JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J. - Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common judgment we are disposing them of together. 2. Eleven persons viz. 1. Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit. 2. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyar Singh Lohit. 3. Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. 4. Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursin'g Sinha. 5. Rameshsingh Laxmansingh Rajput. 6. Lalsingh Visawasingh Sikh. 7. Hardeepsing Sardarsingh Sihota. 8. Rajendrasing Hardeepsingh Sihota. 9. Surendrasingh Hardeepsing Sihota. 10. Mukhtyarsingh Khemsingh Lohit and 11. Jalbindarsing Bachattarsingh, original accused 1 to 11 respectively were charged for offences punishable under, Sections 147, 148, 307, 326 and 302. IPC read with Sec. 149, IPC, in the alternative they were charged under Section 302 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. in addition Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit and Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit were charged under Section 302. IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Pune who framed the charges vide judgment and order dated 9-5-1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1983. convicted 1. Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit. 2. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, 3. Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. 4. Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursingh Sinha and 5. Ramesh Singh Laxman Singh Rajput for the offence under Section 326. IPC and sentenced Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month each and Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursing Sinha and Rameshsing Laxmansingh Hajput to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs: 500/- each in default to undergo one month R.I. each. The learned Judge acquitted the said persons on the remaining counts and the other six accused persons viz. Lalsingh Visawasingh Sikh. Hardeepsing Sardar Singh Sihota. Rajendra Singh Hardeep Singh Sihota. Surendra singh Hardeepsing Sihota, Mukhtyarsingh Khemsingh Lohit and Jalbindarsing Bachattarsingh on all counts. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1985 has been preferred by the five accused 1. Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit, 2. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, 3. Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, 4. Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursingh Sinha, and 5. Rameshsing Laxmansingh Rajput who have been found guilty for the offence under Section 326. IPC. By inadvertence it was also preferred on behalf of the six acquitted accused. Consequently a Division Bench of this Court (Dharmadhikari and Kotwal, JJ.) on 25-8-988 dismissed it in relation to the admitted accused and admitted it only in respect of the convicted accused. Rameshsing Laxmansingh Rajput who have been found guilty for the offence under Section 326. IPC. By inadvertence it was also preferred on behalf of the six acquitted accused. Consequently a Division Bench of this Court (Dharmadhikari and Kotwal, JJ.) on 25-8-988 dismissed it in relation to the admitted accused and admitted it only in respect of the convicted accused. Criminal Appeal No. 539/1985 has been "Preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of original accused No 6 to 11. viz. Lalsingh Visawasingh Sikh. Hardeepsingh Sardarsingh Sihota, Rajendrasing Hardeepsingh Sihota, Surendrasing Hardeepsing Sihota, Mukhtyarsingh Khemsingh Lohit and Jalbindarsing Bachattarsingh for all the offences and that of original accused Nos. 1 to 5 viz. 1. Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit, 2. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit; 3. Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. 4. Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursing Sinha and 5. Rameshsing Laxmansingh Rajput for offences other than Section 326, IPC. On 25-8-1988 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Dharmadhikari and Kotwal, JJ. admitted the said appeal only against the said original accused Nos.1 to 5 and dismissed it so far as original accused Nos. 6 to 11 were concerned. 4. In short the prosecution case runs as under: The informant Puransingh PW1 at the time of the incident was residing in Pimpri Camp, Block C. Opposite, Gurunanak Chowk in Pimpri. The accused who were interconnected were also residents of the same locality. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the sons of accused No. 10 accused Nos. 4 and 5 were their servants; accused No.1 was the brother-in-law of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3; accused No. 6 was the friend of accused No.1 and accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9 were the relations-Of accused Nos.1, 2, and 3. On 6-9-1982 a quarrel had taken place between Arjunsingh and his friend Jitsirigh PW 14 on one hand and accused No.2 and his friend accused No.4 on the other hand. Both sides lodged FIRs resulting in police arresting them and filing criminal cases against them, which at the time of the incident were pending in Khadki Court. At about 8.30 P.M. on 26-9-1982 the complainant Puransingh along with Jitsingh PW 14, Rudsingh (deceased) Gurmitsingh Karnalsingh and Kalasingh, went to the house of accused No. 10 to request him and his sons to compromise the cases pending in the Khadki Court a they all belonged to one community. At about 8.30 P.M. on 26-9-1982 the complainant Puransingh along with Jitsingh PW 14, Rudsingh (deceased) Gurmitsingh Karnalsingh and Kalasingh, went to the house of accused No. 10 to request him and his sons to compromise the cases pending in the Khadki Court a they all belonged to one community. -That talk for compromise went on for about one hour but the parties did not reach any settlement. Consequently Puransingh and others came out. All of them had dinner at the house of Puransingh. At about 11 P.M. when the said relations of the informant started proceeding towards Gurav Pimpale some one suggested that it would be better if they again contact accused No. 10 and his sons and enquire from them whether they wanted to compromise Consequently they along with the informant Puransingh went to the house of accused No. 10 to enquire. When they reached opposite his house all the accused persons and the absconding accused Darshansingh came out of the house armed with swords gander 1ron rods sticks etc. it is Said that Darshansingh who was armed with a sword along With accused No: 1 who, was also armed with a sword and accused No. 2 who was armed with a gander, inflicted blows on the head of Rudsingh. There is also a general allegation that all the accused persons with their respective weapons assaulted the informant Puransingh PW1. Jitsingh PW 14, Kalasingh and Gurmitsingh Karnailsingh. After assaulting Rudsingh and others the accused persons are said to have run away. It is said that one of the persons residing near the place of the incident telephoned to P.S.I. Gorade of Pimpri Police Station in terms that a “maramari” was going on between some "Sardarjis' near Lohit Engineering Works (the evidence shows it is opposite the house of accused No. 10). On, the said information P.S.I. Gorade reached the place of offence at about 11.40 P.M. He noticed that 4 to 5 persons were lying injured on the road opposite Lohit Engineering Works and turbans, shoes sticks sword gander and iron rods, were lying near them. An ambulance was arranged for in which Rudsingh and other injured persons were immediately shifted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune. 5. The injuries of the victims were medically examined in Sassoon Hospital, Pune. It appears that Rudsingh was also medically examined at the said hospital. An ambulance was arranged for in which Rudsingh and other injured persons were immediately shifted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune. 5. The injuries of the victims were medically examined in Sassoon Hospital, Pune. It appears that Rudsingh was also medically examined at the said hospital. However, the doctor who examined Rudsingh has not been examined by the prosecution. Jitsingh and Puransingh were medically examined the same night at 1 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. respectively by Dr. Rajiv Keshav Joshi (P.W 6). On the person of Jitsingh Bantasingh Dr. Joshi found five incised wounds and two contused lacerated wounds and on the person of Puransingh two incised wounds two contused lacerated wounds and four injuries which have been described as fractures of fibula lower third, ulna lower end fourth and fifth left metacarpals and fourth and fifth right metacarpals. Kalasingh was medically examined by Dr. Saifuddin Shafazkathusain Arasiwala PW 12 at 1 a.m. the same night, who found on his person four contused lacerated wounds and one contusion. Gurmitsingh Karnalsingh was medically examined on the same night at 1 a.m. by Dr. Arjunkumar Santumal Palani PW 11 who found on his person one contused lacerated wound and one contusion. 6. The evidence of Police Inspector Marutrao Bandoji Jadhav PW 22 of Pimpri Police Station shows that he immediately reached Sassoon Hospital. immediately after the victims had reached there. He recorded Puransingh's FIR on facts as disclosed by him. The FIR is at Exhibit 24. On its basis C.R. No. 392 of 1982 was registered at 2.05 a.m. the same night at Police Station Pimpri. 7. The evidence is that Rudsingh succumbed to his injuries on 27-9-1982 at 2.40 a.m. at Sassoon Hospital Pune. The same day the autopsy on his corpse was conducted by Dr. Laxman Ferwani PW 10 who found on his person three sutured wounds three contused abrasions and two incised wounds. On internal examination he found fracture of skull. left side fronto parieto occipital area and brain matter protruding out. In his opinion the deceased died on account of traumatic shock due to intra cranial injuries with fracture of skull and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 8. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Annasaheb Vithal Gorde PW 21 and Police Inspector Marutrao Bandoji Jadhav PW 22. In his opinion the deceased died on account of traumatic shock due to intra cranial injuries with fracture of skull and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 8. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Annasaheb Vithal Gorde PW 21 and Police Inspector Marutrao Bandoji Jadhav PW 22. During the course of it recoveries were made from some of the accused persons but we are not entering into the details in respect of them because the same are not necessary for the disposal of these appeals. On completion of the investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted. 9. It is pertinent to mention that appellants 1 to 3 and 5 were also medically examined under police yadis. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit was medically examined the same night at 1.30 a.m. by Dr. Arjunkumar Palani, PW 11 who found on his person the following three injuries: (i) CLW 2" x 1/4" muscle deep, 2" below right elbow. (ii) Fracture mid-right ulna. (iii)  CLW 2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on right parietal region. The other three were also medically examined between 2.25 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on the same day at Sassoon Hospital by Dr. Ashok Maruti Adhav, PW 20. On the person of Rameshsing Laxmansingh Rajput the doctor found the following injuries: (i) Contusion forehead 1/2" x 1/2"; and (ii) Bruise mark on left forearm 3" x 1/4"; On the person of Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit the doctor found diffused swelling on left maxillary prominence 1" x 1" and a contusion on left shoulder joint 1/2" x 1". On the person of Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit the doctor found a contusion on the left side of buttock 1" x 1-1/2" and noted that he was complaining of pain on both of his shoulders. It is pertinent to point out that the evidence of Dr. Palani and Dr Adhav shows that the injuries of the victims were caused within 24 hours of the incident by a hard and blunt object. 10. The case was committed to the court of Sessions in the usual mariner where the appellants were charged for offences mentioned in para 2, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During the trial in all the prosecution examined 22 witnesses; five of them viz. Puransingh Darshansingh Panjabi, Sadhusingh Kisansingh. Gurmitsingh Bantasingh Jeetsingh and Jagdishsingh Gaurasingh. 11. During the trial in all the prosecution examined 22 witnesses; five of them viz. Puransingh Darshansingh Panjabi, Sadhusingh Kisansingh. Gurmitsingh Bantasingh Jeetsingh and Jagdishsingh Gaurasingh. PWs 1,7,9,14 and I5 respectively, as eyewitnesses. 12. The defence case as suggested to the eye-witnesses was that the informant Puransingh and others armed with deadly weapons assaulted the accused persons and in exercise of right of private defence of person they assaulted them. In defence one witness viz. Shivdas Bajrane Tagtode DW 1 was examined. 13. The learned trial Judge acquitted original accused Nos. 6 to 11 with the finding, contained in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, that they have been roped in, this case only because they happened to be close relations and friends of accused Nos. 1 to 3 but he convicted original accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the manner stated in paragraph 2. 14. As mentioned above Criminal Appeal No.3 12 of 1985 has been preferred by original accused Nos. 1 to 5 against their conviction and Criminal appeal No. 539 of 1985 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of original accused Nos. 6 to lion all the counts and of original accused Nos. 1 to 5 on counts other than 326. IPC. 15. We have heard Mrs. V.R. Bhosale with Ms. Revati Mohite Dere for the appellants and Mr. S.R. Borulkar. APP. for the respondent in Criminal appeal No. 312 of 1985 and Mr. S.R. Borulkar APP for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1985. Although the resp6ndents were served in the said appeal they did not engage any counsel. We have also perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of the defence witnesses; and the impugned judgment. In our view Criminal Appeal, No. 312 of 1985 deserves to be allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 539 of I985 warrants to be dismissed. 16. Mr. V.R. Bhosale for the appellants in criminal appeal No. 312 of I985 strenuously urged that the learned trial Judge gravely erred in convicting the appellants because in her contention the appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence of person. She pointed out that the evidence of Police. 16. Mr. V.R. Bhosale for the appellants in criminal appeal No. 312 of I985 strenuously urged that the learned trial Judge gravely erred in convicting the appellants because in her contention the appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence of person. She pointed out that the evidence of Police. Inspector Marutrao Bandoji Jadhav PW 22 shows that on the night of the incident itself an FIR had been lodged by appellant accused Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. She urged that four of the accused persons viz. appellants Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. and Rameshsingh Laxmansingh Rajput were injured and they were sent for medical examination under a police yadi. She contended that a perusal of the injuries on the said persons shows that they were inflicted on vital parts of the body and one of the injuries sustained by Jaspalsingh was grievous in nature as it had resulted in fracture of right ulna. 17. Mrs. Bhosale strenuously contended that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injures of the four accused persons is a death knell to its case. She also urged that the finding of the learned trial Judge contained in para 35 of the impugned Judgment in terms that the injuries, sustained by appellants Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit. and Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit were superficial in nature is manifestly perverse. I8. Mr. S.R. Borulkar learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently urged that the circumstance that the injuries on the side of the prosecution were larger in number and more serious in nature shows that aggression was resorted to from the side of the accused persons. Be also urged that the prosecution was under no obligation to explain the injuries suffered on the side of the accused persons in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Hari Krishna Singh and Ors. State of Bihar1. I9. We have considered the rival submissions and we find weight in Mrs. Bhosale's submissions. In the earlier part of .9ur judgment we have referred to the injuries sustained on the side of the accused persons. The injuries on the accused persons include fracture of ulna a CLW on parietal region on the person of Jaspalsingh, a contusion on the forehead of Ragreshsingh and a diffused swelling on left maxillary prominence of Manjitsingh. Bhosale's submissions. In the earlier part of .9ur judgment we have referred to the injuries sustained on the side of the accused persons. The injuries on the accused persons include fracture of ulna a CLW on parietal region on the person of Jaspalsingh, a contusion on the forehead of Ragreshsingh and a diffused swelling on left maxillary prominence of Manjitsingh. It should be borne in the mind that all these persons were sent for medical examination under a police yadi and were promptly examined. Jaspalsingh was medically examined at 1.30 a.m. that is, within 2 - 1/2 hours of the incident. 20. We find that no suggestion has been put to either Dr. Palani PW1 who medically examined Jaspalsingh or to Dr. Adhav who medically examined the other three persons that the said injuries could be manufactured. We consider it extremely improbable that the said injuries could have been manufactured because in doing so the concerned accused could have got more than what they had bargained for. They could have even lost their lives. 21. It is true that Dr. Palani who medically examined Jaspalsingh stated that injuries Nos. 2 and 3 could be caused by fall but we are not inclined to accept his opinion because injury No. 2 involved in fracture of right ulna and injury No. 3 was a contused lacerated wound of the dimension of 2" x 1/4" x muscle deep on right parietal region. 22. It would be pertinent to point out that none of the five eye - witnesses examined by the prosecution have explained the injuries sustained by appellants Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit, Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, and Rameshsingh Laxmansingh. In this connection we would specifically like to advert to the evidence of the informant Puransingh PW 1 and Jitsingh PW 14. The latter stated during cross-examination in paragraph 8 that it was incorrect that on the date of the incident at about 1 p.m. they had gone to the house of the accused, armed with weapons and that they had attacked accused Nos. 1 to 5 who were - defending themselves. The former also state in cross examination, in para 14, that it was incorrect to say that accused persons while trying to defend themselves sustained injuries due to their attack. 23. 1 to 5 who were - defending themselves. The former also state in cross examination, in para 14, that it was incorrect to say that accused persons while trying to defend themselves sustained injuries due to their attack. 23. The Apex Court in the oft quoted case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors v. State of Bihar2 has observed in para 11 that omission to explain the injuries of the accused persons may give rise to any of the three inferences: (i) The prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has not presented the true version; (ii) The witnesses were lying on a most material particular and, therefore their evidence is unreliable; (iii) In case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable. In the instant case all the there inferences set out in A.I.R. I976 sic. 2263 would be drawn against the prosecution. We feel that the instant case affords a tailor - made illustration of the application of the ratio laid down in A.I.R. I976 S.C. 2263. 24. There is another reason as to why we feel that the defence version of the incident is more probable than the prosecution version and that is the incident admittedly took place in front of the house of accused Nos. 1 to 3. It was there that the Investigating Officer found blood. In other words the accused persons sustained injuries in front of their house. We have already held above that their injuries could not be manufactured and no such suggestion was either given to the Doctor. If the accused persons sustained injuries in front of their house then it becomes crystal clear as suggested by them to the eye - witnesses that the prosecution party, had gone armed with weapons and since the prosecution party first assaulted them they had the right of private defence of persons. .25. Mr. Bonilkar learned counsel for the prosecution strenuously urged that there is a great disparity between the injuries suffered by the party of the accused and that of the prosecution which shows that the accused arc aggressors. At any rate he contended that the accused persons exceeded their right of private defence of person. We regret that we do not find any merit in his contentions. 26. At any rate he contended that the accused persons exceeded their right of private defence of person. We regret that we do not find any merit in his contentions. 26. It is well settled that the number of injuries is not a safe measure to determine aggression. The question as to who is the aggressor is also to be inferred from a large number of circumstances other than the number of injuries sustained by the rival sides. It is often seen that those who defend themselves cause more injuries than they suffered as is in the present case. 27. We also do - not find any merit in the Borulkar's contention that the accused persons had exceeded their right of private defence of person. The perusal of the autopsy report of the deceased would show that he had sustained two injuries on the head and the deposition of the autopsy surgeon Dr. Laxman Pherwani shows that the deceased died on account of the head injuries. The oral evidence which has been led by the prosecution is that the absconding accused Darshansingh and appellants Surjitsingh with swords and Jaspalsingh with gander assaulted the deceased -Rudsingh on his head (PW I5) Jagdishsingh specifically stated that Darshansingh assaulted Rudsingh on his head with a sword. In other words it is not clear from the prosecution evidence itself as to the blows of which two of them caused the two head injuries of the deceased Rudsingh. 28. It is well settled that in order to establish exceeding the right of private defence prosecution has to lead cogent evidence as to which accused exceeded and thus the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. (See State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and Ors3; Joginder Ahir and Ors v. State of Bihar.4). In A.I.R, I970 S.C. page 27, it was held that an assembly, which acts in the exercise of the right of private defence for property is not an unlawful assembly in terms of Section 141. I.P.C. and therefore the vicarious liability envisaged by Section 149, I.P.C. would not be applicable to acts committed by its member. In A.I.R, I970 S.C. page 27, it was held that an assembly, which acts in the exercise of the right of private defence for property is not an unlawful assembly in terms of Section 141. I.P.C. and therefore the vicarious liability envisaged by Section 149, I.P.C. would not be applicable to acts committed by its member. In A.I.R. I97I S.C. page 1834 it was held that persons who act in the exercise of the right of private defence of person commit a -lawful act and they would not be liable with the aid of Section 34 IPC because the same stipulates of a criminal act being committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention. 29. As a matter of fact, in our view, in this case even had the prosecution. satisfied the Court as to which of the accused had caused the fatal injury still it would not have been a case of exceeding the right of private defence in view of the provisions contained in clauses firstly and secondly of Section 100. IPC which provide that where there is apprehension of death and grievous hurt respectively the right of private defence of person would extend to causing death. In the instant case not only was there an apprehension of grievous hurt but appellant Jaspalsingh had actually sustained a grievous injury which involved in fracture of right ulna. Hence the right of private defence of person of the appellants extended to causing the death of Rudsingh. 30. Before parting with this judgment we would be failing in our fairness if we do not advert to the decision rendered in Hare Krishna Singh and Ors v. State of Bihar (supra) cited by Mr. S.R. Borulkar. The said authority is distinguishable on the facts of the case. In that case, as is apparent from a perusal of para 22. Hare Krishna Singh from the side of the accused had sustained a bullet injury on the back. It was not pleaded from the side of the accused that in self defence the assault on the prosecution side was launched. On the converse Hare Krishna Singh categorically stated in his statement under Section 313. Cr. P.C. that he had not fired any fire arms at the deceased. It was not pleaded from the side of the accused that in self defence the assault on the prosecution side was launched. On the converse Hare Krishna Singh categorically stated in his statement under Section 313. Cr. P.C. that he had not fired any fire arms at the deceased. It was in this background that the Supreme Court held that on account of mere non - explanation of injuries of Hare Krishna Singh the account of eye witness, which included independent eye witnesses, could not be rejected. 31. In the present case as mentioned earlier on the night of the incident itself appellant Jaspalsingh lodged an FIR; four of the appellants sustained injuries including a grievous injury and injuries on head the incident had, even according to the prosecution taken place opposite the house of accused No. 10 and the eye - witnesses were categorically suggested that armed with weapons they had come to the house of accused No. 10 Mukhtyarsingh Khemsingh Lohit father of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and attacked the accused persons first and in self defence they had assaulted their side. Consequently we feel that in this case the appellants have discharged the burden of proving their plea of right of private defence of person in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act by preponderance of probabilities. This was essential for the acceptance of their plea of right of private defence of person. A mentioned in para 19 of 1988 SCC (Criminal) page 279 (supra). 32. Again unlike the said authority wherein the finding of the Supreme Court was but for the circumstance that the eye - witnesses had failed to explain the injury of Hare Krishna Singh their evidence was trustworthy, in the present case the finding of the trial Judge in para 26 of the impugned judgment is that the eye witnesses have roped in accused Nos. 6 to 11 because they are relations of accused Nos. 1 to 3. If the eye - witnesses had no compunction in falsely implicating six accused persons we cannot trust them when they deny that they had first assaulted the accused persons. For the said reasons the said authority would have no application. 33. 6 to 11 because they are relations of accused Nos. 1 to 3. If the eye - witnesses had no compunction in falsely implicating six accused persons we cannot trust them when they deny that they had first assaulted the accused persons. For the said reasons the said authority would have no application. 33. For the foregoing reasons, as also because we have held that the right of private defence of person available to the appellants extended to causing death, the logical imperative will be that Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1985 has to allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 539 of I985 would have to be dismissed. 34. In the result Criminal Appeal No. 3I2 of I985 is allowed. The convictions and sentences of appellant Nos. 1. Surjitsingh Akhtyarsingh Lohit, 2. Jaspalsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, 3. Manjitsingh Mukhtyarsingh Lohit, 4. Dany @ Ramsingh Bahadursing Sinha, and 5. -Rameshsingh Laxmansingh Rajput, for the offence under Section 326, IPC are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. In case they have paid the fine it shall stand refunded to them. 35. Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1985 is dismissed. The acquittal, of the respondents on all the counts is confirmed. Appeal allowed. State Appeal dismissed. 1. 1988 S.C.C. (Criminal) 279. 2. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263. 3. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 27. 4. A.I.R. I971 S.C. I834.