JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the record of the case. 2. In our opinion; the acquittal of the respondent Badrilal calls for no interference. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the injuries inflicted by the respondent Badrilal on the person of the complainant Bhagirath were inflicted in exercise of private defence although this plea was not taken. Still it has been found that it is borne out from record in as much as the occurrence took place in the right at the house of Badrilal and that Badrilal received as many as six injuries on his person of which no explanations has been offered by the prosecution. A counter report was lodged by Badrilal that the Terence version was that the complainant wanted to out-rage the modesty of Smt. Shankari wife of the accused Badrilal. It may be mentioned that the accused is only required to probablise the plea of right of self defence. That plea, in our opinion stands probabilised and the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in the circumstances also can not be said to be unreasonable and perverse. 4. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the appeal has no force. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******