JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Even today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Further, when we have started dictating the Judgment, Ms.Roopa Devi, learned counsel representing Mr.Prasad Ravanaboina, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that counsel had already given ‘no objection’ to the appellant. 2. It is an appeal of the year 2016. It is filed by the de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 29.04.2016 in S.C.No.279 of 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, acquitting the accused. During the pendency of the present appeal, accused No.1 died. 3. We have heard Mr.V.Surender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.2 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3 -State. 4. PW.4 - appellant/wife of Mr.Ayaz Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned Judgment dated 29.04.2016 in S.C.No.279 of 2011 passed by the learned trial Court. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. 5. According to the prosecution, accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1. On the request made by PW.3, elder brother of the deceased, both of them went to the deceased to tender apology. There some altercation took place. Accused No.1 shot the deceased with his licensed pistol (M.O.7). Due to which the deceased received serious injuries and died on the spot. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 17. PWs.1 and 2 - friends, PW.3 - brother, PW.4 - wife, PW.5 – nephew and PW.6 – sister-in-law, PW.7 – paternal nephew, of the deceased respectively. PWs.8 and 16 are Panch Witnesses for inquest panchanam, confessional statements of the accused and seizure of material objects. PW.9 is the tenant of the deceased. PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.11 – Doctor, who declared the deceased as dead and issued death summary. PW.12 – Scientific Officer, who collected material from scene of offence. PW.13 - Scientific expert, who issued FSL report. PW.14 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of PW.1. PW.15 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued Ex.P.9 FIR. PW.17 – Investigating Officer in the subject crime. PW.11 – Doctor, who declared the deceased as dead and issued death summary. PW.12 – Scientific Officer, who collected material from scene of offence. PW.13 - Scientific expert, who issued FSL report. PW.14 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of PW.1. PW.15 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued Ex.P.9 FIR. PW.17 – Investigating Officer in the subject crime. Prosecution has filed Exs.P.1 to P.14. Exs.D.1 to D.5 are marked during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. M.Os.1 to 13 were exhibited. 7. PW.3 is the elder brother and PW.4 is the wife of the deceased respectively. PW.3 in his deposition stated that accused are father-in-law and brother-in-law of PW.7. One Mr.Mazhar is an agent working for him and accused No.1. He took Rs.1.5 lakhs worth of tickets from him. When he requested him to pay the amount for the tickets, he refused. Both the accused were involved in this issue. He requested the deceased, as usual to intervene in the matter and settle the same. The deceased called accused No.2 on 29.07.2009, and the deceased informed him that accused No.2 abused him in filthy language. They informed the matter to PW.6, mother of PW7. She went to talk to the deceased. But as the deceased was hurt, he did not talk to her. Later, PWs.5 and 7 went an apologized to the deceased. But the deceased expressed that they do not need to apologize as they are not concerned with the issue and that their brother-in-law, accused No.2 is the person who has to apologize. PW.7 went to the accused and talked to them and asked them to apologize to the deceased. PW.7 informed him that he was taking the accused to the office of the deceased at SMD Mall, Road No.3, Banjara Hills. Subsequently, the deceased informed him that he would handle the issued and that his presence is not required. On 30.07.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. he received a call from PW.1, who is the friend of the deceased, informed him that both the accused came to the office of the deceased and that PWs.5, 6 an 7 were also present and that accused No.1 fired with a fire arm and escaped along with his son in a car and that he took PWs.5 and 6 and the deceased to Apollo Hospital, along with PW.2. He rushed to the Apollo Hospital and the deceased was under treatment. At 10.15 P.M. Doctors declared him as dead. Even then nothing useful was elicited from him during cross-examination. The deposition of PW.4 is also in same lines. 8. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide the impugned Judgment dated 29.04.2016, the learned trial Court acquitted both the accused. 9. It is apt to note that in paragraph No.27 of the impugned Judgment, learned trial Court specifically discussed about the motive and also the incident. Learned trial Court considered the evidence of PW.7, son-in-law of accused No.1 and brother- in-law of accused No.2. Learned trial Court also considered the fact that both the accused, deceased and the prosecution witnesses are close relatives. 10. In paragraph No.28 of the impugned Judgment, learned trial Court considered Ex.P.6 – post-mortem examination report and the evidence of PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and held that the injury is on the left arm of the deceased. The place where the injury is caused is not a vital part, hence, it cannot be assumed that the accused had an intention of causing that injury, which is likely to cause death. The travel of the bullet is so unexpected that no one can assume that it would cause the death of a person. Ex.P.6 – post-mortem examination report shows that the bullet traversed upwards towards left axilla in front of left humerus got defletted by hitting left shoulder joint then passed downwards subcutaneously from axilla to 5 th inter costal space of left side of the chest wall in the mid axillary line with contusion of chest wall, at the left 5 th inter costal space perforated chest wall via traversed through upper lobe of left lung, carina of trachea, middle lobe of the right lung perforated the right chest wall in 3 rd intercostals space and terminated in the muscles near right axialla. The travel of the bullet in those directions is most unexpected and it makes even a rational person also believe that few events are destined. 11. It is the specific contention of Mr.V.Surender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.2 that the deceased is having criminal history. He involved in two more cases and threatened the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO). The same is evident from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. 11. It is the specific contention of Mr.V.Surender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.2 that the deceased is having criminal history. He involved in two more cases and threatened the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO). The same is evident from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 892 , wherein it was held that: 7. Considering the principle governing the right of private defence, this Court, in Darshan Singh (supra) was pleased to hold as under: “54. In Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (1971)3 SCC 244 , the court observed that: "18. The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be inappropriate, as held by this court, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so natural in a court room, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man in ordinary times or under normal circumstances." xxxx 58. The following principles emerge on scrutiny of the following judgments: (i) Self-preservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognised by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilised countries. All free, democratic and civilised countries recognise 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 an 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. (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 co-terminus 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 Indian 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 5 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.” 12. Perusal of record would also reveal that the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 are licensed holders of pistol. They are close relatives. They went to the scene of offence on the request made by PW.3 to tender apology to the deceased. Further, PWs.5, 6 and 7, in their depositions specifically deposed that the deceased was very angry with PW.5, his mother, and others and he had misunderstood that PW.7 though was present when accused No.2 was abusing him over phone, did not intervene. They pacified the deceased, then he asked PW.7 to come to his office and they had some conversation at about 07.15 P.M. for about half an hour. The deceased wanted PW.7 to call accused Nos.1 and 2 to the office and make them apologize. Accused Nos.1 and 2 came after half an hour. They pacified the deceased, then he asked PW.7 to come to his office and they had some conversation at about 07.15 P.M. for about half an hour. The deceased wanted PW.7 to call accused Nos.1 and 2 to the office and make them apologize. Accused Nos.1 and 2 came after half an hour. They sat in the cabin of the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 were sitting outside the cabin, in the hall. The deceased became angry and he was shouting at accused Nos.1 and 2 and questioned accused No.2 as to why he abused on phone. They had heated arguments. During that, the deceased bent down, may be to pick up the slippers. Then, PW.5 saw accused No.1 pointing gun towards the deceased. He tried to protect him, by covering him. The deceased went behind him and was trying to run outside the cabin, he heard the sound of fire and outside the cabin the deceased collapsed. The sound was of gun fire. Accused Nos.1 and 2 went in the lift. The friends of the deceased who were waiting outside broke the glass door towards the stair case and ran away. During cross- examination nothing useful was elicited. On consideration of the said facts only, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 13. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned trial Court held that the act of the accused does not amount to culpable homicide. 14. We have perused the entire record. According to us, the impugned Judgment is reasoned and well founded and it does not deserve any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.