JUDGMENT R.B. Dixit, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13-7-1989 in Sessions Trial No. 47/1986 of 3rd Additional Judge to the Sessions Judge, Morena convicting appellant under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life and for four years RI respectively. 2. The facts leading to the incident as alleged by the prosecution are as under: The complainant party which consisted of 10 male members, ladies and children, all in three bullock carts went from their village Patel Ka Pura to worship Gol Devta through the route of village of appellant namely Pokher Ka Pura on 1-5-1985. The complainant party while going from their village to Gol Devta, on way visited appellant and his father who at the material time was Sarpanch and Patel of village. He scolded the complainant party for their refusal to allow to remove the Transformer from their village. 3. After worshipping Gol Devta when complainant party was returning from the same route in front of the residence of appellant and co-accused Badri again there was verbal exchange between co-accused Badri and appellant on one side and complainant party on the other side. This resulted in fighting between two parties wherein, appellant fired from the roof of his house towards complainant party thereby resulting gun shot injuries to deceased Lakhpat. Udal and injured Ramdayal, Gyan-Singh, Nirpat and Munshi. Basudev and acquitted co-accused Badri also received pallet injuries in the same firing. 4. Deceased Udal and Lakhpat died on the spot and injured Munshi (PW2) accompanied by his son Ramdayal (PW5) lodged first information report (Ex. P/7) at Police Station Jaura. A.S.I. PremNarayan Tripathi (PW8) immediately arrived on the spot and during inquest, recorded Panchnama of the dead bodies of the deceased Udal (Ex. P/9) and Lakhpat (Ex. P/10). He also prepared spot map (Ex. P/8) and collected blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot (Ex. P/11 and P/14). He also found broken bangles (Ex. P/19) near the dead body of deceased Udal and other pieces of broken bangles near the dead body of deceased Lakhpat (P/18). He also collected 5 empty cartridges of 12 bore gun from the top of Patore of acquitted co-accused Badri (P/20). 5. Dr. V. C. Dubey (PW1) on 2-5-1985, conducted post-mortem (Ex. He also found broken bangles (Ex. P/19) near the dead body of deceased Udal and other pieces of broken bangles near the dead body of deceased Lakhpat (P/18). He also collected 5 empty cartridges of 12 bore gun from the top of Patore of acquitted co-accused Badri (P/20). 5. Dr. V. C. Dubey (PW1) on 2-5-1985, conducted post-mortem (Ex. P/1) of the dead body of deceased Udal and found following injuries on his person: "Gun shot wound on left side of chest extending above from eyebrow to below up to the upper part of mandible and medialy from lateral side of Nose to the ear laterally 10 cm x 6 cm x 3 cm. There was fragment of temporal bone and frontal bone and abscess of Maxillary bone. All structure of face Lt. side at wound absent due to this wound (skin, muscles, bones vessels, & Nerves). The margins are irregular in shape blackening all around the wound. There was fracture of frontal bone left side with laceration in brain membrance and brain at the frontal area region with blood clots. Both sides of chest were empty, fracture of left maxilla, temporal and frontal bone. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to gun shot leading haemorrhage, and shock. The duration was within 24 hours from the examination. 6. On the same date Dr. V. C. Dubey conducted autopsy (Ex. P/2) of the dead body of deceased Lakhpat and found following injuries on his person: (i) Fire arm wound at (Rt) sidd of chest 3" below to Rt. nipple about circular in shape 1 cm. deep, inverted margins collor of abrasion seen. No F.B. present. (ii) Fire arm wound at (Lt) side of chest 1cm. lateral to sternum at 8th 1 cs. about circular in shape 1/4 cm, in diameter and 1 cm. deep, inverted margins. Collar of abrasion seen. No foreign body present; (iii) Fire arm wound at upper left part of abdomen about circular in shape 1/4 cm. in diameter and 1/2 cm. deep, inverted margins, collor of abrasion seen. No foreign body was found; (iv) Fire arm wound on left side of back 1 cm. below to inf. angle of scapula oval in shape 1/3 cm. in diameter and deep up to chest cavity, inverted margins collor of abrasion present; (v) Fire arm wound on back at 11th Thorasic vertabral area 1/4 cm. No foreign body was found; (iv) Fire arm wound on left side of back 1 cm. below to inf. angle of scapula oval in shape 1/3 cm. in diameter and deep up to chest cavity, inverted margins collor of abrasion present; (v) Fire arm wound on back at 11th Thorasic vertabral area 1/4 cm. in diameter and up to bone deep, circular in shape inverted margins collor of abrasion present. No foreign body was present; (vi) Fire arm injury on (Lt) side of back 2" lateral to (illegi) 1/4 cm in diameter circular in shape and muscle deep, collor of abrasion present inverted margins; (vii) Fire arm wound on back left side at the lumber region 1/4 cm in diameter & muscle deep inverted margins, collor of abrasion seen. (viii) The doctor further found rupture of heart at posterior wall and interior wall with laceration in the internal fracture of the heart. The foreign body (Chharra) was found below the sternum. The death was caused by fire arm injuries leading to severe haemorrhage (rupture of heart) and shock. The duration was within 24 hours of the examination. Injuries were antemortem. 7. On 1-5-1985, Dr. V. C. Dubey examined (Ex. P/3) Munshi and found following injuries on his person: Gun shot (Chharra) wound on lateral side and upper 1 /3rd of left arm 1/4th cm in diameter and 1 cm deep, margins inverted, collor of abrasion present. The case was referred to Distt. Hospital Morena for X-Ray upper l/3rd of (Lt) arm. The injury is caused by Gun Shot and duration was within six hours. 8. On 2-5-1985, Nirpat was also examined (Ex.P/4) by Dr. V. C. Dubey, who found following injuries on his person: Gun shot wound at posterior aspect and upper 1 /3rd of (Rt) fore arm 1/4 cm. in diameter and 2 cm deep, margins are inverted and collar of abrasion seen. The case was referred to Distt. Hospital Morena for X-Ray upper 1 /3rd of (Lt) forearm. The injuries were caused by fire arm and the duration was 24 hours. 9. On the same day, Dr. Dubey examined (Ex. P/5) Gyana Singh and found following injuries on his person: Abrasion circular 1/4 cm. in diameter on the (Rt) side of chest 2" above to nipple. The injury is simple and caused by hard and blunt object. The duration was within 24 hours. 10. 9. On the same day, Dr. Dubey examined (Ex. P/5) Gyana Singh and found following injuries on his person: Abrasion circular 1/4 cm. in diameter on the (Rt) side of chest 2" above to nipple. The injury is simple and caused by hard and blunt object. The duration was within 24 hours. 10. On 1-5-1985, Ramdayal was examined (Ex. P/6) by Dr. Dubey who found following injuries on his person: Gun shot (charra) wound at medial side of (Rt) thigh T'above to knee joint 1/4 cm in diameter margins inverted, collor of abrasion present 1cm deep. Bleeding present on pressing. He was referred to Distt. Hospital Morena for X-Ray of lower 1 /3rd of right thigh. The duration was 24 hours. 11. Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW10) took X-Ray (Ex.P/25 and P/26) of left humors of injured Munshi and found an irregular Radiopaque shadow of metallic seen at upper 3rd Lt. Arm. 12. Acquitted co-accused Badri was also examined (Ex. D/3 A) by Dr. G.C. Saxena (D.W. 3) on 2-5-1985 who found following injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound circular 0.5 x 0.5 cm inverted tattuing of margins in form of ring present. In wound, bleeding was present. It was situated anteromedial aspect of lower end of Rt. Arm 9 cm away from medial apicondyle of Rt. elbow. It is difficult to measure the death with probing due to fear of exaggeration of bleeding; (ii) Lacerated wound 0.5x 0.5 cm on posterior aspect of Rt. arm at junction of 2/3, 1/3 12 cm from lateral epicondyle with bleeding; (iii) Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm. situated on anterior aspect of middle part of Rt. arm 19 cm. away from prominance of head of humures bone. It was superficial and bleeding; (vi) Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm on Rt. side of back of chest at level of 18 cm away from midline of back bone and 12 cm away from posterior axillary fold; (v) Abrasion 1 x 5 cm on occipital prominance lower aspect on back of scalp; (vi) Swelling with redness on left side of back of chest of side 5.4 cm. Advised X-Ray for chest for ribs; (vii) Bruise 4 x 3 cm on lateral aspect of left leg lower part. Also advised X-Ray of right arm A.P. and lateral view for evidence of any foreign body, X-Ray chest P.A. view for ribs and evidence of foreign body. Advised X-Ray for chest for ribs; (vii) Bruise 4 x 3 cm on lateral aspect of left leg lower part. Also advised X-Ray of right arm A.P. and lateral view for evidence of any foreign body, X-Ray chest P.A. view for ribs and evidence of foreign body. Injuries No. 5, 6 and 7 were caused by hard and blunt object. (viii) Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW10) in X-Ray examination (Ex.D/6) found three irregular Radio-opaque shadow of metallic density seen and one Radio-opaque shadow seen Rt. above of diaphragm. 13. Dr. R.S. Sikerwar (DW 4) on 6-5-1985, examined (Ex. D/7) Basudev and found following injuries on his person: A lacerated wound 0.7cmx0.6cm on anterior abdominal was 1/2 cm. left to medial line of 6. cm deepening to umblicus margins were inverted shape of wound is eliptical. Base of wound was red and yellow in colour. Material present at the base of this wound. Advised X-Ray A.P. view duration was 6 to 7 days from the examination. 14. The appellant was found absconding and memorandum (Ex.P/22) to that effect was prepared by A.S.I. Premnarayn Tripathi (PW8). After arrest (Ex.P/15) of Appellant on 26-7-1985, a 12 Bore Single Barrel Gun was also found with him, in his search conducted by S.D.O.P.A. K. Khan (PW6). 15. The appellant accused Amrita alias Amrit Lai had denied all the charges framed against him and examined himself in defence (D.W. 3). According to him, when the complainant party going to Gol Devta was followed by Nirpat after about an hour who had some hot exchange in respect of removal of Transformer with acquitted co-accused Badri and in return, the complainant party took out Khaderua (wooden angles) from their bullock cart and assaulted co-accused Badri father of appellant. Gyan Singh (PW3) fired at his father and neighbourer Basudev. Thereupon, in defence of his father, he ascended on the roof of his house and fired towards the complainant party. 16. The learned trial Judge, after recording prosecution and defence evidence, acquitted co-accused Badri from all the charges framed against him but convicted appellant as referred to hereinabove. 17. The learned counsel representing appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence version is more probable thereby, suggesting some compelling circumstances whereunder, the appellant had to resort to firing in defence of his father. 17. The learned counsel representing appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence version is more probable thereby, suggesting some compelling circumstances whereunder, the appellant had to resort to firing in defence of his father. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel took us through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to mention the evidence as brought out on record. 18. Witness Munshi (PW2) is nephew of deceased Lakhpat Singh and cousin brother of deceased Udal who accompanied deceased Udal and Lakhpat Singh, Ramdayal, Nirpat (PW4) and others to worship village Deity Gol Devta. On route, they met appellant and co-accused Badri. Accused persons retorted them by saying as to why they were not allowed to remove the Transformer. However, they did not reply and went ahead. While they were returning, from the same route, accused persons cautioned them when they were passing infront of their houses. appellant ascended on his Madha (room) and started firing from his 12 Bore gun. Deceased Lakhpat Singh and Udal who were hit in the firing died instantaneously on the spot. Gyana and Ramdayal also received pallet injuries. Co-accused Badri also received pallet injuries in the same firing, This caused stampede and they also left their dead behind them and reported the matter to the Police. 19. In cross-examination, Munshi has admitted that about three or four days before the incident, the Transformer installed in their locality which is a feeding Transformer for electric supply to the locality of accused persons had become defective. Some of the villagers sent by accused Badri wanted to remove the Transformer to which, they had resisted and the Transformer could not be repaired. While going to worship village Deity, they had gone along with ladies and children in three Bullock Carts. On their way to the village Deity, they had also requested accused Badri to join them in the worship. Deceased Lakhpat Singh had a licenced gun but the witness has denied this suggestion that Gyan Singh (PW3) son of deceased Lakhpat Singh was carrying this gun at the time of incident. 20. On their way to the village Deity, they had also requested accused Badri to join them in the worship. Deceased Lakhpat Singh had a licenced gun but the witness has denied this suggestion that Gyan Singh (PW3) son of deceased Lakhpat Singh was carrying this gun at the time of incident. 20. Gyan Singh (PW 3) found Badri as saying that you have become arrogant as you did not allow to remove the Transformer and while they were returning, Badri again disturbed them by saying that "Salo Kanjro Sambhal Jao" and at the same time, Appellant resorted to firing from the top of his house which resulted in death of Lakhpat Singh, Udal Singh and injuries to Ramdayal, Munshi and Gyan Singh. Unfortunately, Munshi as well as this witness Gyan Singh did not say as to on what part of their body they received pellet injuries. He also could not say as to who was hit first in this firing. The total strength of their family members who had gone to worship the deity was of 40 to 50 persons. 21. Nirpat (PW4) had denied the presence of another injured Basude According to him, presence of deceased Udal from the place of appellant was at a distance of about 20 feet. 22. Ramdayal (PW5) also received pellet injuries but did not point out the portion of his body where he received such injuries. He is a Graduate and teacher in the private school. He has repeated entire prosecution stoiy as narrated by other prosecution witnesses. 23. A.S.I. Premnarayan Tripathi (PW8) has confirmed that the coaccused Badri was injured in the same incident. Village Chowkidar Chokharia (DW1) arrived on the spot after incident. He was informed by Manik that there is firing due to some quarrel with Nirpat (PW 4). He found Lakhpat and Udal lying dead on thse spot. However, he could not say that Lakhpat and Udal died of firing by the accused persons. A run Kumar Dubey (PW 5) then Incharge of Station House Officer, Jaura has proved chargesheet in Sessions Trial No. 309/1986 (Ex. D/8) wherein, Ganpat, Parikshit, Dhanpal, Nirpat, Prabhu, Sahdev, Munshi and Gyan Singh were chargesheeted under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the accused persons of complainant side had been acquitted from the charges in this Sessions Trial. 24. D/8) wherein, Ganpat, Parikshit, Dhanpal, Nirpat, Prabhu, Sahdev, Munshi and Gyan Singh were chargesheeted under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the accused persons of complainant side had been acquitted from the charges in this Sessions Trial. 24. Appellant Amritlal (DW 2) who examined himself in defence, had admitted that the deceased Udal and Lakhpat accompanied with Gyana, Parikshit Dhanpal, Munshi, Prabhu, Sahdev and Ganpat with ladies and others passed from their village in three bullock carts at about 8 a.m. Lakhpat has also requested his father to oblige them in joining the worship and his father assured them that they will follow them after sometime. Meanwhile, after about an hour, Nirpat came and took wordy quarrel with his father as to why he sent some persons for removing the Transformer. When his father denied the charge. Nirpat abused him but on being challenged by his father, he ran away from the spot. In return, these people came out with wooden angles of the cart in their hands. Gyana was also armed with a gun. He thereafter ascend on the top of his house and fired in order to defend his father. He has denied that his father was "injured in the firing resorted to by him. 24-A. It is surprising that co-accused Badri who received injuries in the same incident was not examined in defence. However, from the evidence of appellant recorded hereinabove, part of the prosecution story is admitted by him. It is difficult to presume that the complainant party who invited and requested the appellant and his father to join them in the worship of the village Deity would raise a dispute to become first aggressor against appellant and his father at the mere pretext of removal of Transformer. 25. Dr. G.C. Saxena (DW3) who had examined the injuries of acquitted co-accused Badri admitted that his injuries No. 5 to 7 were possible by fall on hard and rough surface. In his report (Ex. D/3), the doctor has opined that the injury No. 5, 6, and 7 are caused by hard and blunt object while in X-Ray of right arm, Radio opaque metallic density is possible in firing of pellet. No attempt was made to examine another injured Basudev in defence. 26. In his report (Ex. D/3), the doctor has opined that the injury No. 5, 6, and 7 are caused by hard and blunt object while in X-Ray of right arm, Radio opaque metallic density is possible in firing of pellet. No attempt was made to examine another injured Basudev in defence. 26. Appellant in his evidence as a defence witness has nowhere stated that Badri was assaulted by the complainant party even when some of them were armed with Khaderua. He further could not say as to whether, his father received any fire arm injury nor he has named any person who had assaulted his father who compelled him to resort to firing. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively, contended that if it is found that appellant exceeded the right of private defence in resorting to firing, he at the most can be held guilty under section 304 part 1 of Indian Penal Code. Reliance is placed on Mahavir Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in 1996(2) Crimes 136 (SC), Savita Kumari vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 SCC (Cr) 445. Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SCW 2987 and Hakim Singh vs. State of M.P., 1994 MPU 306 : 1994 JLJ 595 and State of U.P. vs. Mukunde Singh and others, 1994 SCC (Cr.) 473. In our opinion, although it is well established proposition of law that no proof except reasonable apprehension is necessary insofar as plea of self defence is concerned and the Court has only to examine such a plea by preponderance of probabilities in favour of defence, in most of the cases, referred hereinabove, accused himself had received injuries which were not explained by the prosecution. While in the present case admittedly, appellant himself had not received any injury in order to defend his person. What is pleaded is a sudden group attack on coaccused Badri father of appellant. It should not be lost sight of that the complainant party at the time of alleged main incident were returning in bullock carts with their ladies and children. The evidence of broken bangles found near two dead bodies of the complainant party speaks of the fact of firing on the innocent unarmed passing caravan comprising of ladies and children. There is no evidence that the ladies also joined in group attack on the father of the appellant. The evidence of broken bangles found near two dead bodies of the complainant party speaks of the fact of firing on the innocent unarmed passing caravan comprising of ladies and children. There is no evidence that the ladies also joined in group attack on the father of the appellant. In the circumstances, the decisions as cited above for the appellant are distinguishable on facts from the present case. The ratio is not at all adhered. 28. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the plea of self defence, it is necessary to consider the law on this point. The extent to which, the right of private defence may be exercised as envisaged under the provisions of section 99 of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows: "The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence." 29. Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code further provides that: "The right of private defence of the body extends under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enunciated namely:- First: Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Second: Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. And lastly, it is beneficial further to add the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Penal Code. "106. Right of private defence against a deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to innocent person; If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk." 30. Under section 102 of Indian Penal Code, the right of private defence of the body commences as under:-- "as soon as resemble apprehension of the danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed." Examining the above provision in the case of Amjad Khan vs. State reported in AIR 1952 SC 165 the Apex Court observed that when the appellant had reasonable ground for apprehending either death or grievous hurt would be caused either to himself or his family and the circumstances in which he was placed were amply sufficient to give him a right of private defence of the body even to the extent of causing death. 31. In the case of Bhagwan Swaroop vs. State of M.P., 1992 SCC (Cri) 422 deceased party had inflicted lathi blows to father of the accused and thereupon, accused fired a gunshot injury to defend his father, it was held that accused acted in exercise of his right to defend the person of his father. In a similar decision in the case ofSukhdev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SCW 3009 , where no explanation was given by prosecution for injuries found on the person of accused, the plea of private defence was raised namely, to save his uncle from further assault, the Court found such a plea justified as having a reasonable basis. 32. The Hon. Supreme Court adopted a different view in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 273, and held that while appreciating plea of self defence, limitations contained in Sub-section 99 and 100 of Indian Penal Code must be kept in view. In a situation where accused had one injury and rest were simple in nature, accused was not justified in killing the deceased outright by shooting him with his gun. In another decision of Nagendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 896, prosecution party was found aggressor while accused party was unarmed. Even after causing injuries to accused persons, the prosecution party tried to enter into the accused's house, by scaling over the walls and declaring that they would not spare the accused persons. In another decision of Nagendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 896, prosecution party was found aggressor while accused party was unarmed. Even after causing injuries to accused persons, the prosecution party tried to enter into the accused's house, by scaling over the walls and declaring that they would not spare the accused persons. In such a dangerous situation appellant, an army personnel, firing certain shots in the air to scare away the crowd and that having no effect, firing on the crowd from the roof of his house resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to others, was held, acted under a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to him and his companion's life. 33. Applying the legal principles laid down in the cases referred hereinabove, in order to establish the plea of private defence, it has to be seen whether, the appellant had imminent danger of his life or grievous bodily injuries to his father? No doubt the prosecution is also seems to be hiding a part of it's case in which, some dispute took place between co-accused Badri and Nirpat or Lakhpat. If village Chowkidar Chokharia (DW1) is to be believed, he was told by Manik that some quarrel had taken place with Nirpat and that there is some firing. appellant Amritlal (DW2) had stated that in the first incident there was some quarrel between Nirpat and his father Badri. In a 19 hours delayed F.I.R. (Ex.D/3) lodged by Badri, he has avoided to mention this first incident and what is shown is the second part of the- incident in which, Nirpat assaulted with a wooden angle on his head but he kept silent on other injuries as to who assaulted them. Strangely, there is no mention in this report that Gyana was having any gun in his possession. In the circumstances, the statement of appellant that Gyana inflicted gun shot injuries to his father turned out to be totally false. 34. From the defence suggestions made to prosecution witnesses and from defence evidence produced in the defence, it is brought out on record that in the first incident, Badri alone was assaulted by one or two persons from complainant side and appellant was not present at that time. 34. From the defence suggestions made to prosecution witnesses and from defence evidence produced in the defence, it is brought out on record that in the first incident, Badri alone was assaulted by one or two persons from complainant side and appellant was not present at that time. At the time of second phase of the incident, when complainant party was returning after deity-worship, appellant had already taken his position on the top of his house in order to take revenge of his father's assault. No sooner the appellant resorted to indiscriminate firing on the complainant party, his father Badri and Basudev tried to intervene, in which, they received pellet injuries. This is why, Badri in his report disclosed that when his son started firing on deceased Lakhpat and others, he ran away and got injured by gunshot firing. He could not say who had fired at him. 35. In requisition of injury report (Ex. D/7) of Basudev, the Police has mentioned that he received injuries in making intervention while appellant was firing. All this goes to prove that the injuries of Badri (other than the pellet injuries) were not caused in the same incident. Even after an unexplained delay of about 19 hours caused in making a report by Badri, there is no introduction of Gyana armed with a gun. There is no reason as to why, complainant party would make a group attack in return on Badri when they had invited him to join deity worshipping. and lastly when appellant in his statement on oath could not say as to who assaulted his father except Gyana, which made him fire indiscriminately on the complainant party, makes it clear that there was no such imminent danger so as to justify any right of self defence. 36. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that Nirpat had assaulted Badri on his head, there is no explanation for inflicting gunshot injuries to any of the deceased persons. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no reasonable basis to justify killing of the two deceased persons in absence of group attack at the time of same incident. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that Nirpat had assaulted Badri on his head, there is no explanation for inflicting gunshot injuries to any of the deceased persons. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no reasonable basis to justify killing of the two deceased persons in absence of group attack at the time of same incident. Since Badri had already been awarded benefit of doubt, on the basis of the injuries received by him, there is no case for appellant for either exercising the right of defence of the person of his father or exceeding the right of self defence. The appellant in our opinion, therefore, was rightly held guilty under sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court. 37. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.