JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - These are two connected matters arising out of a judgment dated 30-4-1966 passed by the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, whereby he convicted Sohan alias Sona under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life; he further convicted Soban alias Sona, Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat under Section 323/34, I. P. C. and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences of Sohan for the two offences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 1966 is directed against another part of this order. Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat had also been charged for the offence of murder. They were, however, acquitted of that offence. The Government Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal. 2. The person who lost his life was Champat, a son-in-law of Ram Sarup (P. W. 1) . Ram Sarup was a resident of village Pilkhwa, within police circle Pilkhwa, district Meerut. The marriage of his nephew was to be performed and his daughter Sm. Chameli (P. W. 5) and her husband, Champat (deceased) had come to Pilkhwa to attend that marriage. The relations between Ram Sarup and members of his family on the one hand and Sohan Lal and Chhidda (appellants) , who are real brothers, on the other were somewhat strained. It was for that reason that Sohan Lal and Chhidda had no desire to participate in the marriage of the nephew of Ram Sarup. Shankar was a brother of Sohan Lal and Chhidda, and he was apparently on good terms with Ram Sarup. Both Shankar and other members of his family had started participating in the singing that preceded the marriage. The participation of Shankar and the members of his family was very much resented by Sohan Lal and Chhidda, and on the date of the occurrence, i.e., 11th May, 1964, at about 11 a.m. a quarrel started between Sohan Lal and Chhidda on the one hand and Shankar and his son Omi on the other. Sohan and Chhidda were close neighbours of Ram Sarup. Sm. Sohan and Chhidda were close neighbours of Ram Sarup. Sm. Chameli (P. W. 5), daughter of Ram Sarup did not like that unpleasantness should be created at the time of the marriage of her cousin and she, therefore, went in front of the house of Sohan Lal and Chhidda where the quarrel was going on between Sohan Lal and Chhidda on the one hand and Shankar and Omi on the other. Her intervention was not liked by Sohan Lal and Chhidda, and they started beating her with lathis. She raised an alarm. The members of her family and also Champat, her husband, happened to be at a distance of a few yards only from there as they were busy digging up a bhatti in the open land lying in front of the house of Ram Sarup. All of them, that is to say, Ram Sarup, his brother Debi Sahai, Puran son of Ram Sarup and Champat, husband of Sm. Chameli, rushed towards the place of occurrence. Champat wanted to pick up Sm. Chameli who had fallen down on the ground and as he was doing so Sohan Lal hit him with a lathi causing a very serious injury on his head. Ram Sarup and Puran also received injuries. 3. The injuries caused to others except Champat were of very minor nature. Champat had fallen down on the ground soon after receiving the injury on his head and had become unconscious. Omi, Shankar and others accompanied by Debi Sahai (P. W. 3) and other members of his family went to the police station where Omi gave an account as to what had happened and the same was recorded in the general diary (copy Ex. Ka-7) . It appears that at that time nobody was under the impression that the single injury caused to Champat on his head would prove fatal and, therefore, no one took the matter seriously. The report was recorded only for an offence under Section 323, I. P. C., which was a non-cognizable offence. Since Champat was unconscious a letter was given for his examination at Ghaziabad Hospital. Dr. Banarsi Das (P. W. 8) , a Medical Practitioner of Pilkhwa, had been consulted immediately after the occurrence. He examined the injuries of Ram Sarup, Champat and Sohan Lal (appellant) . Both Ram Sarup and Sohan Lal had lacerated wounds on their heads, and the doctor stitched their wounds. Dr. Banarsi Das (P. W. 8) , a Medical Practitioner of Pilkhwa, had been consulted immediately after the occurrence. He examined the injuries of Ram Sarup, Champat and Sohan Lal (appellant) . Both Ram Sarup and Sohan Lal had lacerated wounds on their heads, and the doctor stitched their wounds. The injury received by Champat appeared to be serious. The doctor merely dressed that wound and advised that he should be taken to some good hospital. 4. Champat was taken to Irwin Hospital, Delhi. He, however, did not regain consciousness and expired the next day at 11.05 a.m. 5. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Champat was performed by Dr. Mittal (P. W. 10) on 13th May, 1964, at 8.30 a.m. The following ante-mortem injuries were noticed as a result of the external examination : (1) A diffused mild swelling over front of the head 24," below hair margin (size 3" x 2") . (2) Blood effusion of scalp under injury No. (1) (size 4" x 1-1") parallel to coronal suture. Right coronal suture and part of left side coronal suture had got opened up. Extramural blood clot of a fairly large size, 31" x x i" was present on the right side compressing the frontal pole of the brain. In the opinion of the doctor death had occurred due to coma from injury to head caused by some blunt weapon, about 20 hours before the time of the post-mortem examination. 6. The prosecution relied on the testimony of seven eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They are Ram Sarup, Puran, Debi Sahai, Rajpal, Sm. Chameli, Ram Saran and Ram Singh (P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 9) . Rajpal was declared hostile and no reliance was placed by the learned Sessions Judge on his statement. Out of the remaining six witnesses, four belonged to the family of Ram Sarup (P. W. 1) , Puran (P. W. 2) being his son, Debi Sahai (P. W. 3) being his brother, and Sm. Chameli (P. W. 5) being his daughter. Ram Saran and Ram Singh claimed to be the neighbours and had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing the noise before the actual beating took place. Chameli (P. W. 5) being his daughter. Ram Saran and Ram Singh claimed to be the neighbours and had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing the noise before the actual beating took place. All of them stated that Sohan Lal alone was responsible for having caused the lathi blows on the head of Champat (deceased) and that the other appellants and also Sohan Lal were responsible for causing injuries to others. 7. All the accused persons (appellants) pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to party feeling. Sohan Lal (appellant) , who had received injury on the head, could not dispute his presence at the time and place of the occurrence. His defence, however, was that he had caused the lathi injury to Champat because the latter attacked him with a lathi first causing an injury on his head. Two witnesses, namely, Nanak (D. W. 1) and Babu (D. W. 2) were examined in support of the defence case. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after having considered the entire evidence on the record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses were reliable to the extent that the injury to Champat had been caused by Sohan Lal (appellant) and Ram Sarup and others had been beaten by all the four appellants. He did not consider the defence evidence to be reliable and convicted and sentenced all the four appellants as mentioned earlier. 9. The main point for consideration in these connected appeals is whether the prosecution evidence regarding the origin of the fight is reliable and the injuries had been caused to Champat and others in circumstances which could not give rise to the right of private defence. 10. There can be no doubt that in case the defence contention that it was Champat who had first attacked Sohan Lal with a Lathi and caused an injury on his head is found to be correct the appellant Sohan Lal could have a right of private defence, and in the circumstances of the case it could not be said that Sohan Lal while inflicting a single lathi injury on the head of Champat had exceeded the right of private defence. 11. Section 96, I. P. C. lays down that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. 11. Section 96, I. P. C. lays down that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. In case the defence contention is correct and Sohan Lal had been attacked first with a lathi and had received a lacerated would on his head and the threat had continued there could be no doubt that under Section 100, I. P. C. the right of private defence of the body extended even to causing death of the aggressor. Section 100, I. P. C. pro. vides :- "The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely- first; such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. secondly; such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault...." When a person is attacked and struck with a lathi on his head and the threat persists there can be no doubt that he can have an apprehension that unless he does something to save himself grievous hurt will be the consequence of such assault. 12. As we have mentioned already the first information report lodged by Omi was a very brief one and it hardly indicated how the fight had started. After Champat had died the first information report written on 15th May, 1964, was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, and was received at Police Station Pilkhwa on 22nd May, 1964. The only ground which was mentioned for lodging the report so late was that an attempt had been made to lodge the first information report immediately after the occurrence, but the police officers had refused to record that first information report saying that a first information report had already been lodged by Omi. That explanation was obviously false and incorrect, because it is clear from the statement of Debi Sahai (P. W. 3) that on being informed by the head constable that Omi had already lodged a report everybody became satisfied and came back from the police station quietly. That explanation was obviously false and incorrect, because it is clear from the statement of Debi Sahai (P. W. 3) that on being informed by the head constable that Omi had already lodged a report everybody became satisfied and came back from the police station quietly. As we have mentioned already, perhaps on the date of the occurrence much importance was not attached to the occurrence as it could not be suspected that the only injury caused to Champat was likely to prove fatal. 13. The first information report lodged by Ram Sarup (P. W. 1) is, there-fore, very much delayed and no valid explanation has been furnished why so much delay was made. 14. A perusal of the first information report lodged by Ram Sarup would show that no explanation was given by the complainant as to how Sohan Lal (appellant) had received an injury at the time of the occurrence. The witnesses for the prosecution did not dispute that an injury had been received by Sohan Lal (appellant) on his head at the time of the occurrence. The explanation given by Debi Sahai (P. W. S) and Ram Saran (P. W. 6) , however, was that the aforesaid injury must have been received by Sohan Lal (appellant) before the second incident starting with the beating of Sm. Chameli took place: Debi Sahai and Ram Saran stated that Sohan Lal (appellant) had already a bleeding injury on his head when they reached the place of occurrence and saw Sm. Chameli lying on the ground. The statement made by these two witnesses on that point does not appear to be correct. Although Ram Sarup and Puran had to admit during the course of their cross-examination that the insult which had been offered to Sm. Chameli had been very much resented by Ram Sarup and others, and it was in connection with the incident of Sm. Chameli that Sohan Lal had received an injury on his head, the cross-examiner did not press the point further and did not care to ask whether Champat had been responsible for causing that injury to Sohan Lal before an injury was caused by Sohan Lal to Champat. However, the statement made by Sm. Chameli, the widow of Cham-pat, is fairly specific on that point. However, the statement made by Sm. Chameli, the widow of Cham-pat, is fairly specific on that point. During the course of her cross-examination she stated that it was correct to say that Sohan Lal had caused the injury to her husband because he himself had received an injury. 15. It is significant to note that Ram Sarup, the complainant, did not care to state in his examination-in-chief how Sohan Lal (appellant) had received an injury on his head. When cross-examined he frankly admitted that he could not tell which party was to blame. He also admitted that both the witness and Champat had very much resented the attack of Sm. Chameli, that the quarrel had taken place on that very account and that it was in that quarrel that Sona (Sohan Lal appellant) had received the injury. 16. In view of what has been mentioned above there is good deal of force in the defence contention that Sohan Lal had used his lathi only after he himself had received a serious injury on his head. The threat to Sohan Lal must have continued because after having inflicted an injury on Champat he had also to cause an injury to Ram Sarup who had come along with Champat. 17. The probability that Champat and Ram Sarup were the aggressors and that Sohan Lal (appellant) had used his lathi in the exercise of the right of private defence could not, in the circumstances of the case, be ruled out. It could not be said that the right of private defence had in any manner been exceeded by Sohan Lal (appellant) . It is significant to note that only one injury had been caused to Champat and thereafter one injury only had been caused to Ram Sarup. 18. The participation of Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat does not appear to be free from doubt. It is difficult to under-stand why Desraj and Imrat had stationed themselves at that place armed with lathis when originally the altercation or quarrel was taking place between Sohan Lal and Chhidda on the one hand and their brother Shankar and his son Omi on the other. The part ascribed to Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat was that they had caused injuries to Puran, Omi and Sm. Chameli. None of these three persons was examined by any doctor. The part ascribed to Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat was that they had caused injuries to Puran, Omi and Sm. Chameli. None of these three persons was examined by any doctor. It cannot, therefore, be said with any amount of certainty that Puran and Sm. Chameli had received any lathi injury. According to the statement made by Sm. Chameli, Sohan Lal was also responsible for causing injuries to her. In the circumstances the probability that Sohan Lal alone was responsible for causing injuries to Champat, Ram Sarup and Sm. Chameli could not be ruled out and the remaining three appellants may not have been there at all at the time of the occurrence. 19. In our opinion all the four appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. 20. Criminal Appeal No. 961 of 1966 is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Sohan Lal under Section 302, I. P. C. and of all the four appellants under Section 323/134, I. P. C. are set aside. Chhidda, Desraj and Imrat are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Sohan Lal is in jail. He must be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other connection. 21.There is no force in the Government Appeal and it is dismissed