Judgment :- Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1971 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore are the appellants. Accused 1 has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and Accused 2 has been convicted for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The occurrence is as a result of a petty quarrel among women near a water tap. The place of occurrence is S.I.H.S. Colony Singanallur, Coimbatore. All the parties concerned in the case are residents of that colony. There was acute water scarcity in the month of April, 1970. The occurrence was on 22-4-1970 and the quarrel arose between Bagyam, Accused 4, on the one hand, and Meenakshiammal (P.W. 2), Kannammal (P.W. 3) and Ramthal who is the wife of Ponnuswami (P.W. 1) who is one of the injured in the case, on the other. It would appear that Bagyam who was arrayed as the 4th accused in this case, but since acquitted, used, normally, to take water from a particular tap in that colony. But, on the day in question, she came to another tap where P.Ws. 2, 3 and others had to take water. It is because Bagyam came to a wrong tap for taking water the quarrel ensued. Thiagarajan, P.W. 7, came upon the scene when the wordy quarrel among women was going on and he questioned accused 4 as to how she could come to the wrong tap and yet quarrel with the other women. The first accused is the husband of Bagyam, accused 4. He came upon the scene and questioned P.W. 7 as to how he could pick up a quarrel with his (accused 1's) wife. P.W. 1 whose house is also close to the tap, came on the scene. There was a wordy altercation in the course of which accused 1 caught hold of P.W. 1 by his neck, pushed him down and taking a knife from his shirt pocket stabbed P.W. 1 on his back thrice. Accused 2 is the younger brother of accused 1. He was also at the scene when P.W. 1 was stabbed. There was a wordy altercation in the course of which accused 1 caught hold of P.W. 1 by his neck, pushed him down and taking a knife from his shirt pocket stabbed P.W. 1 on his back thrice. Accused 2 is the younger brother of accused 1. He was also at the scene when P.W. 1 was stabbed. Nachimuthu, P.W. 4, came on the scene along with other neighbours, Dhandapani, P.W. 5, and Subramaniam P.W. 6., P.W. 7 was already there, when the trouble started. P.Ws. 6 and 7 overpowered accused-1 who was stabbing P.W. 1 and wrenched the knife from accused-1's hands. The knife is marked as M.O. 1. Accused-2 had a cycle chain and when P.W. 4 intervened, accused-2 beat him with that cycle chain. Thereupon, P.W. 4 brought an aruval and threatened to attack the accused unless they left the place. There was some struggle between accused-2 and P.W. 4 after which the accused left that place. The third accused is the father of accused-1 and 2 and he is said to have used a stick and beat P.W. 5 in the course of the above occurrence. However, accused-3 and 4 have been acquitted. 3. The case of the accused is one of private defence. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7. The earliest information about this occurrence was given by P.W. 12, Ramaswami. Though he was not present throughout the occurrence, he was near the scene when the trouble started and afterwards he left the place. He informed the police Sub-Inspector that a galatta was going on near the water tap in the said colony. A General Diary entry as per Ex. P. 17 was made and the Sub-Inspector went to the scene and recorded the complaint P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1. A case was registered and investigated. In the meanwhile, accused-1, 2 and 4 appeared at the police station where accused-1 gave the complaint as per Ex. P. 19. According to the Sub-Inspector, this complaint was given by accused-1 only after 1 p.m. on that day (the occurrence was at 8.30 a.m. and Ex. P. 1 was recorded at 10.30 a.m. at the scene). 4. There is clear evidence to show that accused-1 did stab P.W. 1 on his back thrice with the knife, M.O. 1, in the course of the above occurrence. P. 1 was recorded at 10.30 a.m. at the scene). 4. There is clear evidence to show that accused-1 did stab P.W. 1 on his back thrice with the knife, M.O. 1, in the course of the above occurrence. P.W. 9 is the Medical Officer who examined P.W. 1 and issued the certificate. There were as many as 7 injuries out of which injuries 1 to 3 are all incised wounds on the back of the chest. All the three stabs have penetrated into the pleural cavity. Fortunately, no internal organ was injured and the man escaped from serious consequences. The other injuries are comparatively minor and these have been caused due to the struggle between P.W. 1 on one hand accused 1 on the other. The evidence is that both were on the ground when accused 1 stabbed P.W. 1. The evidence is also quite clear that accused 2 beat P.W. 4 with cycle chain. This witness has also been examined by P.W. 9 and he had 6 injuries, some of which should have been caused only by beating with cycle chain. Here again, some injuries are minor and they could have been caused due to struggle. 5. It is not possible to accept the contention that the accused had any right of private defence. The main contention of the learned in this regard is that accused 1 and 2 had received injuries in the course of the occurrence and the prosecution has not given any explanation regarding those injuries. The case put forward in Ex. P-19 is that when the wordy quarrel was in progress, P.W. 7 had a knife, that P.W. 1 took that knife from P.W. 7 and attempted to stab accused 1, that accused 1 resisted it and there was struggle between him and P.W. 1. This is all the complaint of accused 1 in Ex. P. 19. According to the learned Counsel for accused 1, accused 1 along with the other accused, has appeared at the police station very soon after the occurrence and the evidence of the Sub-Inspector that accused-1 appeared at 1 p.m. and gave the statement, Ex. P. 19 is not correct. Assuming that the accused went to the police station very soon after the occurrence, there is nothing to show that any of the accused is protected by the right of private defence in inflicting the injuries on P.Ws. P. 19 is not correct. Assuming that the accused went to the police station very soon after the occurrence, there is nothing to show that any of the accused is protected by the right of private defence in inflicting the injuries on P.Ws. 1 and 2. 6. Accused-1 had been examined by P.W. 10, another Medical Officer in the C.M.C. Hospital at Coimbatore. He had, no doubt, 9 injuries on his person, but it is clear from the nature of the injuries that the first four of them should have been caused only because of accused-1 himself having handled a knife like M.O. 1. Those 4 injuries (injuries Nos. 1 to 4) are trivial, skin deep incised wounds on the palmer aspect of the right hand. The other injuries (Nos. 5 to 9) are minor abrasions which could have been caused due to a struggle on rough ground. Accused-2 had also been examined by P.W. 10. He had 8 injures on him which were trivial in nature. Injuries 1 to 5 are on the palmer aspect of the right hand and they could have been caused accidentally when the accused tried to hold a weapon. There is evidence to show that there was a struggle between accused 2 and P.W. 4, who admittedly, brought an aruval after P.W. 1 was stabbed by accused 1 and P.W. 4 was beaten by accused 2. The other injuries (Nos. 6 to 8) on accused 2 are all trivial and they could have been caused accidentally, in the course of a struggle. The story put forward in Ex. P. 19 that P.W. 7 brought a knife, that P.W. 1 took it and attempted to stab accused 1 is hardly acceptable. If P.W. 1 or P.W. 7 had a knife and they wanted to cause injury to accused 1, surely he would have received some serious injury. But, as already pointed out, the injuries on accused 1 as well as accused 2 are all trivial and they had not been caused voluntarily by any of the witnesses. Under these circumstances, the conclusion of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, that accused 1 stabbed P.W. 1 with a knife and accused 2 beat P.W. 4 with a cycle chain and caused them injuries is acceptable. Neither of the accused is entitled to any right of private defence. 7. Under these circumstances, the conclusion of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, that accused 1 stabbed P.W. 1 with a knife and accused 2 beat P.W. 4 with a cycle chain and caused them injuries is acceptable. Neither of the accused is entitled to any right of private defence. 7. The learned Counsel for the accused contends that even accepting the prosecution evidence and rejecting the plea of right of private defence put forward by the accused, from the nature of injuries on P.W. 1 themselves accused 1 cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. But, I do not agree. As already seen, these stab injuries which are in the back, are penetrating stab injuries the weapon going to the pleural cavity. When accused 1 had given 3 stabs successively on the back, it is not difficult to infer that he had an intention to cause death of the man. Therefore, the conviction of accused 1 for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code is correct. However, regarding the question of sentence, I am inclined to take a lenient view. It is not the case of anybody that there was any deep-seated motive for the accused to cause the injury on any of the prosecution witnesses. The entire occurrence is due to a petty quarrel which arose due to acute scarcity of water. It was in the course of a struggle which arose after the wordy quarrel that accused 1 had taken a pen-knife, which he seems to have been carrying on his person as usual, and stabbed P.W. 1. It is clear that he had done so only in the heat of passion due the quarrel. I think a sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice as far as accused 1 is concerned. 8. Under the above circumstances, I think accused 2 could be let off still more leniently. He has been in jail for 8 days after his conviction. I think it is not necessary to send him back to jail. Hence the conviction of accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Section 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code, respectively, is confirmed; but the sentence is reduced in the case of accused 1 to one of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and in the case of accused 2, to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Hence the conviction of accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Section 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code, respectively, is confirmed; but the sentence is reduced in the case of accused 1 to one of 2 years rigorous imprisonment and in the case of accused 2, to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. But for the reduction in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.