JUDGMENT 1. - Eight persons were tried for the offence under Sections 147, 304/149, 325/ 149 and 323/149 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu and by his decision dated 15.2.80. two accused namely Chandgiram and Sukh Ram were acquitted while the other six were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Only Gangaram accused appellants was given benefit of probation while the five other accused appellants have been sentenced as under:- U/s. 147 IPC : 6 months R.I. each U/s. 325/149 IPC : 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each (in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year R.I.) U/s. 323/149 IPC : Six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each (in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R.I.) 2. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. 3. All the accused appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Section 304/149 IPC. 4. The incident out of which the case arises occurred on 13.3.79 at about 8,00 P. M. The report about this was lodged by complainant party as well as by the accused appellants. The version of the complainant namely Kehar Singh in his report is, that near the bus stand of village Kaloth, when the villagers were lighting fire of the occasion of Holi, Shanker and others had collected there. Kehar Singh was informed that the appellants and others accused were attacking Shanker with lathies and he went there to intervene and he was also given blows. On account of injuries Shanker had one fracture on the arm, two fractures on his kg and another of the femur hone. The injured persons were examined medically. On 2 5.1970, Shanker died in the hospital. Post mortem on his body was conducted and according to the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, the cause of death was circulatory failure and shock due to secondary hemorrhage. 5. The version of the accused persons, according to the First Information Report lodged by them was that Kehar Singh had come to the liquor shop of Chandgi Ram and he demanded liquor on credit. Chandgi Ram agreed for the first time but refused to give again, upon which Kehar Singh came back with Shanker and others armed with weapons and attacked them and there persons namely Chandgi Ram. Chandgi Ram agreed for the first time but refused to give again, upon which Kehar Singh came back with Shanker and others armed with weapons and attacked them and there persons namely Chandgi Ram. Sukh Ram and Sultan received injuries The Injury reports are Ex, D-2, D-3, and D-4. The total injuries of the accused are 15. According to the appellants the complainant party was the aggressor and had inflicted blows and the incident had taken place Bada of Chandgi Ram where he has bis liquor shop. Blood stained mud was also collected from this Bada as is shown by memo Ex. D-9. 6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the version of P.W. 2, Kehar Singh and arrived at the conclusion that two different incidents had taken place at two different sites and it was near the Holi fire that Shanker was been by the accused appellants and therefore, they were guilty. However, looking to the nature of the injuries, the offence under Section 304 IPC was not said to be made out. P.W. 4, Shri Chand is the son of deceased Shanker and he was also injured in the incident. He has given reason as to why the appellants attacked Shanker and according to him 2-3 months prior to the incident, there was some quarrel between Chandgi Ram and his sister about the collection of grass and for this reason his father was attacked. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised a number of pleas in order to argue that the occurrence did not take place as suggested by the prosecution and the version given out by the accused is correct. Firstly, it is contended that the cause of the incident as given by P.W. 4, Shri Chand is remote and does not furnish any motive for attacking Shanker. Next it is contended that all the witnesses in the case are relatives and the independent witnesses who were present at the time of lighting the Holi have not been examined, which means that the incident did not take place at the site of Holi fire. Next it is contended that all the witnesses in the case are relatives and the independent witnesses who were present at the time of lighting the Holi have not been examined, which means that the incident did not take place at the site of Holi fire. Relying upon the injuries of the accused persons, and the blood stained mud found at the Bada of Chandgi Ram, it is said to be evidence to show that the incident took place at alleged by the appellants, and it is were the complainant party alongwith Shanker who attacked Chandgi Ram and others. It is also argued that if Shanker was beaten by the appellants as suggested by Kehar Singh that first he heard that Shanker was beaten and than he proceeded there and till that the beating was continuing then Shanker would have received many more injuries and not four injuries only. 8. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions in order to show that availability of blood at the site suggests that the incident took place at that site and when once the place of occurrence is established to the Bada of Chandgi Ram and they received injuries than Chandgi Ram and his associates had a right of private defence and any injury caused by them is in the exercise of the right of private defence. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, contended that the ground where Holi was lighted was hard & blood could not be collected from that place and merely because, no blood was found there, it cannot mean that prosecution story is false. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the witness Ganga Ram is an independent witness and it is not necessary to produce several witnesses to prove a fact and a few witnesses can serve the purpose. 10. In this, case, one of the contentions that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that three persons on the side of accused have received 15 injuries but there is no explanation for the same. These injuries and the place of occurrence is the `Bada of Chandgi Ram make the story of the accused probable. It is not necessary for the accused to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt It is sufficient if they are able to create suspension about the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution. These injuries and the place of occurrence is the `Bada of Chandgi Ram make the story of the accused probable. It is not necessary for the accused to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt It is sufficient if they are able to create suspension about the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution. No doubt, Shanker and five other persons received injuries in the altercation but the accused persons also received injuries and when the incident can be said to have occurred in their Bada, the complainant pasty was the aggressor and the accused had a right of private defence. In exercise of right of private defence, a person can not inflict more harm than is necessary to inflict- In this case, the accused persons have inflicted blows by lathies and except for Shanker, the injuries of all others are simple. The case of Shanker also cannot be said to be a case of exceeding the right of private defence. The beating given by the accused appellants to Shanker Lal can at best be to causing grievous injuries and causing of such injuries can be said to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the above findings, this appeal is accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections 147, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Their conviction and sentences are set aside. The accused appellants are on bail, they need not surrender.Appeal allowed. *******