JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by leave has been preferred by the State under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (1) of Section 378, Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 29.8.79 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Session s Cas e No. 54/79 thereby acquitting the accused- respondent of offence punishable under Section 307,1.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story giving rise to the present appeal, is that the alleged incident took place on 12.4.79 at about 9.30 A.M., as alleged, in the premises of the Primary School of Dhani Dhakonwali. PW. 3 Jaswant Singh, who is President of the same village, was brought by PW. 5 Om Prakash in an injured condition to the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar whereat he was admitted. PW. 8 Dr. R.P Gupta, who attended to him, immediately informed about it to the Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar. Sobhag Singh, who was then working as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, received this information and, after recording the same in the daily diary of the Police Station, immediately reached the hospital whereat PW. 3 Jaswant Singh was admitted and he recorded Ex.P 11 Parcha Bayan' of Jaswant Singh. It was alleged by Jaswant Singh that at about 9.15 A.M. he had to take his buffaloes to the village-pond for drinking water and, at the same time, another buffalo of the accused was also there. Both the buffaloes started fighting with each other. PW. 6 Ved Prakash who is brother-in-law (loser) of the accused and, at the time of the occurrence, who was residing with the accused in the same village, gave a lathi blow to the bufallo of Jaswant Singh to which he objected and reprimanded him. Ved Prakash immediately left from there. Meanwhile, Jaswant Singh went to the nearby school and was standing in the verandah of the school. At about 9.30 A.M., the accused being armed with 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun, came there and, standing at about a distance of 15 to 20 ft. from him, he aimed and fired at him a shot from his gun with an intent to kill him. The gun-shot hit on his chest and, as a result, beside his chest left forearm was injured. He fell down. Both the teachers PW. 1 Sohan Pal and PW. 2 Mehar Chand were present there in the school besides the students were also present in their classes. The gun-shot hit on his chest and, as a result, beside his chest left forearm was injured. He fell down. Both the teachers PW. 1 Sohan Pal and PW. 2 Mehar Chand were present there in the school besides the students were also present in their classes. The accused immediately fled away from there. Jaswant Singh immediately went to the house of PW. 5 Om Prakash situated nearby and narrated the incident to Om Prakash who brought him in his jeep to the Government Hospital at Sri Ganganagar whereat he was so admitted for his treatment. 3. On the basis of Ex.P 11 Parcha Bayan, Sobhag Singh registered Ex.P 24 F.I.R. under Section 307, I.P.C. as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and entrusted investigation to PW. 9 Shive Narayan Sharma. Meanwhile, PW. 1 Sohan Pai, who was Head Master of the school, along with his assistant teacher PW. 2 Mehar Chand, rushed to the B.D.O., Panchyat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar, and presented Ex.P 1 report to the extent that since an incident of gun firing had taken place between two villagers and there was an atmosphere of violence and, therefore, the school was closed. The B.D.O. contacted the S.P, Sri Ganganagar, who immediately despatched Murlidhar, Sub-Inspector, attached with the office of the S.P, Sri Ganganagar, in absence of PW. 10 Harnam Singh, S.H.O., P.S., Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, to go to the spot for investigation. Murlidhar immediately went to the Sadar Police Station and, accompanied by PW. 9 Shive Narayan Sharma etc., besides, PW.1 Sohan Pal and PW. 2 Mehar Chand, reached the place of occurrence. Shiv Narayan Sharma inspected the site and prepared Ex.P.2 site-plan along with Ex.P 2-A site memo. He observed that an empty cartridge case, one wooden piece of joint of grip of the gun as well as blood stains were found lying there. There were also lying pellets of a cartridge fired from the gun scattered in the verandah as well as a class room. He seized the empty of the cartridge vide Ex.R3, Six pellets of 12 bore cartridge vide Ex.p. 4 and three pellets along with a wad discharged from 12 bore gun vide Ex.R 5 were also seized and taken into possession. The piece of hand grip of the joint of the gun was also seized vide Ex.R 6. He seized the empty of the cartridge vide Ex.R3, Six pellets of 12 bore cartridge vide Ex.p. 4 and three pellets along with a wad discharged from 12 bore gun vide Ex.R 5 were also seized and taken into possession. The piece of hand grip of the joint of the gun was also seized vide Ex.R 6. Blood stained as well as control soil were taken into possession from out side the verandah vide Ex.P.8 and Ex.P. 9 separately, from two places. Mehar Chand who was alleged to have lifted Jaswant Singh lying in an injured condition, produced his bushirt alleged to have been stained with blood oozing out from the wound of Jaswant Singh, was also seized vide Ex.R 7. All these proceedings were conducted in presence of PW. 1 Sohan Pal and PW. 2 Mehar Chand. 4. Jaswant Singh was medically examined by PW. 8 Dr. R.P Gupta vide Ex.R 22 injury report and he found as many as eight injuries on his person in the form of punctured and lacerated wounds besides bruises and opined that the same were caused by a fire-arm. He also seized the blood stained clothes of the injured and forwarded the same, in a sealed condition, to the S.H.O., Sadar for necessary action. He also simultaneously vide Ex.P. 20, informed Judicial Magistrate for recording statement of Jaswant Singh under Section 32, Evidence Act and the Magistrate recorded Ex.D. 3 statement of Jaswant Singh. The injuries so received by Jaswant Singh were also x-rayed and PW. 4 Dr. S.L. Kaushik confirmed presence of foreign body (metallic) in the body of Jaswant Singh. Lastly, since the condition of Jaswant Singh was serious, he was referred to Bikaner for further treatment. 5. Shiv Narayan Sharma arrested the accused-respondent vide Ex.R 25 and Article-1 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun along with a cartridge loaded therein besides five live cartridges from a separate bag, in pursuance of Ex.P. 26, were recovered on the information given by him, as per Ex.R 10 recovery memo. All these articles were duly packed and sealed simultaneously and were kept duly sealed and packed in the Police Station before they were sent for chemical and ballistics examination to the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur along with PW. 7 Karani Singh. All these articles were duly packed and sealed simultaneously and were kept duly sealed and packed in the Police Station before they were sent for chemical and ballistics examination to the R.S.F.S.L., Jaipur along with PW. 7 Karani Singh. On examination of the gun Article-1 and the empty case of the cartridge Article-2, it was confirmed that the empty of the cartridge so seized from the place of occurrence was discharged from the same gun and the gun was also serviceable which was fired at any time before its examination. 6. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned under Section 307, I.PC. as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, who, in turn, committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The leaned Sessions Judge, charged the accused with the commission of the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the trial was completed. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses besides producing documentary evidence and, thereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313, Cr.PC. He took a defence plea that since his brother-in- law PW. 6 Ved Prakash had gone along with his buffalo to the village water pond whereat PW. 3 Jaswant Singh was also present and, as a result of fighting ensuing between the buffaloes of both the parties, PW. 3 Jaswant Singh started inflicting injuries with a lathi to Ved Prakash to which Jaimal Ram father of the accused objected and tried to intervene but Jaswant Singh also started beating Jaimal Ram. The accused was following his father Jaimal Ram through the way passing from there to his field who also wanted to intervene but Jaswant Singh also became aggressive and, as a result, he started assaulting the accused with a lathi but the accused warded-off two blows of the lathi with the help of his gun as a result of which the barrel of the gun was damaged and the wooden hand grip piece of the gun was also damaged which fell at the site of the occurrence. Lastly, when apprehending a third attempt on his body, he 'fired a single shot from the gun in exercise of private right of defence of his person and, as a result, Jaswant Singh was injured. Lastly, when apprehending a third attempt on his body, he 'fired a single shot from the gun in exercise of private right of defence of his person and, as a result, Jaswant Singh was injured. He produced medical evidence in respect of the injuries caused to RW. 6 Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram and not other evidence in defence was produced. 8. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge held that RW. 3 Jaswant Singh had not come forward with a true genesis of the origin of the incident and that the substratum of the prosecution story was substantially changed. RW. 1 Sohan Pal and RW. 2 Mehar Chand were interested in RW. 3 Jaswant Singh and they were not wholly reliable witnesses. They had not explained the injuries caused on the bodies of Jaimal Ram as well as Ved Prakash and also did not explain the damage caused to the gun of the accused. Besides, it was also not proved as to whether this incident took place at or near the village pond or in the school premises itself. In case the incident took place in the school premises, as is the prosecution story, the prosecution failed to explain as to how did RW. 3 Jaswant Singh happen to come to the school premises and so also how did accused follow him. Besides, these witnesses also gave contradictory statements before the police as regards the prosecution story. RW. 1 Sohan Pal as well as RW. 2 Mehar Chand were highly interested in RW. 3 Jaswant Singh and so also RW. 5 Om Prakash was also interested in RW. 3 Jaswant Singh being inimical to the accused. As a result, since the prosecution could not disprove the defence plea and, besides, looking to the preponderance of the defence evidence, the defence theory so advanced by the accused could not be held to be false and concocted one and the same being corroborated by the attending circumstances, the prosecution could not successfully prove its case beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the accused had fired from his gun with an intent or with a knowledge and under such circumstances that, by his act of firing at RW. 3 Jaswant Singh, he had killed him, he would have been liable for commission of murder of Jaswant Singh. 3 Jaswant Singh, he had killed him, he would have been liable for commission of murder of Jaswant Singh. As a result, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of offence under Section 307, I.PC. and hence this appeal, as above. 9. It may also be observed, though the respondent was charged with commission of offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well to which he pleaded not guilty but the learned Sessions Judge appears to have lost sight of this fact and, as a result, there is no mention of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, besides, the fact of either conviction or acquittal of the accused of such offence. Not only this, the State has also omitted to notice this omission on the part of the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act is, presently, not a subject matter of consideration in this appeal. 10. The learned public prosecutor has, while supporting this appeal, contended that the lesrned Sessions Judge fell into a serious error while disbelieving the statement of RW. 2 Jaswant Singh, who was, admittedly, injured by a gun-shot fire, as is also admitted by the respondent and also overwhelmingly corroborated by medical evidence and, RW. 1 Sohan Pal as well as RW. 2 Mehar Chand, who were Head Master and teacher respectively, present at and working as teachers in the school, had had no grudge to grind against the respondent and, therefore, the learned trial judge was not justified in brushing aside the evidence of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal, PW. 2 Mehar Chand and PW. 5 Om Prakash to whom the incident was immediately narrated by PW. 3 Jaswant Singh besides P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh himself which is fully corroborated by Ex.P. 11 Parcha Bayan of Jaswant Singh on the basis of which Ex.R 24 F.l.R. was registered and the medical evidence given by P.W. 4 Dr. Kaushik as Well as RW. 8 Dr. Gupta. 5 Om Prakash to whom the incident was immediately narrated by PW. 3 Jaswant Singh besides P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh himself which is fully corroborated by Ex.P. 11 Parcha Bayan of Jaswant Singh on the basis of which Ex.R 24 F.l.R. was registered and the medical evidence given by P.W. 4 Dr. Kaushik as Well as RW. 8 Dr. Gupta. The circumstantial evidence as observed by P.W. 9 Shiv Narayan Sharma at the place of occurrence which is proved to be a school premises, further lends support to the prosecution story and so the learned trial judge also committed serious error while concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the place of the occurrence and the genesis of the occurrence as deposed by the prosecution witnesses and that the accused while causing fire-arm Injury to RW. 3 Jaswant Singh acted in exercise of his right of private defence of person. The accused had had no right or justification to be present in the school premises with the fire-arm and to have fired at P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh resulting in serious injury to him and, therefore, as is also supported by the report of Ballistics Expert Ex.P. 28, since Article-1 gun seized from the possession of the respondent is also found to have been fired before its examination and Article-2 empty of the cartridge case seized from the school premises, as above, has also been confirmed to have been fired from this very gun and, therefore, the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge under Section 307,1.P.C. beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the learned trial judge taking an erroneous view of the prosecution evidence besides accepting the defence theory, wrongly acquitted the accused-person of the said charge and so the impugned judgment is perverse and this appeal deserves to be accepted warranting reversal of the order of acquittal and, consequently, it is a fit case in which the accused- respondent ought to be held guilty of commission of the said offence. 11. As regards the date and time of the occurrence, there is hardly any dispute. Besides, RW. 8 Dr. R.P. Gupta, Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, who examined the injuries of P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh on 12.4.79, immediately after the occurrence in the hospital itself, found as many as eight injuries on his person. They are caused by fire-arm. He prepared Ex.P 22 injury report. Besides, RW. 8 Dr. R.P. Gupta, Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, who examined the injuries of P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh on 12.4.79, immediately after the occurrence in the hospital itself, found as many as eight injuries on his person. They are caused by fire-arm. He prepared Ex.P 22 injury report. He also seized the clothes from the body of injured and forwarded the same vide Ex.R 23 to the Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar. 12. P.W. 4 Dr Kaushik, Radiologist, stated that the chest and left fore-arm of Jaswant Singh were x-rayed vide Ex.P. 14 to Ex.P 18 and, as reported in Ex.P. 13, multiple foreign-body (metallic) on both sides of the chest were seen and there was a surgical emphesema and soft tissues were found to be torn. As a result, Dr. Gupta further opined that as a result of x-ray finding vide Ex.P. 13, the injuries Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 were found to be of grievous nature. Since all these injuries were caused by a fire-arm and there were also foreign-body articles visible by way of x-rays, as above, lastly, Jaswant Singh was discharged and referred to the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner, as is also evident from Ex.P. 12 Discharge Certificate whereat his wounds were explored and pellets were discovered from the same. 13. PW. 3 Jaswant Singh as well as P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and P.W. 3 Mehar Chand have also supported the fact that Jaswant Singh was hurt as a result of gun-shot fire. Ex.R 11 Parcha Bayan, as recorded by Sobhag Singh, also lends support to it. The circumstantial evidence as borne out of the statement of RW. 9 Shiv Narayan vide Ex.R 2 to Ex.R 10 also lends support to this fact. As a result, there cannot be any doubt to conclude that RW. 3 Jaswant Singh was seriously hurt as a result of gun-shot injury. 14. Now, the crucial point for consideration is whether the present respondent is the author of the injury so caused to Jaswant Singh and, if so, whether he is liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 307,1.PC. and, by passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge committed any error or illegality warranting reversal of the same. 15. and, by passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge committed any error or illegality warranting reversal of the same. 15. P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh stated that he took his buffaloes for drinking water to the village water pond and, leaving them there at the pond, he went to the school situated nearby. He further stated that P.W. 6 Ved Prakash also brought buffalo of the accused to the pond. The buffalo of Jaswant Singh as well as another buffalo belonging to the accused started fighting and Ved Prakash started giving lathi blows to his (Jaswant Singh's) buffalo to which he protested and remonstrated him. Thereafter he left from there and reached the school, as above. 16. Here it is to be noticed that Jaswant Singh stated that he went to the school initially after leaving his buffaloes at the water pond and, again, he stated that after so remonstrating Ved Prakash, he went to the school. It was at about 9.30 A.M. that the accused, being armed with the gun, came to the school and he immediately fired a shot from his gun from a distance of 15 to 20 ft. and, as a result, the pellets of the discharged fire penetrated into his chest and left fire-arm and he was seriously hurt. He fell down in the verandah of the school. He was helped to stand on his own legs by RW. 2 Mehar Chand and, meanwhile, the accused fled away from there. He went to the house of PW. 5 Om Prakash and narrated this incident to him who took him to the hospital. RW. 5 Om Prakash also lends support to the statement of Jaswant Singh to this extent. 17. Jaswant Singh further stated that he gave Ex.R 11 statement to the police at the hospital itself whereat he was admitted and, after medical examination etc., he was referred to Bikaner for treatment. 18. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had left his buffaloes at the water pond in the beginning and had come to the school but he had had no conversation with the school teachers. On the contrary, he stated in Ex.P 11 Parcha bayan that he was standing by the side of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and RW. 2 Mehar Chand. On the contrary, he stated in Ex.P 11 Parcha bayan that he was standing by the side of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and RW. 2 Mehar Chand. He also admitted that he was examined by the Magistrate, purporting to be examined under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, wherein it is attributed to him that he was sitting near a chhapar' in the school. He also admitted that he had threatened Ved Prakash to beat him. He denied that he was armed with a lathi whereas he did admit that since Ved Prakash had driven accused's buffalo to the village water pond, he was armed with a lathi. Naturally, as is the common experience and practice, whosoever drives the cattle, he must be armed with lathi etc. to drive the cattle to the right destination. Though the prosecution, subsequently, developed a story with the help of statement of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal as well as P.W. 2 Mehar Chand and, lastly, RW. 3 Jaswant Singh that since Jaswant Singh being injured with the gun-shot fire, could not help himself to stand-up and so RW. 2 Mehar Chand helped him and, as a result, the bushirt worn by Mehar Chand was blood stained which was seized by PW. 9 Shiv Narayan, as above. He did not state in either Ex.R 11 Parcha Bayan or Ex.D. 3 statement given before the Magistrate that he had remonstrated and rebuked Ved Prakash and thereafter he had again returned to the school. Besides, he also did not disclose the presence of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and P.W. 2 Mehar Chand in his statement Ex.D. 3 before the Magistrate who also witnessed the occurrence, as is the prosecution story. 19. He did admit that the residence of the accused was at a distance of about 11/2bigha from the school. However, he has denied the defence theory as advanced by the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 20. RW. 1 Sohan Pal, who was Head Master of the school stated that at about 9 A.M., RW. 3 Jaswant Singh came rushing to the school crying that he be saved on which they enquired as to what had happened. They were told by Jaswant Singh that the accused was following with a gun and he did not know as to who is to be killed by him. 3 Jaswant Singh came rushing to the school crying that he be saved on which they enquired as to what had happened. They were told by Jaswant Singh that the accused was following with a gun and he did not know as to who is to be killed by him. Meanwhile, the accused being armed with gun, came there from the eastern side of the school and he entered the school premises. He asked P.W. 2 Mehar Chand to find out the purpose of the accused coming there armed with a fire-arm. Accused Bhagirath came in front of the verandah of the school building and he aimed his gun in the front side and, both, he as well as Mehar Chand, requested him with folded hand that since this was a pretty matter, he should end the matter there. However, the accused warned Jaswant Singh to come out but Jaswant Singh tried to hide himself behind the pillar of the verandah but the accused fired his gun towards Jaswant Singh and the gun-shot so fired, hit Jaswant Singh, as above. There was a commotion and panic in the school. They immediately, closed the school and sent away children to their houses. Jaswant Singh also left from there. He also, as supported by P.W. 2 Mehar Chand, corroborated the statement of P.W. 9 Shiv Narayan in regard to the proceedings relating to Ex.R 2 to Ex.P. 10. He as well as RW. 2 Mehar Chand stated that they immediately went to Sri Ganganagar and reported vide Ex.P. 1 to the B.D.O., Panchayat Samiti, who was their Controlling Authority about the incident. It is to be appreciated that they did not report the incident as is deposed to by them before the court and instead they only reported that at about 9 A.M. two villagers had resorted to an incident of gun firing and, as a result, students of the school deserted the school and fled away from there and so the school was closed. 21. They could not give explanation about the true genesis of the occurrence. They further stated that Murlidhar, Sub-Inspector, was dispatched by the S.P., Sri Ganganr gar to the spot but, for the reasons best known, Murlidhar who had participated in the investigation, and was also the senior most police officer present at the side, he has not been produced by the prosecution. 22. Both RW. They further stated that Murlidhar, Sub-Inspector, was dispatched by the S.P., Sri Ganganr gar to the spot but, for the reasons best known, Murlidhar who had participated in the investigation, and was also the senior most police officer present at the side, he has not been produced by the prosecution. 22. Both RW. 1 Sohan Pal as well as P.W. 2 Mehar Chand could not deny the defence suggestion that Jaswant Singh was armed with a lathi at the time of the incident and stated that they did not recollect whether he had any lathi or not. P.W. 1 Sohan Pal also could not deny the suggestion that Jaswant Singh had given lathi blows which were warded-off by the accused by advancing his gun. He also pleaded ignorance about Jaswant Singh's having given any beating with lathi to Ved Prakash or Jaimal Ram. He did admit that the way of the accused, leading from his house to his field, passes from the side of the school. He also did not mention about Jaswant Singh's coming running ahead of Bhagirath accused and also his having told them that the accused was about to kill some body on which he had asked Mehar Chand to pray Bhagirath not to resort to any such act. RW. 1 Sohan pal clearly stated that he had been living, without payment of any rent, in the house of Kashi Ram, who is real brother of RW. 3 Jaswant Singh and it further shows that he is highly interested in Jaswant Singh. 23. PW. 2 Mehar Chand also stated that he was told by RW. 1 Sohan Pal that the accused was coming with fire-arm towards the school and, meanwhile, accused came there. He made entreaties before the accused not to resort to any such action but the accused did not pay any heed to the same and he came forward and, meanwhile, he heard the sound of a gun-shot fire. As a result, Jaswant Singh was hurt. There was commotion and panic in the school. Jaswant Singh fell down in the verandah itself and he had been helped to get-up, as above, He also lent support to the statement of RW. 9 Shiv Narayan thereby supporting the proceedings conducted by him vide Ex.P 2 to Ex.R 10. 24. As a result, Jaswant Singh was hurt. There was commotion and panic in the school. Jaswant Singh fell down in the verandah itself and he had been helped to get-up, as above, He also lent support to the statement of RW. 9 Shiv Narayan thereby supporting the proceedings conducted by him vide Ex.P 2 to Ex.R 10. 24. He stated that he was never examined by the police about this incident whereas Ex.D. 2 statement is on record. Besides, when confronted with police statement Ex.D. 2, while making a somersault, he admitted that he gave such statement to Murlidhar, as is statement of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal, whereas Murlidhar has not been examined by the prosecution. He further stated that as per instructions of S.P, Sri Ganganagar, Murlidhar accompanied them firstly to the Police Station, Sadar and, before they were taken to the place of occurrence, the Sub-Inspector (Murlidhar) took down a report at the Police Station itself but no such report has been produced by the prosecution. He also did not depose in his Ex.D. 2 police statement that Jaswant Singh had reported to PW. 1 Sohan Pal that the accused was following him being armed with a gun and so he was asked by the Head Master to save him and so he requested the accused with folded hand not to resort to any such incident. He has, in the same manner, as is also done by RW. 1 Sohan Pal, improved upon his previous statement Ex.D. 2 given before the police but he is also subordinate of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and, therefore, since Sohan Pal is indebted to Jaswant Singh, since he was residing, without payment of any rent in the house of brother of Jaswant Singh, both of them are highly interested in Jaswant Singh and, therefore, they have made successive improvements over their previous police statements. It shows their interestedness in Jaswant Singh. He also could not deny the defence theory advanced by the accused and instead pleaded ignorance about the same. 25. Lastly, RW. 5 Om Prakash stated that Jaswant Singh came to his house in an injured condition and he was told by him that it was the accused who had injured him with a gun-shot fired at him and he took him to the hospital. 25. Lastly, RW. 5 Om Prakash stated that Jaswant Singh came to his house in an injured condition and he was told by him that it was the accused who had injured him with a gun-shot fired at him and he took him to the hospital. Om Prakash did admit that since he had pending litigation with the accused, they were having strained relationship. 26. On the basis of prosecution evidence discussed hereinbefore, the prosecution has not been able to show as to how did RW. 3 Jaswant Singh happen to be present in the school at the time of the incident. Whether he had picked up any quarrel with Ved Prakash alone or that, subsequent to the incident that took place between Ved Prakash and Jaswant Singh, after learning of this incident, the accused came armed straight-way to the school or that the accused, as is the defence plea, was heading towards his field following his father Jaimal Ram and finding that Jaswant Singh was beating P.W. 6 Ved Prakash and so on intervention of Jaimal Ram, Jaswant Singh assaulted and hurt Ved Prakash as well as Jaimal Ram and, as a result, the accused was forced to accompany but this also, as is the defence theory, enraged Jaswant Singh who also attempted to give lathi blows on the body of the accused but the successive blows were warded-off by the accused with the help of the gun held by him and, as a result, the barrel of the gun receiving the lathi blows, was damaged besides the wooden hand grip of the gun was also separated and fell down at the place of occurrence. 27. The accused, in support of his defence plea, produced Ex.D. 5 and Ex.D. 6 injury reports prepared and proved by PW. 8 Dr. Gupta showing that each Jaimal Ram as well as Ved Prakash received two injuries and they also coincide with the time of the alleged occurrence, as above. Having regard to the statement of the accused as corroborated by RW. 6 Ved Prakash himself, though termed to be hostile by the prosecution but, who was relied upon and brought forward by the prosecution itself and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony wholly, it all probabilises the defence theory that PW. 6 Ved Prakash was assaulted by PW. 6 Ved Prakash himself, though termed to be hostile by the prosecution but, who was relied upon and brought forward by the prosecution itself and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony wholly, it all probabilises the defence theory that PW. 6 Ved Prakash was assaulted by PW. 3 Jaswant Singh and in the process since Jaimal Ram also happened to come to the scene of occurrence followed by the accused himself Jaimal Ram attempted to intervene and saved Ved Prakash but PW. 3 Jaswant Singh being enraged, assaulted Ved Prakash as well as Jaimal Ram. As a result, both of them were hurt. There is nothing against it and the prosecution failed to prove these injuries of Ved Prakash as well as Jaimal Ram. P.W. 1 Sohan Pal and RW. 2 Mehar Chand also could not deny that these injuries were inflicted by Jaswant Singh and none else. As a result, since there is contradictory version of Jaswant Singh as to whether he had gone to the school once or twice and that too either after leaving his buffaloes at the pond or that he went to the school only after he had remonstrated and reprimanded Ved Prakash about the incident so alleged to have preceded the present incident. Had he come to the school after leaving his buffaloes at the village water pond and had gone back at the time the buffaloes were fighting there, it probabilizes the defence theory that he was remonstrating and, lastly, assaulted Ved prakash, being enraged for Ved Prakash's having given lathi blows to his buffalo and, in the process, Jaimal Ram also happened to come there and, naturally, following him accused also happened to come there and they saw the incident. It was quite natural for Jaimal Ram as well as the accused, as is the defence theory, to have resisted the act of Jaswant Singh in giving beating to P.W. 7 Ved Prakash and this infuriated Jaswant Singh who also started beating Jaimal Ram, father of the accused and so the accused came to the rescue of his father. 28. Here it is to be appreciated that, as is evident from Ex.R 10 seizure memo as well as the statement of RW. 28. Here it is to be appreciated that, as is evident from Ex.R 10 seizure memo as well as the statement of RW. 9 Shiv Narayan and also borne out of Ex.R 6 seizure memo, the gun Article-1 seized at the instance of and from the possession of the accused bore signs of striking by some object resulting in damage and marks as such to the body of the barrel of the gun. Besides, the wooden hand grip portion of the gun held by the accused was also broken and is also alleged to have been collected from the scene of occurrence. Had Jaswant Singh not been armed with a lathi and also did not resort to any attack with any lathi prior to the firing of the gun-shot, it is not understandable as to how was the gun so damaged. Therefore, since Jaswant Singh as well as his alleged witnesses of the occurrence, who are highly interested in him, have failed to prove the injuries found on the person of PW. 6 Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram as are proved by none else but PW. 8 Dr. Gupta and so the defence plea advanced by the accused from the very beginning and the same could not be denied by PW. 2 Sohan Pal as well as P.W. 2 Mehar Chand and, therefore, besides, the injuries, damage caused to the gun possessed by the accused, fully probabilises the defence theory that Jaswant Singh, being enraged and annoyed with the alleged act of Ved Prakash by way of his causing injuries by a lathi to the buffalo belonging to Jaswant Singh, he was motivated to have assaulted Ved Prakash and, naturally, Jaimal Ram and the accused came to the rescue of Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram and it further enraged Jaswant Singh who started giving lathi blows to the accused as well and, being armed with a gun, he attempted his best to ward-off lathi blows and he succeeded twice but, lastly, apprehending third blow of lathi on his body, in exercise of his private right of defence of person of his own and so also, as stated above, the persons of Ved Prakash and his father Jaimal Ram, he fired a single shot from his gun which, as concluded hereinbefore, resulted in single gun- shot injury to PW. 3 Jaswant Singh. 3 Jaswant Singh. The accused did not attempt to repeat fire from his gun though he had enough opportunity and there was no obstruction or any intervention to have restrained him from doing further injuries to Jaswant Singh. Therefore, the defence has been able to prove by preponderance of evidence since the same is never required to prove its defence theory beyond reasonable manner of doubt, that the accused was lastly apprehending danger to his own person at the hands of PW. 3 Jaswant Singh who also caused injuries to Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram, in exercise of right of private defence of person of his own as well as that of Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram, under Sections 96, 97 and 101, I.PC., he caused the alleged injury by a single gun-shot fire and he did not repeat the same. Therefore, he was fully justified to have caused such injuries to RW. 3 Jaswant Singh in exercise of his right of private defence of person of his own as well as the other two said persons and, as a result, it cannot be said that he had exceeded, any how, private right of defence of person. 29. Besides, as is stated above, the prosecution could not successfully challenge the defence theory besides having failed to explain injuries of Ved Prakash and Jaimal Ram and the genesis of the occurrence and so also the substratum of the prosecution story has also not been proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt by the prosecution and, as a result, the learned Sessions Judge, while resorting to an elaborate appraisal of the prosecution evidence, discussed above, did not commit any error taking any erroneous view of the prosecution evidence in holding that the prosecution failed to prove its charge beyond reasonable manner of doubt against the accused-despondent. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be held to be erroneous and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and hence this appeal is devoid of any merit. 30. As a result, this appeal fails. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondent under Section 307, I.PC. The accused-respondent is on bail and his bail bonds are cancelled and he need not surrender to the same.> Appeal dismissed. *******