ORDER : The revision has been filed by the petitioner/A1 against the Judgment, dated 25.02.2008, made in C.A.No.34 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi, confirming the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, vide Judgment dated 05.02.2007, in C.C.No.290 of 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused herein and P.W.1 were in the business of rearing pigs. On 30.06.2005, at about 12.15 noon, P.W.1 along with his brothers P.W.2 and P.W.3 was grazing his pigs and they attempted to catch their pigs, whileso, the pigs belonging to the accused also ran away, which resulted in a wordy altercation whereafter, the petitioner herein along with A2 had abused P.W.1 in filthy language and had assaulted him with the aruval causing injuries on his left wrist. 3. When the accused appeared before court the prosecution materials were furnished to them U/S 207 Cr.P.C and after initial questioning charges were framed against the 1st Accused for offences u/s 294(b), 326, 506(2) I.P.C. and against the 2nd Accused for offences u/s 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and when questioned about the charges framed against them, they had denied the charges and therefore, the case was taken up for trial. 4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12, were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced. 5. 4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12, were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced. 5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced, vide Judgment dated 05.02.2007, found the accused 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C., and acquitted them from the said charges and found the petitioner/A1 alone guilty for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him as stated above and the period in which the petitioner/A1 was in jail, i.e., from 01.07.2005 to 18.07.2005, was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner/A1 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.34 of 2007, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi, and the learned Appellate Judge, after carefully perusing the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced and taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, by Judgment dated 25.02.2008, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/A1. 6. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 in the revision is that though the accused had pleaded the right of private defence for the property and person and though there had been categorical admission by the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination to substantiate the said defence of right of private defence, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court deliberately failed to take into consideration the evidence with regard to the same from deposition of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 with regard to the said aspect and thereby, wrongly convicted the petitioner/A1. 7. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the accused and the victim/P.W1 were in the same business of rearing and selling pigs and a quarrel ensued only at the time of when the accused and PW 1 were grazing their pigs, P.W.1 and his associates who were armed with sticks had attempted to chase and catch the pigs belonging to the accused and in the quarrel that ensued regarding the catching of pigs there was an altercation and the father of the petitioner/A1 had also suffered a bleeding head injury and thereby, it could be seen that the entire episode had happened only after the right of property and the right of person have been violated and that there is a categorical evidence from P.W.6 who is an independent witness with regard to the injuries suffered by the father of the petitioner/A1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution did not investigate the matter in a right perspective with regard to finding out who the real aggressors are and had filed the charge sheet only against the petitioner/A1 and A2, who is the brother of the petitioner (who was acquitted). The very basis for the prosecution case is that the dispute arose when PW1 and his associates have chased and attempted to catch the pigs belonging to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a categorical admission of P.W.1, in his cross-examination, that the quarrel and subsequent incidents started only because of the dispute with regard to the chasing away of pigs with an intention to catch them and that the persons who accompanied P.W.1 were armed with sticks and in such circumstances it was reasonable for the petitioner to apprehend danger to his property and life and that the petitioner has not exceeded his right of private defence in view of the single injury caused to the victim and nothing more and that it was natural for a person engaged in the trade of rearing pigs to have Aruval. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the relevant portion of the cross-examination of the witness for the prosecution. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the relevant portion of the cross-examination of the witness for the prosecution. P.W.1:- “xxx xxx xxx” P.W.2, who is own brother of P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed as follows:- “xxx xxx xxx” P.W.3 who is father of P.W1, in his evidence has deposed as follows:- “xxx xxx xxx” Further P.W6 who is an independent witnesses and who has also attested the mahazar had in his cross examination stated as follows “xxx xxx xxx” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that by culling out the above statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused quarrelled with P.W.1 and due to that quarrel, the father of the petitioner/A1 had sustained a head injury and suffered bleeding and that P.W.1 and his associates are the aggressor and that the petitioner had in order to protect his property and that life of his father had inflicted a injury and that P.W.1 has sustained injury in his wrist, which was not a vital part and that was only a single cut injury and that he has not exceeded the right of private defence. 10. Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State contented that the petitioner/A1 cannot claim right of private defence on the ground that there was no explanation with regard to the possession of the weapon/aruval at the time of the incident by the petitioner/A1 and that no explanation was forth coming to the said effect and that there is no evidence to invoke the right of private defence. It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the claim of private defence was not raised before the Trial Court and it cannot raised at the stage of revision before this Court. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to substantiate his argument relied upon an unreported judgment of the Apex Court, dated 03.05.2012, in Crl.A.No.356 of 2007, wherein, it is held as follows:- 12. Law Clearly spells out that the right of Private defence is available only when there is a reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. Section 99 IPC explains that the injury which is inflicted by a person exercising the right should commensurate with the injury with which he is threatened. Law Clearly spells out that the right of Private defence is available only when there is a reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. Section 99 IPC explains that the injury which is inflicted by a person exercising the right should commensurate with the injury with which he is threatened. True, that the accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt and it is enough for him to show as in a civil case that preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. Right to private defence cannot be used to do away with a wrong doer unless the person concerned has a reasonable cause to fear that otherwise death or grievous hurt might ensue in which case that person would have full measure of right of private defence. 13. It is for the accused claiming the right of private defence to place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution, if a plea of private defence is raised. (Munshi Ram and others V. Delhi Administration, AIR (1968) SC 802: State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, AIR (1975) SC 1478: State of U.P. v. Mohd. Musheer Khan, AIR (1977) SC 2226 and Mohinder Pal Jolly. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1979) SC 577 and Salim Zia v. State of U.P. AIR (1979) SC 391. 14. A Plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and Speculation. While considering whether the right of Private defence is available to an accused, it is no relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in its proper setting. 15. Section 97 deals with the subject matter of right of private defence. The plea of right comprises the body or property of the person exercising the right or of any other person, and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass and attempts at such offences in relation to the property. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts. The right given under Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99. To plea a right of Private defence extending to voluntary causing of death, the accused must show that there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the defence of right of private defence was not taken before the Trial Court, it was specifically argued at the stage of appeal and the counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1037, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to earlier judgments had summarized the foundation, principles and scope of right of private defence were summarized. He further submitted that as per principle (vii) laid down in the said decision, it is well settled that even if the accused does not plead right of private defence it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. 13. It is relevant to refer to the decision in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 1037 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, after analyzing various earlier judgments, has rendered a finding with regard the foundation, principles and scope of right of private defence. In para 58 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:- 58. The following principles emerge on scrutiny of the following judgments:- (i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits. (ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting and impending danger and not of self-creation. (iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits. (ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting and impending danger and not of self-creation. (iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised. (iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension. (v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude. (vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property. (vii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. (viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. (ix) The penal code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence. (x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 14. (x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self-defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 14. Referring to the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contented that the Trial Court has gone through the materials on record and given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C., whereas convicted the petitioner alone for offence u/s 326 I.P.C. and further submitted that as per the principles enumerated in the above cited decision, the accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt and that a person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that in the present case on hand, it has been clearly elicited by P.W.6, who is an independent witness, that the petitioner's father suffered a bleeding injury and that the dispute arose only due to the apprehension that the pigs of the petitioner/A1, were attempted to be taken by P.W.1 and his men. He further submitted that P.W.1 and his men are the aggressors that the learned counsel has also argued by pointing out that the injury suffered by P.W.1 was a single and a simple injury that has been caused on the wrist, which is not a vital part and thereby there was bleeding. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is unrealistic to expect a person to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude and that it is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self defence at the time of trial,it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Singhal Vs. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Singhal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 123 and submitted that the single injury inflicted on a non vital part would show that he had not exceeded the right of private defence wherein in Paragraph No.23 it has been held as follows:- 23. Having regard to the above we are of the view that the appellant reasonably apprehended a danger to his life when the deceased and his brothers started strangulating him after pushing him to the floor. As observed by this Court a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the appellant apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to exercise the right of self-defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be actual commission of offence, in order to exercise the right of private defence. 18. Now, while analyzing the case, what is to be seen is whether the petitioner/A1 is right in apprehending that such an offence is contemplated against him and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised by him. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 that P.W.1 has admitted that he and his men were armed with the sticks and that the dispute arose only when the pigs belonging to the petitioner/A1 were attempted to be taken away by P.W.1 and his men who were armed with sticks and further it is the categorical admission of P.W.6 that the father of the petitioner suffered a head injury and that P.W.6 had seen him at the police station with bleeding injury. 19. 19. This Court finds that the petitioner/A1 proved his case by preponderance of probabilities that the act committed by him ensued as a result of interference in the right of property and life of the petitioner/A1 necessitating him to put the right of self/private defence into operation and that he had not exceeded the right of private defence available to him. 20. In view of the above discussions, the act of the petitioner/A1 is fully covered by the right of private defence and thereby he is entitled to be acquitted. 21. In the result, the revision is allowed and the judgment, dated 25.02.2008, made in C.A.No.34 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, confirming the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., imposed on the petitioner/A1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, vide Judgment dated 05.02.2007, in C.C.No.290 of 2005 are set aside and the petitioner/A1 is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner/A1 is directed to be refunded to him and the bail bond executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.