JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-10-82 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, whereby, the accused- appellants have been convicted under section 304(1) read with Section 34 1PC and have been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay each a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, each to undergo further 6 months R.I. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 28-1-81, police recorded a Parcha Bayan of Jagpal S/o Shri Sambhu Singh R/o Lilajoga in the Bardog Hospital. In that parcha-bayan it has been stated by Jagmal Singh that Ganpat Singh and Bhoor Singh are his real uncle and that a partition has taken place of their residential house amongst them and that Jagpal wanted to construct.his separate house. It was further stated that two days prior to the day of incident, when he and his brother tried to dig foundation then their uncle and uncle's sons restrained them from digging the foundation. Even after the said protest the complainant party arranged to dig the foundation and started construction and at that time the uncle of the deponent and his sons again came at the spot and tried to stop the construction. On 28-1-81 when the complainant and his brothers Mangtu Singh, Sher Singh and Pooran Singh went to start construction work of house in their land, at that time appellants Ganpat Singh, Pratap Singh , Ramesh Singh, Bhoor Singh, Babu Singh and Mool Singh armed with deadly weapons were present at the place of incident and Ramesh Singh and Pra tap Singh inflicted dhariya and farshi blows respectively on the person of Mangtu Singh. After sustaining injuries at the hands of Ramesh Singh and Pratap Singh, Mangtu fell down. Thereafter, Babu Singh inflicted kulhari blow on the stomach of Mangtu Singh and Mool Singh inflicted lathi blow on the head of Mangtu Singh. Thereafter, Ramesh and Pratap again repeated the blows. Mangtu Singh died after reaching hospital. On the aforesaid Pracha-bayan the Police registered a criminal case under Section 302 IPC and F.I.R. No. 9/81 was chawked out and investigation commenced. After completing the investigation a challan was filed against the accused-appellants under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. During trial accused Ganpat Singh died and, therefore, proceedings against Ganpat Singh were dropped. 3. On the aforesaid Pracha-bayan the Police registered a criminal case under Section 302 IPC and F.I.R. No. 9/81 was chawked out and investigation commenced. After completing the investigation a challan was filed against the accused-appellants under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. During trial accused Ganpat Singh died and, therefore, proceedings against Ganpat Singh were dropped. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after recording the statements of 15 witnesses from the side of prosecution and hearing the parties found the accused-appellants guilty for the offence under section 304(1) and passed aforesaid sentenced against them. Hence this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution withesses have not explained the injuries on the person of the accused-appellants and that the learned trial Court though admitted that right of private defence to person and property accrued to the accused-appellants fell in error in holding that the accused-appellants exceeded the right and therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants under section 304(1) IPC. The learned P.P., on the other hand, contended that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the accused-appellants exceeded their right and commenced murder of Mangtu Singh. So the appellants have been rightly convicted under section 304(1) IPC. The learned trial Court in its judgment found that the appellants exceeded their right of defence to person an property. The learned trial Court held that none of the accused-appellants sustained any grevious injury and in circumstances it can be said that the appellants accused their right of private defence to person and property. The learned trial Court further found that the case of the appellants is covered by Section 300(2) IPC. It has been clearly held by the learned trial Court that the appellants inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party in exercise of their right of private defence to person and property. There is no dispute that Sher Singh sustained 12 injuries; 11 of which were simple caused by blunt object whereas one injury was caused grevious by sharp object. Pooran Singh sustained 5 injuries which were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Jagpal Singh, Ganpat Singh, Mool Singh, Babu Singh and Bhoor Singh also sustained injuries which were 21 in numbers. Pooran Singh sustained 5 injuries which were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Jagpal Singh, Ganpat Singh, Mool Singh, Babu Singh and Bhoor Singh also sustained injuries which were 21 in numbers. The learned trial Court further found that the members of the complainant party were armed with spades and the same were used by them and the accused-party sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions placed reliance on the case Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1341 . I am of the opinion that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. The relevant observation is read as below:- "The onus which rests on an accused person under Section 105, Evidence Act, to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unshifting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. A person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another is not expected to weigh on "golden scales" the precise force needed to repeal the danger. Even his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. Held that the defence, in the instant case had succeeded in establishing with a balance of probability, that the deceased and his companion armed with a saria and knife respectively, first assaulted accused's father and thereupon the accused assaulted the deceased to save his father and himself from further injuries. When the prosecution story that accused's father was holding the deceased at the time of the fatal assault was found to be false and no satisfactory explanation was coming forth from the prosecution about the injuries of accused's father and the accused the only prudent course in the ultimate analysis for the court was to hold that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of bringing home the guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and to acquit the accused. Judgment of Delhi High Court, reversed. 5. The another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Veera v. State of Raj. decided by this Court reported in 1980 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 460 . Judgment of Delhi High Court, reversed. 5. The another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Veera v. State of Raj. decided by this Court reported in 1980 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 460 . The relevant observation is reproduced as under: "The nature of the injuries and weapon used against the accused is a factor which plays an important role in the case where the plea of right of private defence is either specifically taken or is spelt from the evidence or the circumstances of the case. Thus it is clear that it is not only sustaining the grievious hurt that brings the case of the accused within the ambit of Section 100 Indian Penal Code but even an apprehension of the grievous hurt may extend the right to voluntary causing the death or any other harm to the assailant.From the close and careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on the record and from the failure of the prosecution to explain away the injuries on the vatal part of the body of appellant at the time of the incident it is highly probablised that the appellant fired a shot from his gun in exercise of the right of private defence of his person." 6. After going through the entire record and judgment of the learned trial Court I am of the opinion that in view of the injuries sustained by the accused-appellant, they were well within their right to cause injuries on the person of Mangtu Singh because in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence of the accused-appellants was covered by Section 100 of IPC. As per Section 105 IPC, Cl. II the right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the assault is such as may reasonable cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Most of the injuries on the person of the accused-appellant are on the vital parts so when the appellants have sustained various blows on the vital parts of their body there must have been apprehension of sustaining grievous injuries and in the circumstances they were well within their right to protect their life and to inflict fatal blows on the person of Mangtu Singh. In this view of the matter I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident had taken place in the manner alleged by it. On the other hand, from the close and careful scrutiny of the entire record it is highly probablized that the appellants inflicted fatal blows on the person of Mangtu Singh in exercise of their right of private defence to person and property. In such a situation I find myself unable to agree with the findings of the learned trial Court that the right of private defence had been exceeded by the appellants and in this view of the matter the learned trial Court was not justified in holding that the appellants had exceeded the right of private defence. 7. A person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another is not expected to weigh in golden scales the precise force needed to repeal the danger and in the present circumstances when both the parties sustained injuries and inflicted blows to each other it cannot be expected from the accused-appellants to have considered that less force is to be exercised by them. So,while placing reliance on the case of Mohd. Ramzani (supra) I am of the opinion that this is not a case where then appellants have exceeded the right of private defence. 8. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside. All the accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they need not surrender. Consequently, the appellants stand acquitted of the charge .Appeal Allowed - Accused Acquitted. *******