S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th July, 1994 passed by Shri S. K. Ray, Sessions Judge, A and N Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1992, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 307 and 152 I. P. C and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months more for the offence Under Section 307 I. P. C. and also to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 452 I. P. C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fine amount, if realised was directed to be paid in equal shares to the victims Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) and Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) by way of compensation Under Section 357 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE Prosecution case as narrated by one Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) in the FIR is that in the intervening night of 7th and 8th May, 1991 at about 1 O'clock while he (P. W. 3) was on watch and guard duty at the Forest garage situated at Dhani Nallah Forest Camp within the Police Station Rangat, District Andaman, he saw a person running away in front of the said garage. After a lapse of 5 to 10 minutes the appellant Kisto Majhi came with a Dah, holding in his hand, and enquired from the informant (P. W. 3) whether he had seen Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) or not. Then the informant (P. W. 3) replied in negative and, therer-upon, the appellant told him that he had strucked Shlaiman and Jagat Sai and that there was no hope of survival of Jagat Sai (P. W. 2 ). The appellant also asserted before him that if he would get Sulaiman he will assault him again. The appellant, thereafter, went away towards his home in search of Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). About 10 to 15 minutes thereafter, Sukhi Uraon (P. W. 7) and William (not examined) came and told the informant (P. W. 3) that the appellant Kisto Majhi, had inflicted injuries on the person of Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) and further that he, the appellant, had also assaulted Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). About 10 to 15 minutes thereafter, Sukhi Uraon (P. W. 7) and William (not examined) came and told the informant (P. W. 3) that the appellant Kisto Majhi, had inflicted injuries on the person of Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) and further that he, the appellant, had also assaulted Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). Sukhi Uraon (P. W, 7) also told that Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) was lying in his hut. It was proposed to take both the injured persons to the hospital and, thereupon, both of them went to fetch vehicle. Thereupon one Soma Hasan (since dead) came and told the informant (P. W. 3) that Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) was lying in his house (in the house of Soma Hansa) with head injuries. The informant (P. W. 3) told Soma Hansa that Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) and Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) had been assaulted by the appellant Kisto Majhi. It has been further asserted in the FIR that after some vehicle was arranged, both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) were picked up from the house of Sukhi Uraon (P. W. 7) and the house of Soma Hansa and were brought to the hospital with the help of the informant (P. W. 3), Sahadevan (not examined), Dinu Oraon (P. W. 8), Phoolchand (not examined) and Agapit Dung Dung (P. W. 9 ). The informant asserted in the FIR that the appellant Kisto Majhi inflicted injuries on the persons of the two victims with an intention to kill them. ( 3 ) AFTER having reached the victims at Billiground Primary Health Centre at about 8 AM on 8. 5. 1991, the informant (P. W. 3) went to Rangat Police Station by bus and lodged the FIR at 10 AM on the same date. ( 4 ) SINCE both the injured victims had been brought from the P. O. village to the Primary Health Centre in an unconscious state, no eye account of the occurrence could be mentioned in the FIR. It was only after the victims regained their consciousness that it could be told by them that both of them were strucked by the appellant by repeated blows of Dah in the mid-night of the alleged date of occurrence while they were preparing meals for themselves in the house of victim Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1 ). It was only after the victims regained their consciousness that it could be told by them that both of them were strucked by the appellant by repeated blows of Dah in the mid-night of the alleged date of occurrence while they were preparing meals for themselves in the house of victim Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1 ). ( 5 ) THE defence version as it could be gathered from the cross-examination of the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) and also the story narrated by the appellant in his examination under section 164 and 313 of the Cr. P. C. is that the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) being armed with Ballam and Ballies, went to the hut of the appellant and tried to pierce the bamboo split machan of his hut with the help of Ballam so as to kill him and then they failed in their attempt, they wanted to break open the front door of the hut and, in the meanwhile, the appellant managed to come out of the hut from its rear gate and concealed himself beneath the raised machan of the hut. The victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2), however, located the appellant and the victim Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) moved to hit him with Ballam but the appellant snatched the Ballam from his hand threw it away and, in order to save himself, he struck him (P. W. 1) with Dah in his hand. Meanwhile, Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) also came forward to assault the appellant with Balli but the appellant snatched away the Balli and threw it, and the appellant also hit the Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) with Dah in order to save himself. The appellant surrendered himself at about 11am on 8. 5. 1991 at Betapur out-post, where he was taken into police custody. The appellant was examined under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 10. 5. 1991 as per Exhibit - 16. ( 6 ) LET me now consider if the impugned order of conviction and sentence could be sustained on the evidence, adduced on the record. 5. 1991 at Betapur out-post, where he was taken into police custody. The appellant was examined under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 10. 5. 1991 as per Exhibit - 16. ( 6 ) LET me now consider if the impugned order of conviction and sentence could be sustained on the evidence, adduced on the record. In this appeal, it was very much urged on behalf of the appellant that it was required of the prosecution to prove the manner and the place of occurrence depending on the evidence adduced on its behalf without taking help of defence version. It was further urged that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, the facts and circumstances of the case would entitle the appellant to the benefit, acquiring from the right of private defence. ( 7 ) THE origin of occurrence as it could be gathered from the record was that about a month prior to the occurrence the appellant had stored certain number of bamboos by the side of his hut. Since the house of the victim Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) existed very close, i. e. , to say, within 10 to 20 metres, the bamboos obstructed the passage to the house of Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). Some time thereafter Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) cut some of the bamboos so as to clear the passage to his house. This caused annoyance to the appellant and, for first he made some oral complaint to the Deputy Ranger of the Forest Camp, Viswadevan (P. W. 5 ). The appellant and Sulaiman (P. W. 1) were labourers of the Forest department working under Viswadevan (P. W. 5 ). On the complaint of appellant, Viswadevan (P. W. 5) had rebuked Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) over cutting of the bamboo by him and so he, besides making complaint to Viswadevan (P. W. 5) also took recourse of brutal assault on the person of Sulaiman Dhanwar (P. W. 1) and when Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) intervened, he also was assaulted in that course. This story finds full support from the corroborated evidence of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) as also that of Viswadevan (P. W. 5 ). This story finds full support from the corroborated evidence of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) as also that of Viswadevan (P. W. 5 ). On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the defence that since the appellant has made oral complaint to Viswadevan (P. W. 5), the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) made a plan to make murderous attempt upon him (the appellant ). Looking to the probabilities of the two versions I lean towards the accepting the version as advanced on behalf of the prosecution and I find myself in agreement with the finding of the Trial Court that the origin of the occurrence did suggest that the appellant had grudge over cutting of bamboos and, ultimately he turned to be aggressor upon Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). ( 8 ) AS to the details about the manner of occurrence one has to depend, in this case, only on the evidence of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 ). This was for the simple reason that the occurrence took place in the midnight and as per the both versions of the case there was no eye witness available at the time of assault. I find both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) having stood the test of cross-examination so as to establish that while they were sitting near the oven the house of one of the (P. W. 1), the appellant came all on a sudden and started giving blows of Dah, first on Sulaiman (P. W. 1) and when he (P. W. 1) managed to flee away, also on the other victim Jagat Sai (P. W. 2 ). As to the source of light for identification of the appellant it would be derived from the evidence of both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) that there was a lamp burning at the spot and there was also light available from the burning fire-wood in the oven. It is true that one of the victim (P. W. 1) omitted in his statement before the I. O. (P. W. 12) about the existence of a lamp at the spot but, in my opinion, that omission cannot be taken as a material contradiction. It is true that one of the victim (P. W. 1) omitted in his statement before the I. O. (P. W. 12) about the existence of a lamp at the spot but, in my opinion, that omission cannot be taken as a material contradiction. ( 9 ) BOTH the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) have also narrated about the number of injuries inflicted on their respective persons with Dah while pointing out the scar marks at the site of all the vital injuries before the trial court. It was further explained in their evidence as to how they managed to move away from the place of occurrence so as to take shelter in some nearby huts where they fell unconscious till recovery of their consciousness in the hospital. Sulaiman (P. W. 1) had fled away to the hut of Soma Hansa (since dead ). Jagat (P. W. 2) fell unconscious on the spot of assault and when he regained consciousness, he moved to the hut of Sukhi (P. W. 7) and became unconscious again. ( 10 ) THE medical evidence adduced on the record also fully corroborated the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) with regard to the injuries inflicted on their persons. It is to be noted that both the victims, in an unconscious state, were first brought to the Billiground Primary Health Centre, on some motor vehicle, arranged by the labourers of the Forest Department, namely, Mahali Singh (P. W. 3 ). Sukhi Oraon, (P. W. 7), Dinu Oraon (P. W. 8) and (P. W. 9) Agapit Dung Dung. The Dy. Ranger of the Forest Camp Viswadevan (P. W. 5) also extended help is providing transport from the place of occurrence to the aforesaid Primary Health Centre. A dengi was arranged to cross the intervening nallah between the two places. It appears that the victims were examined by Dr. S. K. Halder of Billiground Primary Health Centre at 2. 40/8. 45 AM one after the other on 8. 5. 1991 i. e. , soon after they (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) were brought to the Primary Health Centre. Dr. S. K. Halder, who prepared the injury reports (Ext. It appears that the victims were examined by Dr. S. K. Halder of Billiground Primary Health Centre at 2. 40/8. 45 AM one after the other on 8. 5. 1991 i. e. , soon after they (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) were brought to the Primary Health Centre. Dr. S. K. Halder, who prepared the injury reports (Ext. 7/1 and 8/1), could not be examined by the prosecution for the valid reason that he had since left the Islands of Andaman and Nicobar and had gone to a distant place, namely, Pune for doing his post graduate training. However, the prosecution has examined Dr. N. Sadasivan, Surgical Specialist, attached to GB Pant Hospital, Port Blair (P. W. 11) to whom Dr. Haldar had referred the cases of both the victims for special treatment. The victims had been brought from Billiground Primary Health Centre to G. B. Pant Hospital at Port Blair on a Helicopter. Since Dr. N. Sadasivan (P. W. 11) had an opportunity to treat both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) right from the next following day of the occurrence and he had also prepared the medical case sheets (Ext. 7 and 8) of both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2), he could depose with reference to the injuries as reported in the injury reports (Ext. 7/1 and 8/1), prepared by Dr. Haldar. The medical case sheets (Ext. 7 and 8), of course, did not incorporate all the details available in corresponding injury report (Ext. 7/1 and 8/1) but, at the same time, it was noticeable that no contradiction could be made out of those papers. Dr. Sadasivan (P. W. 11) has satisfied with an explanation that he was to give special treatment to only some of the injuries, and so the relevant descriptions of only those injuries were mentioned in the medical case sheets (Ext. 7 and 8) and some other details available on the corresponding injury report (Ext. 7/1 and 8/1) were looked into by him. The details of the injuries found on the persons of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) have been categorically narrated by the Dr. Sadasivan (P. W. 11 ). The relevant scar marks of the injuries and the DAH (Mat. Ext. 7/1 and 8/1) were looked into by him. The details of the injuries found on the persons of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) have been categorically narrated by the Dr. Sadasivan (P. W. 11 ). The relevant scar marks of the injuries and the DAH (Mat. Ext. I) were also shown by the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) while deposing before the trial court. The victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) were again produced before the trial court to enable the Dr. Sadasivan (P. W. 11) to identify them on the basis of scar marks or the disfiguration owing to the injuries. The medical evidence therefore, supports the prosecution case with regard to grievous and extensive injuries which had been caused on the persons of the two victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 ). The nature of the injuries, as it would appear from the medical evidence was certainly indicative of an attempt of murder. ( 11 ) AS per the integal part of the prosecution story, the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1), having received injuries, went to the hut of one Soma Hansa (since dead) and there he become unconscious. Soma Hansa, thereupon, went to Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) and reported the matter. I find that Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) has corroborated the version of Sulaiman (P. W. 1) on this part of the story. Soma Hansa has since died so he could not be examined. Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) and Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7) also asserted that Sulaiman (P. W. 1) was picked up from the said hut for taking him to Primary Health Centre. The I. O. (P. W. 12) has found blood stained earth and blood stained Banyan inside the hut of Soma Hansa, and, accordingly, seized those materials as per the seizure list (Ext. 6/1) in presence of Viswadevan (P. W. 5) and Soma Hansa. Similarly, as per the version of the victim Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) he regained consciousness at the spot for some time, went to the hut of Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7) and again fell down there unconscious. Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7) soon thereafter reported it to Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) and, subsequently, Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) was picked up from there for taking him to the Primary Health Centre. Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7) soon thereafter reported it to Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) and, subsequently, Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) was picked up from there for taking him to the Primary Health Centre. Both of them (P. W. 3 and P. W. 7) have testified this part of the story also. The I. O. (P. W. 12) seized the blood stained Chatai (Mat. Ext. XI and XI/ 1) from there as per the seizure list (Ext. 5/1) in presence of Viswadevan (P. W. 5) and Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7 ). There was no reason to disbelieve the corroborated statement of witnesses as referred to above and this would go to a great extent to prove the prosecution story. ( 12 ) BESIDES the above direct evidence, there was extra judicial confession of the appellant, made before the informant Mahali Singh (P. W. 3), immediately, after the occurrence. The victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1) had managed to flee away from the place of occurrence in course of the assault and the appellant got engaged in assaulting Jagat Sai (P. W. 2 ). So after Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) fell unconscious, the appellant ran towards the Forest garage with Dah in his hand in search of Sulaiman (P. W. 1) and there he met Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) and asked him for the whereabout of Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). The appellant also told Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) by way of an extra judicial confession that he had assaulted Sulaiman (P. W. 1) and Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) and that there was no hope of survival of Jagat Sai (P. W. 2 ). He further asserted before him that if he would get Sulaiman (P. W. 1), he would assault him all the more. Mahali Singh (P. W, 3) had no reason to depose falsely in as much as he stood the same relationship with both the sides. The appellant, the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) and Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) all were the labourers of the Forest Department ; and Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) appears to have deposed in responsible manner. Moreover, what has been narrated by Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) was almost the same as narrated by the appellant in his examination U/s 164 of the Cr. P. C (Ext. 16 ). Moreover, what has been narrated by Mahali Singh (P. W. 3) was almost the same as narrated by the appellant in his examination U/s 164 of the Cr. P. C (Ext. 16 ). Therefore, one would surely accept his version, submitted in the natural sequence. That being as such, the conduct of the appellant obviously in dicated that he voluntarily inflicted injuries on the persons of the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) and his action would deliberate under the motivation of grudge, which he had against Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). Moreover, one gets the earliest version of the appellant only from Mahali Singh (P. W. 3 ). The subsequent statements of the appellant, made for the purpose of his examination under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. as also under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. appear to have been simply twisted so as to claim the right of private defence. The plea of private defence thus appears to be an afterthought story, which would be rather falsified by the aforesaid conduct of the appellant and the extra judicial confession made by him. ( 13 ) I may now proceed to determine as what was the place of occurrence. Whether it was the hut of the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1) or the hut of the appellant. Both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) asserted in their respective evidence that the assault took place in the hut of one of the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). It would be derived from their evidence that while both of them were sitting by the side of an oven, the appellant arrived there and assaulted them. The hut of Sulaiman was inspected by the I. O (P. W. 12) in presence of an impartial and responsible Forest Officer of the rank of Deputy Ranger of Forest, namely P. S. Viswadevan (P. W. 5 ) and some other including Sukhi Oraon (P. W. 7) ; and some articles like blood stained earth and some 10 piece of cut teeth had been recovered therefrom as per seizure list (Ext. 4/1 ). The I. O (P. W. 12) also prepared the site-plan (Ext. 12 ). One photographer, Stephen, (P. W. 4) took certain snaps of the place of occurrence which are on records as Exhibit -1 and 1/1. 4/1 ). The I. O (P. W. 12) also prepared the site-plan (Ext. 12 ). One photographer, Stephen, (P. W. 4) took certain snaps of the place of occurrence which are on records as Exhibit -1 and 1/1. The oral evidence of the I. O (P. W. 12) and the aforesaid witnesses (P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 7) read together with the seizure-list leaves no scope of doubt that the place of occurrence was the hut of Sulaiman (P. W. 1) as also asserted in the oral evidence of both the victims (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 ). The victim Jagat Sai (P. W. 2) had asserted that he had spat the broken/cut teeth on the spot of the occurrence. Since the inspection of the hut by the I. O (P. W. 12) had made at the earliest possible after the occurrence there was no scope of planting the blood stain or pieces of cut teeth (Ext. X) in the said hut. It may also be added here that the I. O (P. W. 12) had also inspected the hut of the appellant which is situated at the distance of about 20 Mtrs. from the hut of Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). From the hut of the appellant it was only blood stained Dah and some clothes of the appellant which were recovered there from as per Exhibit 3/2. This incriminating articles were recovered in pursuance of confession of the appellant before the police. The evidence of the I. O (P. W. 12) did not indicate any material point so as to accept the defence version about the place of occurrence being the hut of the appellant. Therefore, there appears not even the least doubt that the occurrence of assault took place inside the hut of victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). ( 14 ) WHILE making an attempt to make out a case of private defence it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that he surrendered before the police out post at Betapur on the next following morning of the occurrence. This was of course true because I find from the evidence of I. O. (P. W. 12) that after the F. I. R. was lodged at Rangat P. S. at 10. This was of course true because I find from the evidence of I. O. (P. W. 12) that after the F. I. R. was lodged at Rangat P. S. at 10. 00 A. M, he (P. W. 12) proceeded towards the place of occurrence and, on the way, he arrived at Betapur Police Outpost and found the appellant present there at about 10. 00 A. M. It is said that the appellant had arrived at Betapur Police Outpost a few minutes before 11. 00 A. M. Be that as it may, the mere fact of surrendering before the police will not exonerate the appellant in any manner. It was significant to note here that the appellant had sustained no injury. The appellant had been examined by the Doctor, Haldar, at 11. 30 A. M on the same day i. e. , 3. 5. 1991 and there was no injury found on his person. The relevant report was on the record as exhibit 9. The absence of any injury on the person of the appellant was very much significant to form an opinion with regard to his plea of private defence of body. It appears to be quite improbable that the appellant could escape from any injury on the threat and attempt made by two persons carrying Ballam and Balli as it has been alleged against the victims. ( 15 ) THOUGH the F. I. R of the instant case does not incorporate the actual manner of occurrence given by the victims, it was even then urged on behalf of the defence that the F. I. R. was hit by the Section 162 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel for the defence pointed out in the evidence of Viswadevan (P. W. 5) and also as per some averments made in the injury report, prepared by Dr. Haldar (Ex. 7/1 and 8/1), that at about 8. 40/8. 45 A. M on 8. 5. 1991 some police person of Betapur Police Outpost, alongwith some others had brought the victims at Billyground Primary Health Centre. In my-considered opinion it appears that, on some hue and cry, a few constables of Betapur Police Outpost happened to be present when the victims were being brought to the hospital after crossing a nallah situated in between the place of occurrence and Betapur. In my-considered opinion it appears that, on some hue and cry, a few constables of Betapur Police Outpost happened to be present when the victims were being brought to the hospital after crossing a nallah situated in between the place of occurrence and Betapur. This was just casual presence of a few Police constables of the Betapur Police Outpost and this alone would never indicate that some one from the side of the prosecution had lodged any information at Betapur Police Outpost so as to record a diary there. None of the prosecution witnesses had meant to submit that any information was given to the police and that the police had actually started with the investigation when the victims were brought to Billyground Primary Health Centre. On the contrary, it would be derived from the evidence of the informant (P. W. 3) as also corroborated by the I. O. (P. W. 12) that the informant, after reaching the victims at the Primary Health Centre, immediately proceeded to Rangat Police Station by bus. The distance between the two places was about 33 Kms. The FIR (Ex. 10/1) appears to have been lodged at Rangat Police Station at 10. 00 A. M. In this view of the matter I find that there was practically no investigation commenced at the hand of the concerned police personnel prior to lodging of that F. I. R. The casual presence of a few constable of Betapur Police Outpost at the Billyground Primary Health Centre was mere a coincidence and of no legal consequences. The authority being AIR 1993 SC 2644 , cited on behalf of the defence in this regard, does not appear to be applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case. ( 16 ) AT the close of the discussion I may now sum-up the facts and circumstances of the case, which would be relevant to determine the plea of private defence which has been emphatically urged in this appeal. Those facts are as follows : (I)the origin of occurrence suggests that the appellant was nourishing grudge against the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1) over the cutting of Bamboos and this motivated him to be aggressive. (ii)the place of occurrence was situated inside the hut of the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). Those facts are as follows : (I)the origin of occurrence suggests that the appellant was nourishing grudge against the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1) over the cutting of Bamboos and this motivated him to be aggressive. (ii)the place of occurrence was situated inside the hut of the victim Sulaiman (P. W. 1 ). (iii)the nature and extent of injuries inflicted on the persons of the victims were suggestive of the fact that the appellant was extremely offensive and deliberate in his act of assault. (iv)the appellant having been confident that he had done away with the life of Jagat (P. W. 2) went out for search of Sulaiman (P. W. 1) to inflict some more injuries on his person (who had earlier managed to flee away ). (v)there was absolutely no injury inflicted on the person of the appellant. (vi) even as per the defence version the appellant had ample opportunity to flee away from the rear gate of his hut, taking advantage of envelope of darkness, instead of snatching the weapons in the hands of the victims and brutally assault them. As a natural corollary of the findings as noticed above there was no scope of doubt that the act of the appellant was voluntary and that the plea of right of private defence was not available to the appellant. I find myself in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court so as to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 and 452 of the I. P. C. There appears no valid ground so as to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the said Court. I have also examined the extent of sentence passed by the Court below and, on that count also I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the same. In my opinion, the order of sentence as passed by the Court below will meet the ends of justice in this case. In the result, there appears no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.