JUDGMENT 1. The aroused appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 19.6-199i passed by the Sessions Judge. Jhalawar, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 302 1PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to any a fine of Rs 1.000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' R.I ; under section 324 11PC to six months' R.I. and u.s 447 to undergo one month's R.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as appears from a perusal of the record, is that the accused appellant Prabhulal was a 'HALL' (labourer) of Devilal (PW. 10). On 3- J0.19S9 at about 2 p in it is alleged that when PW 10 Devilal was sleeping, the accused appellant Prabhulal along with Babulal came to his well and immediately thereafter, gave out that they will kill Devilal. Accused appellant is said to have given beating to Devilal on his left hand wrist and thereafter, the accused appellant is said to have given a blow by a knife on tie left hand thumb of Devilal. Therefrom the accused appellant along with Bsbu is said to have gone to the nearby fields of Balaram where Daulat Ram, his son was working and it is said that the accused appellant gave three blows by knife to Daulat Rain. The other accused Babu is also said to have given a blow on the forehead of Daulat Ram. A report (Ex.P.12) of the incident was lodged by PW 10 Devilal at Police Station Sunel; Distt. Jhalawar and a case was registered and investigation set in motion. 3. Daulat Ram died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. Postmortem was conducted on his dead body by Dr. Chandra Kishore Srivastava (PW 5). The doctor found that there were three incised wounds? (i) incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left scapular region of back mid part, oblique in direction; (ii) stab wound (sharp margin)-1-21" x 1/2" x 2" on right scapular region of back mid part vertical in direction. Chandra Kishore Srivastava (PW 5). The doctor found that there were three incised wounds? (i) incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on left scapular region of back mid part, oblique in direction; (ii) stab wound (sharp margin)-1-21" x 1/2" x 2" on right scapular region of back mid part vertical in direction. The right scapular bone is cut over its mid lower and medial part and the underlying rib is cut and pleura was cut, the right lung was pierced, and (iii) stab wound (sharp margin) 2" x li" x 3" on left side of back near and lateral to scapula bone, lower past, oblique in direction. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died as a result of Injury Nas. 2 and 3. caused by sharp edged weapon. The injuries were fatal to life and were responsible for instantaneous death. 4. Injuries of Devilal were also examined and Devilal had two injuries - (i) an abrasion If" on left forearm mid part, laterally and (ii) incised wound 1/4" x ⅕" x ⅕" on the right index finger 5. The defence of the accused was that he was aged 16 years at the time of occurrence and therefore in his case trial should have been conducted by the Children Court and that the occurrence did not take place as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, Devi Lal and the deceased Daulat Ram wanted to outrage the modesty of Sohan Bai (DW 1) sister of Prabhulal appellant and when both of them were trying to outrage her modesty, the accused had tried to save his own sister, Sohan Bai had caused a teeth bite to Devi Lal. Thus, the cast of the defence was that it was in the exercise of right of private defence of Sohan Bai whose modesty was sought to be outraged by the persons Devilal and Daulatram, that the occurrence took place. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the case of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid, 6. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant. Learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the case of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid, 6. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant. There can be no doubt that the accused might have been less than 16 years of age at the time of the commission of offence and there is sufficient material on record that the accused appellant was Hall with Devilal (PW 10) and this fact has been admitted by PW 10 though surprisingly, it is denied by his own wife Geeta Bai (PW 12). It can therefore be said that accused appellant Prabhu, a teenager, was employed as a labourer with PW 10. Devilal has admitted that the accused appellant was a labourer but according to him, he was not employed on the day of the occurrence and used to work as a labourer prior to the day of the occurrence. This does not appear to us to be correct the reason is that admittedly; there was no enmity with Devilal or for that matter, with the deceased Daulat Ram and there must have been some cause for the incident on the day of the occurrence. A labourer of teenage could hardly initiate quarrel with his employer unless there was some cause for the same. It therefore appears to us that the prosecution has not come out with the true story and there appears no reason for disbelieving the evidence of Sohan Bai who has appeared as DW I. She had stated that the Devilal and Daulat Ram had tried to out-rage her modesty and when Daulat Ram was lying upon her in order to outrage her modesty, it was thereafter that the incident took place. The fact that the doctor found a teeth bite injury on the wrist of Devi Lal goes to show that the occurrence took place in the manner as suggested by DW-1 otherwise there was no reason for the occurrence taking place. According to the case of the prosecution, Devilal was sleeping and the accused appellant along with Babu is said to have come and for no reason or rhyme, started abusing. Nobody will start abusing his employer and it appears to be more probable that PW 10 Devilal and the deceased Daulat Ram might have tried to outrage the modesty of Sohan Bal. (DW 1) as alleged by her and then the occurrence took place. Nobody will start abusing his employer and it appears to be more probable that PW 10 Devilal and the deceased Daulat Ram might have tried to outrage the modesty of Sohan Bal. (DW 1) as alleged by her and then the occurrence took place. 7. We are therefore, of the opinion that the occurrence took place as alleged by DW 1 Sohan Bai when her modesty was being sought to be outraged at the hands of Devilal and Daulat Ram (deceased). The accused appellant, who was the brother of Sohan Bai (DW 1) could not control himself and in a state of provocation, caused injuries to the deceased. Tao accused appellant therefore had a right of private defence of his sister, her honour and therefore, the offence committed by the accused appellant can not at any rate be an offence of 302 IPC and we are of the opinion that the case falls under Exception-2 of Section 300 IPC. 8. But at the same time, it is the settled law that by virtue of Section 99 IPC the right of private defence of person does not extend to causing of more harm that is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence and it will be seen from the injuries extracted above that the accused appellant caused three injuries to the deceased and the very fact that the injuries were caused on the back of the deceased goes to show that the deceased was trying to outrage the modesty of Sohan Bai (DW 1). We are therefore of the opinion that the accused could only be convicted is 304-11 1PC. 9. The accused appellant, as said above, was less than 2l years of age at the time when the occurrence took place. IL is a in case where in the facts and circumstances of the case, we should extend the benefit of Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, to the accused appellant. 10. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal in part, set aside the conviction of the appellant Prabhu Lal under section 302 IPC and convict the appellant under section 304-II IPC. Instead of sentencing the appellant to undergo punishment, we direct that he shall be released on probation forthwith on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Consequently, we hereby allow this appeal in part, set aside the conviction of the appellant Prabhu Lal under section 302 IPC and convict the appellant under section 304-II IPC. Instead of sentencing the appellant to undergo punishment, we direct that he shall be released on probation forthwith on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year and to keep peace and be of good behaviour. We allow one month's time to the accused appellant to furnish the bond to the satisfaction of the trial I court.Appeal partly allowed. *******