Honble MEENA, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Aug.29, 1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg in Sessions cases No. 16/80 whereby the appellants were convicted u/s.302 read with sec.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.200/-each. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellant was further awarded three months rigorous imprisonment. (2). We need not state the facts in detail as we are convinced that the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted on the simple ground of right of private defence of person. We, therefore, narrate only necessary facts. (3). The houses of the appellants and that of the complainant party are situated in front of each other. Two days prior to the main incident, there was a small incident between the parties and it was that the cow of the deceased Chuttu was assaulted by the bull of the appellant Ashraf whereupon Chuttu inflicted a lathi blow to the bull. Being aggrieved by it, the accused appellant Isar gave a lathi blow on the head of Chuttu and also abused him. The main incident took place before noon on 23.7.79. It is the admitted case that the main incident of 23.7.79 was the off- shoot of the previous incident which had taken place two days prior. In regard to the main incident, the prosecution case is that all the accused persons came to the house of the deceased and assaulted him with lathies. Chuttu became unconscious on account of the injuries and while he was being taken in a bullock cart for his treatment, he breathed his last in the way. The written report Ex.P.I of the incident was made by Mst. Bassi. at Police Station Pahari. On this report, criminal case was registered vide FIR Ex.P.2. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW.5 Dr. Santosh Gupta on 24.7.79 vide post mortem report Ex.P.8. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had the following external injuries: — "1. Traumatic contusion - 4"x4" left side scalp temporal region 2. Lacerated wound- 4"xl/2"x bone deep Right side scalp directed obliquely anterio medially 3"above the fridge of nose 3. Incised wound - 3/4"x o.2"x bone deep on the scalp midline 6" above the fridge of the nose: Directed obliquely 4. Traumatic contusion - 4"x4" left side scalp temporal region 2. Lacerated wound- 4"xl/2"x bone deep Right side scalp directed obliquely anterio medially 3"above the fridge of nose 3. Incised wound - 3/4"x o.2"x bone deep on the scalp midline 6" above the fridge of the nose: Directed obliquely 4. Incised wound : l/2"x o.l"x bone deep left side forehead above middle of left eye brow: 5. Lacerated wound - l"xl/2"x bone deep 1" posterior to injury No.3 6. Traumatic contusion - 8"x 6" right base of neck anteriority." On opening of the skull, the following internal injuries were noticed: — "External injuries as noted above. Marked effusion of blood present under the injuries as noted: Complete separation of frorito parietal sutures to its full extent: 1. Fracture of right parietal bone medial end anteriorily (Depressed fracture) 2. fracture of left parietal bone (crack) from anteriolateral end to posterioro medial end 3. Depressed fracture- Left parietal bone medio anteriorily: collection of blood clot in between the skull and membrances: Collection of blood clots between the membrances.Patecheal of haemorrhage in brain substance: Huge collection of blood in the base if the skull." (4). In cross examination, Dr. Gupta admitted that none of the external injuries were sufficient to cause death without internal implications. He also stated that external injury Nos.1,2 and 6 could be caused by a fall on hard object. The cause of death was opined to be the head injuries leading to coma and it was also opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (5). The injuries of accused Ashraf and Nasru were medically examined by the same Doctor Santosh Gupta who has appeared as Dw.l to prove the injuries of the accused persons. As per the injury report of Ashraf Ex.D.3, the accused Ashraf had the following injuries on his person: - "1. Lacerated wound 3/4"x3/4" bone deep scalp mid line 2 1/2 " above the fridge of nose. 2. Abrasion: 0.2"x 0.2" left forearm upper and outer part. 3. Complains of pain-Right shoulder no injury seen. 4. Traumatic contusion 8"x 6" left thigh middle anteriorily. 5. Complains of Traumatic pain in left glutodil region - no injury seen. 6. Complains of pain : Right Knee joint - no injury seen." Injury No.l was kept under observation and x-ray examination. Abrasion: 0.2"x 0.2" left forearm upper and outer part. 3. Complains of pain-Right shoulder no injury seen. 4. Traumatic contusion 8"x 6" left thigh middle anteriorily. 5. Complains of Traumatic pain in left glutodil region - no injury seen. 6. Complains of pain : Right Knee joint - no injury seen." Injury No.l was kept under observation and x-ray examination. Similarly, the accused appellant Nasru had sustained the following 9 injuries vide injury report Ex.D.4: — "1. Incised wound l"x 0.1" skin and cutaneous tissues deep. Scalp mid line 5" above fridge of nose. 2. Incised wound 2 1/2 x l/2"x bone deep left parietal prominence directed obliquely. 3. Lacerated wound 2"xl/2" bone deep scalp occipital protuberance directed horizontally. 4. Double line Ecynosisis 6"xll/2" left supra scapular region back. 5. Abrasion 2"xl/2" right side back of infra scapular region. 6. Eccymossis double line 5"xl" left renal region back. 7. Black right eye. 8. Complains pain in left knee no external injury seen. 9. Lacerated wound l/2"xl/2" skin tissue deep left little finger middle v phalynx outer side." Injury Nos. 1,2 & 9 were kept under observations and x-ray examination. Injury Nos. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp weapon and rest were by blunt object. General condition of the injured was described: - pupils dilated, sluggenly reacting to light - BP 96/80. (6). PW.l Mst. Bassi had admitted in cross-examination that the accused persons also sustained injuries in the same incident and the deceased Chuttu had also inflicted 1-2 blows to Nasru. The injuries of the accused were also noticed at the time of their arrest by the Arresting Officer. (7). On the basis of evidence, the learned trial court had. recorded a finding that both the aforesaid accused persons had sustained injuries in the same incident. Therefore, on the facts narrated above, the question calls for consideration is whether the accused acted in the right of private defence of person. (8). From the facts narrated above, it transpires that on 21.7.79, some small incident took place between the parties and the appellant and the appellant Isar gave a lathi blow on the head of Chuttu. By this incident, it was the complainant party which was aggrieved. Two days after, the main incident took place on 23.7.79, in which both the parties had sustained injuries in the same incident. By this incident, it was the complainant party which was aggrieved. Two days after, the main incident took place on 23.7.79, in which both the parties had sustained injuries in the same incident. Some of the injuries sustained by the accused persons have been caused on the skull and two injuries by sharp edged weapon. PW.l, Mst.Bassi has admitted that deceased Chuttu gave 1-2 lathi blows to Nasru. No blood was found at the house of the complainant party. All these circumstances, in our opinion, clearly make the plea probabilised that they acted in exercise of right of private defence of person. It may be stated here that the burden of the accused is not so onerous and heavy as it lies on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused by mere showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of the plea taken by them. From the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, establish that the accused persons have succeeded in discharging the burden that they acted in exercise of right of private defence. (9). It is now well settled that the onus which rests on an accused person under Section 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 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 repeal 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 calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. (10). The next question for consideration is whether any of the accused appellants exceeded in exercise of right of private defence. There is no evidence on the record as to which of the injuries has been caused by which of the accused. Section 34 cannot be invoked when the accused persons acted in the right of private defence of person as the common intention of the accused was to act in their private defence of person. There is no evidence on the record as to which of the injuries has been caused by which of the accused. Section 34 cannot be invoked when the accused persons acted in the right of private defence of person as the common intention of the accused was to act in their private defence of person. In these circumstances, none of the accused can be held to have exceeded in exercise of right of private defence of person. Otherwise also, if the assault is made to the accused with sharp edged weapon on the head, they can have an apprehension of sustaining grievous injury or injuries at the hand of the members of the complainant party. (11). Viewed from any angle, none of the accused appellants can be convicted for any offence. (12). Consequently, this appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court is set aside. They are acquitted to the charge u/s.302/34 IPC. They are on bail, as such, they need not surrnder to their bail bonds. The bail bonds submitted by the accused persons are hereby discharged.