JUDGMENT Jain, J. -- This is an appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant-State directed against the judgment dated 17th March 1986 rendered by First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in ST.No. 108/81, acquitting the respondent Phool Singh of the charge u/s 302 in alternative u/s 302/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the trial was that on 29.5.1980 at 9 p.m. at village Barbai, accused-respondent Phool Singh together with three other co-accused persons namely, Dara Singh, Gopi Singh and Natthi Singh attacked deceased Udal Singh by means of Bhala and Farsi. It is said that while co-accused Dara Singh stabbed the deceased in chest by means of Bhala, the present accused-respondent Phool Singh gave Farsi blow on his left hand. Two other co-accused Gopi Singh and Natthi Singh also actively participated in the incident aiding the two other accused persons in commission of offence. A report, of the incident vide Ex. P-1, was lodged by Lakhan Singh, the brother of the deceased, who was also injured in the incident. The police after usual investigation, charge sheeted the accused persons for trial. However, at the first instance, the present respondent Phool Singh was absconding, and as such, the trial proceeded against the remaining three accused. The trial Court, by the judgment dated 24.9.1981 in S.T. No. 160/80 (State v. Dam Singh and. others), convicted accused Dara Singh U/S 304 Part II, IPC; and two other co-accused, Gopi and Natthi, were however, acquitted. The present accused, Phool Singh was arrested later on, and put to trial which ended into acquittal as aforesaid. We have heard Shri Naqvi, the learned Addl. Govt. Adv. for appellant-State, and Shri Puran Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for accused respondent. At the out set, it may be observed, that the Sessions Court in its judgment dated 24.9.1981, on appreciation of evidence has come to a clear finding that the accused persons had acted in exercise of their private defence; but accused Dara Singh had exceeded his right while causing death of Udal Singh. On this finding, the two accused Gopi Singh and Natthi Singh were acquitted and Dara Singh was convicted U/S 304 Part II, IPC. On appeal, by Dara Singh, this Court vide its judgment dated 9.8.1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 194/81, has affirmed the conviction of Dara Singh but released him on probation of good conduct. On this finding, the two accused Gopi Singh and Natthi Singh were acquitted and Dara Singh was convicted U/S 304 Part II, IPC. On appeal, by Dara Singh, this Court vide its judgment dated 9.8.1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 194/81, has affirmed the conviction of Dara Singh but released him on probation of good conduct. The present accused-respondent is sought to be made liable for the said crime with the aid of section 34 IPC. Admittedly, the injury which resulted into the death of the deceased was caused by co-accused Dara Singh and not by present respondent-Phool Singh. The said Dara Singh having been acquitted by the charge u/s 302 IPC, no conviction for the said offence can be passed against present respondent with the aid of section 34 IPC. Even otherwise, the Court having come to the conclusion that the accused persons were acting in exercise of their private defence, the present accused-respondent cannot be convicted even for the offence u/s 304 Part II, IPC inasmuch as he did not inflict fatal injury responsible for death of the deceased. The case of the present respondent Phool Singh is like other two accused persons i.e. Gopi Singh and Naththi Singh. None of these accused can be attributed to have done anything which was in exceed of their private defence. The Court below, in our opinion, is, therefore, justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused and no interference is called for by this Court in this Appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused-respondent shall also stand discharged.