S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide his judgment dated 17-4-85 convicted the accused - appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigorqus Imprisonment for four years. It is being aggrieved by it that the accused-appellant has tiled the present appeal in this Court. ( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the opinion of this Court, it was established beyond doubt from the evidence produced in the case that on the date of the incident i. e. 3-4-1984 at about 6. 30 p. m. when complainant P. W. 1 Beersingh had gone to a place near a tank with the alleged purpose of answering the call of nature he was assaulted with a lathi by the accused-appellant causing him as many as 9 injuries of which three had resulted in fractures in one cervical spine, ulna and jaw. In view of the evidence produced in the case, the said aspect of the case is also not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant in this appeal. What is contended by the learned Counsel is that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defence taken by the accused-appellant that the complainant had tried to molest his wife D. W. 2 Sundariabai was sufficiently probabilised and as such the accused-appellant could not be held guilty of any offence. ( 3 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the above said contention of the learned counsel for the accused- appellant is well founded and deserves to be accepted. There are several significant aspects of the case which lend support to the defence taken by the accused-appellant. In the first instance, it was an admitted position in the case that prior to the date of the incident there was no iliwill between the parties and the relations between them were not strained. Yet, surprisingly, in his narration of events, both in the First Information Report Ex. P. I, as also in his evidence as P. W. 1, the complainant avoided disclosing reason for the assault made by the accused-appellant on him. Yet, surprisingly, in his narration of events, both in the First Information Report Ex. P. I, as also in his evidence as P. W. 1, the complainant avoided disclosing reason for the assault made by the accused-appellant on him. Secondly, it was not only the complainant who did not disclose any reason for the incident, his brother P. W. 2 Sonsingh too tried to hide the reason by making the statement that he did not know why the incident had taken place. Thirdly, though there was nothing stated about the presence of the wife of the accused-appellant; D. W. 2 Sundariabai, in the First Information Report Ex. P. 1 lodged by the complainant, he could not avoid admitting in his evidence in the Court that the said woman had been present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. Furthly, it was clear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P. W. 9 Mohanlal Pandey that at the stage of investigation he had wanted record the statement of D. W. 2 Sundariabai. The Investigating Officer could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the statement of the said woman was not recorded by him. ( 4 ) FIFTHLY; inspite of the fact that the incident had taken place at about 6. 30 p. m. , the complainant waited till the next morning to lodge report regarding the same. There was no satisfactory explanation offered as to why he or his brother did not lodge the report within a reasonable time of the incident. Sixthly, in the absence of any other reason for the assault, as many as 9 injuries caused on different parts of the body of the complainant were consistent with accused-appellant having tried to prevent the molestation of his wife at the instance of the complainant. ( 5 ) NEEDLESS to say, there was no burden cast on the accused-appellant to prove the defence taken by him beyond reasonable doubt. It was sufficient for him to produce such evidence which probabilised such defence. ( 5 ) NEEDLESS to say, there was no burden cast on the accused-appellant to prove the defence taken by him beyond reasonable doubt. It was sufficient for him to produce such evidence which probabilised such defence. In the opinion of this Court, viewing the evidence of the wife of the accused-appellant i. e. D. W. 2 Sundariabai, and that of D. W. 3 Dukhiya who was alleged to have reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries for help made by Sundariabai, in the light of the significant circumstances as pointed out above, there was no escape from the conclusion that the complainant and his witnesses tried to hide the cause for the incident and that the defence taken by the accused-appellant stood sufficiently probabilised. ( 6 ) EVEN though as a result of the assault made by the accused-appellant on the complainant, as many as 9 injuries were caused to the complainant, bearing in mind the nature of weapon used, and the nature of the injuries caused, in the opinion of this court, it was difficult to infer that the accused-appellant inflicted more harm the it was necessary to inflict for the purpose of right of private defence available to him under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code in a situation in which he wanted to prevent the molestation of his wife at the instance of the complainant. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence of four years R. I. awarded to him are set aside and he is acquitted. .