Short Note : 1. The appellant had been convicted under section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code for having killed Ramchandra by firing a gun and had been sent to Borstal Institute for three years. 2. Held : In the present case, it is the defence version which explains the injuries found on the person of the deceased and also the injuries sustained by the appellant and his mother Mst. Sulochana. In his statement under S. 313 Cr. P. Code the appellant has stated that on the noon of 07-02-1976 he was taking rest in his house after taking meals. The deceased along with some of the prosecution witnesses came there and started abusing him, he was then dragged out of the house and taken at a distance of 100 yards where he was assaulted. Hearing his cries, his mother Mst. Sulochana rushed there and tried to save him but the miscreants started severely assaulting his mother who started bleeding from her head and fell down on the ground. Giving a slip the appellant went to his house and brought a gun of his father and after giving a warning he fired his gun which had hit the deceased. This version is corroborated by the fact that the Doctor found as many as 16 injuries including four on the head of Mst. Sulochana which were bleeding. On the other hand, the prosecution version was that the appellant and his mother were pursuing Chhote Kuchbandhiya when the deceased and several prosecution witnesses were returning after taking tea in hotel. Clearly Chhote Kuchbandhiya was a very material witness but surprisingly he has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he was not traceable. All the material prosecution witnesses examined are related to the deceased. They have not explained as to how there were such extensive injuries on the person of Mst. Sulochana, but from the other prosecution evidence it can be gathered as to how the quarrel started. Ashok (PW. 6) and Chandrabhan (PW. 7) who were two young boys, deposed that at about 10 in the morning they were assaulted by the appellant. They then went and intimated Surajbhan (PW. 9), elder brother of Chandrabhan, and Chhote Kuchbandhiya. Then all of them went to the house of the appellant and there was some grappling between the appellant and Surajbhan in the house of appellant. They then went and intimated Surajbhan (PW. 9), elder brother of Chandrabhan, and Chhote Kuchbandhiya. Then all of them went to the house of the appellant and there was some grappling between the appellant and Surajbhan in the house of appellant. It is obvious therefore, that these persons went to the house of appellant in order to teach him a lesson for beating the two young boys. It is also clear that the appellant was dragged out of the house and was beaten and he received injuries which have been found by the Doctor. His mother Mst. Sulochana came there but she was also severely beaten with sticks and she got bleeding injuries on her head. Under, the circumstances, the appellant was justified in rushing to his house and firing his gun in order to save his mother. The learned Sessions Judge has not given the right of private defence to the appellant because, according to him the appellant should not have taken the law into his own hand but should have gone to the police station for help. He did not consider that the police station was at a distance of more than a mile from the spot and when Mst. Sulochana was being assaulted by several persons and when she fell down bleeding, the appellant had no option but to fire the gun in order to save his mother. No purpose would have been served by rushing to the police station because no immediate help could have been given to save his mother. Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 relied on. Appeal allowed.