Short Note : 1. The appellant Prahlad Singh had been convicted under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellant took place on 5.7.1976 in village Magraon. In this incident, one Ghutnam Singh died of a gun shot injury and about five more persons received injuries. The prosecution case was that there were two parties in village Magraon. Ghutnam Singh and the prosecution witnesses who received injuries belonged to one party and the accused belonged to another party. On 5th July, Ghutnam Singh and other members of his party had gone to the temple of Kher Mata, when they returned in the evening at about 5 P.M. the accused surrounded them and assaulted them with various weapons. The appellant Prahlad Singh fired a gun which caused the death of Ghutnam Singh and some of the pellets also injured one Khalak Singh (PW-7). It was not disputed that in the same incident a number of accused persons viz. Ramdin, Hanumant Singh, Pran Singh, Halke Singh, Pooran Singh and Hira Singh received various injuries. A large number of these injuries had been caused by a sharp edged weapon like Pharsa or Tangi. The defence was that a field belonging to Babulal Patwari was in possession of appellant Prahlad Singh and other accused persons as Shikmi. Babulal had sold that field to one of the accused namely Bala Prasad. The party of the deceased wanted to dispossess the party of the accused from this field. On 5.7.1976, at about 3 P.M. the party of the accused went towards the field for performing some agricultural operations. The party of the deceased then came and started assaulting the party of the accused with Farsa, Lathis and other weapons. It was at this stage that the appellant Prahlad Singh fired his gun in self defence. According to the story of the accused, the incident happened on the way to the field. The trial Court did not accept the defence version and the accused were convicted. 2. The trial Court has found that the appellant Prahlad Singh is in the habit of carrying his gun with him. Having regard to all the circumstances the defence has succeeded in establishing by preponderance of probabilities that the defence version is the correct version of the incident. 2. The trial Court has found that the appellant Prahlad Singh is in the habit of carrying his gun with him. Having regard to all the circumstances the defence has succeeded in establishing by preponderance of probabilities that the defence version is the correct version of the incident. It is no doubt true, as it pointed out by the trial Court, that it looks a little unusual that the party of the accused went in the evening for agricultural operations. But from this fact alone, the defence story cannot rejected when other circumstances point out that it is nearer to the truth as compared to the prosecution version of the incident. In the opinion of this Court, the defence has been able in establishing that the incident took place when the party of the accused had gone for performing agricultural operations in the disputed field. The party was then attacked by the party of the deceased with Pharsa and Lathis. Some members of the party of the accused received incised injuries which are quite serious. It was in the exercise of the right of the private defence that the appellant Prahlad Singh fired one shot with his gun. In the circumstances, the appellant acted in the exercise of the right of private defence and he must be acquitted. Appeal allowed.