JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J. - This is an appeal at the instance of the appellant/accused who has been convicted for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Originally, the accused was tried for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he, on 3.1.1986 at about 6.00 p.m., had committed murder of one Rama Sadashio Bargate in the Gandhinagar Square, Nagpur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the deceased Rama Sadashio Bargate worked as a truck driver, while appellant/accused was an auto-rickshaw driver. On 3.1.1986, at about 1.00 or 1.30 p.m., there was reportedly an altercation between the accused and the deceased and, therefore, the deceased had told his friend, one Sanjay Nagrale about the altercation. At about 6.00 p.m., on the same day, the deceased met the complainant Sanjay Nagrale at Ambazari and deceased wanted to settle the matter with the accused. The two some, theref6te, went and were standing at the spot of incident, i.e., a square in Gandhinagar in front of Lady Amritabai Daga College. The two some were standing at a Pan-shop when, on seeing the accused, there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that in that altercation, the accused whipped out a knife and dealt a blow with it on the right side chest of the deceased. The complainant Sanjay ran after the accused, but the accused made good his escape. Then, the deceased was put in a rickshaw by the complainant Sanjay and was taken to Ambazari Police Station, where a report was lodged at Exhibit 37. The police, after registering an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, started investigation; but immediately learnt on the same day that the deceased had died and, therefore, the offence was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused came to be arrested on the same day. It was found that he also had sustained some injuries on his person. He was sent for medical examination. Usual investigation followed, including the seizure of the blood-stained clothes, blood-stained earth and also the seizure of a pair of chappals lying on the place of offence. During the investigation, the accused discovered his blood-stained clothes as also the knife which he had allegedly hidden under the mango-tree. He was sent for medical examination. Usual investigation followed, including the seizure of the blood-stained clothes, blood-stained earth and also the seizure of a pair of chappals lying on the place of offence. During the investigation, the accused discovered his blood-stained clothes as also the knife which he had allegedly hidden under the mango-tree. On this basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused and the matter was committed to Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In support of the prosecution, two eyewitnesses came to be examined, they being P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.2-Deepak. The other witnesses, included the police witnesses and the Doctors as also the panchas to prove the discoveries. The accused took a peculiar defence. He claimed that as a matter of fact there was undoubtedly a fight between him and the deceased in which the deceased had injured him and had held him from the back side and in order to save himself, head dealt one blow with knife on the person of the deceased Rama. The accused claimed that when he had gone to the Pan-shop, P.W.1-Sanjay and the deceased were already there and, in fact, in order to save his own life, he had dealt a knife blow on deceased Rama. 4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence lead before it, came to the conclusion that it was proved on the basis of the testimony of the eye-witnesses that the accused had dealt only one knife blow on the deceased Rama's person. It is significant to note that, it fact, the deceased Rama had on his person as many as nine injuries, three of them being stab-wounds, two incised wounds and four abrased wounds. According to the P.W.4-Dr. Nagdive, the injury at Serial No.1, which was on the chest and which was 2-1/2" to 3" deep and which had cut the muscles pleura left lung; and injury No.2 which was about 2" deep and was on the left side of the chest between 7th and 8th ribs and which cut the pleura and left lung, were individually and collectively responsible for the death. It is significant to note that injury No.3 was at the abodomen. It is significant to note that injury No.3 was at the abodomen. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that it was this injury No.3 which was inflicted by the accused, as both the witnesses, P.W. 1-Sanjay and P.W. 2-Deepak, who were the eye-witnesses, had referred to the accused having inflicted only one injury on the abdomen of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as according to him, the, fatal injuries were not proved to have been inflicted by the accused. However, he did not accept the plea of the accused that he had acted in the exercise of right of self-defence. He held that, in fact, this plea was rather too tall. The accused probably had raised this plea on the basis of the two injuries suffered by him, one being stab wound which was a bone-deep injury on the left parietal region and the other being a superficial incised wound on the right index finger. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did take note of these injuries and came to the conclusion that, in fact, the said injuries could not give the right of private defence to the accused and it was, in fact, the accused who was an aggressor. In that view of the matter, he convicted the accused only of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is this verdict which is in challenge in the present appeal. 5. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, contended that if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is considered on the back-drop of the injuries suffered-by the appellant-accused, then it was clear that the appellant-accused had acted in pursuance of his right of self defence of his body. Shri Patwardhan pointed out that in fact the deceased Rama was accompanied by P.W .1-Sanjay. Shri Patwardhan pointed out that in fact the deceased Rama was accompanied by P.W .1-Sanjay. There was a background of the previous altercation which was between the accused and the deceased on the same day and it was deceased Ram a who was estranged, which was clear from the evidence of P.W.1-Sanjay, who expressed to him that they wanted to teach a session to the accused and, therefore, they were in wait for the accused and as soon as the accused had come, they had pounced upon him and caused him injuries. He pointed out, on the basis of the evidence of Sanjay and Deepak, that the accused was held by the deceased from his back side and in the altercation, he had suffered an injury on his head. In that view of the matter, according to the learned Defence Counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in denying the right of self-defence to the accused. 6. Shri G.C. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the Trial Court and contended that in fact in this case the appellant-accused should have been held to be an author of the other injuries also. Shri Mishra submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any other person responsible for the other eight injuries suffered by the deceased. Shri Mishra contended that in fact there was a story of altercation between the accused and the deceased and the witnesses also had tried to see the incident in the insufficient light. Though the witnesses were able to establish the identity of thy accused, it could not be said that they had not seen the whole incident as such. Shri Mishra painstakingly pointed out that there is no explanation as to how the other injuries came to be inflicted. He pointed out that immediately after the incident, it was the P.W.1 who had carried the deceased to the Police Station. He also pointed out that in fact there was no question of the deceased having-any injuries prior to the meeting with the accused and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in acquitting the accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, there being no appeal, there is no question of challenging the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this point. However, there being no appeal, there is no question of challenging the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this point. Shri Mishra contended that there is no scope for holding that the accused had right of private defence. 7. Now, considering the rival contention, it will have to be seen that firstly there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had suffered any injuries prior to the incident. Now, in fact, there is evidence of Sanjay that he was accompanying the deceased Rama and both of them had gone to the Gandhinagar Square where they had the intention of eating Pan. Now, there is nothing on record to show that till the point of time the deceased went on the Panathela, he was suffering any injuries. P.W.1-Sanjay further said that at that time, the accused brought his auto-rickshaw in the Square and deceased Rama went to see him. Now, there is nothing on record further to show that Rama had any design to assault the accused. In fact, one of the eye-witnesses has deposed that Rama had the intention of a possible compromise with the accused. According to the evidence of both the eye-witnesses, the altercation began at that time and in that altercation, began at that time and in that altercation, there were only two parities, viz., the deceased and the accused. There is also no escape from the fact that immediately after the altercation, P.W.1-Sanjay collected the deceased in a rickshaw and took him to the Ambazari Police Station from where he was straightaway taken to the hospital where he was immediately examined and it was found that he had suffered as many as nine injuries. There could have been in fact no escape from the conclusion that it was the accused who was the author of the injuries. There was absolutely nothing on record to suggest that anybody else had intervened in the matter. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have been alive to the fact that even according to the evidence of P.W.1-Sanjay, there was absolutely no injury on the person of Rama and he was hale and hearty before he and P.W.1-Sanjay, went to Nindu's Pan-shop. Both the eye-witnesses, P.W.1-Sanjay and P.W.2-Deepak, are absolutely unanimous on the aspect that there was only one altercation and that altercation was only with the accused. Both the eye-witnesses, P.W.1-Sanjay and P.W.2-Deepak, are absolutely unanimous on the aspect that there was only one altercation and that altercation was only with the accused. In this state of affairs, there was no escape from the conclusion that Rama suffered all his injuries only during the altercation with the accused. As otherwise there was no scope whatsoever for Rama to suffer any injuries by any body else's hands. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge chose himself to be guided by the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, who had restricted their evidence to a single blow. Now, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have allowed himself to be guided only by the evidence of these two eye-witnesses as, in fact, "the men may speak lie but the circumstances don't". The circumstances clearly pointed that it was the accused alone who was the author of all the injuries. Yet, an advantage of this fact was given to the accused that the eye-witnesses had spoken only of a single injury and that too on the abdomen. It should have been seen by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in fact it was during the darkness that the altercation was going on and the eye-witnesses would not be in a position to watch the whole affair clearly. If the altercation was with the accused and the accused alone, if during that altercation the accused had admittedly used the knife and if immediately after the altercation there was no question of the deceased suffering any more injuries, then the only inference that was possible that the accused was the author of all the injuries. The reliance of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the evidence of the eye-witnesses alone was, therefore, wholly erroneous. In the process, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has completely shut his eyes to the stark realities which were presented by the circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge does not seem to have made any efforts in this direction and has chosen to blindly follow the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, without even bothering to weigh their evidence against the rock-like circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, thus, completely erroneously acquitted the appellant-accused of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Unfortunately, there was no appeal filed against this order of acquittal of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, thus, completely erroneously acquitted the appellant-accused of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Unfortunately, there was no appeal filed against this order of acquittal of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. One fails to understand as to how an appeal was not filed against such a judgment. Here was a case where as many as three stab-wounds were inflicted on the person of the deceased; the two of the injuries had pierced the lungs. Those two stab-wounds on the chest were at least 2-1/2" and 3" deep, and it was clear and absolutely clear that both the injuries could be covered under the Third Clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There could have been absolutely no manner of doubt that the liability of the accused was straightway under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under no other section. However, there is no appeal against this decision. Now, this Court cannot go behind the finding of acquittal, howsoever erroneous the finding might have been. The order of acquittal has become final and in the absence of any appeal against the judgment, this Court finds itself unable to go behind that finding or to do anything to upset that finding. 10. After having erroneously acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the defence of the accused which was of the right of private defence. In answer to question No.2, the accused accepted his presence on the spot. In answer to question No.3, the accused stated that Rama had embraced him from his rear side and to get himself released, he had stabbed him. Here, the accused had not claimed that he had stabbed Rama only once. It was in the answer to question No. 16 that the accused became wiser and claimed that he had only once stabbed Rama to get himself released. Now, question No. 16 was in respect of injury Nos.1 and 2 only. Here, the question referred to the evidence of Dr. Nagaeve who had claimed that injury Nos.1 and 2 were individually and collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that Rama had died because of these two injuries. Now, question No. 16 was in respect of injury Nos.1 and 2 only. Here, the question referred to the evidence of Dr. Nagaeve who had claimed that injury Nos.1 and 2 were individually and collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that Rama had died because of these two injuries. It is in answer to this question that the accused diabolically answered that he had only once stabbed Rama to get himself released. He further said, that he did not know about any other injuries. There was, therefore, no denial on the part of the accused that he had not caused either injury No.1 or Injury No.2. There is nothing in the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to suggest that he had stabbed Rama only in the abdomen. 11. One fails to understand as to what was the basis for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the accused had stabbed Rama only on the abdomen. Now, in fact, the accused, while answering question No.16, did not state that he was not the author of one of these injuries. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have been guided again by the evidence of P.W.l-Sanjay. In this behalf, Sanjay had stated that accused then dealt a knife blow in right side abdomen of Rama. P.W.2-Deepak had also suggested that he saw blood oozing from the right side stomach portion of Rama. 12. Now, firstly, we shall take the evidence of P.W.2-Deepak. If he saw the blood oozing from the right side stomach of Rama, it did not mean that the accused was the author of that injury, or that there was only one injury on Rama's person. When Rama's chest was injured, the blood could ooze out from that injury and it could have been seen as if the blood was oozing out from the stomach. The learned Additional Sessions Judge completely forgot even the statement made by the eye-witness Sanjay P.W.l, in the First Information Report that Amar (the accused) had assaulted Rama (the deceased) by means of knife by dealing knife blows on his right hypochondrium (i.e.). Probably, evidence in Court on the part of P.W.1 Sanjay prompted the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hold that the accused was responsible for the blow on the right side abdomen of Rama. Probably, evidence in Court on the part of P.W.1 Sanjay prompted the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hold that the accused was responsible for the blow on the right side abdomen of Rama. As has already been pointed out, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely ignored the stark possibilities which were created by circumstances as also the answer of the accused in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. This Court is quite alive to the fact that the answers in the statement of accused cannot be re1ied upon by themselves, and further the inculpatory portions of the answers cannot be relied upon, while ignoring the exculpatory part of the statement. For that purpose, the statement of the accused cannot be dissected. 13. However, here was a case where the lace used had taken a clear-cut defence that he had stabbed Rama for saving himself. Without signifying as to, whether the accused had dealt a blow, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have noted this diabolical nature of the answers by the accused. The accused nowhere claimed that he had stabbed Rama only on his abdomen. There is no suggestion in the cross-examination of these two eye-witness also. On the other hand, the suggestion was that the accused had dealt a stab blow on Rama's person. This is to be found in the cross-examination of P.W.1-Sanjay. Similar suggestion has been given even to P.W.2-Deepak. Therefore, there was no way of holding that the accused had dealt the blow only on the abdomen and that he had in any manner established that he had given that blow only on the abdomen to earn him a right of private defence. Of course, the right of private defence has not been held to be established by the Trial Court also. However, the argument of Shri Patwardhan, learned Defence Counsel, that there would be a right of private defence as the accused had dealt a blow only on the abdomen, would not be correct and acceptable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out that the accused had a fight with the deceased and it was then the accused dealt knife blow on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out that the accused had a fight with the deceased and it was then the accused dealt knife blow on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased. He has also held rightly, in my view, that merely because deceased Rama had held the accused from his rear side, there was no question of the accused apprehending death or a grievous injury. The injuries on the person of the accused were also absolutely simple and the situation also was not such as would be necessary for the accused to use a deadly weapon like knife. In fact, it is the accused who had discovered the knife. The theory, that the accused snatched away the knife from the hands of the deceased, has also absolutely no basis; much less no suggestion is given in the cross-examination. Therefore, there was no question of the accused having any apprehension. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right at least on this issue that the accused had no right of private defence. In fact, the accused should have been held to be an author of all the injuries, but even if he is held to be the author of only one injury on the abdomen, he still would be having no right of private defence. The judgment of the Trial Court is correct at the most in that respect. 14. This Court expresses its grave concern over the fact that no appeal is filed against the judgment acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This was certainly a case where an appeal could have been filed to bring the accused to justice. With these observations, the verdict of the Trial Court will have to be confirmed. 15. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, thereafter addressed me on the question of sentence. As a matter of fact, in the matter of sentence also the Trial Court has been more than lenient. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides the maximum punishment of three years. Here was a case where a human life was lost. It should have been realised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that deceased Rama did not die of a heart-attack. He was violently done to death. He suffered as many as nine injuries and those injuries did not exactly occur automatically. Here was a case where a human life was lost. It should have been realised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that deceased Rama did not die of a heart-attack. He was violently done to death. He suffered as many as nine injuries and those injuries did not exactly occur automatically. Somebody had to inflict them. The circumstances clearly shows that there could be nobody else who could have inflicted those injuries, than the appellant-accused. Under such circumstances, even the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment is on the lenient side. The submission of Shri Patwardhan, that the incident has occurred eight years back, and that would be a mitigating circumstance in the matter of injuries, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 16. In view of what has been expressed above, the instant appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. The appellant-accused is given one month's time of surrender to his bail. Appeal dismissed.