Judgment V. S. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated November 17, 1978 of Sessions Judge, Bundi; whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stating the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi alleging that the accused-appellant committed the murder of one Mukhtar Singh. One Jogender Singh P. W. 1, bad lodged a report on August 17, 1977 at police station Kapren wherein it was stated by him that he is a teacher -in the Government Secondary School, Bhimganj Mandi, Kota, while his brothers Mukhtyar Singh and Dilbag Singh were cultivating on Adila Parm. On August 16, 1977 his elder brother had come to Kota and he had gone back with Rs. 200/- which the former had given to him for payment to the labours as his portion of the field was also to be cultivated. He too went by different train and was informed on way by one Kana who was in employment with Harbinder Singh that his brother Mukhtyar Singh had some fight on the way and all the family members had gone there. When he reached the spot where the fight had taken place he found his brother Dilbag Singh, his wife, Mukhtyar Singhs wife and children weeping, He found that his elder brother Mukhtyar Singh was lying in the field of Modu Goojar who had died prior to his reaching there. It was mentioned that Harbinder Singh had seen the whole occurrence who told that Modu Goojar alongwith two more persons bad beaten Mukhtyar Singh as a result of which the latter died. On receipt of this report a case under sec. 302 nw. sec. 34 I. P. C. was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation autopsy of the corpes of Mukhtyar Singh was done and the Doctor found the following internal and external injuries on his person: External Injuries: 1. Incised wound with underlying fracture on the occipital bone 3 x 1 x 1/2 on the occipital region. 2. Incised wound left parietal region posterior aspect 3 x 1 x 1/2 Incised wound right parietal region near mostoid process 3 x 1 x 1/2. Incised wound with underlying fracture on the occipital bone 3 x 1 x 1/2 on the occipital region. 2. Incised wound left parietal region posterior aspect 3 x 1 x 1/2 Incised wound right parietal region near mostoid process 3 x 1 x 1/2. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 1/2 left side forehead with underlying fracture of Frontal bone. Contusion 3 x i"left shoulder. Contusion back of the chest 3 x ITT. Internal Injuries: Vertebra opened-found fracture of occipital and frontal bone and extra dural blood, membrance were normal except mild laceration at the right of fracture, the grievous hurt by sharp weapon at occipital region and other injury of scalp caused profused bleeding. The cause of death as disclosed in the report was profuse bleeding leading to haemorrhage and shock and also the concussion of the brain. The accused-appellant Modu also sent a report by post to the Station House Officer, police station, Kapren wherein he stated that Mukhtyar Singh and Harbinder Singh alongwith one Niranjan Singh came armed with axe and lathies on his field. They were drunk at that time and they picked rip the quarrel with him. They attacked him and started inflicting injuries by axe. At that time he in order to safe himself picked up a Parania and defended himself with the same. He mentioned that be could not appear in the police station as he is afraid of the Sardars and further that he got himself medically examined at General Hospital, Bundi where Doctor found two incised wounds-one on left parietal region and another on the right parietal region. He mentioned the place from where he was writing the letter hence the police went there and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. p. 16. The arrest memo also indicated that the accused had two injuries on his person. He was again got medically examined after three days of his arrest where the Doctor found two abrasions at the places where the incised wounds had earlier been found. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet as mentioned above, was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who committed the accused to Sessions where a charge was read over to the accused for offence under see 302 I. P. C. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet as mentioned above, was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate who committed the accused to Sessions where a charge was read over to the accused for offence under see 302 I. P. C. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses. The accused in his statement under sec. 313 Cr. P. C. took up the plea of exercise of right of private defence and examined Mangilal as an eye-witness to support his plea. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the statement of P. W. 3 Harbinder Singh convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above, aggrieved by which he sent this jail appeal. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. Jam appearing on behalf of the accused appellant submitted that in this case the accused-appellant has taken the plea of exercise of right of private defence from the very beginning and the same has not been considered by the trial court in true prospective. It bas been submitted that few of the facts are admitted in this case even by the prosecution and from those admitted facts itself a case of exercise of right of private defence is made out. His contention is that two types of weapons of offences have been used in the case and it was the case of the prosecution from the very beginning that the accused was accompanied by two other unknown persons who had inflicted the injuries by lathies. The Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem examination and has appeared in the court as P. W. 7 could not say as to which of the injury was responsible for the death of the deceased. In that eventuality accused-appellant alone could not have been convicted for offence under section 302 I. P. C. It is submitted that at best his conviction could have been done under section 326 nw. section 34 I. P. C. and even if this court comes to the conclusion that this is a case of exceeding the exercise of right of private defence atleast to that extent he had the right. Hence it is submitted that in any eventuality the accused-appellant deserves an acquittal. section 34 I. P. C. and even if this court comes to the conclusion that this is a case of exceeding the exercise of right of private defence atleast to that extent he had the right. Hence it is submitted that in any eventuality the accused-appellant deserves an acquittal. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that Mukhtyar Singh went on the field of Modu on the latters calling him on the field and, therefore, he cannot take the advantage of right of private defence. It is further submitted that the deceased bas sustained as many as six injuries on his person, while the injuries on the person of the accused are only two and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had the right to the extent of causing death of Mukhtrar Singh. ( 6 ) WE have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. ( 7 ) THE entire case is in a very narrow ambit and is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Gottipulla Venkata Siva Sub-brayanam and others V. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another. 1 It is a well established principle of criminal jurisprudence that while assessing the case of an accused for right of private defence the number of injuries is not the factor governing the same as the same cannot be measured in golden scales. It is a very valuable right given by the legislature and the courts are expected as mentioned in the aforesaid case to give effect to these provisions with liberality having an objective mind. In the instant case the only witness according to the F. I. R. and also examined at the trial is P. W. 3. Harbinder Singh. It is clearly borne out from his statement that the incident had taken place in the field of Modu. It is also admitted that the accused-appellant, Modu, at that time was working in his field and was busy in making a Dohra. It is also admitted that Mukhtyar Singh deceased was accompanied by him. It is further admitted by P. W. 3 that he did not narrate this story to anybody when he went to the village and further he does not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. It is also admitted that Mukhtyar Singh deceased was accompanied by him. It is further admitted by P. W. 3 that he did not narrate this story to anybody when he went to the village and further he does not explain the injuries on the person of the accused. It is a proven case that on the side of the prosecution as well as of the defence that the accused had sustained injuries during the incident. But this witness completely denies the existence of such an incident, he therefore, in the light of the decision in Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar2 is not a wholly truthful witness therefore, an independent corroboration is wanted in support of the prosecution case which unfortunately is lacking from the medical evidence itself. The medical evidence discloses that there are three incised wounds, one lacerated wound and two contusions on the person of the deceased and obviously there were more than one assailants as weapons of offence used are different. The Doctor having not said as to which particular injury was the cause of death it cannot be said with certainty that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased and, therefore, the trial court was clearly in error in seeking corroboration of the statement of P. W. 3 with that of the medical evidence. On the contrary the medical evidence when properly judged at best makes out a case against the accused-appellant for offence under section 326 nw. section 34 I. P. C. But as mentioned above it is prosecutions admitted case that the incident took place in the field of Modu and Harbinder Singh, P. W. 3, is not a wholly reliable witness. We are not prepared to accept that Mukhtyar Singh had gone to the field of Modu on latters calling. section 34 I. P. C. But as mentioned above it is prosecutions admitted case that the incident took place in the field of Modu and Harbinder Singh, P. W. 3, is not a wholly reliable witness. We are not prepared to accept that Mukhtyar Singh had gone to the field of Modu on latters calling. On the contrary it appears that he was the aggressor and caused injuries on the person of the accused as are proved by two medical certificates on record and is also clearly borne out from his arrest memo; Once an incised wound is being made at the vital part of the body, i. e. head and repeated, we have no hesitation in saying that the, accused had the apprehension of being caused the grievous injury and hence he was entitled to the exercise of right of private defence which he himself admits both in his report Ex. p. 12 as well as in his statement in the court, we have no reason to discard his statement which otherwise also appears to us more truthful and is in consonance with the circumstances existing on record, particularly as the place of occurrence is his field. ( 8 ) LOOKING to all the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think it advisable to discuss more evidence in details and suffice it to say that the prosecution has failed to bring home any guilt against the accused in this case. We, consequently, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused of the charge. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds and the same are cancelled. Appeal allowed.