JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant (hereinafter described as 'accused') along with other six co-accused was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, District Karauli in Sessions Case No.130/1999. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 20, 2001 while acquitting other co-accused persons convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Seven Days. 2. A criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Hindaun on the basis of written report of informant Kailash (Pw.4) lodged on April 28, 1999. It was inter alia stated in the report that on account of dispute regarding the use of water from the well, Ramdhari (present accused) Ramkesh, Babu, Harpati, Rajanti, Kailashi, Lohari were annoyed with the informant and his brother. Around 9 AM buffalo of Jagan (informant's brother) had gone to the water hut of the well. Jagan's daughter Sunita when proceeded to well to call buffalo back, Harpati, the wife of present accused hurled stones at her. Jagan (now deceased) brought Sunita back to the house. After some time Ramdhari, Ramkesh, Babu their wives Harpati, Rajanti, Kailashi and one Lohri came to the house of Jagan. Ramdhari and Babu were armed with knives and others had dandas. Ramdhari gave fist blow with knife on the neck of Jagan, whereas Babu inflicted knife injury on the left shoulder as a result of which Jagan fell down, thereafter Ramkesh, Harpati, Rajanti, Kailash and Lohari gave blows with dandas. When the informant intervened, he too was beaten by Ramkesh. In the meanwhile Gopal, Mukesh, Kamlesh, Mohan Lal and Sunita arrived. Jagan died at the spot. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, District Karauli. Charge under Sections 148, 302, 323 alternatively 323/149 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, District Karauli. Charge under Sections 148, 302, 323 alternatively 323/149 Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code , the accused claimed innocence and stated that on the day of incident quarrel took place between Harpati and Sunita, therefore Jagan, Kailash, Mukesh and Sunita came armed with lathis at his house and gave beating to Ramdhari. At that time Jagan sustained injury on his neck by the sharp-edge of the Hal (an implement used for ploughing the field). Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. 3. Post-Mortem on the dead body was performed by Dr. R.L. Meena (PW.2) and as per the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P-3) the deceased sustained following ante mortem injuries : "(1) Incised wound of 2cm x 7x3cm on the left side of neck. The site of the wound is 2cm above the shoulder region (claviculur shoulder joint) and 5cm below the lower end of lobule of left ear. When Probe passes in the wound for measuring the depth the bleeding comes out from the wound. Corresponding hole seen on collar of the shirt which he wearing at time of injury. The margin of the wound are clean cut & gaping & ante-mortem in nature. (2) Deep Abrasion of 2.5cm x 5cm on left shoulder region. (3) Deep Abrasion of 10cm x 1.5cm on left fore arm in lower part under side upto wrist region. On dissection of the wound:-The wound present on Posterior border of sternomastoid muscle in middle part (Posterior triangle of Neck) Sterno Mastoid Muscle (cut) divided, (Ribbon Muscles) deep to Lt. Measure blood vessels cut (cartoid blood vessels.)The cause of death was shock due to severe haemorrhage resulting due to injury to great or measure blood vessels of Neck. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." It is thus established that the death of the deceased was homicide. Dr. R.L. Meena (Pw.2) in his cross examination deposed as under : HINDI MATTER 358239 A In the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." It is thus established that the death of the deceased was homicide. Dr. R.L. Meena (Pw.2) in his cross examination deposed as under : HINDI MATTER 358239 A In the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused stated as under: HINDI MATTER B 4. The accused was also examined by Dr. R.L. Meena (Pw.2), who in his deposition stated that the accused vide injury report (Ex.D- 2) sustained following injuries: "(i) Swelling 5cm x 3cm Occipital region of head with Lacerated wound of 1cm x 5 Fm x muscle deep on the ant. Region of left side. (ii) Abroded bruise of 5cm x 2cm on left shoulder region. (iii) Bruise 20cm x 2.5cm on scapular region across vertebral column both side. (iv) Bruise of 7cm x 2.5 cm on Back of lumber region Rt. side. (v) Abroded bruise of 9cm x 2cm on left forearm lower part Anteriorly. (vi) Swelling 2x2cm on Post particular region left side." 5. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the injuries found on the person of accused were duly established by Dr. R.L. Meena (Pw.2). Those injuries, six in number, though described to be simple in nature were neither minor nor superficial. The size and type of the injuries were also large in dimension. The said injuries were received during the course of incident and failure of prosecution to explain those injuries clearly establish the defence of the accused and the accused was entitled to act in his rigs t of private defence and could not be said to have exceeded the said right. It is next contended that Gopal (Pw.9), who was independent witness, did not support the prosecution case and from his testimony the version of incident as claimed by defence was clearly established. It is further contended that the explanation given under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by the accused was supported by Dr. R.L. Meena (Pw.2). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and took us to the material on record to show that right of private defence was not available to the accused and he was rightly convicted and sentenced. 7. The determination of the question whether there exists the alleged right of private defence is always a question of fact. R.L. Meena (Pw.2). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and took us to the material on record to show that right of private defence was not available to the accused and he was rightly convicted and sentenced. 7. The determination of the question whether there exists the alleged right of private defence is always a question of fact. There are two important factors in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of the accused; one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other, an off-shoot of the same principle, that when the accused offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then even though he can not prove his assertions, they should ordinarily, be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false. Right of private defence has been regulated and circumscribed by several principles and limitations. The most salient of them concerned the defence of body, are as under: Firstly, there is no right of private defence against an act which is not in itself an offence; Secondly, 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 coterminus with the duration of such apprehension; Thirdly, it is a defensive and not a punitive or retributive right; Fourthly, the right extends to the killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the atrocious crimes enumerated in the six clauses of Section 100 Indian Penal Code. Fifthly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of 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 Sixthly, the right does not accrue where there is a time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. 8. Bearing these principles in mind if we examine the facts of the case on hand we find that the defence of the accused from the very beginning was that the deceased was the assailant who inflicted as many as six injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was lacerated wound on the head. 8. Bearing these principles in mind if we examine the facts of the case on hand we find that the defence of the accused from the very beginning was that the deceased was the assailant who inflicted as many as six injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was lacerated wound on the head. The incident occurred in front of the house of the accused and in exercise of his right of private defence the accused inflicted one injury with the implement used for ploughing the field that proved fatal. In the explanation under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused admitted to have caused injury on the person of deceased while exercising his right of self defence. Dr. R.L. Meena (PW.2) also admitted in the cross examination that the injury received by the deceased could have been caused with the implement used for ploughing the field. 9. The explanation given by the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code appears reasonable and true and this possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased had sustained injury with the implement used for ploughing the field. Evidently two views are before us, one as presented by the prosecution and another narrated by the accused. In State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh (2002) 9 SCC 537 and Bodhraj Vs. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that when two views are possible, one which is favourable to accused should be accepted. We thus find that in the facts and circumstances of the case right of private defence was available to the accused and the evidence adduced at the trial was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. 10. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the finding arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City vide impugned judgment dated September 20, 2001 against the appellant. We acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The appellant who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******