S. N. SEXENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal against acquittal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th November, 1978 of Shri Ramanand Rai, lind Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No. A-215 of 1976. The case was registered under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC against certain persons but only three persons, namely, Satish Dubey, Jhinkan and Suraj Sharma, had faced the trial. The learned lower Court acquitted all of them and the State filed this appeal against them. This Court, however, granted leave in regard to. Satish Dubey only and refused the same in regard to Jhinkan and Suraj Sharma vide order dated 23-7-1979. Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey, the sale respondent now, was named in the F. I. R. Ext. Ka-3 alongwith Jhinkan and Suraj Sharma and two or three unknown persons but of whom only the above named three persons had faced the trial before the learned lower Court. The incident in which Abdul Karim, the father of complainant Mohd. Nazir, complainants mother Smt. Nabihan Nisa, his brother Mohd. Naim alias Naim, Awadhu Ram and Ramdhari had received injuries had taken place on 25-11-1973 at about 1. 00 or 1. 30 p. m. at the fruit shop o the complainant. The F. I. R. was handed over by the complainant Mohd. Nazir to the Police at the Police Station Cantt. Gorakhpur the same day at 3. 35 p. m. it is said that Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey also had received injuries and had became unconscious. The above named injured persons including Abdul Karim were rushed immediately to district hospital, Gorakhpur an Rickshaws. Abdul Karim, however, succumbed to his injuries before the F. I. R. of the incident was handed aver by the complainant. He died in the hospital soon after the incident had taken place. The prosecution story was as follows: The complainant, his father and other family members used to sell fruits at their shop which was situate near their house within Police Station, Cantt. Gorakhpur. Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey, two days prior to this incident, had gone to the shop of Mahboob who used to sell eggs and had purchased eggs from him. Gorakhpur. Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey, two days prior to this incident, had gone to the shop of Mahboob who used to sell eggs and had purchased eggs from him. He, however, refused to pay the price of the eggs due to which a dispute had taken place between Mahboob and Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey, who by then was not known by name. He had disclosed his name as Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey after his arrest at the spat on 25-11-1973. The complainants brother Naim also had gone to Mahboobs shop far purchasing eggs. He intervened and asked Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey to pay the price of the eggs to. Mahboob, but he paid no need and during the altercations Naim pushed Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey, who was accompanied by his companions. Satish Dubey and his companions then assaulted Naim and gave a few slaps to him. Naim raised alarm upon which complainant Mohd. Nazir and a few other persons rushed towards the shop of Mahboob and saved Naim. Satish Dubey and his companions, thereafter, wielded threats of serious consequences and left the shop of Mahboob. The incident, however, was taken lightly by the complainant and others and, therefore, no F. I. R. was lodged with the Police. The story further goes that on the date of this incident i. e. 25-11-1973 complainant Mohd. Nazir was sitting at his fruit shop when at about 1 or 1. 30 P. M. Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey alongwith his five or six companions reached there and tried to assault the complainant. The complainant in order to save himself threw a wooden case containing apples towards Satish Dubey. His father Abdul Karim, younger brother Mohd. Naim and mother Smt. Nabihan Nisa, who were present there, tried to save the complainant from the assailants. Satish Dubey exhorted his companions to open fire. One of his companions took out a country made pistol and fired towards them resulting in injuries to Mohd. Naim, mother of the complainant, Awadhu Ram and Ramdhari, Satish Dubey took out Chhura (big knife) and inflicted a blow from the same on the back of complainants father Abdul Karim. A number of persons including Sita Ram, Shanker, Mehboob, Shaukat and Jhinkan had in the meantime arrived at the shop of the complainant and had witnessed the incident. Naim, mother of the complainant, Awadhu Ram and Ramdhari, Satish Dubey took out Chhura (big knife) and inflicted a blow from the same on the back of complainants father Abdul Karim. A number of persons including Sita Ram, Shanker, Mehboob, Shaukat and Jhinkan had in the meantime arrived at the shop of the complainant and had witnessed the incident. All of them apprehended accused Satish Dubey on the spot. Satish Dubey also, while he was being apprehended, had received a few injuries. Satish Dubey threw away the knife which was picked up by one of his companions and excepting him, the companions managed to make good their escape. The accused respondent, after he had been apprehended, disclosed his name as Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey and also gave his address. He also named two of his companions as Jhinkan and Suraj Sharma but did not disclose the names of other companions. What had happened, thereafter, has already been mentioned above. The case was registered at the Police Station Cantt. and the investigation followed as usual. The case of the prosecution further was that a Police party including S. I. Gupteshwar Rai, PW. 7, reached the place of occurrence and, thereafter sent, accused Satish Dubey in unconscious state on a Rickshaw to the district hospital alongwith the constable. The injured persons also were taken to the district hospital where their injuries were examined by the Doctor. Abdul Karim had died soon after he had reached the hospital due to which his injuries could not be examined while he was alive and the postmortem examination on his dead body was conducted by the Doctor next day i. e. 26-11-1973 at 2. 30 P. M. The Doctor had found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body: I Incised wound (stabbed)-l"x 1/2 x 1/2 deep, on the sixth intercostal space of the back of left side chest, directed medially upwards, 4/1/2ti from the midline. ( 2 ) ABRASION 3 x 2 on the front of right knee. ( 3 ) ABRASION i" x 1/ 2"on medial aspect of the front of right leg, middle third. ( 4 ) ABRASION 1/2 x 1/2 about middle of forehead. In the opinion of the Doctor, Abdul Karim had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1. The injuries of Mohd. Naim and other were examined medically during 3. ( 4 ) ABRASION 1/2 x 1/2 about middle of forehead. In the opinion of the Doctor, Abdul Karim had died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1. The injuries of Mohd. Naim and other were examined medically during 3. 10 p. m. to 4. 00 p. m. by Dr. H. P. Srivastava. He had found the following injuries on their person:mohd. Naim1. One circular gunshot injury on the left upper eyelid, outer part, 1/1o" x 1/10 with inverted margins. X-ray of injury No. 1 was advised. 2. Circular gunshot injury 1/10 x 1/10 on the left temple, margins charred. Advised X-ray of skull-A. P. and lateral. 3. Abrasion 3/4 x 3/4 on left zygomatic region with traumatic swelling 1 x i". 4. Lacerated wound 4/20 x 3/10 x 1/2 anterior to left ear, skin deep. ( 5 ) ABRASION 1-1/2 x 2/10 on the left ear pinna, lower part, outer side. ( 6 ) CIRCULAR gunshot wound of entry, 1/1o" x 1/1o" on the left lip, outer side, with inverted margins. Charring present. ( 7 ) CIRCULAR gunshot wound of exit 1/10 x 1/10 with everted margins, on the left lip, inner part. In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 had been caused by firearm and all the injuries were fresh. He kept injuries Nos. 1 and 2 under observation and the rest were described by him as simple. Smt. Nabihan Nisa Circular gunshot injury, 1/10 x 1/10 with inverted and charred margins on the back aspect of the lower part of left forearm. Rarndhari1. Gunshot injury 1/10 x 1/10 x 1-1/2 with circular inverted margins, behind left ear. 2. Circular gunshot injury 1/1o" x 1/10 with charred and inverted margins. Pellet palpable; 3t1 away from the wound on outer side of elbow. Awadhu Ram Gunshot injury 1/1o" x 1/1o" with inverted margins, on the front of the middle part of left thigh. The injuries of accused Satish Dubey were examined by Dr. S. P. Srivastava the same day at 2. 45 p. m. He, thus, was examined first and the above named injured persons, thereafter. He had found the following injuries upon the person of Satish Dubey: L Lacerated wound 1-1/4 x 1/4 x skull deep on the left side of head, 1ti above left ear. The doctor advised X-ray of the skull. 2. 45 p. m. He, thus, was examined first and the above named injured persons, thereafter. He had found the following injuries upon the person of Satish Dubey: L Lacerated wound 1-1/4 x 1/4 x skull deep on the left side of head, 1ti above left ear. The doctor advised X-ray of the skull. 2. Lacerated wound 2ti x 1/4t1 x skull deep, 2-1/2 above left ear. X-ray of the skull was advised. 3. Multiple abrasions in an area of 2-1/2 x 1 TI on the back of left shoulder. 4. Incised wound 3/4 x 1/2 x subcutaneous tissue deep on the wrist (right), on medial side. 5. Multiple abrasions in an area of 4 x 2-1/2 on the back of right elbow extending to lower part of the arm and upper part of forearm. 6. Multiple abraded contusions in an area of 5-1/2 x 2-1/2 on the right leg lower part, outer side. X-ray of this injury was advised. 7. Abrasion 2 x 1/2 on the front of middle part of left leg. ( 8 ) ABRASION 1/2 x 1/4 on the left hip. ( 9 ) ABRASION 1 x 1/2 x 21/2", below injury No. 9. ( 10 ) TRAUMATIC swelling on the right foot, dorsum, outer part, 3 x 3. X-ray of this injury was advised. It may be mentioned here that complainant Mohd. Nazir, after reaching the district hospital, had come to know that his father Abdul Karim had died. He then prepared the F. I. R. of the occurrence Ext. Ka. 1 and left for police station, Can:. where it was handed over by him to the police at 3. 35 P. M. Accused Satish Dubey in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. gave a counter version of the occurrence. The same finds place in his reply to question No. 9 of the said statement and the same is reproduced below in Roman:main Vaadi ki doikan per akelay phal lenay gaya tha. Phal ki taul mey vaadi ney dandi mara aur phal kam taula. Is per men kaha suni vaadi sey ho gai. Jab kaha suni ho rahi thi, tab vahan vaadi ke pita, uski maan aur bhai doikan per they. Vaadi ke pita ney phal vala chakoo meray uper chalaya aur vaadi chakoo chheenkar apni jaan bachaney ke liye unper chalaya. Phal ki taul mey vaadi ney dandi mara aur phal kam taula. Is per men kaha suni vaadi sey ho gai. Jab kaha suni ho rahi thi, tab vahan vaadi ke pita, uski maan aur bhai doikan per they. Vaadi ke pita ney phal vala chakoo meray uper chalaya aur vaadi chakoo chheenkar apni jaan bachaney ke liye unper chalaya. Phir vaadi va uskey aur ghar waley mujhey paker kar maar ker behosh ker idya. Mujhey kaaft chot ayee aur mujhey Police as patalley ayee aur meree doctri pariksha hui. Jab mainey chakoo chalaya tab vaadi ke ghar valon may se kisi ney ka"ay se fire kiya tha. Apni bachat mey vaadi ney jhooti report ki aur uskey saath uskey ghar valon ney jhoothi gavahi diya hai. 27 -11-1973 ko aspatal mey majhey hosh aya aur tab maineypolice valon sey apni report likhney ke liye kaha, lekin police ney report nahin likhi. Police sey men dushmani pooley sey chal rahi thi. Accused Satish Dubey in his statement denied the aforesaid incident which according to the prosecution had taken place two days prior to the murder of Abdul Karim. He, however, admitted that the shop of Mahbood, who used to sell eggs, was at a distance of about is feet only from the house of the complainant. He, thus, tried to make out a case of self defence and also attempted to explain the fire-arm injuries on the person of the abovenamed witnesses by stating that the same were caused due to fire opened by some one on the side of the complainant. He denied that he was accompanied by any other person when the incident had taken place on 25-11-1973 at about 1. 00 or 1. 30 P. M. The learned lower court after the conclusion of the trial arrived at the finding that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its case beyond, reasonable and probable doubt against any of the three accused persons and, therefore, acquitted them. The State found that the acquittal of Satish Dubey and others was against the evidence adduced by the prosecution which fully proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and hence this appeal against their acquittal. The eye-witness account of the incident was given by PW-1, Mohd. Nazir who was the complainant himself, PW-2, Smt. Nabihan Nisa the widow of deceased Abdul Karim and the mother of the complainant, PW-3 Mohd. The eye-witness account of the incident was given by PW-1, Mohd. Nazir who was the complainant himself, PW-2, Smt. Nabihan Nisa the widow of deceased Abdul Karim and the mother of the complainant, PW-3 Mohd. Naim, who is the brother of the complainant and PW-5, Mahboob Kha, who, however did not fully support the prosecution story and, therefore, was cross-examined by the prosecution. The remaining three witnesses supported the prosecution story on all material points. P. W. 4 Om Prakash was posted as Constable on 25-11-1973 at the Police Station. He had received information about the death of Abdul Karim from the district hospital. He alongwith Surya Pratap S. I. and one more Constable had left for the district hospital where the necessary formalities relating to the dead body of Abdul Karim were completed by the S. I. and alongwith the necessary papers, it was entrusted to him and the other Constable for getting the post mortem examination conducted upon the same. He was not cross-examined for the defence. PW 6, Abdul Khan, H. C. No. 29, was posted at Police Station, Cantt. Gorakhpur, on 25-11-1973. He had received the F. I. R. from Mohd. Nazir at the Police Station and prepared the chick report Ext. Ka-3. He, thereafter, had registered the case in the general diary vide Ext. Ka-4, which is copy of the same. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Station Officer was not present at the Police Station when the F. I. R. of the incident was received by him, but S. I. Yogendra Nath Srivastava was present there. S. I. Gupteshwar. Rai also was not present at the Police Station at the aforesaid time although he was posted there. He denied the suggestion of the defence that as a matter of fact oral information of the incident only had been received at the Police Station on the basis of which he had stopped making entries in the general diary and actually he had received the F. I. R. at 6. 00 p. m. and the proceedings were drafted at the Police Station, thereafter. PW-7, Gupteshwar Rai, S. I. Police Station, Cantt. Gorakhpur, stated that he had left the Police Station on VIP duty at 12-15 p. m. about which the relevant entry was made at serial No. 28 of the general diary. 00 p. m. and the proceedings were drafted at the Police Station, thereafter. PW-7, Gupteshwar Rai, S. I. Police Station, Cantt. Gorakhpur, stated that he had left the Police Station on VIP duty at 12-15 p. m. about which the relevant entry was made at serial No. 28 of the general diary. He stated that he alongwith his Police Party was at Golgher when he received the information that firing had taken place in Dharamshala Bazar. He then went there on a Jeep and found a crowd at the place of occurrence. He found that the accused was lying in an injured condition on the western side of the road. He sent the accused alongwith Constable Syed Hasan on a Rickshaw to district hospital. He had seen blood at the place of occurrence and collected samples of blood stained and plain earth from there vide Fard Ext: Ka-5. In his cross-examination he stated that so far as he remembered, accused Satish Dubey was unconscious when he had reached there and he had come to know about his name from the persons who had collected there. PW -8, S. I. Yogendra Nath Srivastava, had conducted the investigation of this case. He stated that he had interrogated complainant Mohd. Nazir at the Police Station and; thereafter, had left alongwith the complainant for district hospital, Gorakhpur where he found the injured persons and also S. I. Gupteshwar Rai. He interrogated S. I. Gupteshwar Rai, Naim, Smt. Nabihan Nisa, Ram Dhari alias Ram Adharey and Awadhu in the hospital. Accused Satish Dubey also was in the hospital as indoor patient. Due to injures, he was restless and expressed difficulty in speaking due to which he could not interrogate him there. He, thereafter, left for the place of occurrence and interrogated prosecution witness Mahboob and a few others. He interrogated accused Satish Dubey on 26-11-1973 in the district hospital. On 29-11-1973, he received information that accused Suraj. Sharma had surrendered and he, thereafter, interrogated him on 1-12-1973. He had come to know about the surrender by accused Jhinkan and interrogated him, thereafter. He submitted report for holding test identification proceedings of Suraj Sharma and Jhinkan and after receiving the result of the same submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-8 against the accused persons. Sharma had surrendered and he, thereafter, interrogated him on 1-12-1973. He had come to know about the surrender by accused Jhinkan and interrogated him, thereafter. He submitted report for holding test identification proceedings of Suraj Sharma and Jhinkan and after receiving the result of the same submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-8 against the accused persons. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that he had fabricated a false story against the accused persons without ascertaining the true facts. The accused persons did not adduce any evidence in defence. It appears that Dr. N. N. Bhatyar, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Abdul Karim, was not examined by the prosecution, as the defence had admitted the genuineness of the post mortem examination report vide endorsement on the back of the same, which therefore, was exhibited as Ext. Ka-19. Learned A. G. A. contended that both the parties admitted that the incident had taken place at the fruit shop of Mohd. Nazir on 25-11-1973, but it was described in different ways by the prosecution witnesses and accused Satish Dubey; that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was proved beyond doubt that the incident had taken place in the manner as alleged by it, but the learned lower court had drawn wrong conclusions due to which he had returned a highly unreasonable verdict bordering on perversity; that he had read something more in the evidence which was not there, to give benefit of doubt to accused Satish Chand Dubey and that the only reasonable inference from the evidence on the record was the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to which the appeal was liable to be allowed. For accused Satish Dubey, however, it was argued that the learned lower court had not committed any mistake in the appreciation of the evidence on the record; that benefit of the exercise of right of private defence had been rightly given by him to the accused, as his own life was in danger; that he had not acted as an aggressor and the contention of the prosecution to that effect was wrong; that in any view of the matter, the evidence on the record could be Interpreted either way i. e. equally for returning a verdict of guilt or acquittal and that the Government appeal, therefore, could not be allowed, as the presumption of innocence of Satish Dubey had become multiplied by the verdict of acquittal in his favour given by the learned lower court. After carefully considering the aforesaid submissions and going through the evidence on the record, we find that it was not a case in which either of the two views i. e. conviction or acquittal could be reasonably taken by the learned lower court; that the prosecution evidence was not properly appreciated by it; that the only view which could be drawn from the evidence on the record was the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; that the findings returned by it bordered on perversity; that the benefit of the exercise of right of private defence was illegally given by it to the accused and that the appeal, therefore, was liable to be allowed. Complainant Mohd. Nazir PW-1 and PW-3, Mohd. Naim, who were the sons of the deceased, deposed consistently about the dispute which had taken place at the shop of Mahboob between Satish Dubey and Mahboob in which they had intervened and Satish Dubey, after giving threat of serious consequences to them, had gone away from there, Mahboob himself, however, as PW-5 did not support the prosecution version due to which he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution in which he stated that he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and no dispute at his shop had taken place two or three days prior to this incident. Further, he stated that a large number of persons used to purchase eggs from his shop and, therefore, he could not say if Satish Dubey also had purchased eggs from him. Further, he stated that a large number of persons used to purchase eggs from his shop and, therefore, he could not say if Satish Dubey also had purchased eggs from him. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , but he denied to have given the same to him. He was also unable to give any explanation as to how the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After carefully considering his testimony, we are of the opinion that he had been won over by the accused and his companions and, therefore, had deliberately tried to help them. On the basis of his statement, therefore, no doubt justifiably could be entertained against the truthfulness of the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution, in our opinion, had been able to establish successfully the earlier dispute at the shop of PW-5, Mahboob, as already mentioned above. Satish Dubey, thus, had the motive for the incident under consideration in which fire-arm and a big knife (Chhura) were used as a result of which Abdul Karim had died and his family members named above had received gun- shot injuries. The learned lind Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, however, found himself unable to believe the version of the incident given by complainant Mohd. Nazir PW-1, his mother Smt. Nabihan Nisa, PW-2 and his brother Mohd. Naim, PW-3. To the contrary, he entertained doubt against the truthfulness of the version given by the prosecution witnesses on the basis of the said statement of Satish Dubey under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that someone from the side of the complainant had opened fire as a result of which the abovenamed persons had received injuries. No such inference, however, could be drawn from the evidence on the record and, there is no doubt at all that the learned lower court had wrongly placed reliance upon the aforesaid suggestion of Satish Dubey. We are aware of the legal position that accused Satish Dubey was not required to prove his plea of the exercise of the right of private defence and he could get advantage of the same if from the evidence on the record, his contention appeared to be reasonable and probable, which however, was not the state of affairs in this case. Learned lower court very conveniently ignored the site and the direction of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the abovenamed witnesses during the incident and rather jumped to the conclusion that the deceased and his family members had acted as aggressors. It appeared highly unnatural and improbable that some one from the side of the complainant himself would have opened fire in such a manner that his own family members had been hit from the same. It need not be emphasized that in an incident of the like nature, the two parties would have been facing each other. It also appeared from the stabbed wound on the back of Abdul Karim that he, in an attempt to save himself, had turned and wanted to run away, but being in close proximity with Satish Dubey could not succeed and the blow of knife, therefore, struck him in the back. There is, thus, nothing improbable or unnatural in the version of the incident given by the abovenamed three persons. It was also important to note that PW-3, Mohd. Naim had received seven injuries out of which four had been caused by fire-arm. Injury No. 1 was gunshot injury on the left upper eye-lid, outer part with inverted margins. Had tile two parties been face to face, the alleged aforesaid shot fired by someone from the side of Mohd. Naim himself would have hit him in the back portion of his head, neck or back and certainly not at the left upper eyelid, outer part. If he was standing behind the person firing the shot, there was no chance of his being hit from the same, as it must have been aimed towards Satish Dubey and his companions and not towards him. Injury No. 6 again was a circular gunshot wound of entry on the outer side of the left lip with inverted margins. It again leads to the same inference that whosoever fired tile shot was face to face with him. Charring also was present around it. This injury suggested a close range shot. The site of injury No. 7, no doubt, has not been properly described, as there is nothing like left or right lip, which are described as upper and lower lips. Charring also was present around it. This injury suggested a close range shot. The site of injury No. 7, no doubt, has not been properly described, as there is nothing like left or right lip, which are described as upper and lower lips. It appears that this injury was towards left side of the lips and that is why the aforesaid insignificant mistake was committed by the Doctor while describing the same in the injury report Ext. Ka-lo. It may be mentioned here that the Doctor, who had examined the injured persons, also was not examined by the prosecution, as the genuineness of the injury reports was admitted by the defence, vide the endorsements upon tile back of the injury reports. Injury No. 7 was the gunshot wound of exit on the left lip which again is not the proper description of the site. This injury also would have been received only if the person who fired the shot was in front of Mohd. Naim. The other injuries were on the left temple, left zygomatic region, on the anterior part of left ear and on the lower part of the pinna of the left ear. These injuries suggested that Mohd. Naim probably had turned his face side-wise due to which he had received the aforesaid injuries on or around tile left ear. The site of the injuries clearly negatived the suggestion of the accused that the shot was fired from behind. Smt. Nabihan Nisa had received gunshot injury with inverted and charred margins on the back aspect of the lower part of the left forearm. This injury could be received by her in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. Injured Ramdhari had received a gun shot injury behind his left ear and another gunshot injury on the outer side of elbow. The site of these injuries also supported the prosecution version. Injured Awadhu Ram had received gunshot injury measuring 1/10 x 1/1oti with inverted margins on the front of the middle part of left thigh. This injury evidently was caused by someone standing in front of Awadhu Ram. Learned lower court, however, conveniently ignored the aforesaid reliable evidence and wrongly relied upon the most unnatural and improbable suggestion of the defence that someone from complainants own side had fired the gunshot. The incident had taken place at about 1 or 1. This injury evidently was caused by someone standing in front of Awadhu Ram. Learned lower court, however, conveniently ignored the aforesaid reliable evidence and wrongly relied upon the most unnatural and improbable suggestion of the defence that someone from complainants own side had fired the gunshot. The incident had taken place at about 1 or 1. 30 p. m. while the abovenamed injured persons were medically examined during the period from 3. 10 to 4. 00 p. m. i. e. soon after the incident. The doctor had got no reasons for preparing false injury reports or noting incorrect time of the examination of the injured persons. The duration of the injuries had been described by him as fresh in the injury reports Exts. Ka-lo, Ka-li, Ka-12 and Ka-13. This medical evidence clearly established that Mohd. Naim and Smt. Nabihan Nisa were standing at their shop when the incident had taken place. The presence of complainant Mohd. Nazir was natural and probable, as the shop itself was situate in a part of the residential house of the deceased and his family members. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by complainant Mohd. Nazir with the police at 13. 35 hours. The place of the occurrence was about 2 miles from the Police Station. There was, thus, no delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the F. I. R. of the incident with the police. It has already been observed above that the F. I. R. was drafted by the complainant after coming to know in the district hospital about the death of his father as a result of the injuries sustained by him during the incident and it safely could be relied upon as a piece of evidence corroborating the other prosecution evidence. Learned A. G. A. rightly pointed out that the learned lower court had read something more in the statement of accused Satish Dubey wherein he had nowhere stated that Mohd. Nazir, his father, mother and brother fell on him. This inference by the learned lower court is based on surmises and conjectures in order to support his imaginary inference that Satish Dubey had wielded knife blow, as he apprehended danger to his life from all of them. Satish Dubey, however, had described that Vaadi ke pita, uski maan aur bhai dookan per they. This inference by the learned lower court is based on surmises and conjectures in order to support his imaginary inference that Satish Dubey had wielded knife blow, as he apprehended danger to his life from all of them. Satish Dubey, however, had described that Vaadi ke pita, uski maan aur bhai dookan per they. Vaadi ke pita ney phal vala chakoo merey uper chalaya aur chakoo chheenkar apni jaan bachaney ke liye unper chalaya. He; thus, nowhere stated that the abovenamed persons had fallen on him. His own statement, thus, negatived his contention that he was the victim of aggression by the abovenamed four persons. His statement that the deceased had tried to hit him by the knife first was not substantiated by any evidence worth the name on the record and remained a mere statement of a highly interested accused, who was defending himself against serious charge of murder. Whatever he stated, thereafter, supported the version of the prosecution that the persons, who were present at the place of occurrence assaulted him as a result of which he had received injuries (Mujhey kaafi chot ayee) and the police had taken him to the hospital where he was medically examined. Learned lower court, however, ignored the aforesaid vital statement of Satish Dubey in order to draw a rather perverse inference that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries on the person of Satish Dubey. It is a matter of common experience that in an incident of the like nature the persons present at the place of occurrence, if able to catch hold of a criminal, feel pleasure in beating him. The injuries on the person of Satish Dubey, thus, stood explained by the prosecution and also by himself as discussed above. The very fact that the deceased Abdul Karim was stabbed in the back showed that he at that time was not in a position to cause any harm to the accused who, therefore, had got no justification at all to stab him. As a matter of fact, even if it be presumed that the accused had snatched the knife from Abdul Karim, the law did not permit him, thereafter, to attack Abdul Karim, who in order to leave the place had taken about turn. The alleged defence of the accused of the exercise of his right of private defence, thus, was totally devoid of merits. The alleged defence of the accused of the exercise of his right of private defence, thus, was totally devoid of merits. It was also not a case of exceeding the right of private defence, as we have found above, on the basis of the evidence on the record that the accused and his companions had gone there to take revenge and had acted as aggressors. For Satish Dubey, it was contended that the Doctor did not know his name at the time of his medical examination in the hospital which was something abnormal, as according to the prosecution he had disclosed his name after he had been apprehended by the mob. The contention, however, did not appear to carry force. It is not in evidence that the Doctor had enquired about his name from any of the injured persons named above or the complainant before describing him as unknown patient vide Ext. Kha-1, which is the original injury report of the accused. He was unconscious when examined by the Doctor, who, therefore, had got no choice except to describe him as unknown patient. No doubt at all could, therefore, be entertained against the truthfulness of prosecution version that the accused alongwith his companions bad gone to the shop of the complainant and had attacked him and his family members and during the assault had committed the murder of Abdul Karim. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that Abdul Karim was in close proximity with the accused and in order to save his life had tried to run away in the opposite direction as a result of which the knife blow struck him in the back. Learned counsel for the accused pointed out a few minor variations in the statements of the abovenamed witnesses but the same were of little significance. The witnesses were examined after about five years of the incident and the said minor variations, therefore, were bound to occur unless they had been highly tutored. Abdul Karim had died as a result of a single knife blow inflicted by Satish Dubey resulting in the fatal injury. The cavity below the injury was found full of blood which approximately weighed 4 pounds. The pleura had been found to contain an incised wound measuring i" x 1/2 which corresponded with the injury found in the 6th intercostal space on the left side of the back. The cavity below the injury was found full of blood which approximately weighed 4 pounds. The pleura had been found to contain an incised wound measuring i" x 1/2 which corresponded with the injury found in the 6th intercostal space on the left side of the back. The nature of the injury left no room for doubt that Satish Dubey intended to kill Abdul Karim and that is why he had given him a fatal blow with tremendous force from his knife. He, therefore, was liable for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The learned lower court had committed serious error by giving the benefit of the exercise of right of private defence to him, the possibility of which stood completely ruled out by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal was liable to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30th November, 1978 of the learned lind Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, is set aside, accused Satish Dubey alias Satish Chandra Dubey is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Appeal allowed. .