JUDGMENT R. P. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal No. 1241 of 1977 has been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment and order, dated 24-3- 1977, passed by Sri R. K, Agarwal, the then Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Criminal Sessions Trial no. 291 of 1976. The appeal against the acquittal of Jhabra in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1976 has not been admitted. No notice was issued to him. It has thus been dismissed summarily. 2 Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a case under section 394, IPC was registered at Police-station Gangoh against respondent Noor Hasan and another. Noor Hasan is resident of village Pirmajra, Police Station Gangoh. On April 29, 1976 Mahesh Chandra. Panchabhaiya (PW 1) who was posted as Sub Inspector on the said police-station, took sufficient force from Police Station Gangoh and left the police station to effect the arrest of Noor Hasan in the said robbery case. The relevant entries of his departure (torn the police station were made in General Diary no. 27 and a copy of the same is Ext ka 1. On the way, the Sub Inspector collected witnesses namely Maqsood (PW 2), Malkhan (PW 3) Bishambhar and others. Deceased constable Mahipal and constable Bishambai (PW 4) were also in the said party. At about 8.45 P. M. when this police party along with the witnesses reached near the culvert of village Dabri, they saw a group of four persons sitting on the culvert. It was a dark night of Amavashiya. The Sub Inspector flashed his torch at them and interrupted (Toka). On this, one of them fired at the police party. In reply, the Sub Inspector also fired two rounds from his revolver. Constable Mahipal and the Sub-Inspector were a little ahead of others of their party. The persons sitting on the culvert took to their heels after fire by the Sub Inspector, and constable Mahipal rushed to catch hold of them. One of them, who was some-what nearer to Mahipal, turned back and shot at Mahipal from a distance of two to three paces hitting Mahipal in the abdomen. The post mortem report reveals the following two injuries :- 1. One of them, who was some-what nearer to Mahipal, turned back and shot at Mahipal from a distance of two to three paces hitting Mahipal in the abdomen. The post mortem report reveals the following two injuries :- 1. Multiple gun shot wounds in an area of 25 x 1O cms in (L) iliac fossa with a central main lacerated, gun shot wound of 3 x 2 cms x abdominal cavity deep with balckening and charring around the wound present, central wound is 8 cms. away frorn unblicus at 2 O'clock position. 2. Gun shot wound 1/4 x 1/4 cm x muscle deep in the front and upper part of L. thigh. The face of Mahipal's assailant was seen in the torch light and was recognized before he could fire at Mahipal. Mahipal fell down after the receipt of the injuries, and the Sub Inspector and others succeeded in arresting the man, who fired at and hit Mahipal, after giving him some beating, The rest three, however, escaped. The arrested man gave out his name as Noor Hasan. He was searched and a country made pistol Ext. 1, used cartridge Ext. 2 and live cartridges (Exts 3 to 6) were recovered from him. These articles were taken in possession by the Sub Inspector and were put under sealed cover and a recovery memo (Ext. ka 2) was prepared on the spot. The Sub Inspector kept the cartridges used by him (Exts. 7 and 8) also in sealed cover and prepared memo (Ext. ka 3). Used cartridge (Ext. 2) was found inside the barrel of the country made pistol (Ext. 1) recovered from the possession of respondent Noor Hasan. Constable Mahipal was taken to hospital Gangoh, and while the medical examination was going on, he succumbed to the injuries he had received at the hands of Noor Hasan. Sub Inspector Panchbhiay and other police personnel thereafter went to Police Station Gangoh along with respondent Noor Hasan. The First Information Report (Ext. ka 4) was lodged at the police station by the Sub inspector and a case was registered on its basis vide general diary No. 33 at 10.4S P. M. Copy of the said General Diary is Ext. ka 5. Noor Hasan was then Jaken back to the Primary Health Centre, Gangab, and was medically examined by Dr. ka 4) was lodged at the police station by the Sub inspector and a case was registered on its basis vide general diary No. 33 at 10.4S P. M. Copy of the said General Diary is Ext. ka 5. Noor Hasan was then Jaken back to the Primary Health Centre, Gangab, and was medically examined by Dr. R. C. Sharma (PW 8) at 11.10 p.m. Eleven contusions, one traumatic swelling and a contused abrasion where found on his person. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. Station Officer, D. P. Sharma (PW 10) of Police Station Gangoh, took up the investigation of the case, and, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ext. ka 19) on 10-5-1976. 3. Noor Hasan was charged under section 302/34, IPC and under section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and was tried by the aforesaid Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide Sessions Trial no. 291 of 1976. 4. The prosecution examined Sub kspector Mahesh Chandra (PW 1) Maqsood (PW 21, Malkhan PW 3) and constable Bishambhar (PW 4) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Sub-Inspector Mahesh Chandra (PW 1) has narrated the whole prosecution story right from his departure from Police station Gangoh along with constables and that he collected witnesses on the way ana the occurrence that took police on the culvert of village Dabri. He has stated that he flashed torch on the group of four persons sitting on the culvert and interrupted them ana the same was replied by a bullet. He has also narrated that Noor Hasan was apprehended with the help of constable and witnesses after giving him some beating and was starched and recoveries were made as aforesaid. He has also stated that he took injured Mahipal to the hospital where he breathed his last while he was being medically examined. The Sub Inspector left the dead body of constable Mahipal in the supervision of constable no. 934 Ram Autar and constable no. 930 Satyapal and went to Police Station Gangoh along with respondent Noor Hasan and the articles recovered from him where he lodged the first information report of the occurrence. It has been pointed out that General Diary no. 27, which relates to the departure of this Sub Inspector and police constable does not disclose that they had taken torches with them. It has been pointed out that General Diary no. 27, which relates to the departure of this Sub Inspector and police constable does not disclose that they had taken torches with them. It is in evidence that it was Amawashiya night (dark night). The Sub Inspector and the constables were going to apprehend an accused m a case under section 394, IPC registered at Police station Gangoh. Alt the witnesses have stated that the Sub Inspector and some constables had torches. The Investigating Officer inspected their torches and found them in working condition and prepared their memos (Exts. ka 14 to 17). In view of this definite evidence that they bad torches, the omission in General Diary no. 27 is not material. He has further stated that he could see the lace of Noor Hasan in the light of torch when Noor Hasan fired at constable Mahipal. Maqsood (PW 2) pointed out at Noor Hasan who was present in court during the trial as the man who fired at constable Mahipal. He has deposed the whole prosecution story. He has no axe to grind against the accused nor there is any thing on the record to show that he is, in any way, under the thumb of the police. He is resident of Gangoh and respondent Noor Hasan belongs to Pirmajra a distant village. In our opinion, he is an independent and reliable witness. Malkhan (PW 3) is resident of village Bargaon. He has agricultural plots adjoining to that of Noor Hasan and he has admitted in a very straight forward manner that he and Noor Hasan had some quarrel over doll. Such trifling quarrels, in our opinion, do not provide motive for false implication in a murder case. Constable Bishambbar Singh (PW 4) also left the police station along with Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra (PW 1) General diary no. 27 copy of which is Ext. ka 1, shows his departure along with Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra. He has deposed the whole prosecution story and we do not find any thing that may discredit his testimony. All the four eye witnesses have deposed that, when they reached near the Dabri culvert, they saw four persons sitting on the culvert. Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra flashed torch on them and asked as to who were sitting. He has deposed the whole prosecution story and we do not find any thing that may discredit his testimony. All the four eye witnesses have deposed that, when they reached near the Dabri culvert, they saw four persons sitting on the culvert. Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra flashed torch on them and asked as to who were sitting. At this, one of them fired at the police party, and, when constable Mahipal Singh (deceased) rushed ahead, respondent Noor Hassan fired at him which resulted in his death. They have also deposed that the Sub Inspector Mahesh Chandra also fired two rounds after the first fire from one of the four sitting on the culvert. They have also deposed that Noor Hasan was apprehended on the spot whom they had seen in the light of the torches firing at Mahipal Singh. The trial Judge has dealt with their evidence in detail and we find that he has rightly believed all the eye witnesses and as a result he has believed the prosecution story too. Mahendra Singh (PW 5) is a formal witness. Dr. Batra (PW 6) conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Mahipal Singh. Dr. Kamesh Chandra Sharma, medical officer in charge, Primary Health Centre, Gangoh (PW 8) examined the injuries of Noor Hasan and Mahipal succumbed to his injuries while Dr. Kamesh Chandra Sharma was examining him. 5. The defence has laid much stress on the absence of blood on the scene of occurence and has, therefore argued that the incident did not take place where the prosecution alleges. In this regard, the evidence of Dr. Batra (PW 6) shows that one litre of clotted blood was found in the abdomen of the deceased. The incident took place near the culvert on the Rusta land and the Investigating Officer could reach there only on the next day, It is, therefore, natural and probable: that the blood must have disappeared by then. It is also noteworthy that the deceased was putting on his police uniform when the incident, took place. Some blood must have been soaked in his clothes, and. in the circumstances, we do not find much force in the argument. It is also noteworthy that the deceased was putting on his police uniform when the incident, took place. Some blood must have been soaked in his clothes, and. in the circumstances, we do not find much force in the argument. It has also been argued that when Noor Hasan was arrested on the spot and taken to the Primary Health Centre along with constable Mahipal why was he not medically examined in the Primary Health Centre then and thereof it is natural that all attention was focussed on constable Mahipal who was in a serious condition, and, on his death. Sub-Inspector Mahesh Chandra had to rush to the police station to make the report. Ext. ka 5 shows that Noor Hasan was taken to the police station and handed over there at 10.45 p.m. The same night, he was produced before Dr. R. C. Sharma at 11.10 p.m. for his medical examination. Had he not been a rested on the spot, he could neither be handed over at the police station nor he could be produced before Dr. Sharma for medical examination. Therefore, this argument does not impress us. It is also contended by the defence that the medical evidence on record does not corroborate the oral evidence led by the prosecution. Reliance has been placed on the post mortem report and the statement of Dr Batra (PW 6) which show that constable Mahipal Singh had received two gun shot injuries. The first in the abdomen having blackening and charring around it and the second in the front and upper part of the left thigh which has no blackening or charring around it. The argument is advanced that the first injury was caused from a close range and the second from some distance. In our opinion, the post mortem report lends support to the oral evidence led by the prosecution. The first shot was fired from a distance of 8 to 10 paces. Although the witnesses could not know that any one was injured by the first shot nor constable Mahipal Singh could tell about it before his death, but this injury to Mahipal Singh was, in all probability, caused by the first shot. In our opinion, this injury is not likely to create any obstruction in Mahipal Singh's rushing towards the respondent. Although the witnesses could not know that any one was injured by the first shot nor constable Mahipal Singh could tell about it before his death, but this injury to Mahipal Singh was, in all probability, caused by the first shot. In our opinion, this injury is not likely to create any obstruction in Mahipal Singh's rushing towards the respondent. The trial Judge has dealt with this point in some detail and has repelled the defence contention with weighty reasons. The trial Judge himself has taken pains to discuss the evidence of the witnesses and to analyse and consider the arguments advanced by the defence. He has very rightly observed that the statements of both the police and public witnesses inspire full confidence and they found corroboration by other circumstantial and intrinsic evidence on record. He has rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the incident did take place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. However, we do not agree with the trial Judge who has held that Noor Hasan had the right of self defence and in exercise of that right, he fired towards the police party causing injury which resulted in death of constable Mahipal and the consequent acquittal of respondent Noor Hasan under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. However, Noor Hasan has been convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months. 6. The trial Judge has held that there is no evidence to show as to who, out of the four persons sitting on the culvert, fired the first shot. There is also no evidence to the effect that there was meeting of the minds of the four persons sitting on the culvert prior to the first shot which was fired by one of them when interrupted by Sub-Inspector Mahesh Chandra. It may be mere accidental coincidence that they were sitting together on the culvert, and, therefore the trial Judge has rightly observed that Section 34, IPC is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. But the trial Judge has held that Noor Hasan cannot: be held aggressor because of the first shot. Hence, he was entitled to the right of self defence. But the trial Judge has held that Noor Hasan cannot: be held aggressor because of the first shot. Hence, he was entitled to the right of self defence. He has further held that the police men had the right of arrest, but they had no right to fire in reply to the first shot that was fired from the other side. Because the Sub-Inspector had fired two rounds, the respondent had every apprehension of death or grievous hurt at the hands of police party. Hence, the trial court gave him the benefit of right of self defence. True that it is a case of acquittal and courts are reluctant to interfere unless there is some thing basically wrong with the approach of the trial court. We are satisfied that, in the present case, the approach of the trial court is basically wrong and irrational. 7. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that the first shot was fired by one of the four persons sitting on the culvert. It was not suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the first shot may have been fired from another direction or that there were other persons armed with fire arms roaming nearabout. In the circunstances, the only conclusion, which can be drawn from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, is that the first shot was fired towards the police party by one of the four persons sitting on the culvert. It is also in evidence that the police party was at a distance of 8 to 10 pacts from the culvert, when the first shot was fired i.e. the police party was withia effective firing firing when the first shot was fired. Hence, they could be under a reasonable apprehension that if they did not resort to firing in private defence, they would be killed. When the police party resorted to firing in private defence, the other party which made the police-party resort to firing could not retaliate on the supposed grounds that the act of the police party, while acting in private defence, gave them right to act in defence. There can be no right of self defence against the right of self defence. 8. There can be no right of self defence against the right of self defence. 8. When, in our opinion, a man is found committing non bailable and cognizable offence and then tries to escape, the whole is to be treated as one single transaction and any person who either sees him committing the offence or finds him running away immediately after the commission of the offence would be entitled to arrest him under Section 43 CrPC. When Sub-Inspector Mahesh Chandra flashed his torch on the four persons sitting on the culvert and asked as to who were sitting there, some one from the group of four persons fired towards him. An offence under Section 307 IPC was committed by the person who fired at the police party. It was but natural for the police party to defend themselves and also to arrest the person having committed the offence and naturally all the four being together were suspects of having committed the offence. 9. Section 43, CrPC empowers even private persons to arrest or cause to be arrested any person who, in his presence, commits a non bailable and cognizable offence and the sub-clause (2) of Section 43, CrPC says if there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of Section 41, CrPC a police officer shall re-arrest him and Che powers of arrest by police officer are given under Section 41, CrPC. According to Section 41, CrPC any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warraut, arrest any person (s) who has been concerned in any ccngnizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned. In the circumstances of the present case, reasonable suspicion existed against all the four persons who were sitting on the culvert from where the shot was fired at the police party. Although it is true that the police party had not informed them about their being police officials nor they declared their intention to arrest them but the offence was committed in their presence and they were shot at by one of the four persons sitting on the culvert. It was but natural for the police people to arrest them and find out the real guilty person. It was but natural for the police people to arrest them and find out the real guilty person. The Tight of self defence that accrued to the police party after the shot was fired at them continued even when they tried to arrest the suspects. Considering the provisions of Sections 43 and 41, CrPC we are of the opinion that a person against whom suspicion that he has committed an offence exists, can be arrested even by a private person and police officials. In case of arrest by a private person he shall be rearrested by the police officials. 10. The right of private defence accrued to the police party when the first shot was fired at them and it was in true exercise of the right that two shots were fired by Sub-Inspector Mahesh Chandra and that Tight continued when constable Mahipal Singh rushed ahead to arrest the suspects. Thus, it is obvious that respondent Noor Hasan fired at constable Mahipal Singh who was acting in the right of private defence of person ana, therefore, no right of self defence can accrue to respondent Noor Hasan and, therefore, we are of the opinion that respondent Noor Hasan had committed the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC in causing the death of constable Mahipal Singh. In the result, the government appeal succeeds and is allowed. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge is hereby set aside, Respondent Noor Hasan is hereby convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He is on bail. He shall surrender to it and shall be taken in custody to serve out the sentence. Appeal allowed.