Lahiri, J.:- In a welfare State the stands of Public Prosecutor must be in harmony with the Preamble, the Directive Principles and in symphony with the three-fold pillars of Article 21 of the Constitution-"fair, just and reasonable". A Public Prosecutor under the Constitutional law as well as the Code of Criminal Proce­dure must have the strength "Not to disown the poor or bend his knees before the insolent might". He should have stren­gth to raise his mind high above the daily strives and surr­ender his strength that he derives from law to the service of the people with love. Lawyer's assistance is invaluable to a Judge and Justice may be defeated if the Public Prosecutor fails to lay all the cards fairly and squarly before the Court to enable it to look into the materials in the midst of voluminous records. A judgment is the reflection of the lear­ning of "the bar" and is a contribution to the lawyer. Justice is blind- "Justice discards party, friendship and kindred and is, therefore, represented as blind"- (Joseph Eden-" The Spect­ator "). A judge is not interested in either of the party to the litigation the State or the subject. It is immaterial who wins or loses. The prime duty and concern of judiciary is ""to do justice within the four corners of law". However, of­ten judges struggle for justice confronted with laws which at first blush may not appear to be in conformity with justice. At this juncture lawyer's assistance is an invaluable asset to the Judge. A Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State to uphold its case but not "to trample justice." The duty of the public prosecutor is not to win a case by hook or by crook. "Prosecution" cannot be the object of a welfare State nor the aim and object of the Public Prosecutor be projected to achieve that end. A Public Prosecutor must be an "open book." Fair, just, impartial and ever ready to unfold all material facts fairly and squarly to uphold the cause of justice, no matter in whose favour the justice flows. In the instant case, we are charmed by the conduct of Shri Achyut Chandra Deka who has done his constitutional duty and performed his ob­ligation in the true spirit of the Constitution and the law. In the instant case, we are charmed by the conduct of Shri Achyut Chandra Deka who has done his constitutional duty and performed his ob­ligation in the true spirit of the Constitution and the law. He has assisted a disabled indigent accused "in the year of disabled persons,'' placed before us all facts in favour of the State as well as the indigent accused. He has acted in the true tradition of the noble profession to which he belongs. We deem it our duty to record our satisfaction and proceed to dispose of the case on its merit. 2. The appellant is an indigent, belongs to backward classes (a tea-garden labourer) and he had lost his right paim and was a disabled at all relevant period. He has been con­victed u/s. 302 I.P.C. and he is a lifer and sentenced to impri­sonment for life. 3. We narrate the case of the prosecution emanating from the records. On 27.3.75 at about 8.30 PM at China-mara Tea Estate, Jorhat the accused dealt a knife blow on Madhu Tanti which proved fatal. The accused was arrested by the police, who submitted "a remand report" to the Magi­strate wherein they stated clearly that the accused has several injuries on his person and prayed to the Magistrate to medi­cate the accused by Medical-man. On 28.3.75 the learned Magi­strate, on perusal of the Police Report and observing the injuries ordered that the accused must be examined by a doctor while in jail custody. At this stage it is pertinent to refer that we hunted for the medical report about the injuries of the indigent accused. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. R.P. Kakoty who defended the undefended accused as "amicus curiae" combed the records but failed to 'dig it up', It disappeared in a thin air, perhaps for the reason that the accused belongs to a listed class, indigent and is socially and economically back­ward. We do not find any other reason for non-production of such a weighty document. Failure to produce and prove the documents and non-examination of the medical man who exa­mined the indigent person in jail is "a bizarre phenomenon" to use soft expression. We feel like expressing that it is "atrociously shocking". Later the accused was produced for recording his statement. We do not find any other reason for non-production of such a weighty document. Failure to produce and prove the documents and non-examination of the medical man who exa­mined the indigent person in jail is "a bizarre phenomenon" to use soft expression. We feel like expressing that it is "atrociously shocking". Later the accused was produced for recording his statement. Honest as he was he made a clean breast of the entire story, took upon himself the responsibility, He stated that it was "Holi Festival Day" and while returning home he met the accused and complained to him why he had unfairly reported against some poor workmen, which might result in termination of their services. He pleaded for the poor but in return he was attacked by Madhu who caught hold of his throat, pulled him and gave thrust. We must recount at this stage that the accused was one handed person. Madhu was not content with fistal forays but pulled out a bamboo post from a fencing and attempted to club the accused on his head who covered it by his only able hand (left hand) and the thumb crushed down on his hand, he sustained injuries. Madhu struck him again in lower part of his body, he sus­tained thigh injury then he claims that he used force in snat­ching away the bamboo post and dealt a blow in defence of his person and took to his heels to return and surrender. Police investigated the case on receipt of the First Information, examined witnesses, a host of witnesses were examined in Court. Queerly the learned Session Judge framed the charge - against the accused for "intentionally" caused the death of Madhu Tanti by assaulting him with a dao." It shows clear casualness on the part of the persons responsible for framing the charge. The unmistakable case of the prosecution was that the accused had dealt "only one blow with a knife" measuring about 6(six) inches in length. We find that it is just the size of a pen-knife. Why this sluggishness was it because the accused was an indigent person? What prevented the learned Judge to go through the records, and scrutinise the order of the Magistrate dated 28.3.78. Witnesses were examined before the learned Session Judge and the Judge convicted the accused turning down 'the plea of self-defence put forward by the accused. 4. Why this sluggishness was it because the accused was an indigent person? What prevented the learned Judge to go through the records, and scrutinise the order of the Magistrate dated 28.3.78. Witnesses were examined before the learned Session Judge and the Judge convicted the accused turning down 'the plea of self-defence put forward by the accused. 4. It is the prosecution case itself that at the time when the incident happened nobody was present except the deceased and the accused. The accused claims that he was mercilessly assaulted by the deceased with a bamboo post, sustained 'bodily injuries' whereupon he exercised his 'right of private defence'. It is also the prosecution case that the left-handed appellant dealt only one blow and made good his escape. No second blow was given. The case is entirely depended on "the dying decla­ration of the deceased" wherein the deceased uttered that the accused was his assailant. The evidence is fortified by state­ment of the accused in his confession read with his avowals in Court recorded by the trial Judge. 5. Now let us turn to examine who was the first assailant, the respective physical capacities and incapacities of the combat­ants. The deceased was an able-bodied person, aged about 30 years whereas the accused is an one-handed person. The only person to speak about the quarrel leading to the incident is the accused who supplies the motive-the cause that infuriated the deceased. The accused pleaded the right of private defence. The prosecution itself relies on the declaration of the accused. It has not shown that the story of the accused that he was mercilessly 'beaten up' by Madhu was false. If we turn to the records we find enough corroboration in the police report as well as the order sheet of the barned Magistrate which clearly and specifically show that the accused sustained several injuries on his person so much so that even the hardened police officer had to pray for his medical examination and the Court passed the order accordingly. No explanation appears from any quarter regarding non-production of the medical report or non-examination of the doctor who examined the accused in jail custody. Under these circumstances we are impelled as well as compelled to draw conclusion that the doctor found grievous injuries on the person of the accused. The injuries on the accused prove that he was assaulted first. No explanation appears from any quarter regarding non-production of the medical report or non-examination of the doctor who examined the accused in jail custody. Under these circumstances we are impelled as well as compelled to draw conclusion that the doctor found grievous injuries on the person of the accused. The injuries on the accused prove that he was assaulted first. He sustained a num­ber of injuries and the version as to the manner of assault including the bleeding injuries establish that the poor disabled had the right to defend himself against the onslaught. 6. Now, the question is whether the accused exceeded his right of self-defence. The question as to whether a person has exceeded his right of private defence cannot be weighed in a platinum scale. Considering the fact that accused was disabled, had sustained several injuries by a bamboo post and thereafter inflicted only one blow (Ext. 1) establish that the accused never exceeded his right of private defence of his person. The right of private defence of person is a statutory right. The question of excess does not arise in the instant case as it was a question of "life or death". The accused had to act in quick reflection Sitting in cosy chairs hundred miles away from the place of occurance it would not be justified to say that he should have taken to heels or ought to taken any other resort. We do not consider to be an unreasonable or rush act to use a pen­knife to escape death as an act done in excess. Unfortunately, the blow fell on a vital part of the deceased. It was a fight for life and blow was given during a sudden quarrel; the adversary was uneven and stronger. All these factors eloquently show that the accused was within his right of self-defence con­templated under Sections 96 and 97 of the I. P. C. We ate constrained to hold that the case of the accused is fully covered by Sec. 100 of the Indian Penal Code. We are sure that the assault made on him and/or contemplated to be inflicted on him by Madhu (deceased) must have caused real apprehension that the consequence of such assault would be death or grie­vous hurt. The case falls under S. 100 First, as well as Secondly, of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. We are sure that the assault made on him and/or contemplated to be inflicted on him by Madhu (deceased) must have caused real apprehension that the consequence of such assault would be death or grie­vous hurt. The case falls under S. 100 First, as well as Secondly, of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences are set aside and the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith. 8. We bottom our judgment with a short foot-note that Shri R. P. Kakoty, who conducted the case of the undefended accused as "amicus curiae" acted splendidly and deserves our record of appreciation.