JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The accused Appellant Nicholas Khadia was convicted on a charge of murder of one Marcus Khadia on July 22, 1963 at 10 A.M. in the morning. Nicholas?s father Budhu Khadia who was also charged for murder was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The motive of the murder is said to be some land dispute. The First Information Report was filed by P.W. 9 on July 23, 1963 at 11 A.M. The accused persons were arrested on the same day. The weapon of offence is said to be some heavy cutting weapon like an axe or a Falsia. The defence is right of private defence of property and person. 2. The deceased Marcus Khadia was a co-villager of the two accused persons who were father and son as aforesaid. The land over which there was dispute between the parties is known as Tangarberna and was in possession of the accused persons on the date of incident July 22, 1963, It is said that there were criminal litigations between the accused persons and the deceased over the disputed land. On July 2, 1963 in the morning the deceased had engaged six labourers of the neighbouring village, went upon the disputed land with several ploughs, ploughed up the land and sowed paddy thereon. At this time the accused persons also went there armed with axe, Falsia, bow and arrows and challenged the deceased as to why be had trespassed on the land in their possession. Thereupon there was quarrel between accused persons and the deceased in the course of which the deceased assaulted the accused Appellant Nicholas with his lathi. This led to a mutual assault between the deceased and the accused Appellant Nicholas in the course of which the accused Appellant Nicholas dealt a blow with his falsia M.O. I. As a result thereof, the deceased fell down on the disputed land senseless. At this stage the ploughmen who were brought by the deceased, p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 and others stopped the accused persons from further assaulting the deceased. In course of such intervention, P.W. 6 and his companion-plough men received injuries. This was the first phase of the incident. 3. At this stage the ploughmen who were brought by the deceased, p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 and others stopped the accused persons from further assaulting the deceased. In course of such intervention, P.W. 6 and his companion-plough men received injuries. This was the first phase of the incident. 3. The position up to this first stage of the incident was that the deceased had committed not only criminal trespass but mischief as he ploughed up the standing paddy plant which had been grown by the accused persons. At that point of time the deceased was the aggressor. The accused Appellant Nicholas therefore had a right of private defence of both property and person. Therefore the stroke which had been given by the accused Nicholas to the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down senseless is protected by such right of private defence of property and person. What, however, subsequently followed, which changed the position, is stated by the three eyewitnesses p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 who saw the entire incident as hereinafter stated. 4. The direct testimony of the eye-witnesses p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 is in substance this: After some time the deceased regained his senses and was running away from the spot for his life. Then what happened is described thus by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence (omitting immaterial portions): ...On seeing this accused Nicholas chased armed with his axe and dealt a blow with the sharp side of it on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down at a short distance from the disputed land and expired. P.ws. 10 and 11 have deposed that the second assault on the deceased took place at a distance of 25 yards from the disputed land. P.W. 6 has assessed the distance at 50 yards from the disputed land. P.W. 5 has deposed that the dead body was found lying at a distance of 25 feet from the disputed land. P.W. 13, the Investigating Officer, also found the dead body lying at a distance from the disputed land which he showed in his spot map Ext. 21. Thus it is clear that the second place of assault was outside the disputed land. P.ws. 6, 10 and 11, the eye-witnesses, have deposed that the assaults took place at two different places. P.W. 13, the Investigating Officer, also found the dead body lying at a distance from the disputed land which he showed in his spot map Ext. 21. Thus it is clear that the second place of assault was outside the disputed land. P.ws. 6, 10 and 11, the eye-witnesses, have deposed that the assaults took place at two different places. The second place of assault indicates clearly that the deceased was in fact running away for his life as the eye-witnesses have deposed, and accused Nicholas chased him and dealt the fatal blow with his axe...There is absolutely no reason why the ploughmen, p.ws. 6, 10 and 11 should not be believed. 5. What is the effect of the accused-Appellant Nicholas chasing the deceased while running away from the spot for his life? Section 102 of Indian Penal Code is this: Section 102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body. The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in Jai Dev and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1963 S.C.D. 66 that where the aggressors had already started running away and there was to danger either to the property or to the bodies of the accused Appellants, they (accused-Appellants) were guilty of murder and could not invoke the right of private defence it was for the party pleading self defence to prove the circumstances giving rise to the exercise of the right of self defence, and this right could not be said to be proved as soon as the conclusion is reached that at the relevant time there was no threat either to the persons of the Appellants or property of their companions. 6. In the present case the land in dispute was in the possession of the accused. The deceased with the ploughmen brought by him trespassed--on the land. Therefore at that stage the accused Appellant had a right of private defence of property; he bad also a right of private defence of person when he was attacked. 6. In the present case the land in dispute was in the possession of the accused. The deceased with the ploughmen brought by him trespassed--on the land. Therefore at that stage the accused Appellant had a right of private defence of property; he bad also a right of private defence of person when he was attacked. At that point of time the accused Appellant had a right of private defence and he could have caused death or any other harm to the assailant, if the aggressor?s assault was such as might reasonably cause the apprehension that death would otherwise be the consequence of such assault. But the position changed after the deceased regained his senses and was running away from the spot for his life. At that stage the accused Appellant could have no reasonable apprehension of danger to his body. When the deceased was running away, the accused Appellant had no justification to pursue the deceased and give him a further stroke in the manner he did which caused the death of the deceased. 7. The doctor P.W. 8 who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body found the following external wounds: 1. One cut 2" x 1/2" x the entire thickness of the bone obliquely on the left parietal bone. The cut had extended up to the frontal bone. 2. One depressed fracture 2" x 1?" x ?" deep on the left parietal bone 1/2 above injury No. 1. The bone in the depressed area was broken into pieces. On dissection he found the following internal injuries: Underneath external injury No. 2 and corresponding to it there was a fissured fracture of the inner plate of the left parietal bone to a length of 1?". 8. It is clear that the two external injuries were head injuries. The opinion of the doctor is that injury No. 1 might have been caused by the sharp edge of a heavy cutting weapon like an axe while injury No. 2 might have been caused by the blunt side of an axe. Internal injury No. 1 was caused by the same violence with caused external injury No. 2. The doctor further said that each one of the injuries, that is external injury No. 1 and external injury No. 2 with its internal injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Internal injury No. 1 was caused by the same violence with caused external injury No. 2. The doctor further said that each one of the injuries, that is external injury No. 1 and external injury No. 2 with its internal injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. The axe M.O. II was sent to the doctor for his examination and opinion. The doctor?s opinion is that the external injury No. 1 might have been caused by the sharp side of such an axe like M.O. II; external injury No. 2 with its internal injury might have been caused by the blunt side of an axe like M.O. II or like the Falsia M.O. I. 9. In view of our finding that the deceased had already started running away and there was no danger either to the property or to the body of the accused Appellant, the right of private defence as alleged is not available to the accused Appellant in the circumstances hereinbefore discussed. 10. In this view of the case the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused Appellant Nicholas Khadia is upheld. This appeal is dismissed. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed