Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The Appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 127/85 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions, Periyar Division, Erode. He was found guilty under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, the present action had been resorted to. 3. The brief facts are : (a) The accused Chellamuthu and Palanisami (since deceased) are cousins. They are residents of Edakattuvalasu situate within the limits of Vellakovil Police Station. They are neighbours. P.W. 3 also lives in the place and vicinity of their residence. Their house is situate on the East of the north-south road in the village. Both the houses face east. (b) One Ponnusami Pappathi alias Valliammal owns certain lands in the village. The land called Kolakadu belonging to her is situate within the calling distance from the residence of the accused and the deceased. Some four to five years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 21st day of August, 1985, the accused and the deceased purchased the land Kolakkadu measuring one acre from the said Pannusanai Pappathi alias Valliammal in their joint names for a consideration of Rupees 25,5000/-. This apart, the said Ponnusami Pappathi owned two parcels of land measuring 60 and 40 cents respectively situate on the south of the village. In respect of those two parcels of land, she also created a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the accused and the deceased for a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. In the said parcles of land, there were standing coconut trees. Both the accused and the deceased jointly cultivated those lands. (c) One year prior to the occurrence, want of cordial atmosphere came to prevail between the accused and the deceased. Consequently, they were unable to enjoy those lands and effect cultivation in common. Therefore, the lands purchased by them in their joint names, came to be divided in two halves, the deceased taking the western half and the accused taking the eastern half. Similarly, they were unable to enjoy the lands usufructuarily mortgaged to them without any itch or hitch between them. Therefore, the lands purchased by them in their joint names, came to be divided in two halves, the deceased taking the western half and the accused taking the eastern half. Similarly, they were unable to enjoy the lands usufructuarily mortgaged to them without any itch or hitch between them. The said Ponnusamy Papathi was rather complaining that the deceased had not been properly irrigating the coconut trees standing in the portion of the land in his possession. Consequently she wanted to redeem the said portion from him. In fact, she repaid, Rupees 1250/- to the deceased, the half share of the mortgage and got the portion of the land in the possession of the descesed redeemed. The deceased was some how or other had a feeling that the accused was responsible for such redemption, in the sense of himself providing the necessary and requisite cash resources to her for effecting redemption. (d) It so happened that there were frequent skirmishes and quarrels between the two families of the accused and the deceased as a consequence of the cattle belonging to them trespassing into the land of the other and causing damage by grazing the crops. On all such occasions, the accused had been threatening the deceased with dire consequence. (e) At 10.00 a.m. on the date of occurrence, the cattle belonging to the family of the deceased trespassed into the portion of the land belonging to the accused and caused damage by grazing. Consequently a wordy altercation arose between P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased and one Ponnathal, the wife of the accused. The wordy went duell to such estatic height attracting the attention of others. Dounted by the curiosity of such a Quarrel, P.W. 2 the mother-in-law of P.W. 1 and her husband the deceased, besides the accused rushed there. Likewise, P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 came there. But for the timely efforts taken by P.Ws. 5 and 6 in amicably settling the quarrel between the two families, some untword incidents could have happened. Even on such an occasion, the accused as usual, issued a threat of dire consequence to the life of the deceased. Thereafter, all of them dispersed from the scene and went to their houses. (f) P.W. 7, is also a resident of Edakkattuvalasu. His son by name Chellamuthu got married on 21-8-1985 at Kaliappa Marriage Hall at Muthur. Even on such an occasion, the accused as usual, issued a threat of dire consequence to the life of the deceased. Thereafter, all of them dispersed from the scene and went to their houses. (f) P.W. 7, is also a resident of Edakkattuvalasu. His son by name Chellamuthu got married on 21-8-1985 at Kaliappa Marriage Hall at Muthur. The marriage receiption had been arranged to be held in the scene village, to which P.W. 7 belongs, in the evening. One Sellathal is the daughter of P.W. 2. She had been given in marriage to one Gurusami in a different village. The said Sellathal and Gurusami along with their children came to the house of P.W. 2 on the evening of the day of occurrence for the purpose of attending the marriage reception arranged for the son of P.W. 7 in the village. (g) P.W. 4 is resident of Kuzhali Palayam. At about 6.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence, he had been to his lands, in which groundnut crops had been cultivated, for the purpose of irrigating the crops. While he was in his fields he happened to witness the quarrel that ensued between the accused and the deceased, when they met with each other near a bridge over the channel running there, while they were proceeding to their village in their Mopeds. During the course of such wordy altercation, the accused was stated to have complained that the ridges on the common water channel leading to their fields got spoiled due to the taking of cattle on the ridges. On hearing the same the deceased appeared to have remonstrated and said the said channel had to be put to its original shape by both of them, since it could not he stated that it was due to the act of any one of them the ridges of the channel had been spoiled. Utilising the opportunity, the deceased was stated to have found fault with the accused that he was the person responsible for the redemption of his portion of the land usufructuarily mortagaged by Ponnusamy Pappathi. Some how or other, P.W. 4 advised both of them and sent them to their respective houses. (h) The deceased thereafter straight went to his house. On seeing his sister, Chellathal and his brother-in-law Gurusami, he made enquiries by way of courtesy about them and their children. Some how or other, P.W. 4 advised both of them and sent them to their respective houses. (h) The deceased thereafter straight went to his house. On seeing his sister, Chellathal and his brother-in-law Gurusami, he made enquiries by way of courtesy about them and their children. He then went inside and thereafter he went to see the cattle tethered by the side of his house. The time was then 7.00 p.m. and the electric bulbs installed in his house as well as the street lights were switched on by them. At or about that time, the accused came and stood infront of the house of the deceased. He was then stated to be in his possession M.O. 1 Kuththeete in such a way as it was not easily decipherabled by any one at that time. When the deceased came to the front Court-yard of his house, the deceased metaphorically addressed to the accused "shall we have it out today or tomorrow," thereby throwing a challenge to the deceased. The deceased in turn, obviously feeling the challenge so issued could not be any one other than an empty challenge also appeared to have stated "Why postpone this, let us have it now." While so saying the deceased went towards the accused. The accused in turn caught hold of M.O. 1 Kuththeetes with both of his hands and inflicted a stab on the chest of the deceased. The inmates of the house of the deceased, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also the neighbour P.W. 3 rushed there, obviously in a bid to prevent any onslaught of attack on the de-ceased at the hands of the accused. On seeing them the accused issued threats of dire consequences to them if they happened to near him in their bid to save the life of the deceased. Despite such a threat, P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased, rushed towards the accused and the accused, in turn, pushed her aside and in such process, she fell down and sustained certain injuries on her person. Thereafter, the accused hugged the deceased under his right arm-pit and led him towards south and when he reached the south western corner of his house, he allowed the deceased to fall on the ground and ran away from there throwing M.O. 1 Kuththeetee there. P.W. 1 and others rushed to that place and found the victim deceased dead. Thereafter, the accused hugged the deceased under his right arm-pit and led him towards south and when he reached the south western corner of his house, he allowed the deceased to fall on the ground and ran away from there throwing M.O. 1 Kuththeetee there. P.W. 1 and others rushed to that place and found the victim deceased dead. However blood was oozing from the exit of the wound and P.W. 3 drenched a piece of cloth M.O. 3 in water and bandaged the wound, in a bid to arrest further bleeding from the wound obviously feeling the life in him had not become extinct, though he was dead. (i) After sometime P.W. 1 sitting on the pillion of the Moped driven by Gurusami went to Vellakovil Police Station for the purpose of lodging an information respecting the occurrence. On the way feeling that there was no fuel in the said Moped, both of them left the Moped near a Pilliar Temple, and proceeded on their onward march to the police station in a bicycle. (j) P.W. 13 was the then Head Constable of Vellakovil Police Station. When P.W. 1 along with Gurusami reached the police Station, the time was then 10.00 p.m. P.W. 13 was in-charge of the police station. To him P.W. 1 lodged an information respecting the occurrence. P.W. 13 took it in writing as narrated by P.W. 1. Ex. P. 15 is the first information. On the strength of Ex. P. 15, P.W. 13 registered a case in Cr. No. 299 of 1985 for the alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He prepared the Express F.I.R. and sent the same to the concerned officials. (k) P.W. 14 was the then Inspector of Police. On 22-8-1985 at about 4.30 a.m. whilest he was in his house he received the copy of the Express F.I.R. through a constable belonging to Vellakovil Police Station. He immediately took up investigation. He rushed and reached the scene at 6.00 a.m. (l) After inspecting the scene between 6 and 7 a.m. he prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P. 5. He also drew rough sketch of the scene Ex. P. 16. He immediately took up investigation. He rushed and reached the scene at 6.00 a.m. (l) After inspecting the scene between 6 and 7 a.m. he prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P. 5. He also drew rough sketch of the scene Ex. P. 16. He caused photographs of the scene to be taken by P.W. 11, who, in turn, took three photos of the front portion of the house of the deceased in three angles and also four photoes of the corpus of the deceased from four angles. M.Os. 16 to 18 are the photoes while M.Os. 19 to 21 are the negatives of the front portion of the house of the deceased. M.Os. 22 to 23 are the photoes while M.O.s. 26 to 29 are the negatives of the corpus of the deceased. (m) Between 7 and 11 a.m. P.W. 14 held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex. P. 17 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others. After the inquest was over, he despatched the body of the deceased through a constable P.W. 9 along with Ex. P. 2 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. At 11.15 a.m. he seized from the place where the corpus was lying M.O. 11 bloodstained earth, M.O. 12 sample earth and M.O. 1 Kuththeetee under Ex. P. 6 Mahazar. At 11.30 a.m. he seized the bloodstained big stone M.O. 13, bloodstained small stone M.O. 14 and lungi M.O. 2 under Ex. P. 7 mahazar. At 11.45 a.m. he seized from P.W. 1 bloodstained saree M.O. 4 bloodstained jacket M.O. 5 and from P.W. 2 bloodstained saree M.O. 6 and from P.W. 3 bloodstained dhothi M.O. 7 under Ex. P. 8 mahazar. Exs. P. 5 to P. 8 were attested by P.W. 10, village Administrative Officer and one Kuppusami. The injured P.W. 2 had also been sent to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. (n) P.W. 8 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Kangeyam. At 3.10 p.m. he examined P.W. 2 and treated her for the injuries he found on her person. Ex. P. 4 is the wound certificate he issued to her. He opined that the injuries he found as described in Ex. (n) P.W. 8 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Kangeyam. At 3.10 p.m. he examined P.W. 2 and treated her for the injuries he found on her person. Ex. P. 4 is the wound certificate he issued to her. He opined that the injuries he found as described in Ex. P. 4 could have been caused by falling on the ground at or about the time of occurrence, that is to say, at 7.30 p.m. (o) At 3.45 p.m. he conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. Ex. P. 3 is the post mortem certificate he issued. He would opine that the stab injury he found on the chest of the deceased could have been caused by inflicting a stab by a weapon like M.O. 1 Kuththeetee and the victim deceased could have died a few minutes after receipt of the stab. He would also opine that the other two injuries found on the person of the deceased being more abrasions, could have been caused to him by a fall on the ground. (p) After the autopsy was over, the constable P.W. 9 seized from the body, of M.O. 3 bloodstained piece of cloth, M.O. 8 shirt, M.O. 9 jatti and M.O. 10 thread waist cord and handed over them at the police station and the same were seized under Form 95. (q) At 5.00 p.m. P.W. 14 arrested the accused in the sugarcane field belonging to one Eastwarmoorthy situate on the south of Valliyarachal - Veerachozhap uram road in the presence of P.W. 10. The accused was then wearing a banian stained with blood. He seized the said banian M.O. 15 under Ex. P. 9 mahazar attested by P.W. 10. On 23-8-1985 he sent the accused to Court for remand. He examined P.W. 8 and others. On 2-9-1985 he sent Ex. P. 10 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kangeyam for the purpose of sending the incriminating M.Os. to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. (r) P.W. 12 was then Typist attached to Judicial Second Class Magistrates Court, Kangeyam. The Head Clerk was then on leave and consequently she was in-charge of Head Clerk. Pursuant to the requisition Ex. to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. (r) P.W. 12 was then Typist attached to Judicial Second Class Magistrates Court, Kangeyam. The Head Clerk was then on leave and consequently she was in-charge of Head Clerk. Pursuant to the requisition Ex. P. 10 as per the directions of learned Magistrate, she sent the incriminating Material Objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination under a covering letter, the office copy of which is Ex. P.-11. Exs. P. 12 and P. 14 were reports of the Chemical Examiner while Ex. P. 13 is the report of the Serologist. (s) On 13-10-1985 P.W. 14 examined one Palanisami and another. After completing investigation, he laid the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 30-10-1985 before the Judicial Second class Magistrate, Kangeyam for the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. as against the accused. 4. On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. as against the accused. 5. The accused when questioned as respects the charges so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in proof of the charges so framed examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, filed Exs. P. 1 to P. 17 and marked M.O.s 1 to 29. 7. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He however, filed a written statement narrating the sequences of the events that had happened, which impelled him to stab the deceased by means of a pen knife. He would state that at or about the time of occurrence, that is to say at 7.30 p.m. he was standing in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased on seeing him rushed out of his house and in such process, he pushed his mother P.W. 2 Govindammal down arming himself with a Kuththeetee. On seeing the rushing of the deceased with ferocity, the accused took to his heels being chased by the deceased. The deceased on seeing him rushed out of his house and in such process, he pushed his mother P.W. 2 Govindammal down arming himself with a Kuththeetee. On seeing the rushing of the deceased with ferocity, the accused took to his heels being chased by the deceased. When he was near the south-western corner of the house, he was unable to run further and at that juncture, he whipped out the penknife he was keeping in his waist and inflicted a stab on the chest of the deceased in a bid to save his life as a measure of private defence of person, pure and simple whilest the deceased was making an attempt to stab him with the Kutheetee which he was having in his hands. Thereafter, he ran away from the scene. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials available on record however found the accused guilty of the offences he stood charged, convicted and sentenced him thereunder as aforesaid. 9. Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would press into service the following points for consideration : i) The material placed on record by the prosecuting agency if analysed with to much care and circumspection, de hors the right of private defence of person as set up by the appellant/accused, would point out that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing that it was the land of the stab on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death, besides causing injury on the person of P.W. 2 by her being pushed down on the ground and thereby sustaining injuries on her person. ii) In any event, the right of private defence of person, as set up by the defence, can be said to have been probabilities on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 10. Mr. Raghupathi, learned additional Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution would however repel such submissions. 11. We shall now proceed to delve deep into the materials available on record in the shape of evidence - oral and documentary to find out as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its onus cast on its shoulders by proving that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for causing injuries on the person of the deceased as well as on the person of P.W. 2 at or about the time of occurrence. 12. There is no pale of controversy whatever that the accused and the deceased, being cousins, purchased certain landed property from one Ponnusami Pappathi alias Valliammal some four to 5 years prior to the occurrence jointly. It is also not in dispute that both of them enjoyed the lands so purchased jointly without itch or hitch for a period of say four years, that is to say till up to one year prior to the occurrence. Similarly they were also enjoying two parcels of land usufructually mortagaged to them by the said Ponnusami Pappathi till one year prior to the occurrence without any difference of opinion between them. 13. Difference of opinion between them resulted, as a consequence of the cattle belonging them trespassing into the land of another leading to skirmishes and quarrels very often between the members of the two families. On this aspect of the matter, there is the evidence or P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. No doubt true it is that P.Ws. 5 and 6, who were stated to have witnessed the quarrel that arose between the two families at 10.00 a.m. on the day of occurrence, had turned hostile wholesale and consequently they were treated as hositle by the prosecution. Although the prosecution succeeded in establishing their prior statements during the course of investigation in the manner allowed by law, yet the evidenciary value to be attached to such testimony is more or less practically nil. In that view of the matter, we are not placing any reliance on their testimony as to the wordy altercation that took place between the families in the morning of the day of occurrence. But none-the-less the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as already indicated as relatable to the wordy altercation very often taking place between the two families over the enjoyment of the land belonging to them, cannot at all be doubted, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when especially that aspect of the matter had been practically admitted by the accused. The resultant position is that embittered relationship came to prevail between the two families for quite some time prior to the occurrence. 14. The resultant position is that embittered relationship came to prevail between the two families for quite some time prior to the occurrence. 14. Worth while it is to note at this juncture the evidence of P.W. 4 as relatable to an incident, which had happened some one hour prior to the occurrence when both the accused and the deceased met near a bridge in the process of their making of outward journey to their respective houses on their Mopeds. The wordy altercation, as already indicated, developed between them as to the damage done to the ridges of the channel taking water to their respective fields and also as to the so called help rendered by the accused in providing requisite cash resources to the said Ponnusami Pappathi for the redemption of the said mortgage from the deceased. Even on that occasion, his evidence was specific that the accused as usual had been issuing threats of dire consequences to the life of the deceased. Somehow or other, both of them had been pacified by P.W. 4 and no untoward incident had happened. The evidence of P.W. 4 on this aspect of the matter cannot at all be doubted when especially it emerges from independent quarter and there was nothing for him to prefer between the accused and the deceased, who happened to be the cousins. 15. Even when the accused was standing in front of the house of the deceased and issuing challenge, the deceased, not being in position to discover the insinuating challenge, came out of the house, in a bid to meet the challenge, obviously feeling that the challenge so issued by the accused was an empty threat as had been thought by him for over the past one year on occasions when wordy altercations or any sort of trouble arose between them. But the empty threat, which had been issued all along by the accused had become the real threat in the sense of himself all of a sudden holding M.O. 1 Kuththeetee in his hands and inflicting a stab on the chest of the deceased. Even when others, namely, P.Ws. But the empty threat, which had been issued all along by the accused had become the real threat in the sense of himself all of a sudden holding M.O. 1 Kuththeetee in his hands and inflicting a stab on the chest of the deceased. Even when others, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3 who happened to witness such dastardly occurrence, treated to go near the accused since he issued threats of dire consequences if they dare to come near him, P.W. 2, the mother of the accused, in a bid to save his son from the onslaught of attack from the accused, rushed towards the accused and she in turn had been pushed down on the ground by the accused and in such process, she sustained the said minor injuries on her person. P.Ws. 1 and 2, obviously daunted by the instinct of self preservation, did not dare to go anywhere near the accused, and that perhaps was the reason, we can say, for their inability to make any attempt to prevent the onslaught of attack on the deceased by the accused. 16. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the natural witnesses for the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2, as already indicated, are the wife and mother of the deceased and the occurrence having happened in front of their house, it is but natural for them to have been present and had the opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he is not a person residing far away from the houses of the accused and the deceased, where the occurrence took place. The plain fact is that he is a neighbour of the accused and the deceased. Taking in to consideration the time of occurrence, it is but natural for a villager, like P.W. 3, to have been present in the house and had an opportunity of witnessing the occurrence by his being drawn to the scene by the noise emanating therefrom. He is also a witness emerging from an independent quarter. No tangible material had been placed on record to point out that he is interested in the cause and welfare of the deceased nor was he having any sort of embittered releationship with the accused so that he was impelled by the dire necessity of saying something which did not at all happen on the day of occurrence. 17. No tangible material had been placed on record to point out that he is interested in the cause and welfare of the deceased nor was he having any sort of embittered releationship with the accused so that he was impelled by the dire necessity of saying something which did not at all happen on the day of occurrence. 17. Top of all, with regard to manner and methodology of occurrence as narrated by P.Ws. 1 to 3, no material contradictions had been elicited during the course of their cross-examination so as to make it appear that their evidence as respects the occurrence is not above reproach and beyond suspicion. The medical evidence available on record in the shape of testimony of the doctor P.W. 8, who happened to examine P.W. 2 and treated her injuries by issuing Ex. P. 4 certificate, besides performing autopsy on the body of the deceased and issuing Ex. P. 3 post mortem certificate lends corroborative support to the testimony of ocular witness P.Ws. 1 to 3. The Doctor P.W. 8 would state that the injuries he found on the person of P.W. 2, as described in Ex. P. 4. could have been caused by falling on the ground by process of being pushed down. He would further state that the injuries he found on the body of the deceased as described in Ex. P. 3 post mortem certificate, could have been caused by infliction of a stab by a Kuththeetee like M.O. 1. He further stated that few minutes after the infliction of the injury, the deceased could have breathed his last. 18. There is one more signal circumstance of some importance vouchsafing the presence of ocular witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 in the scene. The saree and blouse M.Os. 4 and 5 worn by P.W. 1, the saree M.O. 6 worn by P.W. 2 and the dhothi M.O. 7 worn by P.W. 3 were found stained with human blood of B Group, which is the group of the deceased as revealed by the Serologist's report Ex. P. 13. Their evidence on record reflects that P.W. 1 immediately after the infliction of the stab by the accused on the person of the deceased and the deceased being dragged away by the accused, P.Ws. P. 13. Their evidence on record reflects that P.W. 1 immediately after the infliction of the stab by the accused on the person of the deceased and the deceased being dragged away by the accused, P.Ws. 1 to 3 followed and when they reached the South Western Corner of the house of the accused, the accused ran away by dropping the body of the deceased and M.O. 1 Kuththeetee there. P.W. 1 wept over the body of the deceased and in such process her cloth got stained with blood. P.W. 2, as already indicated, went to the rescue of the deceased at the time when he was stabbed, her clothes were stained with blood. As far as P.W. 3 is concerned, it is his evidence that at the time when he reached the south-western corner of the house of the accused, the deceased was lying on the ground with blood oozing from the exit of the wound and he in turn bandaged the wound with a piece of cloth M.O. 3 with a fond hope that there was every likelihood of saving him, although the external appearance was that he was already dead and in such process, his dhothi got stained with blood. 19. The Kuththeetee M.O. 1 was also found to contain human blood of B Group origin, which is the blood group of the deceased, as revealed by Ex. P. 13 the Serologists report. This factor also serves as a corroborative piece of circumstance pointing out the ocular version projected by P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the deceased had been stabbed by the accused by means of a weapon like M.O. 1 Kuththeetee, reflecting the reality of the situation. 20. For the reasons as above, we are of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its onus in proving that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for the infliction of the stab on the chest of the deceased by means of M.O. 1 Kuththeetee and also caused injuries on the person of P.W. 2 by being pushed down on the ground. 21. We may now enter into the area of discussion as relatable to the theory of right of private defence of person as set up by the accused. 21. We may now enter into the area of discussion as relatable to the theory of right of private defence of person as set up by the accused. Even at the outset, we may say that we are unable to affix our seal of approval to such a theory on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Kuththeetee M.O. 1 measures about 180 cms. as revealed by Ex. P. 6 mahazar. It is not the case of the accused that M.O. 1 Kuththeetee was the one possessed by the deceased. He would further say that he was not in possession of any arm like Kuththeetee much less M.O. 1. According to him, the deceased was having in his possession when he emerged out of his house with a different Kuththeetee in a bid to attack him and on seeing the same, the accused took to his heels being chased by the deceased armed with a Kuththeetee in his safety to some distance and when he reached the south-western corner of his house, he was unable to run any further and there was every possibility of an imminent threat of his being stabbed by the deceased by means of a Kuththeetee and therefore he turned around with a view to meet such an assault and in such process before ever the deceased inflicted a stab by means of Kuththeetee on his person, he succeeded in inflicting the stab on the chest of the deceased by means of a pen knife, which he was having in his waist and ran away from there. 22. Whether any prudent person would accede to such a question cannot be any one other than an emphatic 'No' in such circumstances. The reason is rather obvious. The weapon, said to have been wielded by the deceased is a Kuththeetee which is normally an elongated weapon and with the aid of such a weapon the onslaught of attack could be made, from fairly a long distance, at the victim of attack. The pen knife said to have been possessed by the accused at or about the time of occurrence is a minimal weapon and we can take notice of the length of such a weapon, not being more than 4 to 6 inches. The pen knife said to have been possessed by the accused at or about the time of occurrence is a minimal weapon and we can take notice of the length of such a weapon, not being more than 4 to 6 inches. With such a weapon can we ever comprehend or imagine that the accused could have performed the feat of inflicting a stab on the chest of the deceased when the deceased was making imminent threat of attack on the person of the accused by means of an elongated weapon like Kuthteetee. A suggestion to this effect of course had been thrown to the ocular witnesses and the suggestion so thrown remained as a shot in the darkness in the sense, of the same being negatived in a categorical fashion. In such circumstances, we have no option but to reject the theory of right of private defence of person as set up by the accused. 23. The next question that crops up for consideration is as to what is the offence that had been committed by the accused. The weapon like Kuththeetee M.O. 1 is a lethal and dangerous weapon. The injury inflicted by the accused on the person of the deceased was on the chest region, a vulnerable portion of human anatomy. On receipt of such a stab, the victim deceased also collapsed and died within few minutes thereafter as deposed to by P.W. 8 the Post Mortem doctor. In such state of affairs, we are of the firm view that the act of the accused in inflicting a stab by means of a weapon like Kuththeetee M.O. 1 on the chest of the deceased cannot be any one, other than one done with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, thereby making his act, clearly falling under Clause 1 of Section 300 I.P.C. punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 24. As relatable to the injury caused to P.W. 2, the doctor P.W. 8 had categorically opined that the injury he found on her person as described in Ex. P. 4 are all simple in nature and those injuries could have been caused by falling on the ground in the process of her being pushed down. The act of the accused in pushing P.W. 2, resulted in her falling down on the ground, leading to her sustaining injuries of simple nature. P. 4 are all simple in nature and those injuries could have been caused by falling on the ground in the process of her being pushed down. The act of the accused in pushing P.W. 2, resulted in her falling down on the ground, leading to her sustaining injuries of simple nature. Therefore, such an act of the accused will squarely fall under Section 323 I.P.C. 25. Coming to the question of sentence, the sentence imposed upon the accused by the Court below for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. being imprisonment for life, which is the minimum prescribed for such an offence cannot at all be interfered with. Even the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. for cauing injuries on the person of P.W. 2 the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be stated to be harsh, thereby calling for interference, when especially such sentence had been ordered to run concurrently along with the sentence that had been imposed for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 26. The appeal as such deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon the accused, for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. by the Court below. Appeal dismissed.