JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Mahesh Chandra was convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life by Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in sessions case No. 56/87 vide his judgment dated March 21, 1988. The remaining three co-accused, namely, Santoshi Ram Bharoshi and Nahar Singh were acquitted from all the charges. The appellant Mahesh Chandra was also acquitted from the charge under section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to PW. 4 Radheysham. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant Mahesh Chandra gave slaps to Mukesh as he had suspicion on him for having committed theft of his grams from his field. Mukesh's father Ram Snehi came running at the place of occurrence and he grappled with the appellant.It is further alleged that P.W. 2 Ramlaxman and P.W. 3 Ramgyan, who are the real brothers of Ram Snehi, also came to the place of occurrence after hearing the noise. Similarly P.W. 1 Smt. Sheetal wife of Ram Snehi, PW. 4 Radheshyam son of Ram Snehi, PW. 5 Subedar, PW 6 Bhure and PW. 12 Bahadur also came there in the field of Chote Lal where Ram Snehi and the appellant were grappling with each other. The prosecution story further goes that the co-accused Santoshi, Ram Bharoshi and Nahar Singh also arrived there and they asked the appellant Mahesh Chandra to assault Ram Snehi. Mahesh Chandra is said to have inflicted two blowes with a spade from its reverse side causing injuries on the head and leg of Ram Snehi. PW. 4 Radheshyam is also said to have been assaulted by the appellant.As per the prosecution story, the accused persons, thereafter, ran away, and Ram Snehi was taken to hospital at Rajakhera where his injuries were examined by PW. 8 Dr. N.S. Sareen. However, the condition of Ram Snehi deteriorated, as such, he was shifted to Agra where he died at 1.00 A.M in the night. 3. A report of the incident was lodged by Ramlaxman (PW. 2) at police station Pinahat (Agra) on Feb, 24. The said report was transmitted to police station Rajakhera as the incident related to that police station. At Rajakhera crime No. 28/85 was registered under section 302 IPC on Feb. 25, 1985.The post mortem of the dead body of Ram Snehi was conducted by Dr. S.K. Khare (CW-1), who was Medical Officer in ESI Hospital to Agra. The postmortem report is Ex. At Rajakhera crime No. 28/85 was registered under section 302 IPC on Feb. 25, 1985.The post mortem of the dead body of Ram Snehi was conducted by Dr. S.K. Khare (CW-1), who was Medical Officer in ESI Hospital to Agra. The postmortem report is Ex. P 16. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant Mahesh Chandra and his three acquitted brothers. All the accused were tried in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur. During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.The plea of the accused was that the deceased Ram Snehi was up-rooting gram crop in his field and when he was prevented to do so, he assaulted him with a `Khurpi' causing injuries on his person, and thereafter, both grappled and in that process Ram Snehi sustained injuries. One witness was examined in defence. Three witnesses were examined as Court witnesses as the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem, S.H.O Kailash Chandra Meena, who had registered the case at Rajakhera and constable Rambeer Singh, who had taken the report to police station Rajakhera from Pinahat.The learned trite court after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above, while the remaining co-accused were acquitted vide judgment dated March 21, 1988. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has made two submissions The first and the foremost submission is that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, in as much as, the injuries of the appellant have not been explained, as such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone. The submission,which is co-related to the first one,is that the accused-appellant had acted in exercise of right to private defence of property and person.The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the conviction of the appellant. 6. We have considered the above submissions and have also gone through the entire evidence recorded by the trial court, as well as, the impugned judgment. 7. It cannot be disputed that the accused appellant has sustained six injuries in the same occurrence. His injuries were also examined by Dr. N.S. Sareen (PW 8), who had examined the injuries of Ram Snehi deceased and PW. 4 Radheshyam. The injuries of Ram Snehi were examined at 8.05 P.M. while injuries of the appellant were examined at 10.00 PM. It cannot be disputed that the accused appellant has sustained six injuries in the same occurrence. His injuries were also examined by Dr. N.S. Sareen (PW 8), who had examined the injuries of Ram Snehi deceased and PW. 4 Radheshyam. The injuries of Ram Snehi were examined at 8.05 P.M. while injuries of the appellant were examined at 10.00 PM. on the same day.Out of the six injuries sustained by the appellant, injury No. 2 has been caused by a sharp edged weapon and injury No. 1 a lacerated wound on the eye brow. The injury report is Ex. D 4 which has been proved by PW. 8 Dr. N S. Sareen. 8. Out of the seven eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW. 1 Smt. Sheetal. PW. 2 Ramlaxman, PW. 3 Ramgyam and PW. 4 Radheshyam are the close relatives of the deceased as stated above. The other three independent eye witnesses, PW 5 Subedar, P.W. 6 Bhure and PW. 12 Bahadur Singh have not supported the prosecution case.It is also note worthy that none of the prosecution witnesses has explained the injuries sustained by the appellant.From the prosecution story also it appears that the complainant party was aggrieved as the deceased Ram Snehi came running at the place of the occurrence when the appellant had slapped has son Mukesh and just after coming at the place of occurrence he grappled with the appellant. P.W.1 Sheetal has also stated that, some altercation between the deceased and the appellant in relation to some dispute about the grams had taken place just prior to the actual beating took place.In the background of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution case should be rejected automatically as it failed to explain the injuries found on the appellant. For his purpose, he place reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1968 SC 1281 ) and Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) .In Mohar Rai's case (supra), it has been observed at P. 1284 as under:- "Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised. Under these circumstance the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries. The evidence of Dr. Bishnu Prasad Sinha (PW. Under these circumstance the prosecution had a duty to explain those injuries. The evidence of Dr. Bishnu Prasad Sinha (PW. 18) clearly shows that those injuries could not have been self-inflicted and further, according to him it was most unlikely that they would have been caused at the instance of the appellants themselves. Under these circumstances we are unable to agree with the High Court that the prosecution had no duty to offer any explanation as regards those injuries. In our judgment, the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those probabilise the plea taken by the appellant". Similarly, in Lakshmi Singh's case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. It was further observed that: "In a murder case the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (i) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (ii) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (iii) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case." Relying on the aforesaid two cases, the learned counsel for the defence contended that in the instant case the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused-appellant and thus, the genesis and the origin of the occurrence have been suppressed and a true version has not been presented before the Court and consequently, the truth from falsehood cannot be separated and consequently, the entire prosecution must be rejected. 9. 9. In Lakshmi Singh's case (supra), it has also been observed that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused assumes much greater importance where the prosecution evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. 10. In the instant case, the accused-appellant has claimed right of private defence of person and property. By a series of judgments of this Court, as well as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now it is well settled that the burden on the accused is not so heavy as it lies on the prosecution and the same will be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea taken by him. In the instant case, the accused-appellant has proved the infliction on him by the deceased in the course of the occurrence and the plea taken by him can be said to be reasonable, as such, he is entitled to the right of self-defence. 11. Now, the question arises for consideration as to whether the accused-appellant has exceeded this right.Under section 100 I.P.C., the accused has a right to cause upto death if there is a real apprehension that the aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt to the victim. While dealing with the right of private defence, these things could not be weighed in too fine set of scales or "in golden scale." In Puran Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1976 SC 2263 ) , it has been observed that the right of private defence of property or person, where there is a real apprehension that the aggressor might cause death or grievous hurt to the victim, could extend to the causing of death also and it is not necessary that death or grievous hurt should actually be caused before the right could be exercised. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of private defence into operation. It was also observed that the question whether a person having a right of private defence has used more force than is necessary would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 12. In the instant case, the appellant has sustained six injuries, including an injury by a sharp edged weapon. It was also observed that the question whether a person having a right of private defence has used more force than is necessary would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 12. In the instant case, the appellant has sustained six injuries, including an injury by a sharp edged weapon. Even as per the prosecution case, Ram Snehi (deceased) had came at the place of the occurrence after having come to know that his son Mukesh was assaulted by the appellant. The existence of the injuries on the person of the accused appellant shows that Ram Snehi must be armed with some weapon. The injury of the cut wound sustained by the appellant further shows that he must be having a sharp edged weapon and used that weapon. In these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that the accused-appellant could have should have a reasonable apprehension of sustaining atleast grievous hurt at the hands of the deceased. The accused appellant, therefore, had a right to cause death of Ram Snehi. 13. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the act of the accused-appellant is completely protected and he is entitled to get the clean acquittal. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is set-aside. He is in jail, as such, he shall be released forthwith if he is not being wanted in any other case. *******