JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 14.7.77 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby he acquitted the accused- respondent of the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. PW 1 Ram Gopal had four sons including deceased Shiv Narain and respondent Banshilal. His other two sons used to live separately, while deceased and the respondent were living with their father Ram Gopal. On the ill-fated night on 19.3.77 at about 10 P.M., Shiv Narain and Ram Gopal came together from the market. Respondent Banshilal was sleeping on the floor of the 'pol' of the house. It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Gopal went upstairs for sleeping. Shiv Narain accidentally touched the leg of Banshilal, who was sleeping, and that gave rise to an altercation between them. Thereupon, Ram Gopal came downstairs and intervened and separated Shiv Narain and respondent Banshilal, who were grappling with each other. It is alleged that suddenly respondent took out a knife from his bed and inflicted a knife blow which landed on the chest of Shiv Narain. Thereupon, Shiv Narain raised an alarm to the effect that Banshilal had dealt a knife blow to him and that he would go to the Police Station to report the matter. It is further the case of the prosecution that during this altercation between two brothers, PW 1 Ram Gopal also received blood stains on his shirt. Shiv Narain after being injured went out of the 'pol' and came on the street, where he fell down near the house of one Ganpat Lal. Thereupon Ram Gopal raised an alarm but none of his neighbours came there. Ram Gopal's younger brother PW 2 Lala came there and both of them found that Shiv Narain had succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, they put the dead body of Shiv Narain on a cot on 'chabutari' of Ram Gopal's house. Meanwhile, PW 15 Mod Singh, S.H.O., P.S., Pali received a telephonic message at about 10.30 P.M. to the effect that dead body of Shiv Narain was lying on the road. The informant, however, did not disclose his name. Since the said information was vague and incomplete, Mod Singh recorded the same in the daily diary as Ex. Meanwhile, PW 15 Mod Singh, S.H.O., P.S., Pali received a telephonic message at about 10.30 P.M. to the effect that dead body of Shiv Narain was lying on the road. The informant, however, did not disclose his name. Since the said information was vague and incomplete, Mod Singh recorded the same in the daily diary as Ex. P. 23 and immediately reached the spot, where PW 1 Ram Gopal submitted a written report Ex. P. 1. The same was sent to the Police Station through L.C. Mahendra Singh, where on the same night at 11.45 P.M. formal F.I.R. Ex. P. 15 was drawn and a case was registered. Accused -respondent Banshilal was sitting there near the dead body of deceased Shiv Narain, who was arrested. Mod Singh prepared the autopsy report of deceased, inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex. P. 4 and memo thereof Ex. P. 5. He found the blood stains lying scattered on street as well as on 'chabutari' of Ram Gopal's house as also inside the 'pol'. He seized and sealed the blood stains and the blood stained half pant of deceased. 3. PW 14 Dr. G.K. Vyas conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Shiv Narain. He found a stab wound 0.6" x 0.3" oblique along the rib direction on fifth left intercostal space. That wound was penetrating in the chest going deep causing injury to the left lung and the right side of ventricle. He also noticed abrasions on the right neck, right eye brow, right elbow and right leg of deceased. Doctor Vyas as per post mortem examination report Ex. P. 21 opined that the cause of death was sudden haemorrhage due to stab wound puncturing heart and the left lung. 4. Dr. Vyas also examined the injuries of respondent Banshilal and found and incised wound over the palm of left hand. He also noticed four abrasions on the left mandible angle over the left of neck, on the right thumb, on the left patella and on the right knee of respondent. It is alleged that ten days after his arrest, respondent on 30.3.77 made a disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer and that in pursuance thereof got recovered one blood stained knife (Article 4) from an open shelf inside the 'pol' vide recovery memo Ex.P.20, which was seized and sealed by the investigating Officer. It is alleged that ten days after his arrest, respondent on 30.3.77 made a disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer and that in pursuance thereof got recovered one blood stained knife (Article 4) from an open shelf inside the 'pol' vide recovery memo Ex.P.20, which was seized and sealed by the investigating Officer. Eight sealed packets containing pant of respondent, blood smeared soil and the control sample taken from the place of occurrence, dried blood scrapings, shirt of PW 1 Ram Gopal, half pant of deceased and the knife were sent to the State F.S.L. Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Seralogist, F.S.L. vide his report Ex. P. 26 opined that the aforementioned articles except the control sample were stained with human blood & that the shirt was stained with 'B' group blood. However, the blood group of blood stains found on respondent's pant and recovered knife could not be detected due to disintegration. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the respondent in the Court of MJM, Pali, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. Accused respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The accused respondent in his plea recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied that he had any altercation with his brother Shiv Narain (deceased). He, however, admitted that he had received injuries on his hand. He denied to have given any information and got recovered knife (Article 4). He asserted that on the night of the alleged incident, he was sleeping; that one person knocked the; doors of his house; that thereupon, he opened the doors; that that person told him that since Shiv Narain used to hurd abuses to him, he would kill him. He asked that person to go away and to come in the next morning. The respondent further asserted that thereupon that person inflicted a knife blow causing a through and through injury on his palm; that in the meanwhile, Shiv Narain also came there, who grappled with that person and that thereupon that person dealt a knife blow to Shiv Narain who succumbed to his injuries. However, in his defence, he did not examine any witness. However, in his defence, he did not examine any witness. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his impugned order found that there was no direct evidence of the alleged incident; that the alleged recovery of knife did not inspire any confidence; that the deceased was an insane person and that the accused respondent had a right of private defence. He, accordingly, acquitted the respondent. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Bohra, learned P.P. and Mr. T.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the respondent at length and perused the record of the lower Court in extenso. 7. Mr. Bohra has vehemently contended that it is true that the alleged eye witness PW 1 Ram Gopal has turned hostile still then the presence of the respondent at the place of occurrence and the altercation between the deceased and the respondent stands firmly established by the circumstantial evidence; that the respondent had inflicted a knife blow on the vital part of the deceased which resulted in latter's death; that knife was also recovered at the instance of the accused respondent and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed illegality in disbelieving the recovery of the knife and holding that the respondent had a right of private defence. According to him, the prosecution by adducing clear, cogent and convincing evidence has successfully brought home the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code against the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings given by the learned trial Judge. 9. We have given our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. 10. The homicidal death of Shiv Narain is not in dispute. Respondent Banshilal was arrested by PW 15 Mod Singh, S.H.O., on 20.3.77 at 2.15 A.M. At that time, the respondent was putting on a pant, which it is alleged had blood stains on its front side and rear side. Mod Singh has specifically admitted that he had inspected the site including 'pol' and made a search of the 'pol' on 20.3.77 but he did not find any knife there. He has further stated that he had interrogated the respondent many a times after his arrest but it was only on 30.3.77 that the respondent volunteered information under section 27, Evidence Act (Ex. He has further stated that he had interrogated the respondent many a times after his arrest but it was only on 30.3.77 that the respondent volunteered information under section 27, Evidence Act (Ex. P. 24) and that in pursuance thereof, he got a blood stained knife recovered from an open shelf situated inside the 'pol'. From the prosecution evidence, it stands well established that the said 'pol' was not in exclusive possession of the respondent and that his father & brother also resided therein. The respondent after his arrest was confined in the police lock up. Admittedly that 'pol' and house was in the possession of PW 1 Ram Gopal. There is not a fringe of evidence to establish that the said shelf had doors and that it was locked. On the other hand, it is amply borne out from the evidence that shelf was open. There is also no evidence that the knife Article 4 was lying concealed in that open shelf. In such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has correctly diseased, analysed and evaluated the prosecution evidence on this score and has committed no illeglity in holding that the alleged recovery of knife did not inspire any confidence. He has, therefore, rightly disbelieved the alleged recovery of knife. As per prosecution version, PW 1 Ram Gopal had seen the deceased and the respondent grappling with each other and that when he intervened, the respondent dealt a knife blow on the chest of the deceased, but during trial, PW 1 Ram Gopal who is father of deceased and the respondent, has not supported the prosecution version. He was declared hostile. He has specifically submitted that he had not seen the respondent causing any knife blow to the deceased. He has also disowned his previous statement that the blood stained shirt (Article 2) was worn by him at the time of the alleged incident and that he had given the same to the Investigating Officer. Thus, this witness has not supported the prosecution. 11. PW 2 Lal Chand, who is alleged to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, has also not supported the prosecution case. Thus, this witness has not supported the prosecution. 11. PW 2 Lal Chand, who is alleged to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, has also not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he had heard in the market that the dead body of Shiv Narain was lying in the street; that thereafter he went to the house of Ram Gopal and found that Shiv Narain's dead body was lying in the street and that thereafter he alongwith Ram Gopal had placed the dead body on a cot on the 'chabutari' of the house. 12. PW 2 Lal Chand, PW 3 Shivji Ram and PW 6 Kishanlal have clearly stated that deceased was an insane person. According to Lal Chand, prior to the alleged incident the deceased had dealt an iron rod blow to one boy and that for that matter, a police case was registered against the deceased and that he had faced the trial. 13. PW 5 Kumari Santosh, whose house is situated just opposite the house of Ram Gopal, has deposed that on the ill-fated night, she was busy in her studies and that at that time, she had heard a scream & that thereupon, she went to her balcony and found the dead body of Shiv Narain lying on the road. She has further deposed that she had not seen the respondent there. This witness was also declared hostile. 14. PW 6 Kishanlal has stated that the deceased Shiv Narain was in insane person and that the latter was also admitted in the Mental hospital two- three times. PW 8 Omprakash has deposed that the deceased was an insane person. who used to hurd abuses. He has stated that he had seen the dead body of Shiv Narain lying in the street and that at that time, accused- respondent was sitting on his 'chabutari' outside his house with injuries on his hand. 15. Admittedly, the accused respondent had received a through and through injury on his palm by sharp edged weapon and other injuries enumerated in M.L.R. Ex. P. 22. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show as to how the alleged incident had taken place. All material witnesses have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the respondent with the crime. P. 22. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show as to how the alleged incident had taken place. All material witnesses have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the respondent with the crime. In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-respondent had wielded a knife blow on the chest of the deceased causing his death. The learned trial Judge has held that it may be just possible that the deceased and accused might have grappled with each other and had an altercation wherein the respondent had received an injury and that respondent's injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. He has further held that in such circumstances, it was probable that the respondent had an apprehension that ' the deceased would cause grievous injuries to him and, therefore, even if it is held that the deceased and the respondent had an altercation with each other, then in such a contingency, the respondent had a right of private defence under section 100 Indian Penal Code. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the learned trial Judge is based on record and not faulth. The trial Judge has rightly scanned and evaluated the evidence recorded in this case. We agree with his findings. Hence, he has not committed any illegality either of fact or law in acquitting the accused respondent. Therefore, the finding of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge does not warrant any interference. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by the State is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. As the accused respondent is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal dismissed. *******