JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 1-1-1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1989, convicting and sentencing them to undergo 3 years RI for an offence under section 304 I.P.C., have come up in appeal before me. 2.In short, the prosecution case is that both the appellants are closely related inasmuch as their wives are real sisters. Two to three days prior to the incident, there was religious ceremony at the house of father of the informant Kantibai P.W. 2 in village Jhamb, District Dhule. In this ceremony, the appellant Mala also participated and thereafter took lunch at about 12 noon and slept. Kantibai's husband, the deceased Badhu on seeing Mala sleeping in Kantibai's father's house, suspected her fidelity and told Mala not to visit either his father-in-law's house or his house. On 24-5-1989, at about 9 p.m. the deceased Bhadu, his brother Laxman, his wife Kantibai and aunt Savitri were sitting on the ota of their house situate in village Jhamb, Taluka Shahada, District Dhule. The appellants came there. Badhu told the appellant Mala not to visit the house of his father-in-law. Thereafter, a scuffle took place between Badhu and the appellants. The appellant Ratan snatched a wooden stick from Badhu and inflicted a blow on Badhu's head. The appellant Mala went inside the house of Khurshya and brought a stick (Article No. 6) and gave one blow with it on the head of Badhu. Thereafter, the appellants run away. It is said that Kantibai and others offered water to Badhu but, he died instantaneously. 3. From the evidence of P.S.I. Suresh Kulkarni, it transpires that next day, i.e. on 25-5-1989, Police Patil of village Jhamb, came and gave a report Exhibit 34 about Badhu's death. On that report, P.S.I. Kulkarni went to village Jhamb and recorded the statement of Kantibai P.W. 2, which has been treated as the F.I.R. (Exhibit 25). The investigation of the case was conducted by P.S.I. Kulkarni. On 25-5-1989, he performed the inquest panchanama of the corpse and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence. The same day, he arrested the appellants and seized their clothes. Both the appellants produced the sticks used, during the course of the incident. The said sticks, Articles 5 and 6 were seized. He also interrogated the witnesses. On 25-5-1989, he performed the inquest panchanama of the corpse and prepared the panchanama of the scene of offence. The same day, he arrested the appellants and seized their clothes. Both the appellants produced the sticks used, during the course of the incident. The said sticks, Articles 5 and 6 were seized. He also interrogated the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted by P.S.I. Kulkarni. 4.The post mortem examination of the corpse of Badhu was conducted on 25-5-1989 between 9 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. The Autopsy Surgeon found the following injuries on the corpse :- 1) Contused lacerated wound in the vertex region transversal placed 8 cm x 3 cm, scalp deep. 2) Haematoma on right side of head in the forehead region. On internal examination, fracture of parietal bone on right side extending to the temporal region was found. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to subdural haematoma due to head injury. 5.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where a charge under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses, out of which two namely Kantibai and Laxman gave occular account. In defence, no witness was examined. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above. 6.I have heard Mr. P.M. Shah for the appellants and Mr. D.A. Nalavade, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Maharashtra-respondent. I have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned Judgment. In my view, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7.In the instant case, the trial Judge has accepted the evidence of Laxman and the averments made by Kantibai in the F.I.R., which are to the effect that on the date and time of the incident, the appellants were sitting in front of the ota of Badhu's house; Badhu armed with stick went there and asked appellant Mala not to visit his father-in-law's house and thereupon inflicted a blow with a stick on the head of the appellant Ratan, and after receiving the injury, Ratan snatched the stick from Badhu and inflicted a blow with the same on Badhu's head. In the meantime, the appellant Mala went to Khurshya's house, got a stick and gave a blow with the same on the head of Badhu. There is no dispute that Ratan as a consequence of the assault made by Badhu had sustained a bleeding injury on his head. Not only has this been stated by Kantibai in her F.I.R. but, the Investigating Officer, P.S.I. Suresh Kulkarni, who arrested the appellants, the next day i.e. on 25-5-1989, in his cross-examination admitted that when he arrested Ratan, he was having a bleeding injury on his head. 8.If Badhu first picked up a quarrel with the appellants, who were sitting in front of his house, and thereafter inflicted a stick blow on the head of the appellant Ratan, both the appellants Ratan and Mala by virtue of the provisions of sections 100, 102 and 97 I.P.C., had the right of private defence of person to cause his death. Clauses Firstly and Secondly of section 100 I.P.C. respectively provide that if there is an apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, the right of private defence of person extends to causing death. In my view, when Badhu assaulted the appellant Ratan with a stick on his head, Ratan could legitimately apprehend that grievous hurt could be caused to him. That being so, he had the right of private defence of person to cause Badhu's death. Section 97 I.P.C. provides that the right of private defence of person extends to defending one own's person or that of others. In that view of the matter, the right of private defence of person, was also available to the appellant Mala too. It should be borne in mind that appellant Mala was a very close relation of the appellant Ratan, inasmuch as their wives were real sisters. Section 102 I.P.C. provides that the right of private defence of person, commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension to ones person commences, and it continues so long as the said apprehension lasts. It is true that the evidence on record is that Ratan had snatched the stick from Badhu but what was the guarantee that Badhu would not have snatched back the same from Ratan. It is true that the evidence on record is that Ratan had snatched the stick from Badhu but what was the guarantee that Badhu would not have snatched back the same from Ratan. If in such a situation, and under such a belief, the appellant Mala brought a stick from Khurshya's house and inflicted a blow on Badhu's head, in my view, he also had the right of private defence of person to cause Badhu's death. Mr. Nalavade, Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the appellants had exceeded the right of private defence of person. I am not inclined to accede to his submission for two reasons :- Firstly, in my view, the appellants had not exceeded the right of private defence of person. Secondly, even assuming for arguments sake that they had exceeded the right of private defence of person, the law is that the prosecution has to pin-point as to who amongst the accused, exceeded the right of private defence of person. In cases where there is a right of private defence of person, or property, section 34 I.P.C. would have no application because, the same stipulates of a criminal act and people who act in exercise of right of private defence, of person or property, are doing a lawful act. In such a situation, the onus is on the prosecution to pin-point as to which amongst the accused persons exceeded the right of private defence, of person. In the instant case, I find that although as a result of the stick blow, the parietal bone was fractured, but in the evidence of the eye-witnesses namely Kantibai and Laxman, it has not been specified as to which of the two appellants was responsible for causing the injury involving in the fracture of the parietal bone of the deceased which led to his death. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the appellants exceeded the right of private defence of person. My view is vindicted by the observations of the Supreme Court, in para 4, of the case of (Joginder Ahir and others appellants v. State of Bihar respondents)1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court page 1834. For the said reasons, I reject the submission of Mr. Nalawade. My view is vindicted by the observations of the Supreme Court, in para 4, of the case of (Joginder Ahir and others appellants v. State of Bihar respondents)1, reported in A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court page 1834. For the said reasons, I reject the submission of Mr. Nalawade. 9.Accordingly, I am of the view that the convictions and sentences of the appellants cannot be sustained as the evidence on record shows that they acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person. 10.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences of both the appellants for the offence under section 304 I.P.C. are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offence. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed.