JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.3.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 82/82 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused - Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh, Chetram, Dheer Singh and Jogendra Singh for the offences charged against them, but convicted the accused - appellant - Deputy Singh for offence under section. 307 Indian Penal Code and accused - appellant - Nichhatar Singh for offence under section. 307/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused - appellants were also acquitted for offence under sections. 148, 458 & 307/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them as under : Name Offence under Section Sentence awarded Deputy Singh 307 IPC 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 15 days' S.I. Nichhatar Singh 307/34 IPC 4 years' R.I and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo 15 days' S.I. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 8.4.1982, PW-1 Makhan Singh lodged a report Ex.P/1 before Dy.S.P. Sangaria stating that he came to know that a quarrel had taken place with his father PW-3 Mehar Singh in the village and thereupon he came to the police station and found his father sitting in the Police Station and then PW-3 Mehar Singh told him that at about 6.30 a.m. in the morning, when he was sitting in his chowk, he heard cries in the street, thereupon he came out in his "Bankal" then he saw Balbir Singh, Dheer Singh, Deputy Singh (accused-appellant) Jogendra Singh, Darshan Singh, Nichhatra Singh (accused-appellant) and Chetram were abusing him and at that time, accused-Dheer Singh was armed with Gandasi, Deputy Singh was armed with Gandasi, Nichhatra Singh was armed with Sela, accused-Jogendra was having a 12 bore gun and all accused persons entered his Bankal and seeing them, PW-3 Mehar Singh brought his licensed gun and warned them not to proceed further, but they did not adhere to his advice and thereafter accused-Balbir Singh snatched his gun and told other accused to kill him. Thereafter accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh gave a Bukia blow on his left hand. Accused-Dheer Singh gave a gandasi blow on his shoulder. Accused-appellant-Deputy Singh gave a gandasi blow on his head. Thereafter accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh gave a Bukia blow on his left hand. Accused-Dheer Singh gave a gandasi blow on his shoulder. Accused-appellant-Deputy Singh gave a gandasi blow on his head. Thereafter accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh gave another injury by Sela which hit his wife PW-2 Jasmel Kaur and because of that she received some lessor injuries. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 that his wife PW-2 Jasmel Kaur made hue and cry, then Inder Singh came and all the accused persons ran away and they also took his gun. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 that he went to his home and he consulted sarpanch of the village (Rampratap), then he came to the police station. 3. On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/2 and started investigation. 4. During investigation, PW-3 Mehar Singh was got medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sushila and his injury report is Ex.P/3 and his X-ray report is Ex.P/5 which shows linear fracture in right parietal bone. Thus injury No. 1 was found grievous one. 5. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused-appellants and five other accused. 6. That on 19.2.1983, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under sections. 148, 452, 307 & 307/149 Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellants and Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh, Chetram, Dheer Singh and Jogendra Singh. All pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During trial, 6 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution and thereafter statements of accused under section. 313 Criminal .Penal. Code. were recorded and two witnesses were examined in defence. 8. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 26.3.1987 convicted the accused-appellants for offence under sections. 307 & 307/34 Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced each of them as stated above inter alia holding : (i) That there was no unlawful assembly of the accused persons to beat PW-3 Mehar Singh. (ii) That injury No. 1 on the head of PW-3 Mehar Singh was dangerous to life. (iii) That the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the incident took place in the Bankal of PW-3 Mehar Singh and, therefore, charge under section. 452 Indian Penal Code was not found proved. (iv) That the head injury on the head of PW-3 Mehar Singh was caused by the accused-appellant-Deputy Singh with an intention to murder him. (iii) That the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the incident took place in the Bankal of PW-3 Mehar Singh and, therefore, charge under section. 452 Indian Penal Code was not found proved. (iv) That the head injury on the head of PW-3 Mehar Singh was caused by the accused-appellant-Deputy Singh with an intention to murder him. (v) That the accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh caused injuries on the left shoulder of PW-3 Mehar Singh and, therefore, he committed an offence under section. 307/34 Indian Penal Code. (vi) That since accused-Dheer Singh received grievous injuries on his thigh and for that he could have died also, therefore, injuries which were caused by accused-Dheer Singh on the knee of PW-3 Mehar Singh were caused by him in the right of private defence and, therefore, he could not be convicted for offence under section. 307/149 Indian Penal Code. (vii) That so far as other accused persons, namely Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh, Jogendra Singh and Chet Ram are concerned, the prosecution have failed to prove that they caused any injury to PW-3 Mehar Singh and, therefore, they did not commit any offence under section. 307/149 Indian Penal Code. (viii) That the accused-Jogendra Singh was not having any pistal at the time of occurrence. (ix) That if accused-Balbir Singh caught gun, by doing so, no offence was committed by him. (x) That in cross-case No. 91/82, for injuries of accused-Dheer Singh, PW-3 Mehar Singh was challenged and, therefore, if no explanation of injuries has been given by the prosecution, it would not affect the case of prosecution. 9. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. 10. In this appeal, following submissions have been made on behalf of the accused-appellants : (i) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into error of law in attending the right of private defence to accused-Dheer Singh only and the right of private defence should have been extended to the accused-appellants also. 10. In this appeal, following submissions have been made on behalf of the accused-appellants : (i) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into error of law in attending the right of private defence to accused-Dheer Singh only and the right of private defence should have been extended to the accused-appellants also. (ii) That the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by Dheer Singh (accused) especially when he received gun shot injury of grievous nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that he received superficial injury and further more since the report of Dheer Singh was lodged earlier to the report of the present case, therefore, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and from this point of view also, the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal. (iii) That since one of the accused persons (Dheer Singh) who caused injuries was acquitted, therefore, rest accused should have been acquitted and therefore, from this point of view, the findings of conviction of the accused-appellants are erroneous one and they should be set aside. 11. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment and orders passed by the learned trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference. 12. I have heard both and perused the record. 13. Before proceedings further, first medical evidence of complainant party as well as accused party has to be discussed first.Injuries Of Pw-3 Mehar Singh 14. The injury report of PW-3 Mehar Singh is Ex.P/3 and for that PW-4 Dr. Sushila has been produced by the prosecution. PW-4 Dr. Sushila states that she examined PW-3 Mehar Singh on 8.4.1982 and found following six injuries on his persons : (i) Incised wound - 3" x 3/4" x bone deep on Rt. side of scalp. 6" above Rt. mastoid process. (ii) Punctured wound - 1" x 1/2" x 1 3/4" on Lt. upper arm. Laterally 7" below shoulder joint. (iii) Abrasion - 1 1/2" x 1/2" on Ri. side of chest at 7" below Rt. nipple. (iv) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on Rt. side of back of chest 7" below Rt. shoulder joint. (v) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on right thigh and 1 1/2" above Rt. knee joint. (vi) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" on right shoulder joint. 15. (iii) Abrasion - 1 1/2" x 1/2" on Ri. side of chest at 7" below Rt. nipple. (iv) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on Rt. side of back of chest 7" below Rt. shoulder joint. (v) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on right thigh and 1 1/2" above Rt. knee joint. (vi) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" on right shoulder joint. 15. He has further stated that injuries No. 1 & 2 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and rest were caused by blunt object and injury No. 1 was found grievous one. PW-5 Dr. Kapil has further been produced by the prosecution to prove the grievous injury of PW-3 Mehar Singh and he has proved his X-ray report Ex.P/3 and there was linear fracture of right parietal bone. 16. From this medical evidence, it is proved that PW3 Mehar Singh received total 6 injuries, out of these injuries, 4 were abrasions by blunt object and two injuries were caused by sharp-edged object. The injury No. 2 was incised wound on left shoulder, and injury No. 1 which was grievous one was on his head as there was linear fracture of right parietal bone.Injury Of Accused Dheer Singh 17. The injury report of Dheer Singh is Ex.D/6-A and the same is dated 8.4.1982. For proving the injury report Ex.D/6-A, DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar has been produced in defence. DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar states that on 8.4.1982 in capacity as medical jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, he examined Dheer Singh and at that time, the accused-Dheer Singh was in a state of shock and thomos splint was applied and two pieces of the cock were removed by surgeon, and condition of patient accused-Dheer Singh was not good. Therefore, his injuries were not examined and he was again examined on 11.4.1982 by DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar and he found following injuries on his person:- (i) Lacerated wound 1 ⅓" x 1/4" x muscle deep - on right thigh (ii) Lacerated wound ⅓" x 1/4" x muscle deep - five on right thigh, medial of injury No. 1 and 1-6 injuries laterally of injury No. 1 Rt. thigh upper ⅓rd - Gangreen developed. 18. He has further stated that these injuries were caused by fire arm and if the patient accused-Dheer Singh would not have been given proper treatment, the death could have occurred. Thus, DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar has proved his injury report Ex.D/6-A. 19. thigh upper ⅓rd - Gangreen developed. 18. He has further stated that these injuries were caused by fire arm and if the patient accused-Dheer Singh would not have been given proper treatment, the death could have occurred. Thus, DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar has proved his injury report Ex.D/6-A. 19. DW-1 Dr. Kapil has been examined to prove X-ray report Ex.D/5-A pertaining to accused-Dheer Singh and according to him, there were multiple radio opaque metalic shadow seen in It. thigh and there was fracture of mid shaft of Rt.femer. 20. Thus from the above evidence of DW-1 Dr. Kapil and DW-2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar, it is clear that the accused-Dheer Singh received two gun shot injuries and his condition was not good and there was fracture of mid shaft of rt.femer. What would be the effect of these injuries on the case of prosecution, would be discussed later on. 21. Before proceeding further it may be stated here that on Parcha Bayan of accused-Dheer Singh, FIR No. 91/82 Ex.D/3 was chalked out against PW-3 Mehar Singh and one Hajoor Singh and the case was registered for offence under section. 307 Indian Penal Code. 22. From the statement of PW-6 Gopala Ram, who was IO in the present case as well as IO of the report (Ex.D/3) lodged by accused-Dheer Singh, the following facts have further come out:- (i) That when report Ex.P/1 of this case was lodged, PW-3 Mehar Singh was present in the police station because investigation of FIR No. 91/82 on the report of accused-Dheer Singh was going on and PW-3 Mehar Singh was being interrogated in that case. (ii) That FIR No. 91/82 was lodged earlier to the FIR of the present case. (iii) That report Ex.P/1 of the present case was not directly presented to the Police Station, but was received through S.P. 23. In light of the above factual position, the findings of conviction against both the accused-appellants are to be examined keeping in view the submission raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. 24. The case as put forward by PW-3 Mehar Singh in his report Ex.P/1 may be summarised in the following manner : That seeing the accused persons, PW-3 Mehar Singh brought his licensed gun and that gun was snatched by the accused-Balbir Singh. Thereafter he was beaten by the accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh, Dheer Singh and Deputy Singh (accused-appellant). 25. 24. The case as put forward by PW-3 Mehar Singh in his report Ex.P/1 may be summarised in the following manner : That seeing the accused persons, PW-3 Mehar Singh brought his licensed gun and that gun was snatched by the accused-Balbir Singh. Thereafter he was beaten by the accused-appellant-Nichhatar Singh, Dheer Singh and Deputy Singh (accused-appellant). 25. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the case of the prosecution on the following points : (i) That the accused persons Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh, Jogendra Singh and Chet Ram did not cause any injury to PW-3 Mehar Singh. (ii) That accused-Jogendra Singh was not having any pistal at the time of occurrence. 26. Not only this, after going through the statement of PW-3 Mehar Singh and the injury report Ex.D/6-A of accused-Dheer Singh and statement of PW-6 Gopala Ram, IO, it may be stated here that : (i) That the case of prosecution that the gun in question was snatched by accused-Balbir Singh cannot be accepted for 'the simple reason that had it would have happened, the accused-Dheer Singh would not have received gun shot injuries. (ii) The prosecution is silent as to how Dheer Singh received gun shot injuries, though PW-3 Mehar Singh has come forward that he was having a licensed gun, but it was snatched. Since Dheer Singh received gun shot injuries, therefore, possibility that they were caused by PW-3 Mehar Singh cannot be ruled out. This probable factor is very much strong in this case. (iii) The fact that the incident as alleged by the prosecution has not taken place is very much clear from the fact that the incident did not take place in the "Bankal" and (sic) on the report of accused-Dheer Singh FIR No. 91/82 (Ex.D/3) was lodged earlier to the report of PW-3 Mehar Singh. This also goes to show that the accused-Dheer Singh received injuries first before PW-3 Mehar Singh. 27. This also goes to show that the accused-Dheer Singh received injuries first before PW-3 Mehar Singh. 27. The statement of PW-3 Mehar Singh that he was also beaten by accused-Dheer Singh cannot be accepted because of simple reason that when the incident of causing injuries to Dheer Singh took place earlier to the incident of present case and Dheer Singh received gun shot injury it was not possible for him to cause injuries to PW-3 Mehar Singh and, therefore, statement of PW-3 Mehar Singh on the point that accused-Dheer Singh also caused injuries to him does not appear to be correct proposition. Hence, PW-3 Mehar Singh has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the main incident of causing injuries to accused-Dheer Singh by him. 28. The result is that the injuries which have been received by PW-3 Mehar Singh were caused to him after the injuries had already been caused to accused-Dheer Singh with the gun. 29. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that since accused-Dheer Singh received gun shot injuries and, therefore, if he had caused any injury to PW-3 Mehar Singh, that were caused by him in the right of private defence. 30. In my opinion, these findings are not correct one as held earlier, the accused-Dheer Singh has not caused any injury to PW-3 Mehar Singh nor it was possible for the accused-Dheer Singh to cause any injury to PW-3 Mehar Singh as he himself received gun shot injuries and possibility that they were caused to him by PW-3 Mehar Singh cannot be ruled out. 31. In the above circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is whether the right of private defence of body can be given to the present two accused-appellants or not. 32. Before proceeding further, something should be said about the burden of proof in respect of right of private defence of person.Burden Of Proof In Respect Of Right Of Private Defence 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 523 has held that accused if he acted in self-defence, need not prove beyond all reasonable doubt, his right of self-defence and if two views are possible, the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 523 has held that accused if he acted in self-defence, need not prove beyond all reasonable doubt, his right of self-defence and if two views are possible, the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. 34. In my considered opinion if the accused can show by preponderance of the probability that the plea taken by him is plausible and raises a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt in respect of availing the right of private defence. For that following authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court may further be referred to : (i) AIR 1994 SC 955 (Ballam Singh v. State of Haryana) ; (ii) AIR 1994 SC 1041 (Nizamuddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh) ; (iii) AIR 1995 SC 2342 (Scaria Alias Thankan v. State of Kerala) ; (iv) AIR 1993 SC 1979 (Ramphal v. State of Haryana) ; (v) AIR 1979 SC 577 (Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab) . Legal Position In Respect Of Right Of Private DeFence Of Body 35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1980 SC 660 has set out the extent and the limitation on the exercise of right of private defence of body in the following manner : (i) There is no right of private defence against an attach which is not in itself an offence under the Code; (ii) The right commences as soon as and not before a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit some offence although the offence may not have been committed and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension. Accordingly the right avails only against a danger imminent, present and real; (iii) It is a defensive and not a punitive or retributive right. Consequently, in no case, the right extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of the defence. At the same time, it is difficult to expect from a person exercising this right in good faith to weigh golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right. Consequently, in no case, the right extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of the defence. At the same time, it is difficult to expect from a person exercising this right in good faith to weigh golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right. Every reasonable allowance should be made for the bona fide defender, if he with the instinct of self-preservation strong upon him pursues his defence with a little further than may be strictly necessary in the circumstances to avert that attack. It would be wholly unrealistic to expect of a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step according to the attack; (iv) The right extends to the killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the atrocious crime enumerated in the six clauses of Section 100. The combined effect of the first two clauses is that taking the life of an assailant would be justified on the plea of private defence, if the assault causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the person exercising the right; (v) There must be no safe or reasonable mode or escape by retreat, for the person confronted with an impending peril to life or of grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on the assailant; and (vi) The right being, in essence, a defensive right does not accrue and avail where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. 36. Section 100 Cr.P.C. further provides that right of private defence of the body extends, under the restriction 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 enumerated, namely : First.- Such an assault, as may reasonable cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Secondly.- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequent of such assault......." 37. The first clause applies to the case where there is reasonable apprehension of death. Whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact. The first clause applies to the case where there is reasonable apprehension of death. Whether the apprehension was reasonable or not is a question of fact. The weapon used, the manner of using it, the nature of assault and other surrounding circumstances will be taken into account. It is not necessary that for the exercise of the right of self-defence, the accused must sustain some injuries. Exercise of the right of self-defence depends not on the sustaining of the injuries by the accused, but on the apprehension of the accused that his life and the lives of his family members are at stake. 38. The mere failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries sustained by the accused's party does not raise a presumption that the accused acted in the right of private defence. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinise their evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries on the accused may undermine its evidence to the Court and falsify the sub-stratum of its story while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. 39. Not only this Section 97 Cr.P.C. provides that right of private defence or body comprises not only the right to defence one's own body against any offence affecting the human body, but also right to defending the body of any other person. In this regard the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amjad Khan v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1952 SC 165 may be referred to. 40. Thus, right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. 41. Keeping the above all aspects in mind, the case of the prosecution, evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the defence are minutely examined. 41. Keeping the above all aspects in mind, the case of the prosecution, evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the defence are minutely examined. It appears that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and has suppressed the genesis of the crime as the injuries of accused-Dheer Singh have not been explained by the prosecution and since accused-Dheer Singh received gun shot injuries which were found grievous one and possibility that they were caused by PW-3 Mehar Singh cannot be ruled out and condition of accused-Dheer Singh on 8.4.1982 was critical, in these circumstances the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the crime and has thus not presented true version of the incident and the whole case of the prosecution comes in the shadow of doubt. Thus after that incident, it can reasonably be presumed that reasonable apprehension of further danger to the person of accused-Dheer Singh had already arisen in the present case and it was not a case of apprehension of danger, but actual injuries were caused to Dheer Singh and in these circumstances, if two accused-appellants-Nichhatar Singh and Deputy Singh had caused some injuries to PW-3 Mehar Singh, it would certainly come within the purview of their right of private defence defending the body of 3rd person i.e. accused-Dheer Singh and thus by causing injuries to PW-3 Mehar Singh, the accused-appellants acted in their right of private defence to protect the life of accused-Dheer Singh from further danger as when PW3 Mehar Singh was having a gun, therefore, apprehension remained to continue on the point of danger to the body of accused-Dheer Singh. In this case there was imminent danger to the person of accused-Dheer Singh and in these circumstances, the accused-appellants were entitled to raise their own arm in defending accused-Dheer Singh from further attack of PW-3 Mehar Singh. Thus, in the present case, right of private defence was available to the accused-appellants for suddenly confronted with the immediate necessity of averting an impending danger not to their creation, but of the creation of PW-3 Mehar Singh. Hence, it is held that what was done by the accused-appellants was done in their right of private defence. 42. The next point to be considered is whether the present appellants used more force than was necessary. 43. Hence, it is held that what was done by the accused-appellants was done in their right of private defence. 42. The next point to be considered is whether the present appellants used more force than was necessary. 43. In judging whether accused-appellants have exceeded their right of private defence, the Court has to take into account the weapons used, particularly in the case of firing the number of shots that were fired. 44. In the present case, since the condition of accused-Dheer Singh was very serious one and he received gun shot injuries in these circumstances, if some injuries were caused to PW-3 Mehar Singh by accused-appellants and by causing these injuries PW-3 Mehar Singh received one linear fracture on his head, it cannot be said that the accused-appellants used more force than was necessary. Hence, it is held that the accused-appellants did not use more force than was necessary in protecting accused-Dheer Singh. 45. Though the legal position is that if two views are possible, the accused should be given benefit of doubt, but in the present case, the case of defence appears to be more probable on the point that when PW-3 Mehar Singh caused gun shot injuries to accused-Dheer Singh, thereafter the accused-appellants had no option but to protect accused-Dheer Singh from further causing injury at the hands of PW-3 Mehar Singh and in protecting him if they caused injuries to PW-3 Mehar Singh, they have committed no offence as they did it in their right of private defence. Had the accused-appellants in defence would not have caused injuries to PW-3 Mehar Singh, possibility of further firing by PW-3 Mehar Singh over accused-Dheer Singh would not be ruled out. 46. For the reasons mentioned above, the findings of conviction recorded against the accused-appellants-Deputy Singh and Nichhatar Singh for offence under sections. 307 & 307/34 Indian Penal Code respectively cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside and the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and right of private defence and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 26.3.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh by which he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants-Deputy Singh and Nichhatar Singh for offence under sections. 307 & 307/34 Indian Penal Code respectively are set aside and the accused-appellants-Deputy Singh and Nichhatar Singh are acquitted for offence under sections. 307 & 307/34 Indian Penal Code respectively.Since, the accused-appellants are on bail they need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******