JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Prem Singh, convict appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri S. B. L. Kackar, Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 30-7-1977, convicting and sentencing the appellant, under section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and under section 323, IPC to two months' R. I. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that Mansa Ram PW 3, Gopali PW 1 and Raja Ram are three brothers living in village Mawai, Police Station Rath, district Hamirpur. Ram Kumar (deceased) was the son of Gopali PW 1 and appellant Prem Singh is the son of Raja Ram and his wife Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. The prosecution further case is that appellant Prem Singh and his wife were not on good terms with his parents Raja Ram and Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. They had been forced to live else-where though a Kotha was allotted to them in the house of the appellant. 3. On 3-7-1976, at about 3-00 p. m., Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4 had gone to that particular Kotha inside the residential premises of the appellant to get some seeds. A dispute arose between Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4 and his daughter-in-law i.e. the wife of the appellant. The appellant was also present there and he took sides with his own wife. In the process he happened to beat his mother, Smt. Tulsa Rani, with a Danda. She came out of the house weeping. The appellant also followed her and even beat her with a Danda outside the house. This attracted Gopali PW 1, Mansa Ram PW 3, Ram Kumar (deceased) and others. They objected to the behaviour of the appellant in beating his own mother. Exchange of hot words and abuses took place. Ram Kumar (deceased) advanced and pushed the appellant to save his aunt. The appellant ran inside his own house. The above mentioned witnesses followed him there. The appellant happened to climb over the stair-case. Ram Kumar tried to catch hold of him. The appellant took out a pistol from the Phenth of his Paijama and fired a shot at Ram Kumar which struck him at his neck. He fell down. The appellant ran away. 4. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to the hospital, and, by the time they reached there, he breathed his last. The appellant took out a pistol from the Phenth of his Paijama and fired a shot at Ram Kumar which struck him at his neck. He fell down. The appellant ran away. 4. The deceased in an injured condition was taken to the hospital, and, by the time they reached there, he breathed his last. The first information report of this incident was lodged by Gopali complainant PW 1 at Police Station Rath five miles away the same day at 5-25 p. m. 5. The post morten examination of Ram Kumar (deceased) was conducted by Dr. H. C. Pandey, Medical Officer Incharge, Male Hospital, Rath, on 4-7-1976 at 11-45 a. m. The probable time since death was about eighteen hours. This fits in with the alleged hour of the occurrence. The deceased had an antemortem injury in the form of a gun shot wound of entrance 2.8 cm x 1.5 cm. on left side of neck 7 cm from mid plane and 6 cm below lobule of left ear. The internal examination revealed fracture of 5th cervical vertebra below the above injury. There was a fracture of 5th rib also. There was a hole in the lobe of the right lung through and through. Dr. Pandey also took out a pellet from the right side chest. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above mentioned injury. In the opinion of the doctor, the above injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 6. The appellant, in the Course of statement under section 313, CrPC almost admitted all the above facts put forward by the prosecution except the he ever beat his mother or that he fired a shot at the deceased. According to him, when he was chased by the deceased inside the house, three guests were sitting inside his house and it was one of those guests who fired at the deceased However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. The prosecution examined three eye witnesses, namely, Gopali PW Mansa Ram PW 3 and Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. Before we deal with the evidence of the first two witnesses, namely, Gopali and Mansa Ram, we would like to dispose of the evidence of Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. The prosecution examined three eye witnesses, namely, Gopali PW Mansa Ram PW 3 and Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. Before we deal with the evidence of the first two witnesses, namely, Gopali and Mansa Ram, we would like to dispose of the evidence of Smt. Tulsa Rani PW 4. She in her statement supported the prosecution version except that the appellant had beaten her. She maintained that she had not witnessed the incident in which Ram Kumar was murdered. In other words, she did not support the prosecution that the appellant had fired shot at the deceased. For this, the prosecution got her declare hostile. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since foundation of the entire incident is the initial marpit of Smt. Tulsa Rani PW by the appellant and when she has stated that the appellant had not beaten he: the prosecution case has no legs to stand and this fact alone should ment acquittal of the appellant. However, there is no denying the fact that Sm Tulsa Rani is the mother of the appellant. In the initial stage of the investigation she was also subjected to medical examination and the doctor had found, tore red bruises ranging from 4 cm x 1.5 cm to 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm. On various part of her body the injuries were simple, and, at the time of her examination, i,e. at 9-00 a. m. of 4-7-1976, they were Certified to be of duration within one day. This also coincides with the alleged hour of the occurrence. It is also to be noted that, at the time of getting the appellant released on bail, she had filed her affidavit, wherein she had asserted that, when the dispute was going on, two persons, unknown to her, had intervened and one of them had fired the shot killing Ram Kumar. This affidavit is certainly inconsistent with her evidence in the court below, wherein she stated that she had not witnessed the incident, in Which Ram Kumar was killed. She resiled from her earlier statement in the affidavit that one of the two persons, who had intervened in the dispute, had fired shot killing Ram Kumar. We can well realise that the mother in her had taken hold of her in putting in that affidavit to help her son, the appellant. She resiled from her earlier statement in the affidavit that one of the two persons, who had intervened in the dispute, had fired shot killing Ram Kumar. We can well realise that the mother in her had taken hold of her in putting in that affidavit to help her son, the appellant. In the court, she did not support the prosecution version that the appellant beat her or fired at the deceased, At any rate, we would not place much reliance in what she has to say in the matter. This is so because there are other two eye witnesses, namely, Gopali PW 1 and Mansa Ram PW 3. It is worth noting that Mansa Ram PW 3 is equally related as first degree uncle both to the deceased and the appellant. No circumstance has been pointed out to our satisfaction by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why Mansa Ram should go against the appellant. Both Gopali and Mansa Ram have fully corroborated the prosecution version in all its details. They have emphatically stated in the concluding part of their statements that the appellant ran into his house followed by the deceased who wanted to catch hold of him. They and other witnesses, who had assembled outside the house, had also followed them into the house. Both these witnesses maintained that they saw that the appellant had climbed over the stair-case, and, when Ram Kumar was trying to catch hold of him, the appellant took out pistol from the Phenth of the Paijama and fired a shot at Ram Rumar (deceased) which struck him at his neck and he fell down. There is no reason that their statements should not be believed. The mere fact that they are related to the deceased would be no consideration to disbelieve them because they are also closely related to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the point that even if the appellant has not taken the plea of self-defence, yet the record bears out that plea and he therefore, may be given benefit of the same. The only facts, in this connection, stressed by the learned counsel, are that the evidence shows that Ram Kumar (deceased) had once pushed the appellant and then had chased the appellant inside the house in order to catch him. The only facts, in this connection, stressed by the learned counsel, are that the evidence shows that Ram Kumar (deceased) had once pushed the appellant and then had chased the appellant inside the house in order to catch him. It was argued that these overt acts on the part of the deceased justified the overt-act of the appellant in shooting him down in his self defence. But we are not impressed by this argument. The right of self defence would have accrued to the appellant only if he had an apprehension that either death or atleast grievous hurt would be caused to him by the deceased. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was bare handed, while the appellant was holding a Danda. The mere act of chasing in an effort to catch hold of the appellant, in our view, would not have been sufficient, by any stretch of imagination, to raise an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that he would either be killed or made to suffer grievous hurt by the deceased. The little apprehension of being caught hold of could be repelled by him by using the Danda against deceased. There was no justification in his bringing out pistol and firing it at the deceased causing his death. In this connection, we may also refer to the suggestion given to Gopali and Mansa Ram that Ram Kumar (deceased), while chasing him, was carrying a Ballam. But this aspect of the case was never deposed by the appellant in his statement under section 313, CrPC. 8. As a result of over all discussion of the evidence and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal has no force. The appeal must fail. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below are confirmed. The conviction and sentence awarded are upheld. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the sentence. He shall be taken into custody. Appeal dismissed.