JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 4.2.1984 of Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar by which accused Sahi Ram was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. The facts according to the prosecution are that on 11.5.1982 witness Raghuveer Singh (PW-7) has submitted a First Information Report (F.I.R. for short) in Police Station Behror, District Alwar that his brother Amar Singh was going to his agricultural land in mid of day. Accused Sahi Ram was sitting with a 'kulhari' in his hand, he gave fatal injury on the head of Amar Singh with 'kulhari' and Amar Singh fell on the ground. Prabhati Lal and deceased wife, Kamla also witnessed the whole incident. After giving fatal blow accused ran away from the spot. On this report F.I.R. No. 66/1982 was registered and after investigation charge-sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. was filed and committed to the Sessions Court. During trial prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No defence witnesses were produced. After consideration of material on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused and hence this appeal. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent and perused the relevant case file. 4. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the finding of learned trial Court is perverse to the extent that fatal injury caused by accused was in self defence. FIe further submitted that while deceased was running from the scene of occurrence this injury was inflicted on his head by accused which was not at all needed in his defence. He further submitted that superficial injuries were also inflicted on the body of accused but he gave fatal blow to the deceased and it cannot be said to be done in exercise of his right of private defence. 5. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances and material on record the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion based on cogent reasons which suffers from no infirmity and should not be interfered. 6. Prosecution has come with a case that PW-2 Kamla and PW-3 Prabhati are eye-witnesses. Trial Court very categorically recorded the conclusion that these two witnesses are artificial witnesses as they were never on the scene of occurrence. 6. Prosecution has come with a case that PW-2 Kamla and PW-3 Prabhati are eye-witnesses. Trial Court very categorically recorded the conclusion that these two witnesses are artificial witnesses as they were never on the scene of occurrence. After meticulous scanning of the deposition of these two witnesses learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that these two witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence. 7. Trial Court relied on the statements of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and came to the conclusion that it was deceased who hit the accused with 'Hari' after which when accused was trying to run away from the scene of occurrence, a child having 'tachia' in his hand came before him thus to save his life accused snatched that 'tachia' from child and gave blow to deceased only to save his own life. Thus finding is well founded. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that deceased was running from the scene and then only this fatal blow was given to him by accused and it was not at all needed for self defence of accused. However, PW-5 Ram Singh has categorically stated that when accused was running from the scene of occurrence, he gave blow as stated in preceding paragraph. Hence this argument of prosecution has no force. 9. In the light of these facts learned trial Court has come to a definite conclusion that accused gave fatal blow to the deceased Amar Singh only in exercise of his right of private defence. 10. Learned counsel for the accused also submitted that prosecution did not bring on record the true facts of the case. The prosecution did not come with a case that first of all deceased has inflicted the injury with 'kulhari'. This genesis of crime has been changed by the prosecution. There is no mention in. F.I.R. that deceased ever gave any beating or injury with 'Aari ki chhad' to accused. There is force in the submission of the counsel for the accused -respondent. It is clear from the record that prosecution has improved and concocted the story. 11. It is not disputed that accused also had suffered injury which have not been explained by the prosecution per contra prosecution had tried to suppress the very fact that deceased ever hit the accused by 'Aari ki chhad'. 12. It is clear from the record that prosecution has improved and concocted the story. 11. It is not disputed that accused also had suffered injury which have not been explained by the prosecution per contra prosecution had tried to suppress the very fact that deceased ever hit the accused by 'Aari ki chhad'. 12. Looking from every angle prosecution has utterly failed to prove that accused with the intention of causing death has inflicted any injury on deceased Amar Singh. On the contrary it was deceased who inflicted injuries to accused and in order to run away from the scene of occurrence he took 'Tachia' from child inflicted injury on the deceased in his self defence. 13. On the basis of above stated reasons and discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Court below, hence this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed as being devoid of merit.Appeal dismissed. *******