JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, dated October 23, 1975, where by the accused appellants were convicted under section 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years, rigorous imprisonment. Thadhda Singh, accused-appellant, was also convicted under section-323. I.P.C. and was sentenced to three month' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the accused Gyan Singh was indebted to Ram Narain, the brother of the complainant, Rewar Ram for the sum of Rs 200/-. Since the debt was not paid off there were some exchanges of hot words between Gyan Singh and Ram Narain. When Ram Narain was taking his milk for sale to Alwar, he was belaboured by accused Gyan Singh and his companions. This incident occurred some times during the day. As a result of the injuries received by him, Ram Narain, was admitted in the hospital. When the compalainant Rewar Ram came to know about the said incident in the evening, he accompanied with Ram Kishan, Arma Singh, Ram Gopal and Prabhati went to the General Hospital, Alwar to see his brother Rewar Ram accompanied with these persons started for the return journey to their village at about 10.30 P.M. on November 7, 1972. All these five persons were seated in two Rikshaws, one occupied by Rewad Ram and Ram Kishan and the other occupied by the remaining three Arma Singh, Ram Gopal and Prabhati. When these two rickshaws went near the octroi post, outside the City, they were attacked and waylaid. Accused Dayal Singh struck Rewar Ram with a 'fursi' as a result of which Rewar Ram sustained injury on his left side of the head. Accused Gyan Singh struck Rewad Ram with a Lathi on his left wrist as a result of which not only he sustained the injury, but also the gun which he had in his hands went off and was broken. He ran for safety, but he was attacked by the accused The other companions of Rewad Ram were also beaten. Bhagwan Sahai, A S.I., P.W 10, recorded statement of Rewad Ram at 11.30 A.M. on November 8, 1972. The First Information Report, Ex 15 was prepared on the basis of this statement. He ran for safety, but he was attacked by the accused The other companions of Rewad Ram were also beaten. Bhagwan Sahai, A S.I., P.W 10, recorded statement of Rewad Ram at 11.30 A.M. on November 8, 1972. The First Information Report, Ex 15 was prepared on the basis of this statement. The injured Rewad Ram, Ram Kishan, Prabhati and Amra Singh were medically examined. 3. The accused appellants were tried for offences under sections 148, 307 and 323 Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned courrel for the accused-appellants has strenuously argued that Rewad Ram fired two gun shots towards the accused persons, but both of these shots missed the targets and did not cause any injury to the accused persons. The complainant Rewad Ram started re-loading the gun and this act produced apprehension of danger in the minds of the accused persons. Dayal Singh, accused-appellant, rushed towards the complainant and struck him with a Lathi as a result of which the gun was broken. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the accused appellants exercised their right of private defence. The accused appellants had harboured a great apprehension about the safety of their persons and life and as such, they were justified in attacking Rewad Ram and his companions. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the right of private defence is unlimited and once the accused apprehends any reasonable danger to their lives they can use such force as is necessary for their protection. 6. On behalf of the prosecution it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused-appellants acted in the right of private defence. Once the gun was broken the right of private defence came to an end, and then the accused appellants were not justified in taking the Law in their hands and assault Rewad Ram. The Medical Officer, who examined Rewad Ram on November 8, 1972 found 16 injuries on his body vide injury report Ex.P.7. The following 16 injuries were found in his body : 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep in the right parieto temporal region of scalp; 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm x 1/2 cm 1/2 cm on the inner side left thumb near the nail; 3. The following 16 injuries were found in his body : 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm x bone deep in the right parieto temporal region of scalp; 2. Incised wound 11/2 cm x 1/2 cm 1/2 cm on the inner side left thumb near the nail; 3. Bruise with swelling size of the wound was 6 cm x 3 cm swelling size 12 cm x 10 cm in the front of right knee. 4. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the outer side of right leg upper ⅓rd. 5. Bruise pinkish colour transversely direction 8 cm x 3 cm on the outer side of right arm lower ⅓rd. 6. Bruise pinkish blue colour anterio-pesteriorally obliquely just above the right elbow on back and outer side. 7. Bruise pinkish colour obliquely vertical direction 3 cm x 21/2 cm on the outer side of the right forearm upper ⅓rd. 8. Bruise obliquely vertically pinkish colour 20 cm x 3 cm on the outer side of right thigh upper half. 9. Bruise oblique anterio posterioraly oblique 12 cm x 3 cm on the back part of middle ⅓rd of the right thigh. 10. Bruise transverse 5 cm x 21/2 cm on the lower ⅓rd of right thigh outer part; 11. Bruise obliquely 6 cm cm 4 cm above injury No.10. 12. Abrasion 11/2 cm x 1 cm on the front of left knee; 13. Bruise anteriorally and posteriorally 10 cm x 3 cm on the upper part of left shoulder; 14. Bruise obliquely 12 cm x 31/2 cm on the outer part of right side of chest 3 cm outer to the scapula bone; 15. Bruise obliquely 11 cm x 3 cm on the right side of back below the margin of ribs. 16. Bruise transversely 5 cm x 3 cm. 3 cm below & outer to injury No. 15. 7. Dr. D.B. Gupta, P.W.5, Medical Officer, also examined Prabhati on November 8, 1972 and found following 7 injuries on his person: 1. Bruise 8 cm x 21/2 cm on right shoulder upper part; 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the right shoulder back part; 3. Abrasion 4 cm x 1/2cm on the right side of back lower part; 4. Bruise obliquely 10 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of right arm upper ⅓rd. 5. Bruise 8 cm x 21/2 cm on right shoulder upper part; 2. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the right shoulder back part; 3. Abrasion 4 cm x 1/2cm on the right side of back lower part; 4. Bruise obliquely 10 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of right arm upper ⅓rd. 5. Abrasion vertical 4 cm x 2 cm on the front of left knee lower part; 6. Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side of sealp 3 cm outer to the mid line and 2 cm above the hair margin. 7. Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of right leg upper ⅓rd part. 8. It was also contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that the eye-witnesses, Prabhu Dayal, Kanhaiyalal Lalu Ram and Ramgopal have not been produced by the prosecution, and as such, the prosecution story should be disbelieved. 9. The learned trial court has come to conclusion that the attack on the complainant party by the accused persons was preplanned and was carried out o an odd hour. A number of injuries have been inflicted on the person of the victims. 10. The learned trial court has convicted accused-appellants under section 148, IPC , for constituting an unlawful assembly and has found the accused-appellants guilty of the same & sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment on this count. The incident took place on November 17, 1972. The accused-appellants are on bail. 11. Accused Thadha Singh has also been convicted under section 323, I P.C., and has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. 12. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor have been considered and the record of the case has been carefully perused. 13. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the accused-appellants have exceeded the right of private defence. The right of private defence could not be weighed in golden scales, but, there is no reason to take a view different from the one which the learned trial court has taken. 14. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed, but benefit is being given to the accused-appellants under section 360 Cr.P.C. The incident took place on November 7, 1972. 14. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed, but benefit is being given to the accused-appellants under section 360 Cr.P.C. The incident took place on November 7, 1972. It does not appear to be just & reasonable to send the accused persons to judicial custody again after the lapse of such a long time. Under these circumstances the accused-appellants shall be released on probation under the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., if each one of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years wits an undertaking that they shall appear before the learned trial Court whenever they are called upon to undergo the imprisonment awarded to them. The accused-appellants should furnish the personal and surety bonds within two months from today, failing which the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. awarded to them shall be deemed to have been waived, and they shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court to undergo the sentence awarded to them. 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******