the proceedings dated 1.10.1959 observed that the Medical Officer at Bhawanimandi be requested to medically examine the accused. Unfortunately no injury report was brought on the record and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had to make the following observations:— "It may also be remarked here that two applications were made on behalf of the accused praying for the examination of his injuries and that inspite of the order of the Magistrate they were not got medically examined. The only legitimate inference from this is that the prosecution thought that medical examination of his injuries would go against their case and that the head injury of the accused was not so slight as they would have us believe." 9. The learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the accused was medically examined on 1.10.1959 and that an injury report detailing two injuries, one on the head and the other on the knee cap, was obtained but inadvertently the injury report could not be placed on record. The injury report was also perused by us. The mention of the injuries in the arrest memo considered in the light of the subsequent circumstances detailed above provide sufficient evidence to establish injuries on the person of the accused at the time of the incident. The injury report was also perused by us. The mention of the injuries in the arrest memo considered in the light of the subsequent circumstances detailed above provide sufficient evidence to establish injuries on the person of the accused at the time of the incident. The facts that the turban of the accused had blood stains at various places in the folds of the turban and that the shirt was also smeared with blood, further corroborate the above inference. The suggestion of the prosecution that the blood found on the clothes of the accused was that of Mst. Samari and Gopal which had gushed out after they had received injuries, has been rightly rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in view of the excessive blood stains found on the clothes. Lastly, even though Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) and the defence witnesses may not be reliable in so far as the attempt to impute head injury on the person of the accused to an axe blow by Gopal, their testimony can be accepted at any rate to establish that the accused received injuries during the course of the incident. In this view of the matter, we hold that the accused did receive some injuries during the course of the incident. 10. This being the finding and evidently the prosecution witnesses who are being relied upon omitting to explain these injuries, we proceed to examine the submission made by the defence that the prosecution should be thrown and the accused be acquitted on this ground. A great reliance has been placed in this connection upon Sebastain David and others Vs. Sirkar Prosecutor(r). This being the finding and evidently the prosecution witnesses who are being relied upon omitting to explain these injuries, we proceed to examine the submission made by the defence that the prosecution should be thrown and the accused be acquitted on this ground. A great reliance has been placed in this connection upon Sebastain David and others Vs. Sirkar Prosecutor(r). The facts of that case were that there were counter cases between the parties and in the case under decision, the prosecution even did not make use of the documents which were available to them and which can legitimately and properly have been placed on the record of the case; the learned Judge had to observe that "In fact the prosecution would seem to have conducted this case as if it arises out of an independent occurrence and on reading the records through they found that but for some answers elicited by the defence in cross examination there would not have been much on the record to suggest that this was a counter case to Sessions Case No. 36." In these circumstances, the learned Judges threw the prosecution as also the counter case and made the following observations: — "There must be satisfactory evidence for the prosecution as to how or when the injuries were caused and when there are injuries on both sides the prosecution must cogently explain how the accused sustained injuries. Without such explation the prosecution evidence will not be comp lete and no Court will be prepared to act on evidence which leaves a lacuna." We say nothing about the correctness of the decision in the case but we cannot help observing that the principle laid down in this case has been widely stated. With all respect, we do not feel persuaded to agree with all that has been said in that case. It cannot be stated as a matter of law that if in a case the accused also receives injuries and if the prosecution omits to explain them, it must necessarily be that the accused cannot be held guilty. With all respect, we do not feel persuaded to agree with all that has been said in that case. It cannot be stated as a matter of law that if in a case the accused also receives injuries and if the prosecution omits to explain them, it must necessarily be that the accused cannot be held guilty. In the beginning of para 9, the learned Judges appear to recognise an exception in a case when the accused admits having caused injuries and we cannot see why the principle cannot be extended to cases where the inflation of the injuries by the accused an be held proved beyond all manner or doubt on other considerations as well. Mention may be made of the contrary view taken in In re Gampala Subbigadu (2) where the learned Judges laid the law in the following words: "When the evidence is clear that it was the accused who inflicted the fatal wounds upon the deceased, it is not possible to reject that evidence merely because the prosecution witnesses do not explain how the accused himself came by his injuries." It will be further very Significant to point out that the view of the Travancore Cochin High Court (1) stands clearly unapproved in Supreme Court in Hajari Singh V. The State of Punjab (3). In that case, the prosecution came forward with a definite allegation to the effect that the accused party banded themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing a crime and lay in wait for the Prosecution witnesses and the deceased to pass along hat route before taking them by surprise and inflicting on them the injuries as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, and the prosecution party initially omitted to explain the injuries suffered by the accused. The Supreme Court (3) did not accept the precise version of the prosecution and held that there was no premeditated intention on the part of the accused the inflict injuries on the prosecution party and that the Prosecution did not initially explain the injuries to the accused and that their belated attempt to explain the injuries was futile, and then made the following observations: — "What must have happened was that both the parties being armed when they came into conflict, weapons must have been used by the prosecution witnesses also on the accused. We have the three deceased that got worsted when injuries were inflicted on them. To this extent we have believed the evidence of PWs. 19 and 21 but we do not think that their suppression of the injuries on Jumman and Darshu could make their evidence totally unbelievable. On the basis of these observations of the Supreme Court, we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant based upon the decision of the Travancore Cochin High Court (1). 11. As the question relating to the precise effect of omission on part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused is frequently raised, we consider it proper to examine the question on first principles and to ascertain the correct guiding principle. Obviously an omission on the part of a witness to suppress the facts and events leading to the injuries on the defence side is an important material concealment and is in the nature of perjury and does take out the witness from the category of a wholly reliable witness. Naturally, it introduces an infirmity in the evidence of such a witness and consequently the evidence must be examined cautiously and carefully. At the same time there is no warrant for the extreme view that such evidence should be completely discarded and deserves no consideration. The fact that there are some falsehoods in the evidence of a witness does not necessarily justify the rejection of his entire testimony. It is well settled that falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus cannot be applied in this country. It has often been seen that in mutual fights, whether sudden or premeditated there is a tendency on the part of either side to suppress or minimise their parts and in this attempt they resort to falsehood and if the courts proceed to reject cases only on this ground, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to decide majority of cases correctly. In our considered opinion, the precise effect of such suppression is in the ultimate analysis a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of individual cases. In our considered opinion, the precise effect of such suppression is in the ultimate analysis a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of individual cases. The principle which should guide courts in such cases is that the courts should treat such an ommission as am infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case and should on that ground undertake a cautious and prudent examination of the prosecution case but if after such examination, it clearly appears to the Court that the accused is the author of the acts constituting the alleged offences and that he cannot reasonably be deemed to have discharged the burden of proving any exception including the exception based on the right of private defence in the sense in which the burden is on the accused to prove an exception, there can be and should be no objection to sustain conviction of the accused on such evidence. 12. Applying the above principles to the present case, we must consider firstly, whether the omission in the present case on the part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused provides any difficulty in the way of holding that the accused is responsible for the infliction of the injuries on Daula (PW/1), Gopal (PW/2) and the deceased Mst. Samari. All the prosecution witnesses unanimously state that it was accused Kalusingh and no other who inflicted the injuries on Daula, Gopal and Mst. Samari. Even Mod Singh (PW/14) and Jujhar Singh (PW/15) who make an attempt to advance the case of the accused with regard to the right of private defence, support the prosecution case in this respect. Even some of the defence witnesses also admit that Kalu Singh inflicted injuries on Gopal and Mst. Samari. The statement of the accused is also significant. Particularly with regard to Mst. Samari, he says that he pushed her and that she fell down and he had no idea whether he had struck her with a knife or not. After considering the materials on record, we are irresistibly led to agree with the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the accused was responsible for inflicting injuries on Daula, Gopal and Mst. Samari. After considering the materials on record, we are irresistibly led to agree with the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the accused was responsible for inflicting injuries on Daula, Gopal and Mst. Samari. In fact, no serious controversy was joined on this aspect of the ease by the defence either in the trial court or before us and we need not go into any great details on this aspect. 13. This brings us to the other question as to whether an omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused warranting a cautious examination of the prosecution evidence either by itself or coupled with other circumstances can lead to a reasonable inference that the accused was acting in the exercise of the right of private defence. It will be convenient to consider the claim of right of private defence separately in support of injuries inflicted to Daula (PW/1) and the injuries inflicted to Gopal (PW/2) and the deceased Mst. Samari on the other hand. We shall first take up the case with regard to the injuries inflicted upon deceased Mst. Samari and Gopal (PW/2) as this was pressed strenuously before us. Mr. Agarwal in this connection besides emphasising the omission on the part of most of the prosecution witnesses to explain injuries on the person of the accused placed great reliance upon the testimony of Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15). Moti Singh stated that in the month of Bhadva he had been to Rajmandir and saw that many people were collected at Holi Tharah and that Kalu Singh was seizing hold of Daula Chamar. He saw the accused holding a drawn knife in his hand. The wife of Daula was at that time raising a hue and cry that the accused was assaulting her husband. The witness further stated that he caught hold of the accused with the help of Amra Chamar and they brought him to the door of a Nat. The accused then hit out a blow with knife to Amra Chamar but the blow din not fully prove effective and Amra Chamar gave up his hold of the accused and ran away. Then the accused wrung himself free and swept upon Gopal Chamar who was standing near and dealt three knife blows on him, one at the back and two on the chest. Then the accused wrung himself free and swept upon Gopal Chamar who was standing near and dealt three knife blows on him, one at the back and two on the chest. Gopal Chamar, however, stood his ground and in the meanwhile his wife Mst. Samari came up there. She was crying and protesting against the assault on her husband. The accused turned upon her and struck a knife blow on her chest. She fell down under the weight of the blow ad died instantaneously. His statement further is that he and Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) managed to over power him and in the meanwhile his mother came and relieved him of the knife. They then tied the hands of the accused and kept him in their custody in the Rajmandir. The witness, however, further added that the accused had also injuries on his person when he was made over to the police. He referred to the presence of the witness, was caused by an axe blow which Gopal (PW/2) inflicted on him, when the accused attempted to assault him for the first time. According to him, Gopal first gave an axe blow to the accused and that the accused thereafter caused injuries to Gopal. The witness further stated that the accused had also injuries on both the knees and on his elbow on the interior side and that he was bleeding from all these injuries. According to this witness, the head injury was grievous and the other injuries were of a minor nature. As would appear from a note given by the Additional Sessions Judge in the statement recorded in Hindi, the Public Prosecutor made an oral application to the Additional Sessions Judge requesting permission to cross examine the witness. The application was based on the ground that the witness did not state either in his examination recorded under sec. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure or in the statement made before the committing magistrate that Gopal Chamar had given an axe blow on the head of the accused and that this was sufficient for declaring the witness hostile. The application was based on the ground that the witness did not state either in his examination recorded under sec. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure or in the statement made before the committing magistrate that Gopal Chamar had given an axe blow on the head of the accused and that this was sufficient for declaring the witness hostile. The application was opposed by the defence with an argument that as the witness did make a mention of the head injury in the earlier statements, the absence of the fact that Gopal was responsible for the injury was a mere omission and that the witness at the trial was merely explaining how the injuries were caused to the accused and that in these circumstances, there was no justification for permitting cross examination. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the Public Prosecutors prayer for permitting cross examination. The witness on cross examination by the accused stated that Gopal Chamar had reached the scene 20 minutes after the accused had quarrelled with Daula Chamar and that many Chamars and Chamarins had collected on the scene and were standing with Gopal, They were armed with lathis but Chamarins were not armed. The witness, however, could not say if they had come with Gopal to assault the accused. The witness further stated that Mst. Samari had a sickle in her hand and she had actually raised her hand with sickle but before she could inflict a blow, the accused dealt her a knife blow. Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) also similarly tells us that when he reached the scene of the occurrence he saw Gopal inflicting a kulhari blow on the accused and it was thereafter that the accused had inflicted three knife injuries in return, and that when Mst. Samari reached there and protested against her husband being attacked, the accused inflicted one knife injury on her chest. He, however, does not support Moti Singh that Mst. Samari had raised her sickle to assault the accused. At page 35 of the paper book, the statement is that Mst. Samari did not assault Kalu Singh i. e. did not beat Kalu Singh; she was only protesting. Tears were rolling down on her and she was crying and saying why the accused was beating her husband. In cross examination, he, however, stated that he did not recollect if Mst. Samari did not assault Kalu Singh i. e. did not beat Kalu Singh; she was only protesting. Tears were rolling down on her and she was crying and saying why the accused was beating her husband. In cross examination, he, however, stated that he did not recollect if Mst. Samari had raised her hand to strike the accused with the sickle. This witness was declared hostile and was faced with his statement recorded before the committing court where he had stated that he did not see anybody beating the accused, and further stated that it was just possible that when he overpowered him, the accused fell down and hurt himself- He denied the correctness of the statement before the committing magistrate and added that it was given on account of police threats. Similarly, he denied the correctness of the statement under sec. 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and imputed it to police pressure. In cross examination by the accused, he stated that there was a crowd of people on the scene including a number of Chamars. He, however, could not tell whether the Chamars excepting Gopal, were armed with lathis or not. 14. Even if we were to accept at face value all that these witnesses have said in support of the defence, still it is difficult to make out a case of private defence. On the statement of Moti Singh, the accused was clearly an aggressor. He had an open knife in his hand and was assaulting Daula. Moti Singh and Amra Chamar brought him under control but when Gopal came the accused managed to secure his release from Moti Singh and proceeded to assault Gopal with an open knife in his hand. In that situation, the accused was clearly an aggressor and even if Gopal were to use kulahari that can not possibly give a right of private defence to Kalu Singh, specially when the accused inflicted three knife blows even according to this witness; nor can the accused claim right of private defence even if Mst. Samari finding her husband under a murderous assault by the accused were to raise a sickle. It may be mentioned here that Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) does not support Moti Singh with regard to the fact of Mst. Samari having raised the sickle. Samari finding her husband under a murderous assault by the accused were to raise a sickle. It may be mentioned here that Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) does not support Moti Singh with regard to the fact of Mst. Samari having raised the sickle. Apart from this consideration, the plea of the right of private defence by the accused deserves to be over-ruled as we are not prepared to accept the statements of these witnesses that Gopal was at all armed with an axe and used it or that Mst. Samari was armed with a sickle. Proceeding to state our reasons for this conclusion, we may refer to the statement of the accused at the committal stage. The accused does not at all say that Gopal was armed with an axe and that Mst. Samari was armed with a sickle. His statement merely was that he was made drunk by Rama Maharaj and that he did not beat Daula, Gopal and Mst. Samari but on the other hand they beat him. The omission on the part of the accused to state at the earlier stage that Gopal and Mst. Samari were armed with axe and sickle respectively is significant and is indicative of the fact that the latter version is an afterthought and the prosecution witnesses Moti Singh (PW/14) and Jhujhar Singh (PW/14) have somehow or other been made to support this version. Another important consideration against the accused is that Gopal himself was not cross examined whether he had an axe and whether he used it against the accused, nor was he questioned about Mst. Samari having been armed with a sickle. Similarly, other witnesses were not specifically questioned in this connection although some of the witnesses were questioned generally whether Chamars and Chamarins were armed with sickles and axes. It deserves to be significantly pointed out in this connection that Mst. Nauli (PW/7) was questioned in cross examination whether Gopal had a stick in his hand at the time of the incident. On a consideration of these circumstances, it appears to us that the story of the use of axe by Gopal and sickle by Mst. Samari has been thought of by the defence at a later stage. Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) clearly went upon his earlier statement and has certainly perjured himself. On a consideration of these circumstances, it appears to us that the story of the use of axe by Gopal and sickle by Mst. Samari has been thought of by the defence at a later stage. Jhujhar Singh (PW/15) clearly went upon his earlier statement and has certainly perjured himself. His explanation that the earlier statements were made due to police pressure is absurd and is more than what we can safely accept. His evidence supporting the defence must be rejected on this additional ground. The Government Advocate has invited our attention to the absence of these facts in the earlier statement of Moti Singh also but as unfortunately the witness was not permitted to be cross examined by the prosecution with respect of these facts, we do not use this additional reason in rejecting his testimony but reject his evidence favouring the defence on the reasons earlier stated. 16. Relying upon the defence evidence and injuries on the person of the accused, Mr. Agarwal made a suggestion that it would be reasonable and fair to infer that a number of Chamars males and females armed with sickles and other weapons surrounded the accused and in that situation he was justified in entertaining a reasonable apprehension of danger to his life and to have used knife against Gopal and Mst. Samari who happened to be the members of the aggressive group, even though it be not accepted that Gopal and Mst. Samari used an axe and sickle respectively. We are not at all impressed by this suggestion. The accused at the committal stage did not make any such suggestion. Besides, if a number of Chamars and Chamarins armed with lathees only were to attack the accused, it would not have been possible for the accused to escape with minor injuries and at the same time to cause death of Mst. Samari and to inflict number of injuries upon Gopal. We have no hesitation in rejecting the suggestion. The evidence led by the accused in defence to support such suggestion is utterly unreliable and has been rightly rejected by the trial Judge. Mr. Agarwal also rightly did not think it proper to take us through the entire defence evidence. 17. In the light of these discussions, we overrule the plea of right of private defence in respect of death of Mst. Samari and injuries to Gopal. 18. Mr. Agarwal also rightly did not think it proper to take us through the entire defence evidence. 17. In the light of these discussions, we overrule the plea of right of private defence in respect of death of Mst. Samari and injuries to Gopal. 18. Taking up the case against the accused to injuries on Daula, there is only a vague suggestion by the accused that he was beaten by Daula. The evidence of Daula and Gangaram (PW/8) clearly proves that the accused was aggressor and this conclusion is further re-enforced by the fact that the accused pursued Daula right up to his house. We do not find any material whatsoever in support of the plea of the accused that he was acting in the exercise of right of private defence while inflicting injury upon Daula. 19. The third contention of Mr. Agarwal that the accused merely exceeded the right of private defence must be rejected on our conclusions reached in connection with the second ground. The accused at no stage had a right of private defence and, therefore, there can be no question of his merely having exceeded the right of private defence even if we were to exclude the other requirements necessary for bringing the case within exception II of sec. 300, Indian Penal Code. 20. This brings us to the question as to the nature of the offence committed by the accused. Mr. Agarwals submission in this connection was that the part of the prosecution case that the accused assaulted Gopal without any reason or rhyme has not been accepted by the prosecution case and that the Additional Sessions Judge purports to hold that there was some quarrel between Gopal and the accused which led to a fight during which Gopal was injured and that it is only in this view that the injuries on the person of the accused can stand satisfactorily explained. The suggestion is that very likely Gopal might have protested to the accused for his having inflicted injuries on Daula who was his relation and that this might have led to a quarrel and a subsequent fight, and in that fight when the accused used knife against Gopal, Mst. Samari (Gopals wife) might have intervened and assisted her husband in consequence of which the accused inflicted one or two knife blows upon her. Samari (Gopals wife) might have intervened and assisted her husband in consequence of which the accused inflicted one or two knife blows upon her. It was also incidentally pointed out that according to most of the prosecution witnesses the accused only inflicted one knife blow. A great emphasis was also laid on the fact that the accused was a young boy of 14 to 15 years and might have possibly been drunk. The prosecution witnesses have omitted to explain the injuries, the reasonable possibility of the fight having been sudden in which the accused also received minor injuries, cannot altogether be eliminated, and the only question is: whether the accused can be said to have acted cruelly or unusually. As we look at the matter, we find that the accused inflicted four blows on Gopal (PW/2) and two blows on Mst. Samari. In view of the clear medical testimony we can not accept that only one knife blow was inflicted upon Mst. Samari and we accept the statements of the prosecution witnesses who depose to the infliction of two injuries. In the circumstances even if the fight between Gopal and the accused may have been sudden, the accused cannot but be held to have acted unusually and cruelly in inflicting four injuries to Gopal and further two more injuries to Mst. Samari a woman who merely intervened to protect her husband and who, so far as we can see, was entirely defenceless. We may also observe that the age of the accused may be taken into consideration as regards the sentence, but hardly with respect to the nature of the crime in a case like the present one. Similarly, a mere suggestion that the accused may have been possibly drunk, without any evidence in its support, cannot affect the nature of the crime. On a consideration of the entire circumstances, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under sec. 302, Indian Penal Code, by the lower court is correct and requires no interference. He had already been awarded lesser sentence. 21. The result is that the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 22. The District Magistrate concerned will take steps to cause the arrest of the accused and to send him to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentences.