JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 23, 1976, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-respondent Raja Ram of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but convicted and sentenced him under Section 20 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Accused Raja Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act for committing the murder of his father Kheta Ram on April 14, 1975. 3. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Barma (PW 3)-the sister of the accused was-married to Dharampal. Her relations with Dharampal were not cordial and, therefore, she left her in-laws' house and used to reside with her father Khetaram in village Jodkiya. Some days before the date of the incident, Mst. Barma expressed her desire to her brother accused Rajaram that she wanted to go to her in-laws house. The accused was, also, interested in sending her to her in-laws' house and, therefore, on the date of the incident, i.e,, April 14, 1975, he called Dharampal his brother-in-law to his house so that he could send his sister Mst. Barma with Dharain Pal. Khetaram the father of the accused-however, came to know that Dharampal has been called. He was not happy with Dharampal and, therefore, when accused Rajaram informed him that Dharampal had come to take Mst. Barma with him, Khetaram, who was not happy with Dharampal, came to the house in a furious state and enquired from Mst. Sarswati (PW 7) where Dharampal was. Dharampal and the accused Rajaram both hid themselves in the separate Kothas. Smt. Sarswati did not inform the whereabouts of Dharampal to her father and, therefore, her father gave beatings to her by lathi. Mst. Barma tried to rescue her, but she too was given beatings by her father, upon which the accused Rajaram came there. He was, also, given beatings by his father and, therefore, the accused Raja Ram took-up the pistol which fell down from the Dub of the Tehmat of his father and fired which hit Khetaram on his abdomen and who died after receiving that injury. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses while the accused, in support of his defence, examined one witness, namely, DW 1 Jag Singh. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses while the accused, in support of his defence, examined one witness, namely, DW 1 Jag Singh. There are two eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz, PW 6 Smt. Barma and PW 7 Smt. Sarswati, the evidence of whom are sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 Kashi Ram, PW 2 Sohan Lal and PW' 3 Bhagirath. The evidence of this witness is further sought to be corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 8 Dr. S.S. Bhargava and PW 9 Dr. S.S. Baid. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the evidence of PW 6 Smt. Barma and PWT 7 Smt. Sarswati. Their statements are almost identical. They have stated that Mst. Barma used to reside with her father as her husband used to give beatings to her and left her to father's house. Their brother asked their father Khetaram that we should send Mst. Barma with Dharampal and Dharampal had come to take her with him, upon which Kheta Ram refused to send Mst. Barma with him. Dharam Pal was in the room at the first floor while both these witnesses were in the court-yard. Their father came there and when he tried to go towards the room at first floor, Smt. Sarswati interrupted. Kheta Ram inflicted 7-8 injuries to Smt. Sarswati. He, also, inflicted 5 to 7 injuries to Mst. Barma, due to which there was a fracture on the right hand of Mst. Barma. Thereafter accused Rajaram came there and asked his father not to give beatings to his daughters, upon which his father gave beatings to their brother Raja Ram, also, and inflicted eight to ten injuries. Thereupon accused Rajaram fired with pistol on his father, and on receiving that injury, his father fell down and thereafter Bhagirath and Kashiram came there. From the statements of these two witnesses, it is clear that the deceased Khetaram gave beatings to Mst. Barma and Mst. Sarswati and when the accused Rajaram tried to intervene and tried to rescue his sisters, he was, also, given beating by the deceased Khetaram with Lathi. The accused Rajaram received as many as four injuries. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused had a right of private defence of person and he has rightly exercised the same. The accused Rajaram received as many as four injuries. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused had a right of private defence of person and he has rightly exercised the same. We have gone-through the evidence of these witnesses and perused the record of the case. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned trial Court, does not require any interference. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. The evidence produced by the prosecution clearly shows that it was only on account of the action of the deceased Khetaram in giving beatings to Mst. Barma, Mst. Sarswati and the accused Rajaram that it was in the right of self defence that the accused inflicted injury to the deceased by the firing of the pistol. A person facing an imminent peril of danger to his life or limb or to another is not expected to weigh in golden scale the prescribed force used by the injured. Therefore, if in the heat of the moment, when Kheta Ram was inflicting injuries to his daughters and the accused, if the accused opened the fire from the pistol then, in our view, he has not exceeded the right of private defence of person and the learned trial Court was justified J in acquitting the accused. 5. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******