JUDGMENT S. D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against an order dated January 8, 1964, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, convicting Yuvaraj Singh appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The appellant is a youngman of 16 or 17 years of age and a resident of village Karehda, within police circle Dhumanganj in the district of Allahabad. Smt. Indrakali (P.W. 3), who was a Kolin by caste, had left her husband and come to live with Lala Singh, a resident of village Karehda about a year prior to the occurrence. Lala Singh had kept her as his concubine. About a month prior to the occurrence Yuvaraj Singh appellant had developed some friendship with Lala Singh and used to visit hiis house. He also developed some intimacy with Sm. Indrakali. According to the prosecution case Yuvaraj Singh appellant and one Bhima Brahman were enticing away Sm. Indrakali in the morning of July 30, 1963, when Ram Chandra and others of the same village saw her going and persuaded her not to leave Lala Singhs house but to go back to his house. Indrakali went back to the house of Lala Singh. At that time Lala Singh was not in the village. On his return the same day, i.e. July 30, 1963, at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. he got the information that his concubine Sm. Indrakali was being enticed away by Yuvaraj Singh and another. At first he scolded his wife and then in a very angry mood proceeded to the house of Yuvaraj Singh. The house had been locked by the parents of Yuvaraj Singh, but the latter was lying in the osara and a spear was kept near his cot. Lala Singh shouted once or twice and asked Yuvaraj Singh to come out of his house as he wanted to have a talk with him. Yuvaraj Singh picked up the spear and rushing towards Lala Singh struck him on the right side of his chest causing a serious injury. Lala Singh placed his hand over the injury and ran towards the house of Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1). He, however, fell down near his door and expired. 3. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1) who is an eye-witness of the occurrence. Lala Singh placed his hand over the injury and ran towards the house of Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1). He, however, fell down near his door and expired. 3. The first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1) who is an eye-witness of the occurrence. The occurrence as it had taken place and the names of the eye-witnesses were mentioned in it. 4. The usual investigation followed. The blood-stained and unstained earth were taken from the place of occurrence and duly sealed. The dead body of Lala Singh was sent for port-mortem examination. Dr. S.C. Vashist (P.W. 9) performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lala Singh on August 1, 1963 at 11.20 a.m. Only the following injury was found as a result of the external examination,- Punctured incised wound 1" x " x pleural cavity deep on right side of chest going in between 3rd and 4th costal certilage " away from right border of sternum, oblique lower and lateral. 5. The direction of the injury was from right side of chest downwards, medically and posteriorly. The internal examination revealed that there was an incised wound 1" x " x whole thickness of pleura under the external injury. The right pleural cavity was full of two pounds of blood and blood clots. There was also an incised wound " x " x whole thickness of lung " away from medial border under the injury of pleura. Again there was an incised wound " x " x whole thickness of right ventricle under the injury of pleura. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage following the injury to chest. The doctor was further of the opinion that the injury inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The prosecution relied on the testimony of five eye-witnesses, namely Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1), Ram Chandra (P.W. 2) Km. Lalmani (P.W. 4), Ram Bahadur (P.W. 8) and Sheo Murat (P.W. 12). They fully supported the prosecution case. Indrakali (P.W. 3) was also examined to explain what had happened before Lala Singh had proceeded towards the house of Yuvaraj Singh. 7. Yuvaraj Singh pleaded not guilty. He did not dispute that he had caused the spear injury on the chest of Lala Singh deceased. He, however, explained he had no illicit intimacy with Sm. Indrakali (P.W. 3) was also examined to explain what had happened before Lala Singh had proceeded towards the house of Yuvaraj Singh. 7. Yuvaraj Singh pleaded not guilty. He did not dispute that he had caused the spear injury on the chest of Lala Singh deceased. He, however, explained he had no illicit intimacy with Sm. Indrakali, and that he had never attempted to entice her away. He explained the incident in the following words :- "I was lying in my house. My house was locked because my mother and others had gone out. Lala Singh came to my door hurling abuses at my door. He shouted Yuvaraj Singh come out. I got up and saw that he was standing at the door with a pharsa in hand. When saw this picked up a ballam placed in the corner of my osara. He shouted again and then came out. He wielded pharsa at me which warded off with my ballam. He aimed another pharsa blow, but stepped behind and from there I struck him with ballam." 8. He did not dispute that after the occurrence he had become traceless for four or five days and had then surrendered himself at P.S. Dhumanganj. 9. One witness, namely, Ram Niwaz was examined in defence. He stated that he had heard Lala Singh shouting and abusing at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence but when he came out of the house he saw that Lala Singh was already lying dead at the door of Shambhu Singh. The witness further stated that Lala Singh had a lathi in his hand. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after having considered the entire evidence on the record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses were reliable and Ram Niwaz could not be relied upon. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, no case was made out for the exercise of the right of private defence. The appellant was, therefore, convicted and sentenced for murder under Section 302, I.P.C. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record. The fact that Lala Singh is dead and that he died as a result of the spear injury inflicted by Yuvaraj Singh appellant is fully established by the prosecution evidence and has not been disputed even from the side of the defence. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record. The fact that Lala Singh is dead and that he died as a result of the spear injury inflicted by Yuvaraj Singh appellant is fully established by the prosecution evidence and has not been disputed even from the side of the defence. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether (1) the defence witness can be believed when he stated that Lala Singh had a lathi in his hand, and (2) whether in the circumstances of the case it could be said that Yuvaraj Singh had any right of private defence. 12. There is no substance in the defence case that Lala Singh was armed either with a lathi or with a pharsa at the time he went to the house of Yuvaraj Singh. The plea of Yuvaraj Singh and so also the suggestion made to Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1) was that Lala Singh was armed with a pharsa when he went to the house of Yuvaraj Singh. Even the defence witness Ram Niwaz has not supported that part of the defence case. According to Ram Niwaz, Lala Singh had a lathi in his hand at the time he was lying dead. 13. The explanation given by Yuvaraj Singh that Lala Singh wielded his pharsa and after having warded off the blow once or twice Yuvaraj Singh had thrust the spear in the chest of Lala Singh is wholly improbable and is no supported by any evidence on the record. It is significant to note that Yuvaraj Singh did not receive any injury at the time of the occurrence. 14. The prosecution case that Lala Singh had gone to the house of Yuvaraj Singh empty-handed, therefore, stands fully established. 15. It has come in the prosecution evidence that Lala Singh was older and stronger than Yuvaraj Singh. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that when on coming back to his village Lala Singh learnt that Yuvaraj Singh was enticing away Sm. Indrakali he had become very angry and had at first abused Sm, Indrakali. He had, however, proceeded to the house of Yuvaraj Singh when Indrakali (P.W. 3) had told him that Yuvaraj Singh was taking her away by force. Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1), an uncle of Lala Singh, was. Indrakali he had become very angry and had at first abused Sm, Indrakali. He had, however, proceeded to the house of Yuvaraj Singh when Indrakali (P.W. 3) had told him that Yuvaraj Singh was taking her away by force. Shambhu Singh (P.W. 1), an uncle of Lala Singh, was. sitting on his well at a distance of 60 or 65 paces and could see the door of Yuvaraj Singh from that place. The witness saw Lala Singh coming out of his house and going towards the door of Yuvaraj Singh, and on reaching there he heard him shouting at the door "Yuvaraj Singh why were you enticing away my wife". On hearing that, Yuvaraj Singh came out of his house with a spear in his hand and after abusing Lala Singh and saying that he did entice away his wife he pierced the spear in his chest. The statement made by the witness that Lala Singh went staggering towards the door of Shambhu Singh and then fell down dead is fully corroborated even by the defence evidence. Lalamani (P.W. 4), aged 12 years, a cousin of Lala Singh, also stated to the same effect. Her statement also shows that Lala Singh on reaching the door of Yuvaraj Singh had shouted "why were you enticing away my wife". To the same effect is the statement made by Ram Chandra (P.W. 2). Ram Bahadur (P.W. 8) and Sheo Murat (P.W. 12) did not reproduce the actual words used by Lala Singh at that time. 16. All that is established from the prosecution evidence, therefore, is that Lala Singh had gone to the house of Yuvaraj Singh in a very angry mood and wanted to know from him why he had tried to entice away his wife. Till then there was nothing in the conduct of Lala Singh to suggest that he would use violence against Yuvaraj Singh. 17. In the circumstances of the case, no case for exercising any right of private defence could be made out. The act of Yuvaraj Singh in rushing out of his house, armed with a spear and in striking the same with great force on the chest of Lala Singh clearly indicates that he did that voluntarily with the intention of causing the death of Lala Singh. The act of Yuvaraj Singh in rushing out of his house, armed with a spear and in striking the same with great force on the chest of Lala Singh clearly indicates that he did that voluntarily with the intention of causing the death of Lala Singh. In any case the act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury to Lala Singh, and it is apparent that the bodily injury which was intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because in the circumstances of the case Yuvaraj Singh could expect that Lala Singh, who was very angry, was likely to beat him or to use violence in some other form against him, and, therefore, that apprehension being there, he had a right of private defence, though he might have exceeded the same. In our opinion there is no force in this contention. From the circumstances of the case it cannot be inferred that Yuvaraj Singh could have any apprehension that he would be subjected to violence. He had nothing to fear, particularly when Lala Singh was quite unarmed and he himself had a spear with him. 19. The appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and there is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. He must serve out his sentence.