JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Appellant stands convicted under Sections 302/ 324 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Chanda alias Chandramani Behera and for causing voluntary hurt to Kartik Chandra Behera. On the first count, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and on he second count imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted under-Section 9-B (1) (b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 for having used bombs in course of the commission of the offences and sentenced to imprisonment for three months thereunder. All the sentences are run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case emerging from the F.I.R. and the evidence on record is as follows: Maguni Behera (P.W. 2) of village Bidanasi had taken lease of Chahata Ghat on river Mahandi. On 7.5.1991 at about 4 p.m. It was reported to kartik Chandra behera (P.W. 1) that some quarrel took place between his brother P.W. 2 and some other villagers at Chahata Ghat. The quarrel was over collection of Dada Chanda from Muslim traders who used to bring cattle through boat at Chahata Ghat by the Appellant and Laxman Bhoi (who was one of the persons killed during the occurrence). Accordingly, Kartik (P.W. 1) in order to ascertain the facts come towards the ghat with one Bahula on a Luna. On the way he found the Appellant and the aforesaid Laxman Bhoi near the Sulabh Sauchalaya coming from the opposite direction. He asked them as to why they were creating disturbance near the ghat. They retorted that they would let him know in the evening. At that time they were carrying two plastic bags. The Appellant was holding a tent and Laxman was holding a sword. When he persistently asked them about the cause of disturbance, Laxman threw two bombs at him one after another as a result of which he sustained injuries on his person. At this moment, chanda alias Chandramani Behera came to see the injured P.W. 1 seeing' him the Appellant and Laxman Bhoi Chased him and he Appellant threw a bomb aiming at him which exploded as a result of which Chanda alias Chandramani behera died instantaneously at the spot. 3. It appears from the evidence on record that Laxman Bhoi who was with the Appellant died in the Course of occurrence on account of explosion of bombs. 3. It appears from the evidence on record that Laxman Bhoi who was with the Appellant died in the Course of occurrence on account of explosion of bombs. The specific charge against the Appellant is that he did commit the murder by intentionally causing the death of Chandaalias Chandramani Behera by means of bomb and voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1.. 4. Plea of the Appellant was one of denial. 5. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the charge against the Appellant. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1,4,7, and 9 has convicted the Appellant under Sections 30: 2124 I.P.C. and Section 9-B (I) (b) of the Indian Explosives Act. P.W. 9 is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 6 is the doctor who examined P.W. 1 P.W. 14 is he doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Chanda alias Chandramani Behera. 6. P.W. 6 the doctor, examined the injured (P.W. 1) on 7.5.1991 and found the following injuries: (i) One lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x 1" over the back of neck 1" lateral to the mid line I C.M. below the hair line. (ii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1" x 1/3" below the lower angle of right scapula 4" lateral to the verticle column. (iii) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2", 1" lateral to the 5th lumber vetibra. (iv) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" over the back of left arm 2" above the elecranon process. According to him all the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt surface. He also opined that those injuries could have been caused by splinters of a bomb. P.W. 14 who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased Chanda alias Chandramani Behera found the following external injuries: (i) Head hair sinked. Sooty particles were sticking to right shoulder and leg, right pinnawals lacerated scalp tissue crushed with tearing up scalp and right occipital temporal area and over vertex. The skull fractured to multiple pieces and right half of occiput with part of right side part of squamous of temporal bone was missing. The brain. had been lacerated and expelled out partially and part of it adherent to crushed bone. The b lack sooty particles were sticking to lacerated margins of the scalp tissue. According to him the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The brain. had been lacerated and expelled out partially and part of it adherent to crushed bone. The b lack sooty particles were sticking to lacerated margins of the scalp tissue. According to him the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature. From the aforesaid evidence of the doctor, it is evident that P.W. 1 had sustained?injuries on his person and Chanda alias Chandramani Behera had a homicidal death. 7. The limited question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Appellant was the author of intentionally causing the death of Chanda alias Chandramani behera and causing hurt to P.W. 1. 8. P.W. 1 in his evidence stated as to how he sustained injuries on his person. He candidly deposed that it was Laxman Bhoi who threw the bombs at him one after another as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries on the neck, left shoulder and back. He stated in his examination? in-chief itself that he did not specifically mark if the Appellant had thrown the bombs at the time of occurrence. Admittedly he is not a witness to the later part of the prosecution story, i.e. with regard to the commission of murder of Chanda alias Chandramani Behera. This evidence of P.W. 1 does not establish that it was the Appellant who voluntarily caused hurt to him. P.W. 2 (brother of P.W. 1) stated that when the Muslim cattle traders complained to him that the Appellant and Laxman Bhoi were demanding Dadabati from his, he asked them not to create disturbance near the ghat. Afterwards, he learnt that his brother P.W. 1 received bomb injuries. None of the prosecution witnesses stated as to who caused injury on P.W. I except P.W. 11 who although stated that the Appellant and Laxman Bhoi exploded bombs aiming at P.W. 1, in the cross-examination he stated that he cannot say as to who exploded the bomb. This being the position, we have no hesitation to hold that the conviction of the Appellant u/s 324 I.P.C.for having caused voluntary hurt to P.W. 1 is not sustainable. Therefore, his conviction u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentence imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. 9. With regard to the commission of murder of Chanda alias Chandramani Behera, evidence of P. Ws. 4, 7, 8 and 9 is relevant. Therefore, his conviction u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentence imposed thereunder are hereby set aside. 9. With regard to the commission of murder of Chanda alias Chandramani Behera, evidence of P. Ws. 4, 7, 8 and 9 is relevant. P.W. 4 stated that at about 4 p.m. on the date, of occurrence, he was present along with others near the Dolabedi of their village. At that time he heard sound of bomb explosion at a distance of about 100 feet. When he rushed to the spot, he found the deceased Chanda alias Chandramani Behera lying dead and the Appellant lying being injured on his hand by bomb explosion. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution. He stated that the deceased Chanda caught hold of the Appellant who took out a diba like article and banged against the head of the deceased Chanda. As a result, it exploded and the head of the deceased was smashed and the Appellant's right palm was severed. P.W. 7 stated that when he heard sound of explosion of bombs, he ran towards the site and found the deceased Chandramani laying dead and the Appellant lying injured close to him. P.W. 8 deposed that after hearing the sound of explosion of bombs many villagers including himself ran towards the site. He deposed that Laxman Bhoi (the other person who was killed but the present Appellant was not charged in respect of it) was assaulted by the deceased Chanda alias Chandramani by a knife. After assaulting Laxman Bhoi, Chanda alias Chandramani ran towards Dhobasahi and the Appellant was chasing him. P.W. 9 stated that when he heard hue and cry, he along with P.W. 8 and Ors. ran towards that site and found the deceased Chanda alias chandramani chasing the Appellant who was holding a diba on his right hand and a bag on the left. The deceased Chanda alias chandramani was also holding a katari. When the deceased caught hold of the Appellant, the latter thrust the diba on the head of the deceased. There was explosion and the head of the deceased Chandra alias Chandramani was smashed and the Appellant received severe bleeding injuries on his right plain.. 10. It is apparent form the evidence on record that in course of the occurrence Laxman Bhoi was also killed. There was explosion and the head of the deceased Chandra alias Chandramani was smashed and the Appellant received severe bleeding injuries on his right plain.. 10. It is apparent form the evidence on record that in course of the occurrence Laxman Bhoi was also killed. His death, however, is shrouded in mystery inasmuch as the prosecution did not unravel as to how he was killed. The investigation does not seem to have been directed as to the persons who were responsible for his death. From the analysis of evidence made above, we are inclined to hold that Laxman Bhoi and the Appellant were demanding Dadabati from the Muslim cattle traders who wanted to cross the river ghat which was objected to by the prosecution party. In course of such protest, melee ensued and Laxman Bhoi was killed. The deceased Chanda alias Chandramani being armed with a knife was chasing the Appellant and when the Appellant was caught, he took out a diba and banged it against the head of the deceased resulting in the latter's death. The Appellant although has taken the plea of total denial, it appears to us that he banged the diba against the head of the deceased in exercise of his right of private defence of person. The deceased was armed with a knife. Naturally the reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to be caused to him by the deceased cannot be ruled out. At such a moment the upper most feeling in his mind would be to ward off the danger and save himself. In doing so, if he attacked the deceased resulting in the latter's death, it can be reasonably concluded that the Appellant exceeded the right of private defence of person and consequently committed an offence punishable u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, while setting aside the conviction of the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C., we hold him guilty u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. and convict him thereunder. He is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. 12. The conviction of the Appellant u/s 9-B (l) (b) of the Indian Explosives Act is well founded in view of the evidence on record. The sentence imposed thereunder is hereby confirmed. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed