DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–These two appeals on behalf of Prafulla Kumar Singh and Basistha Narayan Singh arise out of judgment dated 18.07.1991 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.594 of 1990 by which the two appellants were held guilty of committing offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C, while the 3rd accused on trial, namely, Narendra Kumar Singh, was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. The two appellants were heard on sentence on 19th of July, 1991 and while appellant Basistha Narayan Singh was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- without there being any direction as to what shall happen in case of default in making the payment of fine, the other appellant Prafulla Kumar Singh was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life but was not directed to pay any amount of fine considering that he was a student. 2. The two appellants are before us through the present appeals to challenge the correctness of the findings and appropriateness of the order of sentence. 3. In the township of Bhagalpur, there is a broadcast station of Akashwani and it appears from the record that there was a residential colony catering to the residential needs of employees of the Akashwani. A type II quarter which has been described by the Investigating Officer, i.e., P.W.8, was in occupation of the acquitted accused Narendra Kumar Singh. It was alleged by the informant, P.W.6 A.S.I. Prabhu Chaudhary, that he was on patrolling duty and when he came from Adampur Chowk towards the Akashwani colony, he heard cries emanating from one of the quarters. He rushed to the colony to find that a crowd of about 500 persons had assembled there and people pointed out to P.W.6 that the quarter from which cries had emanated was in occupation of acquitted accused Narendra Kumar Singh (N.K. Singh). P.W.6 scaled the stairs. Some persons of the crowd followed him. P.W.6 found that three persons were attempting to push a dead body into a lavatory. Seeing the informant, the policeman, the three who were grappling with the dead body in the lavatory, gave their attempt up and tried to run away. But, the three were arrested who divulged their names as Basistha Narain Singh (appellant), Prafulla Kumar Singh (appellant) and Navin Kumar Singh (never put on trial). Seeing the informant, the policeman, the three who were grappling with the dead body in the lavatory, gave their attempt up and tried to run away. But, the three were arrested who divulged their names as Basistha Narain Singh (appellant), Prafulla Kumar Singh (appellant) and Navin Kumar Singh (never put on trial). The three gave their full address and also pointed out that the dead body was of one B. K. Singh who was a resident of Jagdishpur Police Station area and who had come into the quarter of Narendra Kumar Singh and had indulged into marpit with the accused persons and, as such, they had strangulated the deceased to death. The three accused, who were arrested, also divulged that accused Narendra Kumar Singh was on his duty in the Akashwani. 4. P.W.6, the informant, tooked at the dead body and found that indeed a muffler had been used as a ligature to strangulate B.K. Singh to death. 5. On the basis of the written report of P.W.6 (Exhibit 2), the F.I.R. of the case (Exhibit 4) was drawn up and investigation was taken up by P.W.8 S.I. Devashraya Singh, who held inquest upon the dead body which was witnessed, besides others, by P.W.9 Nishikant Mishra and despatched the same to the mortuary for facilitating autopsy. Dr. H.I. Ansari (P.W.10) held autopsy on the dead body of deceased B.K. Singh on 26.12.1989 at 1.30 P.M. and found the following ante-mortem injuries :– (i) Ligature mark around the neck, more prominent on its left side. The mark was not visible all around the circumference of the neck. (ii) Multiple small bruises in front of neck up to the clavicle of different shapes and sizes up to 1½ c.m. in length. Some of the marks were straight and some were curved. (iii) Two linear bruises near outer angle of left side of mouth parallel to each other 1¾”x ½” in size. (iv) Linear bruises on the right side of back in an area of 3½”x 1”. (v) Abrasion over both knees measuring 1¼”x ¾” and 1” x 1”. On dissection, P.W.10 found that the deeper tissues around the neck were infiltrated with blood and blood-clot and the scalp tissues were also infiltrated with blood which was found on the left side of brain too. On dissection of chest and abdomen, visceras were found congested and the stomach was found empty. On dissection, P.W.10 found that the deeper tissues around the neck were infiltrated with blood and blood-clot and the scalp tissues were also infiltrated with blood which was found on the left side of brain too. On dissection of chest and abdomen, visceras were found congested and the stomach was found empty. The subcutaneous tissues in the neck and muscular layer were also infiltrated with blood. In the opinion of P.W.10, injury no.(i) was caused by ligature while injury no.(ii) was likely by finger nails, while injury no.(iii) was possible by sufficient pressure on face, whereas injury no.(iv) had resulted on dragging of the body over a rough surface and injury no.(v) was by hard blunt substance. 6. Thus, what appears from the opinion of the doctor is that while the ligature was being applied so as to asphyxiating the deceased to death, he had struggled for life and the curved small bruises with linear bruises of different shapes and sizes found over the front of neck, had resulted out of that insinuative act resisting being strangulate. The opinion of the doctor further indicates that it was not merely a simple act of using a ligature to asphyxiate the deceased to death, rather he had been thrown on the ground in the process of which his head had also hit the surface of the pucca constructed house, as a result of which the extra-dural haematoma and concussion in the brain had also occurred. The doctor might have opined that death was on account of asphyxia and haemorrhage but the internal damage to the brain may be on account of the impact of the head against the pucca surface of the building, which in our opinion, could have also been the cause as regards the death of the deceased. 7. Thus, what appears from the medical opinion is that the deceased was firstly, forcibly put on ground so as to be immobilized and thereafter, a ligature was applied around his neck so as to asphyxiating him to death, during which course, he was attempting to pull out the ligature by his hands which had caused small multiple bruises in front of the neck, some of which were linear and some of which were curved, which could have been caused by the finger nails of the deceased himself. 8. 8. While we were perusing the papers so as to evaluating the findings of the learned trial Judge, what we came across was that there was faint suggestion in the trial court by the defence that it could be a mob violence, which could have caused the injuries to the deceased and his ultimate death. The learned trial Judge had devoted a huge space in his judgment to consider this suggestion of the defence which was based on the admitted fact that one of the three accused persons after being arrested was found bearing bleeding injuries in his head. The learned trial Judge had outrightly rejected the submission but what we find is that the suggestion and the defence plea was as fragile and flimsy as would be the defence as the man had not been murdered in the quarter which also appears suggested faintly, when the defence was arguing before the trial court that the dead body was not really found inside the quarter in occupation of Narendra Kumar Singh (N.K.Singh), rather the same was found lying in the common corridor of the two quarters. If we could accept this plea, then the ultimate result would be to reject the prosecution evidence in wholesale. Right from the very beginning, that’s, from the inception of the prosecution by filing the written report up to the last witness, i.e., P.W.7, the Home guard constable, who was one of the members of patrolling party, three accused persons were found grappling with the dead body in an attempt to push it inside the lavatory. The witnesses, like, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are consistent on this story that they had seen the three accused grappling with the dead body in order to pushing it inside the lavatory and before they had succeeded to push it in, the crowd mounted the stairs to arrest them. While perusing the post mortem examination report, what we found was that the deceased was not a lesser entity and he was aged somewhere 30-40 years, as appears from column no. 1 of the post mortem examination report, and we have already noted that he had definitely resisted the acts of the three accused persons, who were also equally young and energetic to get away from their clutches to his last breath while he was attempting by applying his hands to pull out the ligature. 1 of the post mortem examination report, and we have already noted that he had definitely resisted the acts of the three accused persons, who were also equally young and energetic to get away from their clutches to his last breath while he was attempting by applying his hands to pull out the ligature. His attempts could not have been less powerful and if in that attempt, he had thrown his legs around or had moved his hands around, no wonder that one of the three accused was getting his head struck, may be, against the adjacent wall of the house, so as to getting injured. We on this score rejected the defence suggestion that there could have been an apprehension in the mind of the accused persons of being killed and as such, they could be justified in exercising their private defence of persons and thus, killing the deceased. We note that the right might have been available to them as soon as the deceased had trespassed inside the quarter but as soon as they had overpowered him and had captured him that particular right came to an end and the further acts of assaulting him or asphyxiating him would not countenance as no offence, on account of the exercise of right of private defence of accused persons. Their right had extinguished no sooner they had overpowered the deceased and what was required was to hand the deceased over to law enforcement agencies and not to decide and impart justice themselves by killing him. It was murder simplicitor. 9. Then, the question is as to who had participated in killing the deceased. We have already noted that Navin Kumar Singh was arrested at the spot on the very day, and who could be enjoying the privilege of bail, was never brought to justice and the trial proceeded only against the two appellants, namely, Basistha Narain Singh and Prafulla Kumar Singh besides the acquitted accused Narendra Kumar Singh (N.K.Singh). P.W.1 has identified Basistha Narain Singh. P.W.2 did not identify any of the three accused on trial. P.W.3 identified the two appellants. P.W.4 again identified the two appellants. P.W.6, the informant, identified the three accused, who were arrested on the day of occurrence, which included the two appellants while P.W.7, the Home Guard Constable and one of the companions of P.W.6 identified only appellant Basistha Narain Singh. 10. P.W.3 identified the two appellants. P.W.4 again identified the two appellants. P.W.6, the informant, identified the three accused, who were arrested on the day of occurrence, which included the two appellants while P.W.7, the Home Guard Constable and one of the companions of P.W.6 identified only appellant Basistha Narain Singh. 10. Thus, what appears is that the two appellants had consistently participated in the occurrence. Their participation by circumstance is established in killing the deceased. As such, from evidence what we find is that it could not be a case in which the judgment of conviction could be said to be perverse. The evidence available on record justified the return of the verdict which was recorded by the learned trial Judge and in that view of the matter; we do not find any merit in the two appeals, which are dismissed. Two appellants are on bail. Let them surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence imposed upon them as their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. ?