JUDGMENT Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J. :- 1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, found the appellant - Radhe guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth "the IPC"). The other co-accused persons' namely Kashi and Dev Kumar were acquitted. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-12-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.194/l998. 2, Prosecution version as unfolded during trial, in brief, is that on 1011-1997 Gyan Singh (since deceased) went to Ramkhilawan's house for collecting kanda (eatable Bulb), when he did not come back till evening his father Heeralal in search of Gyan Singh, went to the house of Ramkhilawan. In the evening at around 7.00 p.m. Heeralal along with Ramkhilawan and his son Gyan Singh was returning to his house, on the way when they reached near the house of Kashi, Kashi started scolding Ramkilwan, who was refrained from doing so, therefore, a quarrel erupted. Appellant. Radhe who was carrying pharsa (one kind of an axe) and Kashi lathi, started beating. Appellant gave a pharsa blow on the leg of Gyan Singh. The leg was cut and turned into two pieces. Gyan Singh fell down, thereafter Radhe chopped his another leg and assaulted Gyan Singh with Pharsa on his thigh and other parts of Jus body. Heeralal came to rescue him. Dev Kumar one of the accused assaulted lathi blow on his head and also gave a blow on his left shoulder. Heeralal fell down. When Ramkhilawan intervened he was assaulted by Dev Kumar. In the meantime, Beerbalii, who is son of Ramkhilawan, came there who was also beaten by Radhe with pharsa. Kashi assaulted Ramkilwan with a club. Gyan Singh instantaneously died on the spot and others were injured. Appellant - Radhe and his associates Kashi and Dev Kumar fled away from the place of Occurrence. 3. Heeralal gave merg intimation and lodged First Information Report. Both the documents were recorded by Arjun Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector. Head Constable Jagsai conducted inquest, prepared report and forwarded the dead body of Gyan Singh for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh. He collected blood stained and plain earth from the spot. Dr. S.K. Chainpuria conducted autopsy. 3. Heeralal gave merg intimation and lodged First Information Report. Both the documents were recorded by Arjun Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector. Head Constable Jagsai conducted inquest, prepared report and forwarded the dead body of Gyan Singh for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh. He collected blood stained and plain earth from the spot. Dr. S.K. Chainpuria conducted autopsy. On examination, he found nine injuries on the body of deceased and according to his opinion, the cause of death was syncope due to shock and external hemorrhage caused by multiple injuries. All the injuries found on the body of Gyan Singh were caused by hard and sharp object except one, which was found to be abrasion and present below left knee. Death was homicidal in nature. He prepared autopsy report and describing all the injuries found on the body of deceased, forwarded the report to the concerned Police Station. Injured Beerbali, Ramkhilawan and Heeralal were also sent for medical examination. On medical examination, it was found that they have sustained various injuries. On the memorandum statement of accused Kashi one club and on the memorandum statement of Radhe one pharsa have been recovered and seized. From accused Dev Kumar one club has been seized. After postmortem examination, the clothes found on the body of deceased were also collected. The statements of witnesses have been recorded. The seized pharsa, clothes and earth were sent for chemical examination and on examination stained earth, pharsa and clothes of Gyan Singh were found to be stained with blood. 4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was led in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manendragarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trail. Charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC have been framed against the appellant and other co-accused Kashi and Dev Kumar, the same were read over and explained to them. All of them abjured the guilt. Dev Kumar in his defence stated that Ramkhilawan, Beerbai, Ramphal,. Bhoglal, Shemlal and Gyan Singh, were drunk, they were abusing and assaulting. He abstained them from abusing, therefore, they threw him on the ground and assaulted. Accused Kashi in his defence stated that Ramkhilawan: Beerbali, Ramphal and others, who were drunk were quarreling. He Intervened, therefore, Ramkhilawan assaulted on his head by a gandasa (one kind of an axe). Bhoglal, Shemlal and Gyan Singh, were drunk, they were abusing and assaulting. He abstained them from abusing, therefore, they threw him on the ground and assaulted. Accused Kashi in his defence stated that Ramkhilawan: Beerbali, Ramphal and others, who were drunk were quarreling. He Intervened, therefore, Ramkhilawan assaulted on his head by a gandasa (one kind of an axe). Accused Radhe's defence was that Ramkhilawan, Heeralal and Gyan Singh, who were drunk, were quarreling with. each other, who assaulted Kashi and Dev Kumar and have falsely implicated him in this case. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence held that appellant and co-accused Kashi and Dev Kumar did not commit murder in furtherance of common intention of all, but appellant alone is responsible for the murder of Gyan Singh, therefore, Kashi and Dev Kumar have been acquitted with the charge for committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and appellant alone has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned trial Court further held that prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that accused Kashi assaulted Ramkhilawan, therefore, vide para 12 of its judgment acquitted him with the charge under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Learned trial Court vide para 25 of its judgment accepted the right of private defence in favour of accused Radhe and acquitted him with the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Beerbali. Although trial Court in para 24 of its judgment held accused Dev Kumar guilty for voluntarily causing hurt to Heeralal and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, yet vide order passed in order sheet dated 24-12-1999 acquitted him with the charge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the homicidal death of Gyan Singh. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Dr. S.K. Chainpuria (PW-13) and autopsy report (Ex-P/14) of deceased Gyan Singh, it is established that following nine ante mortem injuries have been found on his body; out of them injuries No.1 to 8 have been caused by hard and sharp object, cause of death was shock as a result of excessive hemorrhage and the. S.K. Chainpuria (PW-13) and autopsy report (Ex-P/14) of deceased Gyan Singh, it is established that following nine ante mortem injuries have been found on his body; out of them injuries No.1 to 8 have been caused by hard and sharp object, cause of death was shock as a result of excessive hemorrhage and the. death of Gyan Singh was homicidal in nature: (1) Chop wound with amputation of right leg 12" below the knee joint all muscles bone skin blood vessels have been cut, wounds margins are incised, everted, wounds containing blood clot. Amputed left leg also brought with the body having incised wound directed transversely. Spouting of blood present (2) Chop wound with incised margins over left leg ½" above the ankle joint directed transversely posterior and upwards only skin of posterior aspect left, rest of the tissue bone blood vessels muscles tendons have been cut. Blood clot present spouting of blood present around the wound. (3) Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm x 3.5 cm over posterior middies aspect of right thigh, muscles and blood vessels have cut, clot present in the wound spouting of blood over surrounding skin present. 3" below gluteal fold. (4) Incised wound over right wrist joint 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm over ventro lateral aspect. Radius bone cut. Blood clot present margin retracted. (5) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm over medial side of right thigh, blood clot present. (6) Incised wound 3 cm x ½ cm x 1 cm over lateral aspect of right thigh, blood clot present. (7) Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm over lateral aspect of right leg. (8) Incised wound 3 cm x 1½ cm x 1 cm over lateral aspect of right leg 12 cm below the right knee joint margins retracted, blood clot present. (9) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm below left knee anterior aspect. 7. Heeralal (PW-1) in his statement deposed that appellant Radhe with baluva (pharsa) assaulted on both legs, thigh and hand of Gyan Singh. Appellant chopped right leg and left leg of Gyan Singh. Gyan Singh instantaneously died on the spot. Beerbali (PW-5) in his statement deposed that appellant Radhe by pharsa assaulted Gyan Singh on his right thigh, thereafter chopped his right and left leg and also assaulted on his right hand. Appellant chopped right leg and left leg of Gyan Singh. Gyan Singh instantaneously died on the spot. Beerbali (PW-5) in his statement deposed that appellant Radhe by pharsa assaulted Gyan Singh on his right thigh, thereafter chopped his right and left leg and also assaulted on his right hand. Gyan Singh instantaneously died on the spot. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length, but so far as the above statement is concerned, appellant failed to elicit any material in their cross-examination so as to discredit the above version. 8. The above version is corroborated with the statement of Ramkhilawan (PW-2) who in his statement disclosed that the appellant was there armed with pharsa, Gyan Singh was lying on the ground, who was dead. Gyan Singh had injury on his right thigh, his right and left legs were chopped. Further the ocular evidence has also been corroborated by the merg intimation (Ex-P/9) and FIR (Ex-P/10) duly proved by witness Arjun Ram (PW -10). From the statement of P.R.K. Singh (PW-12) it has been proved that appellant on his memorandum discovered that he has kept the pharsa concealing it in the house of Dev Kumar beneath the earth and on his discovery statement, the pharsa was recovered from the place shown by the appellant, memorandum and seizure are Ex-P/3 & Ex-P/4, respectively. Report of Chemical Examiner established presence of blood stains over the recovered pharsa. Recovery of blood stained pharsa at the instance of appellant as well Medical report also corroborates the ocular statement. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence it was established that appellant was the person who brutally chopped both the legs of Gyan Singh and caused various injuries by pharsa and thereby caused the death of Gyan Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Gyan Singh was the aggressor, therefore, appellant who had right of private defence, cannot be held guilty for the offences charged against him. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, urged that Gyan Singh did not take part in any quarrel, neither he was armed with any weapon, therefore, question of right of private defence does not arise at all. 10. When death has been resulted from the act of the accused who raises a plea of right of private defence of body, the following provisions are attracted to elicit the same: "97. 10. When death has been resulted from the act of the accused who raises a plea of right of private defence of body, the following provisions are attracted to elicit the same: "97. Right of private defence of the body and of property. - Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend - First. - His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly. - The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. 99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence. - There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised. - 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. Explanation 1. - A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant. Explanation 1. - A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant. Explanation 2.- A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded. 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death. - 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 enumerated, namely; First. - Such an assault as may reasonably 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 consequence of such assault; Thirdly - An assault with the intention of committing rape; Fourthly - An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust; Fifthly - An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; Sixthly - An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authority for his release." 11. A report on 11-11-1997 has been recorded by the Police wherein it was alleged that Ramkhilawan has assaulted Kashi and on medical examination Kashi and Dev Kumar were found injured. From the evidence on record, it is evident that deceased Gyan Singh was neither carrying any arm nor took part in the quarrel. From the evidence only this much has been brought on record that one of the witnesses namely Ramkhilawan assaulted Kashi. From the evidence on record, it is evident that deceased Gyan Singh was neither carrying any arm nor took part in the quarrel. From the evidence only this much has been brought on record that one of the witnesses namely Ramkhilawan assaulted Kashi. Neither appellant was assaulted by Gyan Singh nor Gyan Singh took part in marpeet, therefore, in these circumstances appellant has neither any right of private defence of body against the deceased nor has right to kill him in such a gruesome manner by inflicting various injuries on him and chopping his both legs. Mere presence of a person at a place of quarrel does not allow right of private offence to culprit under above provisions of law, to invoke right of private defence against such a person, therefore, so far as the argument of learned counsel for the defence regarding right of defence of person is concerned, that has no force and is repelled. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant placed his reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and contended that the appellant had no intention to kill Gyan Singh. Neither appellant knew that the injuries caused by him are likely to cause death of Gyan Singh nor the injuries caused on him were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature, therefore, the offence committed by the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of the IPC. On the other hand, learned counsel far the State opposed the same. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court rendering judgment in Shankar Narayan Shado/karl (supra), in para 24 which reads as below, has laid that keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 are the determining factors. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is also clear that so far matter relates to Intentionally causing death distinction between culpable homicide and murder is subject to exceptions as enumerated under Section 300 of the IPC. "24. The academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" has always vexed the courts. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. "24. The academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" has always vexed the courts. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful m appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences: Section 299 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done- Section 300 Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done – INTENTION (a) with the intention of causing death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (1) with the intention of causing death, or (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or (3) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury indented to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or KNOWLEDGE (c) with the knowledge that the act is (4) with the knowledge that the act likely to cause death is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 14. Here in the instant case although appellant caused various injuries as set forth above to Gyan Singh; but his act does not fell within any of the exceptions as envisaged under Section 300 of the IPC. So far as intention of causing death is concerned, normally intention is to be determined from the act of the accused, injuries caused by him, the weapon used, the parts of the body where injuries have been caused and the force used for causing the injury. So far as intention of causing death is concerned, normally intention is to be determined from the act of the accused, injuries caused by him, the weapon used, the parts of the body where injuries have been caused and the force used for causing the injury. In this case, the appellant in a brutal manner with a deadly weapon like pharsa chopped both the legs of Gyan Singh and also with that weapon caused another six more injuries on his body. The result of those injuries were instantaneous death of Gyan Singh. Evidently, the appellant with full force applied the deadly weapon on Gyan Singh, that too in a brutal manner by full force and chopped both of his legs, even he did not stop assaulting Gyan Singh, but continued assaulting him just like a labourer who chops dead wood for fuel that itself proves his intention that he only intended to kill Gyan Singh in a gruesome manner. Therefore, in the instant case it was clearly proved that appellant with intention of causing death of Gyan Singh committed culpable homicide and his act does not fall within any of the exceptions as envisaged under Section 300 of the IPC, therefore, he was guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 15. Before parting with the case, we would like to draw attention of trial Courts that while writing judgment and pronouncing it they must be very careful and if they hold any person guilty for committing any offence they must note that they have no power to acquit him with that charge. A duty has been cast on the trial Courts under Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 240(6) of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) that after recording decision on points that arises for decision they shall write final determination holding conviction or acquittal and in case they convict to record punishment in accordance with law. 16. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 17. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to all the trial Courts for guidance. Appeal Rejected