JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 326, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Prosecution case is that P.W. 9 is a Lineman working in the Electricity Department and the Petitioner was working as his helper. During the period of incident, P.W. 9 had illicit connection with the wife of the Petitioner. On 4-9-1976 morning the Petitioner saw P.W. 9 with his wife in his house. Seeing the Petitioner, P.W. 9 fled away. At about 11.30 a.m. that day P.W. 9 was purchasing an electric switch in a stationery shop in Rayagada town. The Petitioner came from behind and stabbed him in front of that shop with a knife. P.W. 9 removed to the hospital with the stab injury and continued as an indoor patient for about a fortnight. The plea of the Petitioner is that he is not guilty. According to him, he found P.W. 9 with his wife in his house. On seeing him, P.W. 9 ran away. He then chased P.W. 9. By that time he had learnt from his wife that P.W. 9 was trying to outrage her modesty in his absence. On the same day afternoon at the market place in front of a stationery shop P.W. 9 saw him and chased to assault him with a knife. He tried to run away but could not escape. P.W. 9 caught hold of him in an embracing position, but he however slipped away and as a result of this P.W. 9 received the injury from his own knife. 3. Both the Courts below have held that from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6, 8, 9 and 10, it appears that the prosecution story as to stabbing by the Petitioner has been established. The doctor's evidence also supports the prosecution story relating to the existence of injury on the person of P.W. 9 Both the Courts have held that there was no question of any provocation and the case does not come under the exception of grave and sudden provocation as raised by the defence counsel. 4. The Seizure list shows that the knife M.O. I was seized on the road in front of a shop in the market place. The evidence at P.W. 11 relating to the seizure list is also to the same effect. 4. The Seizure list shows that the knife M.O. I was seized on the road in front of a shop in the market place. The evidence at P.W. 11 relating to the seizure list is also to the same effect. P.W. 5 is the witness to the seizure list. He says that he was called to the police station and at that place the knife was already there and the Petitioner was inside the hazat and at that place he was asked to lend his signature to the seizure list. I will deal with this question while discussing the other evidence led by the prosecution. 5. Before discussing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Courts below have rightly discarded the plea of the Petitioner that there was a scuffle in the afternoon in the market place and P.W. 9 was trying to give stab injury to the Petitioner but as the Petitioner slipped, the stabbing force fell on the person of P.W. 9 himself and in that way P.W. 9 sustained the injury. There is no material on record to support this contention. Even though P.W. 6 speaks something about the scuffle, he has admitted that he has not told anything before the investigating officer about the scuffle and has told that he saw the Petitioner giving a stab injury to P.W. 9. 6. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 9 and 10, it appears that P.W. 9 had come to their shop to purchase a switch. After selecting switch, he had gone to fetch money from his bag which was in his bi-cycle and when he was coming back with the bag P.W. 1 shouted that somebody stabbed P.W. 9 and P.W. 9 fell there. They saw the Petitioner running away. The owner of the shop is Nityananda Naik. It is said by P.W. 9 that said Nityananda Naik as well as P.Ws. 1 and 10 have seen the occurrence. Nityananda Naik has not been examined and his brother P.W. 10 and the salesman of the shop P.W. 1 have been examined. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 10 has seen the actual stabbing. According to P.W. 1, P.W. 9 fell down immediately after receiving the stab and be did not go near the Petitioner, but P.W. 9 says that he did not fell down. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 10 has seen the actual stabbing. According to P.W. 1, P.W. 9 fell down immediately after receiving the stab and be did not go near the Petitioner, but P.W. 9 says that he did not fell down. P.W. 1 had seen the Petitioner from behind from a distance. Both P.Ws. 1 and 10 stated that they did not notice any knife in the hand of the Petitioner. Thus, it would appear that excepting P.W. 9 none of the witnesses speak about actual stabbing. Therefore, besides the evidence of P.W. 9 there is no other material to establish the actual fact of stabbing. On the other hand, prosecution relies on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 10 who have seen the Petitioner running away from that place. 7. Without going into that question, this case can be considered from one stand point which is very vital for examination, P.W. 8 is the wife of the Petitioner. She has been examined as a prosecution witness. She states that P.W. 9 was trying to outrage her modesty and was trying to have illicit intercourse with her forcibly and at that time the Petitioner reached. Seeing the Petitioner, P.W. 9 started running away and the Petitioner chased him. P.W. 9 denies the fact of having any illicit intercourse with P.W. 8 but from the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that he bad admitted before the I.O. that he had illicit connection with P.W. 8. From the evidence of P.W. 8, it is abundantly clear that immediately before the Petitioner saw P.W. 9, he tried to outrage the modesty of his wife (P.W. 8) and was applying force to have illicit intercourse. The mental condition of the Petitioner at that moment is to be considered and from the evidence of P.W. 8 it is clear that immediately thereafter P.W. 9 started running away and the Petitioner chased him. While P.W. 9 was running away and the Petitioner was chasing him the stab was given from behind. It is contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that horn the evidence of P.W. 4, it appears that after seeing the Incident inside his home, the Petitioner went to the place of service and after obtaining permission from P.W. 4 came to the market place. It is contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that horn the evidence of P.W. 4, it appears that after seeing the Incident inside his home, the Petitioner went to the place of service and after obtaining permission from P.W. 4 came to the market place. The evidence of P.W. 4 does not show that after the incident inside the house of the Petitioner, the latter went again to P.W. 4. On the other band, the evidence of P.W. 4 shows that the Petitioner informed P.W. 4 that he was going for marketing. It is rather possible that while he came home with a view to go to the market, he found P.W. 9 trying to have illicit intercourse with his wife by application of force and P.W. 9 immediately started running away and he chased him. At that time a stab was given to him. That is why P.Ws. 1 and 10 do not say to have seen the stabbing. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 10. it also transpires that there were several people at the shop. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 11 a.m. in a market place. Strangely enough no other person who has actually seen the occurrence has been cited as a witness. Seeing the occurrence" I mean who has actually seen the stabbing. 8. None of these witnesses have said to have seen knife in the hand of the Petitioner. The seizure of the knife, according to the seizure list, appears to be something different which has been spoken by the seizure witnesses. Therefore, it appears that the prosecution has not come up with a true story about the seizure. Some facts have been suppressed by the prosecution relating to the actual incident and the story narrated in Court appears to be exaggerated and embellished. On the other hand from the evidence of P.W. 8 it is clear that when the Petitioner reached home he found P.W. 9 trying forcibly to have illicit intercourse with his wife. Seeing the Petitioner, P.W. 9 started running away and the Petitioner followed him and at that time the Petitioner stabbed P.W. 9. These circumstances clearly establish that there was every reason for apprehension of committing rape on P.W. 8 or satisfaction of lust of P.W. 9. This fact finds force from the statement of P.Ws. 1, 8 and 10. Seeing the Petitioner, P.W. 9 started running away and the Petitioner followed him and at that time the Petitioner stabbed P.W. 9. These circumstances clearly establish that there was every reason for apprehension of committing rape on P.W. 8 or satisfaction of lust of P.W. 9. This fact finds force from the statement of P.Ws. 1, 8 and 10. P.W. 9, the injured, says that Nityananda Naik and P.Ws. 1 and 10 have seen the stabbing. Nityananda Naik has not been examined. P.Ws. 1 and 10 do not say about stabbing. Coupled with this the evidence of seizure of knife appears to be suspicious. These circumstances clearly show that the prosecution story does not appear to be above suspicion. The fact of Illicit intercourse is admitted by P.W. 9 before the I.O. The circumstances dearly establish that it is a case of assault not simpliciter. The Court has to take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is a helper of the Lineman and naturally therefore is a man of volatile temperament. He saw before his own eyes P.W. 9 attempting to have forcible sexual intercourse with his wife and at this stage his mental condition is to be visualised. When P.W. 9 started running away he chased and stabbed him only with a view to defend his wife from being raped and P.W. 9 illegally satisfying his lust. He was justified in defending the person, namely, his wife in such a circumstance. It cannot be a case of grave and sudden provocation, but it is a case coming u/s 100 of Indian Penal Code In the instant case, there is sufficient material available from the evidence of the prosecution witness that P.W. 9 was molesting P.W. 8 (wife of the Petitioner) and it can be very well visualised what would be the reaction In the mind of a rational man and what would be his natural apprehension. The husband sees before his own eye's that his wife is being molested in broad day light during his absence. Seeing him, the culprit urns away. He immediately chases him and assaults. He is protected u/s 100, Indian Penal Code. Suraj Narain Lal Vs. The husband sees before his own eye's that his wife is being molested in broad day light during his absence. Seeing him, the culprit urns away. He immediately chases him and assaults. He is protected u/s 100, Indian Penal Code. Suraj Narain Lal Vs. Emperor was a case where accused In a circumstance like the present one assaulted with a gandasa which resulted in death and the Allahabad High Court relying on a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jhakri Chamar v. Emperor (1913)13 Crl. L.J. 935 held that the accused is protected u/s 100, Indian Penal Code and is entitled to acquittal. In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt here appears to be a reasonable doubt as I have discussed above. 9. Both the Courts below have completely lost sight of this salient feature which emerges out of prosecution evidence. The plea of the accused may not be acceptable but when the prosecution case reveals the aforesaid facts and the prosecution has not come up with true story, the accused is entitled to acquittal. 10. In the result, the revision allowed, the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt. His bail bond is discharged. Final Result : Allowed