Judgment O. N. Asthana, J. 1. This is the criminal appeal against the judgment and order of 2nd Additional Sessions judge, East Champaran, Motihari dated 29th August, 1985, where the trial judge held both these accused-appellants guilty for the commission of the offence under Sec.302, read with Sec.34 i. P. C. and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in the fardbeyan-Exhibit-3 lodged by the injured Kailash Bhagat P. W.3 is that he and several other prosecution witnesses had gone to the flour mill of the deceased Baidyanath Sahni (who was also a local communist leader and was running his flour mill for the last five years or about) to get his wheat grinded, and he saw that a large number of per-v sons were assembling on the Parti field situate in the east of the flour mill and in the west of a residential house of the accused-appellants and their father laxmi Narain Sinha, and these assembled persons started ploughing the land with four pair of bullocks and several of them were raising slogans "communist Party Zindabad", when half of the field was ploughed a communist partys flag was unfurled in that field; after ploughing the whole field the ploughs and bullocks were unyoked and the mob (assembled persons) started leaving the field; then Nunu Babu eldest son of Laxrt: Narain fired his gun, and the mob started running; Nunu Babu along with eight to ten persons who were holding lathies came to the field and Nunu Babu fired thrice again and these fires hit and killed Baidyanath sahni who fell down inside the ploughed field and Paras Nath P. W.5 was injured; Bhola Sahni Mistry and one old lady Stnt Akli rushed from the flour mill and came by the side of baidyanath Sahni to take care of him; again the gun was fired and Bhola Sahni was seriously injured and the old lady smt. Akli was also injured; Baidyanath sahni was left at the spot in the field; bhola Sahni was brought to the Hospital where he was given treatment and bhola Sahni also died same night at about 2 A. M. ; this informant and other persons were also examined and treated. 3. Akli was also injured; Baidyanath sahni was left at the spot in the field; bhola Sahni was brought to the Hospital where he was given treatment and bhola Sahni also died same night at about 2 A. M. ; this informant and other persons were also examined and treated. 3. This informant Kailash Bhagat p. W.3 also disclosed in his fardbeyan that he came to know from Jagdish P. W.10 that the accused-appellant Lallan Ji, laxmi Narain; Dak Babu of Chaubey tola, Kailash Raut, Tractor Driver of the accused persons and three to four labourers of the accused-appellants came to this field along with Nunu babu. Further this Informant came to know from Jagdish that about four hundred persons of different villages armed with Bhalas and Garassas had collected from the side of the deceased baidyanath Sahni to take forceful possession over this field of Laxmi Babu. All these facts were given by Kailash bhagat in his fardbeyan-Exhibil-3 to the police Officer. The formal F. I. R. (Exhibit-4) was entered in the records of the Police Station. Deo Bansh Singh p. W.14 started investigation in the case. He inspected the place of occurrence. He found that the field between the residence of the accused-appellants and the flour mill of the deceased baidyanath Sahni was 145 yards and he found at least half of the field was recently ploughed and a flag of Communist Party was unfurled in the middle of the field. The dead-body of baidyanath Sahni was found twenty yards away in the north of this flag. This dead-body of Baidyanath Sahni was lying ninety-one feet west of the flour mill. The investigation Officer found that in the eastern wall of the flour mill two holes were there and the brick parts were in broken condition. He also found one pellet by the side of the eastern well and he took the same in his custody. The investigation Officer further found that in the east of the flour mill there is a house of Brindaban and there is banana plantation in the southen land appertaining to the house of Brindaban. The Investigation Officer was told that these accused-appellants fired shots from their guns standing by the side of this banana plantation situate in the compound of the house of Brindaban. The Investigation Officer was told that these accused-appellants fired shots from their guns standing by the side of this banana plantation situate in the compound of the house of Brindaban. The Investigation Officer did not find any kind of marks of disturbance over the grass which was growing all around that banana plantation. 4. This banana plantation was more than fifty yards away from the place where the dead-body of baidyanath Sahni was lying in the field. The Investigation Officer prepared the site plan (sketch map) of the place of occurrence-Exhibit-?. The Investigation officer prepared the inquest report relating the dead-body of Baidyanath sahni, which is exhibit-8. The Investigation Officer found blood-stained mud by the side of the dead-body of Baidyanath sahni and he prepared the seizure memo relating the blood-stained mud (Exhibit-9 ). 5. The investigation Officer found five arrows in the western wall of the house of Laxmi Narain and found another arrow from the western wall of the thatched bungalow of Laxmi Narain sinha and also another arrow from the western wall of southern Marai of laxmi Narain Sinha, and he found that the sharp and of the arrow were smeared with lime and brick material (red in colour) and it was stated that these arrows were used in making attacks. The Investigation Officer prepared the seizure list relating these arrows and it is exhibit-9/1. 6. The Investigation Officer also collected the iron rod and the red Communist flag which was there in the field, its seizure memo is exhibit-9/2. The Investigation Officer also stated that he found the brick-bats on the western and northern side of the house of the accused-appellants. The investigation officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Tuntun Sahni, Shiv dayal Sahni and others. 7. Ramdeo Singh Police Officer p. W.15 carried the investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses and gave the charge sheet. 8. Dr. B. D. Pandey conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of baidyanath Sahni on 1st June, 1975 which was brought by constables raghunath Rai and Ganesh Ram on the direction of the Investigation Officer. This post-mortem was conducted at 4 p. M. Post-mortem report is Exhibit-2. Dr. Pandey found the following an-temortem injuries: one wound size 3"x2" skull cavity on the upper surface of the head about 1" behind the forehead, and slightly left to the mid-line. The skull bone was opened. This post-mortem was conducted at 4 p. M. Post-mortem report is Exhibit-2. Dr. Pandey found the following an-temortem injuries: one wound size 3"x2" skull cavity on the upper surface of the head about 1" behind the forehead, and slightly left to the mid-line. The skull bone was opened. The entire brain material was out. Particulars of gun powder were found embedded in the skull cavity. There was no exit wound. Surrounding of the skin was burnt and blackened. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limb. 9. On 1st of June, 1975. Dr. B. D. Pandey performed the post-mortem on the injuries: dead-body of Bhola Sahni who died in the Hospital at 2 P. M. One circular opening 1/4" x 1/4" on the right side of the forehead slightly above the eye-brow and the injury was deep inside the skull cavity. Dr. Pandey found that the margin of the wound was tatooed and scorched. On dissection, the track of the wound widened, as it went deeper. Extensive blood clot was present there. There was no exit wound. Rigor mortis was present. The post-mortem report relating the deceased Bhola Sahni is Exhibit-2/1. 10. Dr. Pandey expressed his opinion that Bhola Sahni was short from a distance of one and half feet or about as scorching was there round the margin of the wound. Further Dr. Pandey opined that Baidyanath Sahni was also fired at from a close range and thus the particles of gun powder were found embedded in the skull cavity. 11. Dr. Pandey expressed his opinion that Bhola Sahni was short from a distance of one and half feet or about as scorching was there round the margin of the wound. Further Dr. Pandey opined that Baidyanath Sahni was also fired at from a close range and thus the particles of gun powder were found embedded in the skull cavity. 11. Relating this occurrence Laxmi narain Sinha, father of the accused-appellants, lodged a report at 9.30 P. M same night on 31st May, 1975 with the allegations that at about 5 P. M. on 31st may, 1975, five hundred persons or about and armed with lathies, bhalas, garassas, bows and arrows and countrymade pistols and with four ploughs and four pair of bullocks came on his eastern field and started ploughing and started raising slogans, and they also unfurled the Communist Partys flag in the field; that about one hundred persons of that mob including the local Communist party leader-Baidyanath Sahni and other party worker Bhola Sahni raided the house of the accused-appellants and their father Laxmi Narain and started pelting stones and shooting arrows from their bows and they caused injuries to Maheshi Nandan Prasad, another son of Laxmi Narain and also to the accused appellant Girija Nandan prasad ; in spite of the request of Laxmi narain and Nunu Babu that they should not behave violently and should not make violent attacks causing injuries; the arrow shot by Kailash Bhagat caused chest injuries to Maheshi Nandan prasad Sinha and a couple of persons from the mob also fired their countrymade guns and in that melee Baidyanath sahni was hit by the bullet and he fell down dead in the field and died there at the spot and others happened to run away. This report is Exhibit-C. Thus the suggestion of the defence is that the mob including Baidyanath Sahni and bhola Sahni and which was being led by baidyanath Sahni and the members of that mob were armed, and the members of the mob took unlawful possession over the field of the accused-appellants and their father, and the members of the mob became too aggressive and violent and they caused hurt to the family mem-bers of the accused-appellants and there was reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt to the accused-appellants and their family members and thus in any case the accused-appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defence to save the life. 12. The accused-appellants also brought on record the earlier informatory petitions Exhibit-E and E/l dated 24th May, 1975 and 28th May, 1975, where Laxmi Narain, father of the accused-appellants informed the local authorities that Baidyanath Sahni and others armed with bows and arrows and bhalas came to his house and threatened him to part with his twentyfive bighas of land otherwise Laxmi narain and his family members would be facing dire consequences. These petitions were given by Laxmi Narain apprehending danger at the hands of baidyanath Sahni and his fellowmcn. 13. Earlier in 1973 a report was lodged against Bhola Sahni and others and this report dated 10th June, 1973-Exhibit-B also shows bad blood between bhola Sahni and Laxmi Narain. 14. Amir Khan P. W.4 is a formal witness. He proved the inquest report and the seizure memoes. This witness stated in the cross-examination that he saw that by the side of the wall of the house of Laxmi Babu. Several arrows were lying which gave the impression that his house was attacked by shooting arrows. Further this witness stated that he found large number of brick-bat fallen on the ground here and there around the house of Laxmi Babu. This also gives the impression that the members of the mob threw brick-bats on the inmates of the house of the accused-appellants, besides shooting arrows on the inmates of the house of the accused-Appelants. 15. Bhagaloo Sah P. W.6 and the injured Most. Akli P. W.11 have been tendered by the prosecution. 16. This also gives the impression that the members of the mob threw brick-bats on the inmates of the house of the accused-appellants, besides shooting arrows on the inmates of the house of the accused-Appelants. 15. Bhagaloo Sah P. W.6 and the injured Most. Akli P. W.11 have been tendered by the prosecution. 16. The witnesses of fact are Tuntun Sahni P. W 1, Dhodhai Sahni P. W.2, kailash Bhagat P. W.3-injured informant, Paras Prasad P. W.5 (said to be injured), Bigoo Sahni P. W.7, Babulal r%ut P. W.8, Shiva Dayal Sahni P. W.9, jagdish Sahni P. W.10 and Indrashan sahni P. W.12. 17. Tuntun Sahni P. W.1 has not been named in the first information report. This witness stated that he had gone on the flour mill of Baidyanath sahni and he saw that Baidyanath Sahni went to the eastern field from his flour mill and he was shot at by the accusedappellant Nunu Babu and when Bhola sahni went to see the injured baidyanath Sahni the other accused-appellant Lallan Ji fired his gun at Bhola sahni. Obviously this witness suppressed the disclosure of the two version even as given in the first information report. Further this witness tried to introduce the fact that baidyanath Sahni was cultivating this field from before as Bataidar and baidyanath Sahni left his flour mill to pass urine and as soon he came out from the mill he was fired at any Nunu babu who was by the side of the banana plantation. This banana plantation is sixty yards away from the place where the deadbody of Baidyanath Sahni was found inside the field. It does not seem probable that the victim Baidyanath sahni would have gone a distance of thirty yards or more from the wall of the flour mill to pass urine. This witness stated that his statement was taken up by the Superintendent of Police after eight to ten days of the occurrence. The deposition of this witness deserves no credence as his statement has been recorded late by the Investigation Officer. 18. Dhodhai Sahni P. W.2 has not been named in the first information report. This witness stated that he was at the flour mill Baidyanath Sahni. This witness also gave a different version. The deposition of this witness deserves no credence as his statement has been recorded late by the Investigation Officer. 18. Dhodhai Sahni P. W.2 has not been named in the first information report. This witness stated that he was at the flour mill Baidyanath Sahni. This witness also gave a different version. This witness stated that in the field rameshwar Raut (Mokhtar/servant of laxmi Narain) was talking to baidyanath Sahni and Baidyanath Sahni told Rameshwar Raut that he was carrying cultivation in his field for the last ten years and he would be giving up the possession of this field to Laxmi Babu after sowing and harvesting the maize crop in the season, and Rameshwar raut carried this message to the house of Laxmi Babu, and soon from the house of Brindaban Raut, Nunu Babu and Lallan Ji - accused-appellants started firing and the third fire shot by lallan Ji hit Baidyanath Sahni and when bhola Sahni came to take care of baidyanath Sahni, fire shot hit Bhola sahni as well, and that accused-appellants shot ten to eleven rounds. This witness stated that this field was already ploughed in the forenoon and when this occurrence took place nobody was there in the field and simply the talks were there between the two inside the field. This witness stated that he is also a member of the communist Party. This witness was specific that the accused-appellants fired from their guns from the house of Brindaban Raut. Further this witness made the specific statement in paragraph 13 of his statement that the gun fired shot by Lallan Ji (accused-appellant Girija Nandan Prasad Sinha)caused injury to Baidyanath Sahni and the fire-shot from the gun of Nunu babu (accused-appellant Shailja Nandan Prasad Sinha) hit and causedinjury to Bhola Sahni. The deposition of this witness P. W.2 creates doubt in the prosecution case that the shot fired by nunu Babu @ Shailja Nandan Prasad sinha hit and killed Baidyanath Sahni. 19. This witness P. W.2 admitted the fact that the criminal case was lodged against him and Baidyanath sahni and others by Laxmi Narain that they came armed forming unlawful assembly and they surrounded the house of Laxmi Narain and were violent. 20. 19. This witness P. W.2 admitted the fact that the criminal case was lodged against him and Baidyanath sahni and others by Laxmi Narain that they came armed forming unlawful assembly and they surrounded the house of Laxmi Narain and were violent. 20. Kailash Bhagat P. W.3-injured informant made the statement in the court that he was at the flour mill of baidyanath Sahni and he saw that the people started assembling on the adjacent field situate in the east of the flour mill and some of the members of that mob started ploughing the land with four pair of bullock and while they ploughed half of the field they unfurled a flag of the Communist Party and they ploughed the field further and while they started leaving the field Nunu Babu fired from his gun and some persons holding lathies were accompanying nunu Babu and the fire shot of Nunu babu caused fatal injuries to Baidyanath sahni who fell down dead in the field and Bhola Sahni and the old lady mother of Jangi Sahni came there to take care of Baidyanath Sahni and in the mean time another fire-shot was there and this shot caused serious hurt to bhola Sahni and Bhola Sahni and the injured old lady were brought to the hospital and Bhola Sahni died in the hospital at 2 A. M. in spite of the medical aid. This witness stated further that he gave his statement next day in the morning to the Police Officer. This witness stated specifically that amongst the assailants he recognised Nunu Babu only and he did not recognise other persons who were accompanying him holding lathies. This witness also stated that he did not see any other person firing gun. This witness stated further that he himself did not tell the Police Officer that he came to know from Jagdish sahni in the Hospital that the accused lallan Ji and others were also accompanying Nunu Babu. In his cross-examination this witness stated that the members of the mob swell into a num-ber of four hundred or about and they arrived from different villages armed with bows, arrows, spears, garassas and guns, and several members of the mob started ploughing the field giving slogans. In his cross-examination this witness stated that the members of the mob swell into a num-ber of four hundred or about and they arrived from different villages armed with bows, arrows, spears, garassas and guns, and several members of the mob started ploughing the field giving slogans. This witness stated further that several members of the mob went towards the house of Laxmi Babu, and nunu Babu started firing from the roof of his house and thus he ran away. The deposition of this witness lent support to the defence version that several armed members of the mob went to the nearby house of the accused-appellants. The objective findings of the Investigation Officer, where he found that the attacks of arrows and brick-bats on the residence of the accused-appellants, gives indication probably this armed mob attacked the inmates of the house of the accused-appellants with brick-bats and bows and arrows. The medical evidence of the Hospital Doctor-Exhibit a/1 and A/2 shows that Maheshwari nandan, the third son of Laxmi Narain sinha was injured in this occurrence and had the cut injury 2/3"xl/8"xl/2" on right side of the chest and it was caused by sharp-pointed weapon like arrow. The accused-appellant No.2 Girja Nandan prasad Sinha was also injured in this occurrence. He had a bruise on the right chest of the. size 2 1/2" x 1/2" and another bruise 1 1/2" x 1" on left shoulder. The medical evidence shows that this mob where several members shot arrows from their bows caused injury on the chest of the third son of laxmi Narain by the arrows. 21. Paras Prasad P. W.5 stated that he was returning from his field and while he was near the house of Brindaban raut he saw that Nunu Babu and lallan Ji were standing holding their guns by the side of their field and while baidyanath Sahni came out from his flour mill Nunu Babu fired his gun killing baidyanath Sahni and while Bhola sahni went to take care of injured baidyanath Sahni, the accused-appellant lallan Ji fired injuring Bhola sahni. There is no medical examination report to confirm the presence of this witness Paras Prasad at the place of occurrence, though the prosecution evidence is that this witness Paras prasad was present at the place of occurrence. This: witness stated in cross-Examination that the field was not being ploughed and was not ploughed. There is no medical examination report to confirm the presence of this witness Paras Prasad at the place of occurrence, though the prosecution evidence is that this witness Paras prasad was present at the place of occurrence. This: witness stated in cross-Examination that the field was not being ploughed and was not ploughed. In further cross-examination he made deviation stating that these accused-appellants were standing behind banana plantation while they fired. This witness is an accused in the cross-case lodged on the report of the father of the accusedappellants. This witness Paras Prasad p. W.5 stated that he did not make any statement to the Investigation Officer but the police officer Ramdeo Singh p. W.15 stated in the Court that this witness Paras Prasad told him that three hundred to four hundred persons had assembled on the field and they were giving slogans and he had not seen whose fire shot hit Baidyanath Sahni, and that he simply stated that hearing the sound of the gun fire he closed his eyes and ran away to his house. Obviously the deposition of this witness paras Prasad has no credibility. 22. Bigoo Sahni P. W.7 stated that he was at the flour mill, and he saw that baidyanath Sahni went out from the mill to pass his urine and Nunu Babu fired his gun killing Baidyanath Sahni and while the uncle of Baidyanath bhola Sahni came to take care of baidyanath Sahni another fire was shot which hit Bhola Sahni. Further this witness stated that Nunu Babu and Lallan babu both accused-appellants were firing from their guns. This witness stated that Nunu Babu and Lallan Babu were standing by the side of the house of Brindaban while they were firing. This witness stated that no ploughing was carried and was being carried in the eastern field. This witness has suppressed the prosecution version and made the prosecution case understandable. 23. Babulal Raut P. W.8 stated that he was at his Bathan situate in the north of the flourmill and he saw that Nunu babu and Lallan Babu were firing from their guns standing by the side of the house of Brindaban Raut and they firec nine to ten rounds, causing injuries tc baidyanath Sahni, Bhola Sahni, Kailast bhagat and the old lady and to this wit ness (P. W.8 ). There is no medical repor on record to support the contentioi that this witness Babulal Raut was in jured in this occurrence. This witnes stated hearing the sound of two fir shots he came out and went to the the flour mill. This witness gave different version that this field was already ploughed in the morning and no ploughing was being carried on the field when these accused-appellants started firing. This witness was a member of the communist Party and belonging to the group of the deceased. The Investigation Officer Ramdeo Singh P. W.15 told the court that this witness Babulal P. W.8 told him in investigation that baidyanath Sahni was ploughing the field along with his companions with three pairs of bullocks and that later on this witness came to know that fire was there and Baidyanath Sahni, Bhola sahni and Kailash Bhagat were injured. The deposition of this witness to the investigation Officer goes to show the ploughing was carried by the deceased baidyanath Sahni at the time of the occurrence. In view of the statements to the Investigation Officer the deposition of Babulal P. W.8 is not credible. 24. Shiva Dayal Sahni P. W.9 stated that he went to the flour mill of baidyanath Sahni and he saw that both these accused-appellants were firing from their guns standing by the side of the house of Brindaban and injured baidyanath Sahni, Bhola Sahni, Paras prasad and Kailash Bhagat and a lady. This witness stated that no work like ploughing was being carried in the field at the time of the occurrence. This prosecution witness has suppressed the correct facts. The Investigation Officer deo Bansh Singh P. W.14 told the Court that this witness Shiva Dayal Sahni told during the investigation that this field was being ploughed at the time of the accurrence and the servant of Laxmi babu came to the field and told baidyanath Sahni to take away the bullocks and there were exchange of words ind thereafter Nunu Babu and Lallan :3abu brought guns from the house and :hey fired three round of shots and he jlid not tell him (the Investigation Officer) if these shots caused injuries to anyone. The deposition of this witness jhiva Dayal Sahni is not trustworthy. 25. The deposition of this witness jhiva Dayal Sahni is not trustworthy. 25. Jagdish Sahni P. W.10 stated that he was on the flour mill of baidyanath Sahni and when Baidyanath sahni came out from the flour mill the accused-appellant Nunu Babu fired from his gun killing Baidyanath Sahni and when Bhola Sahni came to take away the dead-body of Baidyanath Sahni the other accused-appellant Lallan babu fired a shot injuring Bhola Sahni. This witness stated that several other rounds of firing were made by these accused-appellants injuring Paras, kailash, Babulal and one another lady. This witness stated that these accused-appellants fired their gun from the side of the house of Brandaban Raut. This witness stated that earlier a criminal case was lodged against him by Laxmi narain in 1973 A. D. and besides that case he had been kept in jail six or seven times. This creates doubt in the character of this witness. This witness stated a different story stating that Baidyanath sahni was sub-tenant of his field and this field was not ploughed on that day and this field was not being ploughed at the time of the occurrence. Obviously this witness is suppressing the fact. This witness Jagdish told the Investigation officer Deo Bansh Singh P. W.14 giving his statement under Sec.161, Cr. P. C. that Baidyanath Sahni was ploughing the field at the time of occurrence and twenty to twenty-five persons were fixing the pole and the flag of Communist Party on the field. This witness jagdish Sahni is also an active political worker of Communist Party. This witness Jagdish Sahni stated in Cross-examination that the report of this occurrence was lodged and the report relating it was made by Kailash Bhagat giving his statement Exhibit-3 after deliberations and consultations. 26. Indrasan Sahni, P. W.12 stated that he was at the flour mill of baidyanath Sahni and while Baidyanath sahni came out from his flour mill, accused Nunu Babu fired his gun at baidyanath Sahni who was injured and fell dead and Bhola Sahni came to take the dead-body of Baidyanath Sahni and the other accused-appellant Lallan babu fired and that fire shot hit Bhola sahni causing injury to him and later on bhola Sahni died in the Hospital; these accused-appellants fired other shots causing injury to Smt. Akli, Babulal, kailash Bhagat, Paras and others. This witness stated that he did not give the statement to the Investigatiion Officer. Thus the deposition of this witness Indrasan P. W.12 does not deserve any credence. 27. Advocate for the appellants urged that the prosecution has materially suppressed the true case; the medical evidence is not consistent with the prosecution case, and that the defence version seems probable and the prosecution has not given any explanation to the injuries of the accused appellant Girjanandan Prasad Sinha @ lallan Ji and his brother Maheshwari nandan Prasad Sinha. 28. The injured Kailash Bhagat, whose injuries were examined by the hospital doctor and is Exhibit-10 on the record, gave his statement to the Police officer - Exhibit-3 and the case was registered. No other report was lodged by any other person from the side of the prosecution. Obviously the contents of this report of Kailash Bhagat shall be taken to be the foundation of the prosecution case. Kailash Bhagat has deposed on oath in support of the prosecution case given in this Exhibit-3. This witness simply disowned that part of his report which was said to be entered on the statement of Jagdish sahni. The prosecution witness Jagdish sahni P. W.10 did not make any state-ment in the Court that he supplied any particulars relating the occurrence to this witness Kailash Bhagat to become the part of the first information report-Exhibit-3. The deposition of P. W.3 kailash Bhagat-Informant does not deserve rejection. In first information report he gave the statement to the police Officer that the accused-appellant No.1 Shailja Nandan Prasad Sinha @ Nunu Babu shot fire from his gun. This witness stated on oath as well that nunu Babu fired from his gun and he did not see any other accused person (accused-appellant No.2 Girja Nandan prasad Sinha @ Lallan Ji) fired his gun. This witness stated before the Court that part of the mob went towards the house of Laxmi Babu and apprehending more violence he ran away. The statement of this witness Kailash Bhagat P. W.3 is acceptable. There is nothing in his statement to infer any hostility and thus to discredit his testimony as not a supporter to the prosecution version. This witness stated before the Court that part of the mob went towards the house of Laxmi Babu and apprehending more violence he ran away. The statement of this witness Kailash Bhagat P. W.3 is acceptable. There is nothing in his statement to infer any hostility and thus to discredit his testimony as not a supporter to the prosecution version. All the other prosecution witnesses have suppressed the correct prosecution version and simplified giving a narration that the victim Baidyanath Sahni came towards the east outside his Mill to pass urine and both these accused-appellants standing fifty to sixty feet away by the side of banana plantation fired their guns injuring Baidyanath Sahni, Bhola sahni and others. It does not seem probable that Baidyanath Sahni would be covering the distance of more than ninety-feet out of his mill while the mill plant was working to pass his urine. The medical evidence post-mortem reports)and the deposition of Dr. B. D. Pandey p. W.13 show that the guns were fired at baidyanath Sahni and Bhola Sahni from a range within three to five feet. This medical evidence demolishes this simple prosecution version put forth by the prosecution witnesses in their statements. 29. The witness Jagdish Sahni P. W.10 has stated that this report of this occurrence - Exhibit-3 had been lodged after deliberations and consultation. It is very likely that the prosecution has not formed the basis of its case on correct facts relating the occurrence. 30. Relating the utmost corroboration of the case, Dhodhai Sahni P. W.2 gave absolutely different version, where he stated that the gun fire shot by Lallan Ji (accused-appellant Girja Nandan prasad Sinha) hit and killed Baidyanath sahni and the gun fire shot fied by Nunu babu (accused-appellant Shailja Nandan Prasad Sinha) hit and injured Bhola sahni. 31. Thus I hold that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the true case and made inconsistent statement as well; and the medical evidence too does not go to support the prosecution case unfolded by the witnesses. 32. 31. Thus I hold that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the true case and made inconsistent statement as well; and the medical evidence too does not go to support the prosecution case unfolded by the witnesses. 32. The earlier report at the Police station from the side of the accused-appellants by their father Laxmi Narain disclosed that the mob led by their leader Baidyanath Salmi where the members were armed after ploughing the field arrived at the residential house of Laxmi Narain and his sons (accused-appellants) situate adjacent to the field and the members of the mob threw brick-bats and shot several arrows on the inmates of the house of Laxmi narain, and arrow injury was caused on the chest of the brother of these accused-appellants, namely, Maheshwari nandan Prasad Sinha and some members of the mob had been violent to this accused-appellant Girja Nandan Prasad sinha @ Lallan Ji and caused two injuries to him. The deposition of Kailash bhagat P. W.3 affirms that several members of the mob went to the house of these accused-appellants and their father and they were armed. The objective findings of the Investigation Officer p. W.14 is that he found brick-bats scattered around the house of the accused-appellants and he found seven hit arrows in different parts in and around the house of the accused-appellants. This objective findings of the Investigation officer lent support to the defence version that the members of the mob led by Baidyanath Salmi attacked the inmates of the house of these accused-appellants and their father with arrows and bows, and brick-bats. Obviously there was reasonable apprehension that the members of the mob who were being led by Baidyanath Sahni were likely to cause grievous hurt to the accused-appellants and their family members and thus the accused-appellants or the accused-appellant No.1 has the justification to fire to ward off the armed mob which became violent and were shooting arrows and throwing brick-bats on the inmates of the house of the accused-appellants. At times it cannot be weighed in golden scales, if there was a little access or at all cost firing by the accused-appellants could be avoided. 33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems probable that the accused-Appelants fired in exercise of right of private defence to person. 34. At times it cannot be weighed in golden scales, if there was a little access or at all cost firing by the accused-appellants could be avoided. 33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems probable that the accused-Appelants fired in exercise of right of private defence to person. 34. I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused-appellants, and the accused-appellants seem to have exercised the right of private defence in this case. 35. The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order recording conviction under Sec.302 read with section 34, I. P. C. , against the accused-appellants and awarding the sentence is hereby set aside. Accusedappellants stand acquitted. The accused-appellants are on bail from this Court, their bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.