Raja alias Rajakkannu, In re. v. . — 1994 DIGILAW 804 (MAD)

Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The appellant was the accused in S.C.No. 92 of 1986 on the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, 2. He faced trial for offences under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and Sec. 506, Part II, I.P.C. (3 counts). He was found guilty under Sec. 302, I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also found guilty under Sec. 506, Part II, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under each count. He was, however, found not guilty in respect of one count under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. and acquitted thereof. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts are: (a) The accused Raja alias Rajakkannu, Natesan (since deceased) P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the residents of Sanarapiratti village, situate within the limits of Pasupathipalayam police station. All of them, it is said, were eking out their livelihood by doing cooly work. (b) On 3. 1986 at about 4.00 p.m. P.W. 1 went to Industrial Estate for hulling paddy in his bicycle. There was so much of crowd in the mill and consequently P.W. 1 left the paddy in the mill and went to a nearby tea shop for the purpose of taking a cup of tea. P.W. 3 was an employee in the tea shop. Before entering the tea shop, P.W. 1 parked the bicycle in front of the tea shop belonging to one Periyasamy. He requested the accused who was then available to take care of his bicycle. At or about the same time, P.W. 2, after finishing his work in the garden land of one Narayanasamy Iyer, went to the same tea shop for the purpose of consuming a cup of tea. (c) When P.W. 1 came out of the tea shop, of course, after taking the tea, he found the accused meddling with the dynamo of his bicycle, in the sense of twisting the coil of the dynamo. He questioned the accused as to why he did so. The accused replied in a blunt fashion as to where was the need for him to do so. So saying, the accused was stated to have pushed P.W. 1 down on the ground. At that time, the deceased arrived there and questioned the accused as to how dare enough he was to push P.W. 1 and make him fall on the ground. So saying, the accused was stated to have pushed P.W. 1 down on the ground. At that time, the deceased arrived there and questioned the accused as to how dare enough he was to push P.W. 1 and make him fall on the ground. Accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and asked as to who he was to question him. So saying, he pushed the deceased also, the consequence of which was he also fell on the ground. Deceased got up and he, in his turn, pushed the accused, the net result of which pushing was, the accused was stated to have dashed against a lamp post, sustaining an injury on his right cheek. P.W. 2 was taking tea inside, came out after hearing the noise. One Vamundi also arrived there. P.Ws. 1, 2 and the said Vamundi separated the deceased and the accused in a bid to avoid any untoward incident. Thereafter, accused left the place issuing threats of imminent danger to the life of the deceased. (d) P.W. 1 is the brother’s son of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased purchased certain vegetables and provisions on the way to his house in his bicycle. He was followed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and one Vamundi, all in bicycles. All of them were at a distance of one furlong away from the industrial estate, and while they were passing through Padhayur near the house of one Appavoo, the accused emerged from north and inflicted a stab with M.O. 1 knife on the chest of the deceased while he was proceeding in his bicycle, proclaiming “You fellow beat me, to be done away with once and for all.” On receipt of the stab, the deceased fell down from his bicycle, got up and ran towards north, leaving the bicycle there. The accused chased the deceased with the knife in his hand. P.Ws. 1, 2 and Vamundi entreated the accused not to resort to stab the deceased any further. They were threatened by the accused that if they dared to come near him, they ran the risk of being stabbed. Consequently, they hastened their march slowly following the deceased and the accused. The deceased crossed Raja Vaikkal and fell in the field belonging to one Murugesan of Narikattiyur. The accused ran towards west. P.Ws. They were threatened by the accused that if they dared to come near him, they ran the risk of being stabbed. Consequently, they hastened their march slowly following the deceased and the accused. The deceased crossed Raja Vaikkal and fell in the field belonging to one Murugesan of Narikattiyur. The accused ran towards west. P.Ws. 1, 2 and the said Vamundi went near the deceased and found him dead. The time was then 5.00 p.m. (e) P.Ws. 1 and 2 then went to the house of the deceased and informed the occurrence to the family members. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pasupathipalayam police station, four Kilometres away and reached there at 9.00 p.m. (f) P.W. 10 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam police station. P.W. 1 lodged an information, which was reduced into writing by P.W. 10, as narrated by him. After reducing the said information into writing, the same had been read over to P.W. 1 and he admitted the same to be correct. Ex.P-1 is the first information, attested by P.W. 2. P.W. 10 registered the same as a case in Crime No. 62 of 1986 for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. He prepared express reports land sent the same to the concerned officials. Ex.P-13 is the printed F.I.R. (g) P.W. 11 was the then Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Karur, At 10.00 p.m. he received the express report. Immediately, thereafter, he took up further investigation of the case. He rushed and reached the scene at 10.30p.m. After inspecting the same, he prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch of the scene Ex.P-14. Between 11.30p.m. and 2.00a.m. (3. 1986), he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2 Vamundi and others. Ex.P-15 is the Inquest Report. After inquest was over, P.W. 11 sent the body, through the Constable P.W. 8 for the purpose of autopsy. At 2.15 A.M. he seized from the scene blood stained earth, M.O. 3 and sample earth, M.O. 4 under Ex.P-3 mahazar. At 2.45 a.m. he seized the bicycle M.O. 2, from the place where it was left by the deceased, under Ex.P-4 mahazar. Exs.P-2 to P-4 were attested by P.W. 4 and another. He searched for the accused and he was not available. (h) P.W. 6 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Karur. At 2.45 a.m. he seized the bicycle M.O. 2, from the place where it was left by the deceased, under Ex.P-4 mahazar. Exs.P-2 to P-4 were attested by P.W. 4 and another. He searched for the accused and he was not available. (h) P.W. 6 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Karur. At 7.35 a.m. on 3. 1986, he held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-7 is the post-mortem certificate. He would opine that the injury found described in Ex.P-7 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1. He would further opine that the external injury with its corresponding internal injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (i) After the autopsy was over, the Constable P.W. 8 seized from the body M.O. 5 blood stained dhoti, M.O. 6 blood stained shirt, M.O. 7 blood stained underwear, M.O. 8 blood stained banian and M.O. 9 waist word from the body of the deceased and handed over the same at the police station, which appeared to have been seized under Form-95. (j) P.W. 11 examined P.Ws. 3 and 6 on 3. 1986. On 3. 1986 at 11.30 a.m. he arrested the accused near Regional Transport Corporation Office in the presence of P.W.5. On interrogation, the accused made a voluntary confession statement under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P-5 is the admissible portion of the confession. Pursuant to the said confession, the accused took out and produced M.O. 1 knife from a bush situate near the field of one Vadivelu and the same had been seized under Ex.P-6 mahazar, attested by P.W. 5. He found certain injuries on the person of the accused. Therefore, he sent the accused with necessary requisition to the hospital for his treatment. (k) P.W. 7 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Karur. At 2.45 p.m., he examined the accused and treated him for the injuries. Ex.P-8 is the wound certificate issued to the injuries he found on his person. (1) P.W. 11 then sent the accused to court for the purpose of remand. He sent Ex.P-9 requisition to Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. I, Karur for forwarding the seized incriminating material objects to the chemical examiner for the purpose of examination. (m) P.W. 9 was the then Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karur. (1) P.W. 11 then sent the accused to court for the purpose of remand. He sent Ex.P-9 requisition to Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. I, Karur for forwarding the seized incriminating material objects to the chemical examiner for the purpose of examination. (m) P.W. 9 was the then Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karur. On receipt of Ex.P-9 requisition, all the incriminating material objects had been separately packed and sealed in the presence of the Magistrate and sent to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination under Ex.P-10, office copy of the letter. Exs.P-11 and P-12 are respectively the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. (n) On 23. 1986, P.W. 11 examined P.W. 7. On completion of investigation, he laid the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C., before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. I, Karur for alleged offences under Secs. 302 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., on 4. 1986. 4. On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Secs. 302, I.P.C. and 506, Part II, I.P.C. (3 counts). 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 11, filed Exs.P-1 to P-15 and marked M.Os. 1 to 9. 7. The accused, when questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances available in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He also filed written statement to the following effect: .(a) He denied the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the scene. Besides, he would state that the version as painted by the prosecution, is divorced of the realities of the situation, in the sense of suppressing material facts relatable to the genesis and origin of the occurrence. He would further project the manner and methodology of occurrence. According to him, there was want of cordial atmosphere or so to say embittered relationship between him and the deceased who was residing in the house of P.W. 1 situate adjacent to his house. There is a lane in between the two houses. Respecting the use of the lane very often, skirmishes and quarrels arose between the two families and as a consequence the deceased was nurturing a grievance and animosity towards him. On the morning of the day of occurrence, a skirmish arose between them. There is a lane in between the two houses. Respecting the use of the lane very often, skirmishes and quarrels arose between the two families and as a consequence the deceased was nurturing a grievance and animosity towards him. On the morning of the day of occurrence, a skirmish arose between them. (b) At about 5.00 p.m. on the fateful day, when he was proceeding to his lands, he happened to meet the deceased. On seeing him, the deceased proclaimed, "You fellow" quarrelled with me? I will see that you are once and for all done away with." So saying, all of a sudden and quite unexpectedly he pushed him down. While so falling, he sustained an injury on his right cheek, as a consequence of that a portion of his face coming into contact with a stone, lying on the ground. After his fall on the ground and while he was lying, with his face facing sky, the deceased sat on him and grappled and throttled his neck with his right hand, the consequence of which was, there was occlusion of air from his nose, raising a reasonable apprehension in his mind that in all probability there was imminence of threat to his life at his hands, placed in such a predicament situation, to took out a knife and inflicted a stab on the person of the deceased in rather a bid to save his life. No sooner the deceased did receive the stab than he fell on the ground. Thereafter he ran away from the scene. .(c) He cited one Madhiseelan, son of Ramalingam, to be examined on his side as a witness. However, he did not choose to examine him and his examination had been dispensed with. 8. On consideration of the materials placed, learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused rendered the verdict as stated above. 9. However, he did not choose to examine him and his examination had been dispensed with. 8. On consideration of the materials placed, learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused rendered the verdict as stated above. 9. Mr.K.N. Basha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, would submit with all vehemence that the materials placed on record in the shape of evidence, oral and documentary, if sifted and scanned in a broad spectrum analysis would point out in a clinching fashion that the act of the accused, in stabbing the deceased by means of a knife like M.O. 1, can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be one, done with the mens rea prescribed in any one of the Clauses of Sec. 300, I.P.C. punishable under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and if at all it would be one, done in the exercise of right of private defence of person pure and simple, making his case fall under the salient and sanguine provisions adumbrated under Sec. 100, I.P.C. and in that view of the matter, he would say, that the conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon him by the court below under Sec. 302, I.P.C. are not sustainable. He would also submit that the conviction and sentence would Sec. 506, Part V, I.P.C., (2 counts) are also not sustainable inasmuch as no safe reliance could be placed on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 10. Mr. Raghupathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would however repel such submission with all seriousness. 11. This is not a case in which the accused is totally denying the occurrence. But what he would contend is that the occurrence, as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, is divorced of the realities of the situation, in the sense of planting or projecting a version different from the one that had happened at or about the time of occurrence. This sort of a stand, the accused would take, right from the beginning and this is evident from the trend of cross-examination of the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence. This sort of a stand, the accused would take, right from the beginning and this is evident from the trend of cross-examination of the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence. A foundation, during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1, had been laid for claiming the right of private defence of person and the same had been successfully carried out right-through till upto the end, besides filing a written statement of what, according to him, actually transpired on the day of occurrence. 12. We are aware that in a criminal case, the onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of a charge against the accused lies solely upon prosecution, and that onus still remains unchanged. This follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent, until his guilt is established by the prosecution. Sec. 105 of the Indian Evidence Act is an important qualification of this general rule and is an application of the rule in Sec. 103 which relieves the prosecution of the burden and necessity of proving the absence of facts, which might bring the case within a general or special exception, or exemption, or proviso under the Penal Code or other Criminal Law. Under Sec. 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, when an accused person wishes to rely on any exception in the Penal Law, it is incumbent on him to prove the existence of circumstances, which would show, that any of the special or general exceptions would take his case out of criminal liability. 13. The section involves both. .(i) a presumption; and .(ii) a rule as to the burden of proof following it. The court shall presume the non-existence of circumstances bringing the case within an exception and the accused person, who relies on its existence, has to prove the same as the burden of proof is cast on him. The section had clarified the position, by placing an exception (special or general) on the same footing, in the sense of the same required to be proved by the accused; but it does not mean that he must plead it specially or specifically or lead evidence. The section had clarified the position, by placing an exception (special or general) on the same footing, in the sense of the same required to be proved by the accused; but it does not mean that he must plead it specially or specifically or lead evidence. If it is apparent from the record, whether produced by the prosecution or the defence, that the general exception would apply, then the presumption is removed and it is open to the court to consider whether the evidence proves to the satisfaction of the court that the accused comes within the exception. Where the evidence adduced fails to satisfy the court of the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exception pleaded, the accused is entitled to be acquitted, if upon consideration of the evidence of both sides, the court is left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is or is not entitled to the benefit of the exception pleaded. 14. In the backdrop of the first principles of law as above, we shall now endeavour to delve into the materials available on record to findout as to whether the version as projected by the defence competes in all probabilities with that of the version, as projected by the prosecution, respecting the manner and methodology of the occurrence. 15. According to the prosecution, the main occurrence consists of three parts viz., .(i) the skirmishes and quarrel leading to the pushing of each other, resulting in sustaining some injuries by the accused between the accused on one hand and P.Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased on the other hand, that took place at 4.00 p.m., in front of the tea shop of one Periyasamy, situate at Karur-Trichy main road, adjacent to the Industrial Estate, located therein. .(ii) The actual stabbing of the deceased while he was proceeding on his bicycle, followed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased on the other hand, that took place at 4.00 p.m., in front of the tea shop of one Periyasamy, situate at Karur-Trichy main road, adjacent to the Industrial Estate, located therein. .(ii) The actual stabbing of the deceased while he was proceeding on his bicycle, followed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and one Vamundi, by the accused, taking place in front of the house of one Appavoo Mooppan, situate at Padhayur Road, beyond the railway gate, one furlong away from the Industrial Estate: and (iii) the deceased after the receipt of the stab falling on the ground, along with the cycle and running towards north, in a bid to save himself from the perilous consequences he was facing at the hands of the accused, being chased by him with the knife in his hand, followed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and Vamundi, making shrieks “don’t stab, don’t stab” and the accused issuing threats of dire consequences to the lives of P.Ws. 1, 2 and Vamundi, in case they dared to follow him and the victim-deceased ultimately crossing Raja Vaikkal and falling on the field of one Murugesan of Narikattiyur village and the accused escaping from there by running towards west and the victim-deceased being found dead a little later by P.Ws. 1, 2 and Vamundi. 16. The emergence and congregation of P.Ws. 1, 2 the deceased and Vamundi at the tea shop of Periyasamy where the occurrence was stated to have originated, look incredible and highly improbable. P.W. 1 would create a handy situation that on the evening of the day of occurrence, when he had been to the rice mill, located at the Industrial Estate, for the purpose of hulling paddy, there were so much of crowd available in the said mill, and consequently he had been to the tea shop in a bid to while away the time and incidentally to consume a cup of tea. He would say, he would got to the said tea shop in his bicycle and parked the same in front of it. A request would emanate from him to take care of his bicycle to the accused, whose contumacious presence, he would invent, while he was entering into the tea shop for the purpose of taking a cup of tea. He would say, he would got to the said tea shop in his bicycle and parked the same in front of it. A request would emanate from him to take care of his bicycle to the accused, whose contumacious presence, he would invent, while he was entering into the tea shop for the purpose of taking a cup of tea. When he came out, a quarrel ensued between him and the accused when he found that the dynamo coil of the bicycle had either been twisted or broken by the accused. A wordy duel arose between them, which resulted in the pushing of each other. 17. It is only then the deceased would emerge there by getting down from a town bus to witness such a situation and interfere with the quarrel that took place between P.W. 1 and the accused. Amazing it is also, to hear that P.W. 2 would also come to the said tea shop exactly at that time for the purpose of taking a tea, after finishing his agricultural operations in the field of one Narayanasamy Iyer. The further intriguing factor is that while P.W. 2 was seated inside the tea shop, his presence was not at all noticed by P.W. 1. Nor did he notice the presence of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 however, would make us believe that while he was sitting inside the tea shop and consuming tea, he heard a noise emerging outside and came out and saw the wordy duel taking place between P.W. 1 and the deceased. The further bewildering factor as to wherefrom Vamundi came to the scene had not at all been explained. These things apart, P.W. 3, an employee of the tea shop did not murmur or whisper as to the presence of P.W. 2, deceased, accused and Vamundi in the tea shop. He would not even say they were present outside the tea shop. What is further worse is he would not at all say anything as to any quarrel having happened between P.W. 1 and accused and in the process of such quarrel P.W. 2, Vamundi and the deceased interfered and separated them in a bid to avoid any untoward incident. Only in the course of such quarrel, accused was stated to have sustained an injury on his right cheek by his getting dashed against an electric lamp post situate in front of the tea shop. Only in the course of such quarrel, accused was stated to have sustained an injury on his right cheek by his getting dashed against an electric lamp post situate in front of the tea shop. The existence of such a lamp post is not at all found mentioned either in the observation mahazar or in the rough sketch drawn. Further, it is not as if the injury found on his person was the only injury on his right cheek. The sordid fact is that he was having multiple abrasions on his neck as found by the medical testimony available on record, in the shape of P.W. 7 and Ex.P-8. The direct witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not at all say as to how the accused came by the injuries on his neck. 18. When the accused was stated to have gone from mere after mediation, the deceased proceeded to his village in his bicycle, carrying vegetables and other provisions, followed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Vamundi, in their respective bicycles. If we peruse the evidence on record, the deceased emerged to the tea shop of one Periyasamy, by getting down from a bus. Likewise, P.W. 2 would explain his otherwise inexplicable presence by stating that he did come to the tea shop for the consumption of tea in his bicycle. Top of all, no evidence is available as to wherefrom the said Vamundi came and whether he came on his own bicycle. Such being the case, we are asked to believe that all of them went on their respective bicycles and only when they were proceeding, the second part of the occurrence of the actual stabbing took place, near the house of one Appavoo Mooppan, One furlong away from the Industrial Estate and near the railway gate. 19. It is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that after the receipt of the stab the deceased along with his bicycle fell down and he subsequently got up and ran away in a bid to escape to save his life, leaving the bicycle on the spot itself. Neither the provisions nor the vegetables, stated to have been carried by him in the cycle, were recovered by the investigating agency. Leave alone recovery of those articles, not even a mention had been made in the observation mahazar prepared. 20. Neither the provisions nor the vegetables, stated to have been carried by him in the cycle, were recovered by the investigating agency. Leave alone recovery of those articles, not even a mention had been made in the observation mahazar prepared. 20. What is further worse is no bloodstains were available at the actual place of stabbing. This apart, there was no trace of any trail of blood along the road chosen by the deceased to run, in a bid to escape for his life. The other signal factor is drat blood had been recovered only in the field where the deceased fell and breamed his last. The absence of blood at the place where the stabbing took place and absence of trail of blood along the road chosen by the deceased to run, we rather feel, are highly improbable in the light of the medical testimony available on record. The doctor P.W. 6, who conducted the autopsy and issued Ex.P-7 post-mortem certificate would opine that death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage. He would also state that all the internal organs were found pale during autopsy. He would ascribe such condition due to severe haemorrhage. He also found collection of blood in thoracic and abdominal cavities. His evidence would further reveal that the plausibility or possibility of haemorrhage from the exit of the wound cannot at all be ruled out of consideration, immediately after the infliction of the stab. In such a situation, can we believe the version as projected by the prosecution that there was no blood available on the place where initial stabbing took place and also when they say there was absence of trail of blood along the road chosen by the deceased to run for his safety? The absence of blood, as above is also an indication improbabilising the version as respects the manner and methodology the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution. 21. If we turn to the version as projected by the defence, regarding the manner and methodology of occurrence, we rather feel that such a version appears to be more probable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 21. If we turn to the version as projected by the defence, regarding the manner and methodology of occurrence, we rather feel that such a version appears to be more probable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The case of the defence as stated above was that the accused was simply put to the necessity of inflicting a stab on the person of the deceased, when there was an imminent threat to his life, at the hands of the deceased in a bid to save his life, as a measure of self-defence, pure and simple. 22. We may profitably refer at this juncture the injuries found on the person of the accused as revealed by the. wound certificate Ex.P-8 issued by the doctor P.W.7. He found on him the following external injuries. .(i) An old abrasion of 2’ x 1" over the right cheek; .(ii) Multiple old abrasions over the left side neck. Of the two injuries, the prosecution rather made an attempt to explain the first injury found on the right cheek of the accused. The manner of causation of such injury, as stated by the prosecution, had already been disbelieved by us. As already stated, significant it is to note that as respects the second injury viz., multiple abrasions over the left side neck of the accused, the prosecution kept mum and silent without referring to offer any explanation. In such state of affairs, we do not think, we are far wrong in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses had made assiduous attempts to suppress the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 23. Useful reference at this juncture may be made to the epoch-making judgment of the apex Court of this country in the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263: (1977)1 S.C. W.R. 306, in which their Lordships laid down the rule that in a murder case, non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, at or about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstance, from which the court can draw the following inferences. .(i) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version: .(ii) that the witnesses who had denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (iii) that in case there is a defence version, which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. Such a rule has now become an axiomatic proposition of law. 24. In order to highlight the right of private defence, as set up by the accused, we may also refer to the decision in Deo Narain v. The State of U.P., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 473. In order to understand the principle evolved therein we feel it to recapitulate here the facts of that case; .(a) The accused therein did not at all deny the occurrence. But what they pleaded was the right of private defence of person. The complainant party was in possession of a weapon of offence of stick or lathi; while the accused was in possession of spear. As a result of the injury caused by the accused with a spear, the death ensued. On consideration of the materials placed, Court of Session accepting the plea of right of private defence, as set up by the accused, acquitted them. (b) State, however, preferred appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, in turn, on consideration of the materials, reversed the verdict of acquittal and recorded a finding that though the accused persons had the right of private defence and were justified in exercising such aright, the appellant/accused had exceeded such right in inflicting the spear injury on the chest of the deceased and consequently found him guilty of the offence under Sec. 304(II), I.P.C. convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. .(c) The matter had been further agitated before the Supreme Court. .(c) The matter had been further agitated before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed by the High Court and in such process what they stated is relevant and the relevant portions as reflected in paragraph 5 are as under: “In our opinion, the High Court does seem to have erred in law in convicting the appellant on the ground that he had exceeded the right of private defence. What the High Court really seems to have missed is the provisions of law embodied in Sec. 100, I.P.C. According to that section the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed, and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. The threat, however, must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent, and not remote or distant, danger. This right rests on the general principle that where a crime is endeavoured to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is a complete misunderstanding of the law embodied in the above section. The right of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing the aggressor for the offence committed by him. It is a preventive and not punitive right. The right to punish for the commission of offences vests in the State (which has a duty to maintain law and order) and not in private individuals. If after sustaining a serious injury there is no apprehension of further danger to the body then obviously the right of private defence would not be available. In our view, therefore, as soon as the appellant reasonably apprehended danger to his body even from a real threat on the part of the party of the complainant to assault him for the purpose of forcibly taking possession of the plots indispute or of obstructing their cultivation he got the right of private defence and to use adequate force against the wrongful aggressor in exercise of that right. ....Again the approach of the High Court that merely because the complainant’s party had used lathis, the appellant was not justified in using his spear is no less misconceived and insupportable. During the course of marpeet, like the present the use of a lathi on the head may very well give rise to a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would result from an injury caused thereby. It cannot be laid down as a general rule that the use of a lathi as distinguished from the use of a spear must always be held to result only in milder injury. Much depends on the nature of the lathi, the part of the body aimed at and the force used in giving the blow. Indeed, even a spear is capable of being so used as to cause a very minor injury..... If, therefore, a blow with a lathi is aimed at a vulnerable part like the head we do not think it can be laid down as a sound proposition of law that in such cases the victim is not justified in using his spear in defending himself. In such moments of excitement of disturbed mental equilibrium it is somewhat difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression to coolly weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind as to what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient for effectively meeting the unlawful aggression..... But while dealing with the appellant’s case curiously enough the High Court has denied him the right of private defence on the sole ground that he had given a dangerous blow with considerable force with a spear on the chest of the deceased though he himself had only received a superficial lathi blow on his head. This view of the High Court is not only unrealistic and impractical but also contrary to law and indeed even in conflict with its own observation that in such cases the matter cannot be weighed in scales of gold” 25. In Mohd. This view of the High Court is not only unrealistic and impractical but also contrary to law and indeed even in conflict with its own observation that in such cases the matter cannot be weighed in scales of gold” 25. In Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1341, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 19 (at page 1345) stated thus: “It is trite that the onus which rests on an accused person under Sec. 105 Evidence Act, to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unshifting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is further well established that a person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another, is not expected to weigh in ‘golden scales’ the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he at the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further than what would be necessary”when calculated with precision and exactitude by a cairn and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it." .26. In the light of the dictum as evolved by the Supreme Court we may now enter into arena of discussion as to whether the version projected by the defence as respects the manner and methodology of occurrence is more probable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The accused would state that at or about the time of occurrence, he had been to his fields. On the way, he happened to meet the deceased. On sighting the accused, the deceased, keeping the incident that took place in the morning in his mind, issued a challenge to the accused, proclaiming "You fellow quarrelled with me? You will be done away with once and for all." It is only after such a proclamation, quite unexpectedly and all of a sudden, the accused had been pushed down by the deceased and only in such process, he happened to sustain the injury he would say on his right cheek by coming into contact with a stone lying on the ground. Sustaining of such an injury in the manner as suggested by the defence had not been ruled out of consideration by the medical testimony available on record. Sustaining of such an injury in the manner as suggested by the defence had not been ruled out of consideration by the medical testimony available on record. That apart, while he was lying on the ground with his face facing the sky, the deceased sat on him and grappled and throttled his neck in a bid to finish him once and for all, in the process of translation of what he stated earlier into action. When the clutches and hold of the deceased got tightened, preventing the accretion of air into his nose, the accused came to realise the imminence of threat to his life at the hands of the deceased and only in such a situation, he took out a knife M.O.I and inflicted a stab on the person of the deceased, which unfortunately landed on his chest and only thereafter, the deceased released his clutches and fell down. Though the injuries the accused sustained on his neck could have been caused in the process of his neck being throttled was not ruled out by the medical testimony available on record. The knife M.O. 1 is after all not a dreadful weapon, which looks like a pen knife and such a knife anyone can ordinarily possess. The accused placed in such a predicament situation after all did deliver a single stab and what he did in such a situation cannot at all be stated to be not one done in exercise of his right of private defence of person, pure and simple. We also feel that taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused, we are unable to place any safe reliance on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, when they say that the accused arriving with a knife threatened them with dire consequences if they came near him, going by the adage that "words will not breack bones". .27. For all the reasons as above, we are of the view that the act of the appellant/accused in causing the injury on the person of the deceased cannot at all be stated to be not one done in the exercise of right of private defence of person, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. .27. For all the reasons as above, we are of the view that the act of the appellant/accused in causing the injury on the person of the deceased cannot at all be stated to be not one done in the exercise of right of private defence of person, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, the accused is found out guilty of the offences under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and 506, Part II, I.P.C. (2 counts) and consequently the conviction and sentence on the appellant/accused, as had been done by the court below are not sustainable. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the court below on the appellant/accused are set aside and he is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.