JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the accused were acquitted of the charge by being given the benefit of doubt. 2. On 27.7.1994, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar had summoned the accused to face the trial for causing the death of Fateh Singh. The deceased was murdered on 22.4.1991 at about 4.00 P.M. in the area of village Chogowal by all the accused Gurnam Singh, Dhanwant Singh and Virsa Singh in furtherance of common intention thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the present appeal, the question that emerges for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances the accused are not entitled to raise the plea of self-defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. There are two versions in the present case, one rendered by the appellant and the other rendered by the accused-respondent Gurnam Singh. The present appeal is based on the version recorded by the appellant-Kanso who appeared as PW-1. The case was instituted on the complaint filed by PW-I Kanso. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 6.5.1992 for trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala. Both parties gave different versions regarding the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, as reflected in para 10 of the judgment dated 13.1.1994, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. As noticed above, the prosecution case was instituted by a complaint by Kanso, mother of deceased Fateh Singh. She named three accused, Dhanwant Singh, Virsa Singh and Gurnam Singh. Dhanwant Singh and Virsa Singh, as per allegations, have given datar and kirpan blow respectively, whereas Gurnam Singh raised lalkara proclaiming that Fateh Singh be taught a lesson. Non- returning of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- by Dhanwant Singh advanced by Fateh Singh had been stated to be the motive for causing the death of Fateh Singh by the accused. 6. The second version is reflected in the statement of Gurnam Singh made before SI/SHO Rupinder Singh, Police Station Lopoke on 22.4.1991. 7. As per the statement of Gurnam Singh, in the night, all the Family Members were sleeping in the house. 6. The second version is reflected in the statement of Gurnam Singh made before SI/SHO Rupinder Singh, Police Station Lopoke on 22.4.1991. 7. As per the statement of Gurnam Singh, in the night, all the Family Members were sleeping in the house. It was about 4.00 A.M. when Fateh Singh @ Fattu son of Prem Singh, resident of the same village accompanied by another unidentified youth came to Gurnam Singhs house. The other man remained standing outside the house with weapon. Fateh Singh @ Fattu after locking all the family members in a room abducted Gurnam Singhs grand-daughter Raj Kaur @ Ghugi forcibly and while leaving Fateh Singh threatened that if any member of the family informed the police or anyone else, they would kill all the family members. On 22.4.1991, at about 7.00 A.M., Raj Kaur @ Ghugi reached house after being freed herself from the abuctors i.e. Fateh Singh and his companions. 8. The same day, at about 4.00 P.M. when Dhanwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh had gone to bring fodder, Gurnam Singh and Raj Kaur were present at home, then Fateh Singh @ Fattu came on red Scooter and after parking the same in the courtyard said that Raj Kaur had escaped and he would not spare her. With an intention of again abducting Raj Kaurs grand-daughter, he caught her arms forcibly and dragged her to his scooter to take her away. On seeing this happening to his grand-daughter, Gurnam Singh could not tolerate it and to get his grand-daughter freed from Fateh Singh, picked up a kahi lying in the courtyard and gave a blow on Fateh Singhs neck, as a result of which Fateh Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. In the meantime, he was joined by his son Dhanwant Singh and Kaka Singh son of Hajara Singh. After leaving them by the side of dead body of Fateh Singh, Gurnam Singh went to lodge the report to the Police Station, while the police met him on the way and recorded the above version. 9. On the statement of Gurnam Singh, FIR Ex.PC was recorded. After investigation the version rendered by the defence i.e. accused respondent was accepted by the police. 10. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Fateh Singh @ Fattu was conducted by PW3 Dr. Bikramjit Singh on 23.4.1991. 9. On the statement of Gurnam Singh, FIR Ex.PC was recorded. After investigation the version rendered by the defence i.e. accused respondent was accepted by the police. 10. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Fateh Singh @ Fattu was conducted by PW3 Dr. Bikramjit Singh on 23.4.1991. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased : 1. Incised wound 12x6 cms on the left side of neck transversely placed margins clean cut. Clotted blood present. 2. Incised wound 14x6 cms on the left side of temporal region. Margins clean cut. Clotted blood present, 2 cms above the tip of the pinna scalp deep. 3. Incised wound 3x2 cms on the front of neck transversely placed. Margins clean cut. Clotted blood present. 4. Incised wound 3x1 cm in front of left leg in the middle vertically placed. 5. A contusion 12x4 cms on the right side of forehead right side of cheek." 11. As per post-mortem report, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were caused with sharp edged weapon and 5th injury was caused by blunt weapon. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of the death was due to cutting of major blood vessels resulting in the shock and hemorrhage which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the injuries and the death was given as immediately and between death and post mortem as 24 hours and this witness proved his post mortem report Exhibit PB. 12. In the circumstances FIR No. 56 dated 22.4.1991 registered on the basis of the statement of Gurnam Singh, respondent and the case registered on the basis of complaint filed by Kanso committed to the Court of Sessions, evidence qua both the versions, referred to above was led simultaneously. 13. The spot was visited by DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP, dead body of Fateh Singh was lying in the house of Gurnam Singh. DW-3 found the statement Ex.PC made by Gurnam Singh accused as correct and respondent as innocent. 13. The spot was visited by DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP, dead body of Fateh Singh was lying in the house of Gurnam Singh. DW-3 found the statement Ex.PC made by Gurnam Singh accused as correct and respondent as innocent. The learned Illaqa Magistrate in pursuance to the complaint by the appellant summoned the accused and the copies of documents were supplied to the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial and the charges framed against the accused under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 14. At the trial, the main witnesses examined by the prosecution were PW1- Kanso, PW2, Gurmukh Singh, PW3-Dr.Bikramjit Singh. 15. After the conclusion of the trial, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code They denied the charge and pleaded innocence. Gurnam Singh accused reiterated the version of FIR No. 56 lodged by him 22.4.1991. 16. DW1 HC Devinder Singh, presented the certified copy of the FIR No. 56. Raj Kaur d/o Dhanwant Singh appeared as DW2 and reiterated the version rendered by her grand father Gurnam Singh and specifically stated that the scooter of the deceased remained in their courtyard which was subsequently taken into possession by the police. DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP has stated that on the basis of statement accused Gurnam Singh, FIR No. 56 Exhibit PC was recorded. Accordingly, a case was registered against Fateh Singh son of Prem Singh deceased under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, the statement recorded by Gurnam Singh was found to be correct. He further stated that mother, father and brother of Fateh Singh did not meet him during the investigation. In cross-examination, DW-3 admitted that a case against Fateh Singh was registered under TADA Act prior to the registration of this case. Fateh Singh was a proclaimed offender and his house was raided but he was not available, therefore, he could not be arrested. DW-3 further stated that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings were pending when Fateh Singh was killed. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 18. The moot question that emerges for consideration which is the correct version of the occurrence. DW-3 further stated that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings were pending when Fateh Singh was killed. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 18. The moot question that emerges for consideration which is the correct version of the occurrence. On examination of the entire record, the version rendered by the defence gains more credibility and stands accepted by the Investigating Agency. To be more precise, the statement of Gurnam Singh accused, which was converted into FIR Exhibit PC, finds corroboration with the investigation carried out. The investigation in the instant case was conducted by DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP. In his cross-examination, DSP has admitted that Gurmukh Singh PW2 and Kanso appellant PW1 did not meet him during the investigation of FIR Exhibit PC. Further admission by this witness was that he joined in the investigation Member Panchayats and other respectables of the village. Further, it came on record that case against Fateh Singh deceased was registered under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act prior to the registration of this case and he was a member of the police party who raided the house of the deceased, but he was not available. 19. Further admission by DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh which, in our opinion, is a clincher in this case is that when he went to the spot, dead body of Fateh Singh was lying in the house of Gurnam Singh accused. When we stretch our imagination, we find no reason or logic in the version of Kanso that after killing Fateh Singh near the culvert the dead body was carried to the house of Gurnam Singh. If Fateh Singh had been killed by the accused at the bus stand near the culvert, then certainly accused would not have taken his dead body to their own house. Moreover, as per testimony of PW2 Gurmukh Singh, the shop- keepers, Bank employees and people never attracted to the spot when they raised alarm. Shop-keepers belonged to his village. The house of the accused is stated to be at a distance of 15-16 karams from the place of occurrence as per the testimony of PW2 Gurmukh Singh as well as Kanso who appeared as PW1. Shop-keepers belonged to his village. The house of the accused is stated to be at a distance of 15-16 karams from the place of occurrence as per the testimony of PW2 Gurmukh Singh as well as Kanso who appeared as PW1. This also does not appeal to the common sense that if the house of the accused was at the distance of 15-16 karams from the place of occurrence and in the presence of number of shop-keepers and other villagers how the dead body could be carried to the house of Gurnam Singh accused. In the countryside even today, people do intervene when any such incident takes place. 20. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he did not talk to any one in the village regarding the occurrence. He has further stated that money was not advanced on pronote. The conduct of PW2 is unnatural and does not inspire confidence. Whereas version rendered by DW2 Raj Kaur stands fully supported and corroborated with the version rendered by the accused respondent Gurnam Singh. At the same time, the version rendered by Gurnam Singh respondent was found to be correct by DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP. Neither any bias or hostility or enmity had been alleged or proved against DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP by the complainant. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer was after asserting from the number of respectables of the village and on that basis reached to the conclusion that occurrence took place in the house of Gurnam Singh. Further, it is worth mentioning that when DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP visited the spot, the dead body was in the house of respondent Gurnam Singh. The totality of the circumstances amply satisfies us to reach to the conclusion that occurrence has taken place at the house of respondent Gurnam Singh and the prosecution version was incorrect. 21. Another aspect which attracts our attention is the delay in lodging the complaint by the prosecution and without any convincing explanation. The occurrence took place on 22.4.1991 but the complaint was filed on 20.5.1991 i.e. after about 26 days. The explanation given by the complainant for not filing the case immediately is not plausible. In this context, the statement of PW1 Kanso acquires significance when she admits in her cross-examination that police raided her house and she asked her son Gurmukh Singh, PW2 to run away from the spot. The explanation given by the complainant for not filing the case immediately is not plausible. In this context, the statement of PW1 Kanso acquires significance when she admits in her cross-examination that police raided her house and she asked her son Gurmukh Singh, PW2 to run away from the spot. This statement of Kanso when read with the statement of DW3 Bhupinderjit Singh, DSP that he raided the house of Fateh Singh to arrest him as he was involved in TADA case and was a Proclaimed Offender, fortifies our assumption that the version rendered by accused Gurnam Singh is the correct version, particularly, when it is fully corroborated by the statement of Raj Kaur who appeared as DW2. 22. Having reached to the conclusion that the occurrence has taken place at the house of Gurnam Singh, the next important question to be answered is whether accused Gurnam Singh has exceeded the right of private defence or he was within his right to use force culminating into the death of Fateh Singh. Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced as under : "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 authorities for his release." 23. As a result of the above discussion, the instant case is squarely covered under Clauses third and fifth. 24. As a result of the above discussion, the instant case is squarely covered under Clauses third and fifth. 24. Honble Supreme Court in case Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996)1 SCC 458, held as under : "In the instant case the appellant had received as many as nine injuries out of which first two injuries were on a very vital part, namely, on his head and one of them was an incised wound which was caused by a sharp- edged weapon. Under these circumstances if the appellant fired one shot from his gun in his self-defence it could not be said that he had exceeded the right of private defence as the nature of assault by the complainant party which left him with the aforesaid injuries certainly could be said to have caused a reasonable apprehension in his mind that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence of such an assault." 25. Raj Kaur DW2, the real victim in this case, has given the complete depiction of the facts which find corroboration with the statement of Gurnam Singh and the investigating agency. It has categorically been stated by appellant Kanso during her cross-examination that Fateh Singh again came to the house at about 4.00 P.M. and tried to take her away by force by holding her hand, her grand-father who was in the house picked up the kasi which was lying in the courtyard and he gave its blows with sharp as well as reverse side. We cannot precisely say regarding state of mind of Gurnam Singh when the person as well as the honour of his grand-daughter, and in a way the whole family, was being stigmatised. Gurnam Singh as per record has been stated to be 72 years of age, whereas the age of the deceased as per report of the post-mortem was 25 years. Gurnam Singh was left with no option except to give kasi blow to deceased Fateh Singh in order to save her grand-daughter who had come with an intention to kidnap her and may have further subjected to physically assault. The act on the part of Gurnam Singh to save the honour of the family and particularly her grand-daughter from the clutches of a Proclaimed Offender and a criminal booked under TADA Act as was clear from the evidence of DW3 was justifiable. 26. The act on the part of Gurnam Singh to save the honour of the family and particularly her grand-daughter from the clutches of a Proclaimed Offender and a criminal booked under TADA Act as was clear from the evidence of DW3 was justifiable. 26. In the circumstances, we are of the view that Gurnam Singh did not accede the right of private defence and is covered under clause thirdly and fifthly of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, the only fact the accused is under obligation to prove was that he (Gurnam Singh) acted in self-defence stands proved on the basis of the record. 27. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned trial Court dated 13.1.1994 is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.