Judgment : THANGAMANI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Ramar is A-1 in the trial court. He and 5 other persons were charged on the allegations that on 27. 5. i985 at about 6. 00 p. m. at Pillaiyar Koil Street in Tirusulam village they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, A-1 Ramar armed with deadly weapon committed rioting and in the course of the same transaction he and A-2 Vadivu Vadivelu caused the death of one Muthumari by A-1 Ramar indiscriminately inflicting multiple injuries on assaulting him with wooden log, besides A-1 Ramar with a knife voluntarily caused hurt to also caused hurt to him. ( 2 ) THE six charges framed against them in the trial Court are as under: ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence on record is as under: P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah is the younger brother of deceased Muthumari. They are stone cutters by profession. The are put up in separate houses in Pillaiyar Koil Street, Tirusulam. P. W. 2 Guruvammal is the wife of deceased Muthumari. The accused are also residents of Pillaiyar Koil Ai, A-2, A-4 and A-S are brothers. A-3 and A-6 are their friends. ( 4 ) ON 27. 5. 1985 at about 6. 30 p. m. deceased Muthumari and P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah went to the house of A-2 Vadivu and asked him to return a hand loan of Rs. 800/ -. Karuppayee wife of A-2 told them to contact her husband. So these tow returned home. When they came near the house of P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah, A-1 Ramar intercepted and found with them for having asked for the return of the loan from the woman-folk of the house. He stabbed with M. O. 1 knife on the right shoulder of Muthumari. When P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah tried to prevent the same A-1 Ramar 1st Charge A-2 to A-6 Under section i47 I. P. C. 2nd Charge A-1 Under section i48 I. P. C. 3rd Charge A-1 and A-2 Under section 302 nw section 34 I. P. C. 4th Charge A-3 to A-6 Under section 302 nw section i49 I. P. C. 5th Charge A-1 Under section 324, I. P. C. 6th Charge A-3, A-S and A-6 Under section 323 I. P. C. stabbed with the same knife on the head of this witness. In the meanwhile A-2 to A-6 had also beat on the back of P. W. 1 with a stick, while A-4 was holding him. A-1 Ramar again came to stab this witness. When P. W. i Vannakaruppiah tried to ward it off, he sustained injuries in his right hand. Thereafter A-2 beat Muthumari and pushed him down. A-1 Ramar Stabbed Muthumari on his back indiscriminately, A-5 and A-6 beat on the back of P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah also. When crowd gathered there ass all of them ran away with their weapons. ( 5 ) P. W. 2, Guruvammal has witnessed the entire scene standing in form of the house. She also with others took Muthumar and P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah in a lorry to the hospital in Chromepet. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 Doctor examined Muthumari at 7. 05 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985 in the Government Hospital, Tambaram at Chromepet, for certain injuries said to have been caused due to assault by two persons around 6. 30 p. m. on that day near Pillaiyar Koil Street, Tirusulam with a knife. The patient was unconscious, she found the following injuries:1]. 8 cms x 3 cms x 2 incised wound over the left upper arm with bleeding. 2. Incised 2 wound lateral to the Pt wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the upper left arm with bleeding. 3. Incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm x 10 cms depth on the right side of the back of the chest 2 lateral to the midline (Vertebral column?) right lung injury. 4. 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm incised wound lateral to 4th wound medial and of scapula. 5 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm incised wound over 2 cms lateral to the midline on the right side below the scapula. 6. 1 cm x icm x 1 cm incised wound over the left side of the back of the chest near the lower and of lateral border of left scapula. 7. Incised wound 1 cm X i cm over the left side of the lower margin of mandible. 8. 2 cms x 1 cm x 6 cms depth incised wound over the left side 2. 5 cms below he anterior superior iliac spine. Patient was given injection. He was referred to General Hospital for further treatment. Ex. 7. Incised wound 1 cm X i cm over the left side of the lower margin of mandible. 8. 2 cms x 1 cm x 6 cms depth incised wound over the left side 2. 5 cms below he anterior superior iliac spine. Patient was given injection. He was referred to General Hospital for further treatment. Ex. P-9 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor. In the opinion of the Doctor the injuries found on Muthumari could have been caused due to stab with a knife. Like M. O. 1 at the time and in the manner alleged. ( 7 ) ON the same day at about 7. 15 p. m. , P. W. 6 Doctor examined P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah injuries alleged to have been caused by four known persons near his residence at 6. 30 p. m. She found these injuries:1. An incised wound 8 cms x 2 cms x 1 cm over the scalp on the parietal region with bleeding. 2. An incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cms over the right hand on the Vth metacarpel region. Patient was sent to General Hospital for further treatment. P. W. 6 Doctor is of the opinion that the above said injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused at the time and in the manner alleged. The injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M. O. 1 knife. Injury No. 2 is possible while warding off an assault with M. O. 1 knife i. e. , in defence. Ex. P-10 is the wound certificate issued brother. ( 8 ) IN the meanwhile at 7. 00 P. M. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector of Virughampakkam Police Station received information about the rioting. At 7. 20 p. m. he came to Government Hospital, Chromepet and obtained Ex. P-1 complaint from P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah. He took it to the Police Station and registered the same in his Station Crime No. 314/85 under sections 147, 148, 324, and 307, I. P. C. He prepared Ex. P-7 printed F. I. R. and sent both the documents to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Said a pet. ( 9 ) P. W. 8 Sub/inspector visited the place of occurrence and then returned to his Station. He found grade I Constable had already received Ex. P-7 printed F. I. R. and sent both the documents to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Said a pet. ( 9 ) P. W. 8 Sub/inspector visited the place of occurrence and then returned to his Station. He found grade I Constable had already received Ex. P-15 complaint from A-1 Ramar and registered it in his Station Crime No. 315/85 under sections 147, 148 and 324 I. P. C. He perused Ex. P-16 printed f. I. R. also and took up investigation of that case. ( 10 ) AT 9. 25 p. m. on the same night P. W. 6 Doctor examined A-1 Ramar as required under Ex. P-li Medical Home, for certain injuries said to have been caused due to assault by six persons with knife, teeth, casuarina stick around 6. 30 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985 near Vinayagar Koil Street, she found these injuries on A-1 Ramar:1. 1 cm x 1/2 cm incised wound lateral to right eye 1" below and lateral to the right eye. 2. 1 cm x 1/2 cm incised wound above the right eye brow incised wound. 3. 2 cms x 1/2 cm x 1 cm incised wound over the scalp parietal region mid line. 4. Linear contusion over the right shoulder 8 cms x 1 cm. 5. Linear contusion over the left shoulder 4 cms x 2 cms; 6. Abrasion circular 1/2 cm over the front of left side of the chest near the axilla. 7. Circular abrasion over the left forearm. 8. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm over the left thumb snuffbox area. Treatment was given Patient was admitted in M. S. Ward for observation. Wound was, sutured. Ex. P-12 is the Accident Register copy issued by her. In the opinion of the Doctor the incised wounds could be caused by any sharp edged weapon. Linear contusion could be caused by any blunt weapon. Abrasions could be caused by falling on a rough surface. ( 11 ) ON the same night the Doctor examined A-2 Vadivu for certain injuries said to have been caused due to assault by six known persons with knife and casuarina stick around 6. 30 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985 near Pillaiyar Koil Street. She found the following injuries:1. 2 cms x 1 cm incised wound over the scalp of occipital region. 2. 30 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985 near Pillaiyar Koil Street. She found the following injuries:1. 2 cms x 1 cm incised wound over the scalp of occipital region. 2. Contusion 3 cms x 2 cms over the scalp of right parietal region. 3. Contusion 4 cms x 2 cms over the right forearm tenderness present. 4. Contusion 3 cms x 1 cm over the right elbow tenderness present. 5. Contusion over the right thigh above the right knee. Patient was admitted in ward. Wound was sutured. Ex. P-13 the Accident Register extract issued by her. In the opinion of Doctor the injuries could have been caused at the time and in the manner alleged. ( 12 ) AT 10. 00 p. m. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector received Ex. P-17 intimation from General Hospital, Madras that Muthumari had died at 8. 40 p. m. on that day. Thereupon, P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector altered the crime to one under section 302, I. P. C. , prepared Ex. P-18 Express F. I. R. and sent the same to Court He continued the investigation in Crime No. 3 15/85 and on 28. 5. 1985 he referred the same as a mistake of fact. ( 13 ) ON 27. 5. 1985 at 10. 05 p. m. P. W. 9 Inspector received the copy of Ex. P-18 Express F. I. R. and took up investigation of the same. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and at 11. 00 p. m. he inspected the same and prepared Ex. P-19 observation mahazar and Ex. P-20 rough sketch. At 11. 15 p. m. he recovered M. O. 6 blood stain earth, M. O. 7 sample earth under Ex. P-21 mahazar. On the same night he examined P. W. 2 Guruvammal. ( 14 ) ON 28. 5. 1985 the Inspector visited General Hospital, Madras and examined P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah there. From 7. 00 A. M. to 10. 00 A. M. , he held inquest over the dead body of muthumari. At that time he examined P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah and one Thirumalai. Ex. P-8 is the inquest report After the inquest was over he sent Ex. P-2 requisition for post-mortem through P. W. 4 constable. On the same day the Inspector examined P. W. 3 Karuppayee and P. W. 6 Doctor of government Hospital, Chrompet. ( 15 ) ON the same day at 12. Ex. P-8 is the inquest report After the inquest was over he sent Ex. P-2 requisition for post-mortem through P. W. 4 constable. On the same day the Inspector examined P. W. 3 Karuppayee and P. W. 6 Doctor of government Hospital, Chrompet. ( 15 ) ON the same day at 12. 30 p. m. P. W. 7 Doctor commenced the post-mortem over the body of Muthumari. She found these injuries:1. Abrasion on the nose 1 x 1/2; 1/2 x cms. 2. Abrasion behind the right ear 1 x 1/2 cms. 3. Abrasion top of right shoulder 2-1/2 x 1-1/2 cms. 4. Abrasion on middle of right arm 3 x 1-1/2 cms. 5. Abrasion 2 x 1/2 cms on right axilla. 6. Abrasion on back of left shoulder 1-1/2 x 1/2 cms. 7. Two paraflel curved abrasions 6 x cm. 5 x 1/4 cms on the outer aspect of left arm. 8. Incised wound 3 x 1/2 cms. bone deep on right parietal region of scalp. 9. Laceration 2 x 1 cms on back of right shoulder. 10. Vertical incised wound 1 x 1/2 cms. Just above the right scapula. 11. Oblique incised wound on the middle right side of back 1 x 1/2 cms. 12. Incised wound 1/2 x 1/4 x 1 cms. Just above the left buttock. 13. A vertical incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm just below the left scapula. 14. A L shaped incised wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 cms. on left arm. 15. Oblique incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm on outer aspect of middle of left arm with a curved abrasion 5 x 1/4 cms extending from and he lower angle of the wound. 16. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm on left hip. 17. Incised wound on left angle of mandible 1-1/2 x 1/2 cms. 18. An oblique stab wound 2 x 1/2 cms on right side of upper part 0 back of chest close to the midline. It is situated 2 cms away from the midline and 9 cms below 7th cervical spine. On dissection there is an oblique 2 x 1/4 cms in the intercostal space between the 3rd and 4th rib (right side ). On further dissection stab wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 x 5 cms in the posterior surface of the upper lobe of right lung. Both the angles of the wound are acute. On dissection there is an oblique 2 x 1/4 cms in the intercostal space between the 3rd and 4th rib (right side ). On further dissection stab wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 x 5 cms in the posterior surface of the upper lobe of right lung. Both the angles of the wound are acute. The direction of the wound is inwards and upwards. The depth of the wound is 8 cms. Right thoratic cavity contains 300 ml. of fluid blood. 19. Bruising 10 x 5 cms. on the upper part of right side of the chest. 20. Bruising 12 x 6 cms on left side of neck extending upto the left collar bone. All the injuries are ante-mortem. Lungs; Pale, stomach, contained few ml. of fluid, bladder empty. All other internal organs were found pale. She is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury to the right lung. On the post-mortem certificate a clerical error has occurred in describing it as left lung. It should be right lung. External injury No. 18 with corresponding internal injury to the right lung is necessarily fatal and that could have been possible due to assault with M. O. 1 knife. No. 8 and 10 to 18 are incised wounds and those injuries are possible due to stabbing with M. O. 1 knife. Injury No. 9 is possible due to assault with a stick like M. O. 2 Abrasions are possible due to coming into contact with rough surface. Ex. P-14 is the post-mortem certificated by her. Death would have occurred between 16 top 19 hours prior to autopsy. ( 16 ) WHEN post-Mortem was over P. W. 9 Inspector arrested A-1, Ramar and A-2, Vadivu in General Hospital, A-1 Ramar gave a confession statement. The admissible portions of which are Ex. P-22 and P-23. Pursuant to the same he took the Police party to the rear side of his house and from a bush there he produced M. O. 1 knife and M. O. 2 casuarina stick. The Inspector seized the same under Ex. P-24 mahazar. On the same day the Inspector examined P. W. 7 Doctor and P. W. 4 Constable. ( 17 ) ON the same day the Inspector forwarded Ex. P-3 requisition to J. S. C. M. Court. P. W. 5 Head clerk arranged to send M. Os. The Inspector seized the same under Ex. P-24 mahazar. On the same day the Inspector examined P. W. 7 Doctor and P. W. 4 Constable. ( 17 ) ON the same day the Inspector forwarded Ex. P-3 requisition to J. S. C. M. Court. P. W. 5 Head clerk arranged to send M. Os. 1 to 7 for chemical examination under Ex. P-4 covering letter Exs. P5 and P-6 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. ( 18 ) ON 14. 6. 1985 at 9. 00 A. M. the Inspector arrested the other accused in the case near Rathinapuram. He completed the investigation and laid charge sheet on 5. 9. 1985. ( 19 ) WHEN examined under section 313 Cr1. P. C. A-1 Ramar admitted that they are residing in tirusulam, that deceased Muthumari is the elder brother of P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah that P. W. 2 guruvammal is the wife of muthumari, that they are engaged in stone cutting work and that A-1, a-2, A-4 and A-S are brothers. While denying the other allegations he has stated that Ex. P-15 complaint was given by him. ( 20 ) AFTER trial the learned Sessions Judge found A-1 Ramar alone guilty under sections 302 and 324, I. P. C. , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and R. I. for two years respectively. He also order solved the remaining accused and A-1 Ramar under the other charges. So A-1 Ramar has come forward with this appeal against the said conviction and sentence as indicated elsewhere. ( 21 ) THE learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has erred in witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 whose testimonies are interested and self-contradictory. The medical evidence does not support the version given by the eye witnesses. The Court below has erred in believing the recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act, A-1 and A-2 have also sustained injuries and they have given a report Ex. P-15 to the Police. So the trial Court should have held that the deceased and P. W. 1, Vannakaruppiah were the aggressors. In this case the falsity is intrinsicably mixed up with the truth and the grain could not be separated from chaff. P-15 to the Police. So the trial Court should have held that the deceased and P. W. 1, Vannakaruppiah were the aggressors. In this case the falsity is intrinsicably mixed up with the truth and the grain could not be separated from chaff. ( 22 ) P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah P. W. 2 Guruvammal and P. W. 3 Karuppayee claim to have witnessed the occurrence which took place at 6. 30 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985 in front of their houses in Pillaiyar Koil Street, Tirusulam. All of them speak about the assault made by A-1 Ramar and 5 others against deceased Muthumari and P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah and the injuries sustained by these two. According to P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah A-1 Ramar stabbed with M. O. 1 knife on the right shoulder once and indiscriminately on the back of deceased Muthumari. He also stabbed this witness on his head. When he tried to ward off the second blow, he had sustained stab injuries on his right forearm. The versions of P. W. 2 Guruvammal and P. W. 3 Karuppayee are also to the same effect As per the evidence of P. W. 6 Doctor who had treated the deceased Muthumari in Government Hospital, Chrome pet and-Ex. P-9 wound certificate there were two incised injuries on the left upper-arm, three incised injuries on the back of the chest and one incised injury on the scapula and one near mandible. P.W. 6 Doctor also states that P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah has sustained an incised injury on his right hand. Mainly on the basis that the evidence of P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah gets corroboration from at of P. W. 2 Guruvammal and P. W. 3 Karuppayee as well as the medical evidence the learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that the appellant Ramar was guilty under sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. ( 23 ) AS per the evidence of P. W. 9 Inspector on 28. 5. 1985 at 2. 15 p. m. he had arrested A-1 Ramarand A-2 Vadivu near Government Hospital, Chroinepet A-1 Ramar gave a confession statement. The admissible portions of which are Exs. P-22 and P-23. Pursuant to the same he took him to the rear side of his house and produced from bush M. O. 1 knife and M. O. 2 Uruttu kattai. They were recovered under the cover of Ex. P24 mahazar. Ex. The admissible portions of which are Exs. P-22 and P-23. Pursuant to the same he took him to the rear side of his house and produced from bush M. O. 1 knife and M. O. 2 Uruttu kattai. They were recovered under the cover of Ex. P24 mahazar. Ex. P-6 the report of the Serologist reveals that of group of human blood was found on M. O. 1 life as well as M. O. 4 lungi and M. O. 5 towel found on the body of the deceased. The human blood found in M. O. 6 earth recovered near the scene of occurrence also belongs to the same group. This factor also weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in holding that A-1 Ramar participated in the crime. ( 24 ) NO doubt from the evidence on record the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence is proved. But we have to bear in mind that while P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah is the younger brother of deceased Muthumari, P. W. 2 Guruvammal is his widow. P. W. 3 Karuppayee is a neighbour. So the evidence of P. W s. i and 2 has to be scrutinised with great care. ( 25 ) P. W. 9 Inspector states in his evidence that he examined P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah during inquest held at 7. 00 a. m. on 28. 5. 1985. Ex. P8 Inquest report had reached the Court at 4. 30 p. m. on that day. However the statement of P. W. 1 as well as those of P. Ws. 2 and 3 have reached the Court only at 12. 15 p. m. on. 1. 7. 1985. Besides while P. W. 3 Karuppayee deposes that she does not know personally whether A-1 Ramar and A-2 Vadivu had sustained injuries, she is categorical that deceased Muthumari and P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah did not beat the accused. P. W. 2 Guruvammal would say that she came to know the A-1 Ramal and A-2 Vadivu had sustained injuries in a fight between themselves. She further says that she does not know personally about it. It is also her version that she had never seen one Pechimuthu, Sankar, Muthn, Shanmugavel and Karuthanarayanan. ( 26 ) P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah has given Ex. Pi complaint to P. W. 8 Sub Inspector in the Government Hospital at 7. 20 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985. She further says that she does not know personally about it. It is also her version that she had never seen one Pechimuthu, Sankar, Muthn, Shanmugavel and Karuthanarayanan. ( 26 ) P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah has given Ex. Pi complaint to P. W. 8 Sub Inspector in the Government Hospital at 7. 20 p. m. on 27. 5. 1985. In this complaint he makes no mention of P. W. 2 Guruvammal and P. W. 3 Karuppayee witnessing the occurrence. This complaint is also silent about the injuries sustained by A-1 Ramar during the incident Even in the witness box P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah maintains that he does not know anything about the injury sustained by A-1 Ramar and A-2 Vadivu. ( 27 ) ON the other hand we find that on 27. 5. 1985 the appellant Ramar had given Ex. P-15 complaint in Pallavararn Police Station. This complaint reads that on 17. 5. 1985816. 30 p. m. when A-1 Ramar and A-2 Vadivu were passing along Pillaiyar Koil Street, deceased Muthutnari and P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah intercepted, dragged them in front of their house and abused them in filthy long judge. Saying that they would do away with A-1 and A-2, deceased stabbed A-1 Ramar, P. W. 1 Vannakaruppiah beat him with Uruttu kattai. Besides these two Pechiappan, Karuthanarayanan, Vasakathan Sankaran, Muthu and Shanmugavel also attacked with stick, hands and teeth. They swooned, when they got up nobody. was there. One Mariappan, Appu and P. W. 3 Karuppayee witnessed this occurrence. Be it noted that while Ex. P-1 complaint has been registered as Crime No. 314185 at 7. 45 p. m. on that day under sections 147, 148,324 and 307, I. P. C. , this has been registered as Crime No. 3151 85 under sections 147, 148 and 324, I. P. C. at 9. 00 a. m. on that day. According to P. W. 8 Sub Inspector, he investigated the complaint in Crime No. 315/85 and on the next day i. e. 26. 1986 he referred the same as a mistake of fact It is his admission in cross-examination that during his investigation he came to know that the scene of occurrence is the same for both the crime numbers. He informed P. W. 9 the Investigating Officer in this case about the same. However, he did not get the case diary in Crime No. 315/85 from this witness. He informed P. W. 9 the Investigating Officer in this case about the same. However, he did not get the case diary in Crime No. 315/85 from this witness. When he investigated Crime No. 315185 he found that the accused mentioned therein were available. But he examined the witnesses alone. Since this is a counter case to Crime No. 314/84 he did not proceed to examine further witnesses. He recorded only the statements of two witnesses in Crime No. 315/85. If both the crime numbers are investigated simultaneously, one would come to know who is the aggressor. The case diary in Crime No. 315/85 is not available in the final report in this case. P. W. 9 Inspector stated that he was aware of the fact that Ex. P-15 complaint given by A-1 Ramar has been registered as Crime No. 315/85. But he did not investigate that crime number. He did not go through the case diary therein. Since both are case and counter he knew that had to be investigated by the same person. On 28. 5. 1985 he became aware of the fact that the occurrence described in both the complaints took place at the same place and at the same time. He did not know who were all the accused in Ex. P-15 complaint. He does not know whether the statements of two witnesses were recorded in Crime No. 315185. So there is no gain saying of the fact that even- though two versions were available about the same incident, the Investigating Officer chose to examine Only one com -. I plaint and did not even bother to apprise him of the contents of the other complaint. ( 28 ) THE decision in Veerappa Gounder v. State, is directly on the point. The specific case of the second accused in that case, at the earliest point of time, was that the deceased had pulled her by her tuft and thrown her on the ground and that she in her turn pushed the deceased away and then the deceased rotted on the ground and fell into the well. The Division Bench pointed out that when the prosecution party and the accused party have given diametrically opposed versions on an important aspect, the duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out which of the two versions is true. The Division Bench pointed out that when the prosecution party and the accused party have given diametrically opposed versions on an important aspect, the duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out which of the two versions is true. He has blindly accepted the version of the prosecution and thrown the version of the accused without any scrutiny. In this connection, it attracted Clause 588a of the Madras Police Standing Orders, which read as follows; charge-sheets in cases and counter cases: In a complaint and counter compliant obviously arising out of the same transaction the Investigating Officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses viz. ,. (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. When the Investigating Officer proceeds on the Ms is of the complaint it is his duty to exhibit the counter complaint in the court and also to prove medical certificate of persons wounded on the opposite side. He should place before the court a deferred case which he asks it to accept. The Investigating Officer in such cases should not accept in toto one complaint and examine only witnesses who support it and give no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before the court to enable it to arrive at the truth and a just decision. If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult. viz. , to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistakes of law and the complainant or the counter complainant, as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in F. 96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police. On the present case also if only P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector and P. W. 9 Inspector had acted in accordance with the above said provisions, then we would be in a position to know what exactly had happened. .( 29 ) IN view of the allegations in Ex. P-15 complaint preferred by the appellant we are not in a position to know in what manner the occurrence could have taken place. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that since there were as many as twenty injuries on deceased Muthumari, the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence. This right of private defence of the body as provided under section 102 of the Indian Penal Code commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence, may not have been committed and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. This right rests on the general principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. Under section was of the Evidence Act, the onus rests on an accused person to establish his plea of private defence. But this burden is not as onerous as the unstinting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt As it has been pointed out by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ramzani v. State of Delhi, 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. Even if he in the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further then what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactable by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it So, in the absence of any result of the investigation of the other case and in view of the infirmities in the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses and in Ex. P-1 complaint indicated above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. .( 30 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. P-1 complaint indicated above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. .( 30 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. Ramar by the trial Court are set aside. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.