ONKARNATH SINGH & Ors. v. THE STATE OF U.P

Dr. Singh examined Parasnath appellant, also and fonnd two injuries. One was a scabbed abrasion on the lcilver and outer part of left forearm just above the left wrist-joint, and the other was a swelling over the dorsem of the left hand-. X-Ray examination revealed a fracture of the head of the first metacarpal bone cf the left hand under injury 2. F At the trial, Onkarnath and Cbhabinath admitted an incident but denied that it had taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Chhabinath stated : · "At about 6 p.m. (I) was inside my house. Then I heard the alarm of my Baba, Deo Narain Singh, which seemed to emanate from the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh Thereupon I ran tc~ the Darwa~a of H~numan Prasad Singh: a~d saw Deep Naram and Jagd1sh Naram beating Dea Narain Smgli. I remonstrated with them. Thereupon they started beating me. On be.ing beate!1 I fell down unconscious on the. sp::>t. On regammg consciousness I found myself in the Umvers1ty Hospital, where I was arrested." Onkarnath admitted that he had on the da f about 11. a.m. slapped Giria Singh, but added ih o hccurrence at this. slappmg was that Girja- Sineh had taunted h. at t ~· nfa.:on for qualify m the examination. He denied that h h d1m is . allure to 1 e a s apped S1dh Nath. He further stated : • H 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] l S.C.R. "On the same day at about 6 p.m. while I was going tq the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad, Jagdish Narain and Deep Narain came from the western direction having Gandasa and Lathi, respectively, and challenged me ...... saying that they were giving me a taste for having beaten Girja Shankar. Thereupon 1 raised alarm and wielded lathi in self-defence. In the meantime accused Parasnath Singh arrived there and started snatching the Gandasa of Jagdish Narain Singh. Ac cnsed Chhabinath also arrived at the scene of the incident with spear. Accused Parasnath snatched the Gandasa from Jagdish Narain Singh, Deep Nore.in 1nd Jagdish Narain started attacking accused Chhabinath Singh who wielded his spear in self-defence. Accused Parasnath Singh wielded the snatched Gandasa in self-defence ........ Accused Parasnath Singh left the gandasa on the spot. Parasnath Singh Chhabinath Singh and I received the injuries in the marpit . ... We got medically examined." The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecut10n witnesses had not come out with a correct version as to how the mamit started, and that they had failed tc give a reasonable explanation for the injuries found on the accused person. He therefore accorded the benefit of doubt tel the accused and aoquitted them. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the five appellants herein under s. 302 read withs. 149, Penal Code in respect of the murder cif Deep Narain and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The appellants were further convicted under s. 307 read with s.149, Penal Code for the attempted murder of Jagdish N airain Singh and sentenced to seven years' rigorous impri sclru:nent, each. They were convicted under s. 148, Penal Code, also. It was directed that the sentences would run concurrently. The acquittal of Amar Nath singh, was, however, maintained. Hence this appeal by the convicts under s.2(a) of the Snpreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970. Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Onkarnath Chhabinath appellants, contends that the High Cc~nt had erred reversing the well considered judgment of the trial oourt. It is stressed· that the prosecution had not given any .,xplanation whatever of the in juries found on Onkarnath, Chhabinath and Parasnath appellants and that the le'lrned Judges o~ the High Ccr.rrt had invented an explanation for those injuries which was nobody's case. It is urged that Deep Narain and Jagdish Narain were the aggressors as they had come with the avowed object of avenging the beating of their cousin, Girja Singh. It is submitted that though the appelhmts in fneir examination under s. 342. Cr.P.C. had not come forward with a full and correct version yet it was manifest that the injuries to the deceased and his brother Jagdish Narain were cansed in self-defence. Jn any case, maintains the Counsel, the circumstances on record establish such a degree of probability in favclur of this plea of private de~ence that the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful, and in the ultimate analysis, it must be held that the prosecu tion had failed to bring home the cirnrges to the appellan.s bevond doubt. It is further argued that, in fact, there was only one. QJ:.curreni:e A R c E F G H' • • .. • O"IKARNATH v. li.P. STATE (5arkaria, /.) 85 A c 0 F G near the Darwaza of Ram Kishore Singh, in the course of which, !both sides received injuries, because the distance between the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh and the Darwaza of Ram Kishore Singh was hardly 70-80 paces (about 365-420 ft) and there was no appre ciable interval of time between the alleged grappling and the main occurrence. It is also pointed out that in his statement recorded as "dying declaration" (Ka-7) dated May 18, 1965. Jagdish Narain P.W.1 had not specifically named Gya S'ingh and Basdeo Singh as two of the assailants; and in the FJ.R. Adit Narain Singh (P.W.) did not mention the presence of Parasnath aod Amarnath at the scene at all. It is urged that these omissions show that subsequent additions to the number of assailants had been made by the prosecution. Mr. R. K. Garg, appearing on behalf of Basdeo, Parasnath and Gaya Singh appellants, contends that once it is found that these injuries were caused by the complainant party in the same occurrence or transaction, the prosecution must fail unless it proves, as a inatter of law, that those injuries were caused by the complainant party to the accused party in the exercise of their right of private defence. Reference in this connection has been made to certain observations, made by one of us (Beg J.) in Rishikesh Singh and ors. v. The State(!). In reply, Mr. Uniyal argues that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge was manifestly erroneous and the High Court was right in revers ing the same. Leai:ned Ccjunsel has referred to the evidence of the medical officers who had examined the injuries of Chhabinath, Onkar nath and Amar Nath, and pointed out that those injuries excepting one injury on Parasnath were all superficial and could be easily fabricated; that in any event. the injuries found on Chhabinath and Onkarnath were such that could have been received by them in the course c.f the scuflle with J agdish Narain and Deep Narain. According to the Counsel, the twin circumstances, namely, that Deep Narain and Jagdish Narain were unarmed and that the incident of grappling and the main occurrence were separated by time and distance clearly showed that no right of private defence had ever accrued to any of the appellants, who delibe rately attacked the deceased and his ccimpanion to avenge their humilia. !ion in the grappling. Attention has been invited to Onkarnath's exami· nation under s. 342, Cr.P.C. wherein an incident in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad was admitted. The entire prosecution case, it is submitted, could not be thrown out simply on the ground that the prosecution witnesses did not explain the doubtful and superficial injuries of the appellants, particularly when a plausible explanation is implicit in the veiry story of grappling propounded by the prose cution. In this oonnection, reference has been made to Bankey Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P.( 2 ) Munney Khan v. State of M.P.('l and l(ishan v. State of M.P.(') At the outset. we may note that the case against Parasnath Basdeo Singh and Amarnath accnsed was clearly distinguishable (I) A.LR. 1970 All 5l(F.B.) (3) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 943. (4) A.1.R. 1974 S.C. 244. (2) A.LR. 1971 S.C. 2233. 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (J 975] ] S.C.R. from that of Onkarnath and Chhabinath appellants. In the F.l.R. which was lodged by Adit Narain Singh, an eye-witness, Parasnath Singh and Amar Nath Singh accnsed were not named at all. In the so-called 'dying declaration' Ex.Ka· 7, which was recorded on May 18, 1965, in the Hospital, Jagdish Narain Singh (P.W.) did not specifically name Basdeo Singh and Gaya Singh among the assail ants. Of course he stated there that in addition to the four accus-od name therein, "his uncle etc." were also there. It was argued by Mr. Uniyal that the expression "uncle etc'\ was meant to cover Gaya Singh and Basdeo Singh and that Jagdish Narain -could not speci· fically name all the assailants, nor give other material details of the occurrenc·e because he was in intense pain at that time. Undoubtedly, there is some force in this argument. But in Ka-7 Jagdish Narain clearly stated that "uncle etc." were not beating but were only shouting. The fact mmains that in his earliest statement Jagdish Narain PW did not ascribe any part in the actual assault to Parasnath and Amarnath. Amarnath's acquittal was maintained by the High Court, because his palrticipation "appears to be dcjubtful though he was also p,resent at the time of the incident". The reasoning was : "He is not named in the First Information Report. He is said to have It was only in the 'dying-declaration' that been empty-handed. was said that he was also with Chhabinath Singh. Furthermore, has come in the prosecution evidence that he and Parasnath Singh moved aside after Basdeo Singh and Gaya Singh had given lathl blc1Ws". But the benefit of the same doubt was nm given to Paras nath Singh because it was thought that his participation "has been proved by the defence evidence and also by the fact that he had received the iIJJjturies". With respect, this reasoning and the dis tinction drawn on its basis appears to us. to be entirely unsustainable. The prosecntion had to stand on its own legs; it oould not take advantage of the weakness of the defence. The on Parasnath were mere compatible with the conclnsion that he was a victim rather than a participant in the assault. injuries Nor oould Basdeo Singh and Gaya Singh be denied the same benefit -of doubt which was accorded to Amar Nath Singh. They were not named even as associates of the assailants by J agdish Narain In the F.l.R. Ex. Ka-29, Adit Narain did not say in Ex. Ka-7. that these two aJ)pellants had cansed anyl injury tb Deep Narain and Jagdish Narain All that was said was that they exhelrted Onkar nath and Chhabinath to assault the deceased and his brother J agdish. At the trial, however, Adit Narain improved upon the F.I.R. and said that these two appellants had also dealt lathi blows to the vic tims. This improvement had to be ignored. A B c D E F G • Thus, the case against Parasnath Singh, Basdeo Singh and Gaya H Singh, mere or less stood on the same footing as that of Amar Nath. We would, thwefore, give the benefit of doubt to these three appellants also and acquit them. ONKARNATH v. U.P. STATE (Sarkaria, /.) 87 I , •

#4. Now remains tbo ca;e of Onkarnath and Chhabinath. The lirst question to be considered is : Were the injuries . these appellants received by them in the course or tne same rransacuon 111 which Deep Narain and Jagdish Narain were injured? found on (vide, It is further in evidence it is common ground that at about 11• A.M.. on the day of occurrence Onkarnath had slapped and manhandled Gi,rja Singh, c10usin of the deceased. Jagdish Narain P. W. 1) that as soon as Deep Narain returned home at about 4-30 p.m. Girja Singh complained to him about his unmeri ted beating at the hands of Onkarnath. Deep Narain then told Girja Singh that he would correct Onkarnath, the actual wards used by him were "samjha doonga". These words were evidently spoken in ironic and sardonic tone. The object was to assure the complain ina boy that Onkarnath would be suitably censured and moderately It is significant that soon after hear ch';istised for his misbehaviour. ing this complaint, the two brothers, Deep Narain Jagdish Narain set out, and at about 5-45 p.m. met Chhabinath. and <mkar nath appellants in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh. According to Jagdish Narain PW, they were returning from cotton field when they per chance met the appellants. But it may not be safe to accept his ipse dixlt on this puint as no independent evidence w hi oh was available-was produced to show that they had any cotton crop in their field at that time . There was no past enmity between the pairties and the slapping incident in which only the teenagers were involved, was not such a impelled, the deceased and his serious matter that would have brcither to beat Onkarnath with weapons. All that they intended . was to rebuke and slap Onkarnath so that he realised his mistake and promised to behave in future. But to their surprise they found Onkarnath in a defiant mood. Being in the company of his elder brother, Chhabinath, he not only refused to apologise for the beating of Girja, but proclaimed that he would beat him again. This ex change of hot words developed into a violent-scuffle. Deep Narain and J agdish Narain became interlocked with Onkarnath and Chhabi In that grappling, the deceased and his bmther nath respectively. severely dealt with their adversaries. who were admittedly stronger, They knocked down and pinned the appellants to the ground. Evi dently, in the hostile grappling, more violent than 'all-in-wrestling' the appellants being the weaker party, were worsted and probably 'sub jected to a grinding operation against the grclund. • B t c • D E F G Dr. Udai Singh (PW 3) explained that all the ~imple lllJUftei\ found on Onkarnath could have been Cdnsed by friction against some haird substance on May 18, 1965 at 6 p.m. He did oot rule out. the possibility of injuries 1, 4 and 5 having been caused, with a lath1. He was positive that injuries 2 and 3 ccjuld not be caused H · with a lathi. Cross-examined by the Stat~ Counsel, Dr. Udai Singh opined that the injuries of Onkarnath could be caused by his fall on ground having kankars and brick.bats. He significantly added that his injuries could also be 'made up' i.e. fabricated. 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 1 S.C.R. four simple Dr. K. P. Singh, DW 1, was the Medical Officer of Benaras Hindu University wherein Chhabinath was employed. He examined Chha binath on May 18, 1965 at 9 p.m. and region. injuries on him. Injury 1, was located on the frontoparietal It was a lacerated injury with irregular margins. Its size as noted In the Bed-Head ticket, how in the medico-legal report was 3Xt". 4"xt"><!". ever, the dimensions of this Dr. K. P. Singh was unable to explain this discrepancy, because the Bed-Head ticket was in the hand of Dr. Mehta. All the injuries were however, simple and excepting No. 2 could be caused with a . blunt weapon. Regarding injury, 2, he stated that it had no depth and could be caused by a nail prick. He signiiicantly opined that this injury' could also be "made up". It is to be noted that thi~ Dcl~tor who examined the injuries at 9 p. m. found them "fresh". That is to say, he found them fresh even three hours after the occur· rence. injury was noted as: If the grappling incident was true, and we have no doubt that it was so, then looking at the location and nature of the injmies and the violent manner in which the appellants must have been thrcrwn down, floored and thrashed against the ground, it appears to be pro bable that these injuries, mostly superficial were received by Onkar nath and Chhabinath in the course of that grappling or scuflle. ' The evidence qf ;this grappling ~ncident near the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh, was given by Jagdish Narain (P. W. 1) and Ram Asrey (Primus) (P. W. 7). The fatter Wai an indepen· dent witness. He had no axe to grind against the appellants. He emerged unshaken from a gruelling cross-examination. The reason given by Ram Asrey for his presence at the spot was that he was the. returning after giving a message to Vijay Baltadur Singh at latter's house that he shquld carry the meals of his brother to University Hospital. Even the learned trial judge held : "There is nothing improbable in his evidence on the point and I believe 1t". reliable. Even according The High Court also found his evidence to the defence version given by these appellants and D.W. 4, trouble started with an incident in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh. therefore, we In agreement with the High Cciurt, have no hesitation in accepting the prosecution story with regard to the grappling incident near the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh. Evidence with regard to the main occurrence which took place some minutes after the grappling was given by P.Ws. Jagdish Narain, Ram Asrev Primus, Vijav Bahadur Singh and Hari Ram Pandey. The sum and substance of their testimony was that Deep Narain anti · Jagdish Narain while going back to their houses were surrounded by all the appellants and Amar Nath near the Darwaza of Ram kishore Singh, and there· Onkarnath and Chhabinath belabomed respectively, which they had them with a spear and a gandasa, brought from their nearbv house after the scuflle. P .Ws. Vi jay Bahadur Singh and Hari Ram Pandey stated that they were on their way to their houses, when they saw the occurrence. Their evidence was assailed before the trial Judge on the ground that the scene of the • • A B c D E F G H ONKARNATH v. U.P. STATE lSarkaria, 1.) 89 A crime does not lie on the direct route to their houses. The learned trial Judge repelled this contention in these terms : ;' ' • B c D E F G H • ...... __ .,.. "I made local inspection at the request of the defence vide my inspection note on the record. On local inspec tion I find that the route which passes by the Darwaza of Ram Kishore Singh was more convenient to Vijay Bahadur Singh and Hari Ram Pandey to reach their respective houses than the routes suggested by the defence." On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. Jagdish Narain, Vijay Bahadur Singh, Ram Asrey (Primus) and Hari Ram Pandey, the trial Judge found that "all the six accused were participants in the marpit which took place at the Darwaza of Ramkishore Singh." He however rejected the consistent and otherwise impeccable evidence of these eye-witnesses mainly on the ground that they had failed to give an explanaticln of the injuries of Onkarnath, Chhabinath and Parasnath appellants. We have already expressed that the explanation for the injuries of Chhabinath and Onkarnath was apparent from the circumstance that they were manhandled, floored and violently dealt, with by the physically stronger Deep Narain and Jagdish Narain in the grappling. It is only with regard to the grievous injury of Parasnath that it can be said that there is no explicit or implicit explanation from the side of the prosecution. The question is, what is the effect of this non-explanation of the injuries of Parasnath ? This is a question of fact and not one of law . Answer tc1 such a question depends upon the circumstances of each case. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the entire prose cution case cannot be thrown overboard simply because the prosecu tion witnesses do llOt explain the injuries cin accused (see Bankey Lal v. State of U.P.) (supra) and Bhagwan Tana Patil v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal 78 of 1970 decid ed on 9-10-73. the person of care. Each Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court will scrutinise their · evidence with pres<;nts its own features. In some cases, the failure of the prose cution to account for the injuries of the accused may undermine its evidence to the core and falsify the substratum of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution It may also, in a given case, strengthen the plea of private case. defence set up by the accused. But it cannot be laid down as an invariable proposition of law of universal application that as soon· the same as it is found that the accused had received transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima fade established burden would shift on to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self-defence by the complainant party. For instance where two parties come armed with a determination to injuries in 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] l S.C.R. (measure their strength and to settle a dispute by force of arms and in the ensuing fight both sides receive injuries, no question of private defence arises. A It If circumstances which se•em to evidence as a whole must be considered, whether The observations of one of us (Beg J.) in Rishikesh Singh's case (supra) on which Mr. Garg relies should not be torn out of the context to deduce a cast-iron rule of law out of a matter which essentially one of fact. A reading of the whole opinion of Beg J. in Rishi Kesh Singh's case will show that the real question under consideration in that case was whether the evidence present in a case which may support the existence of a right of private defence must be excluded altogether from consideration where the accused fails to establish his defence by a ''preponderence of probabilities", or, it must be taken into account to determine whether the prosecu tion has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was held there that comes from the side of the prosecution or the defence, to determine whether the inlfliction of injuries for which an accused is prosecuted were either proved by a "balance of probabilities" to have been inflicted in the course of exercise of a right of private defence, or, even if the accused fails to do that, it is sufficient to make prosecution case doubtful on an ingredient of the offence. only in one of these two possible situations that the accused could get an 'acquittal. support plea of private defence are satisfactorily explained .away by prosecution on the evidence in the case, so as to be consistent with the prosecution version, the case may still result in a conviction. In every case, !he question is rea!ly one of appraisal of total evidence and its effect. This was pointed out by Beg J. in Rishi Kesh Singh's case (supra in para 1.11, p. 85) where two cases Emperqr v. U. Damapala(') and Thein v. The Kin1:r(') were referred to as illustra tions of kinds of situations on facts in which the prosecution case would become doubtful on an the offence. The meaning of "reasonable doubt" and the manner in which the evi dence has to be sifted were also indicated (para 112, p. 85 paras 128 to 130, p. 89-90). It was also pointed out that mere removal of the obligatory presumption at the end of s. 105 of the Evidence Act, by showing that some circumstances did sur-port a plea of private defence, may not be enough to secure an ocquittal (para 161, pp. 97-98). The view taken there was that the obli_gatorv presumption at the end of s. 105 merely imposes a duty upon the accused of showing that certain circumstances exist It was held there that, despi!e the which remove this presumption. removal of this special presumption at the end of s. 105, Evidence Act, by showing that some circumstances of th~ kin~ mentioned there did exist in the case, the accused may fail to discharge burden of proving his plea of private defence by balance of nrobab! lities. Nevertheless, despite the failure of the accused to prove his plea of private defence, the effect of the totality of the evidence may ingredient of (1) A.I.R. 1937 Rang. 83 (F.B.) (2) A.l.R. 1941 Rang. 1975. • B c D E F G H • + • A c D E F G H ONKARNATH v. U.P. STATE (~arkaria, !.) 9-f be to throw an ingredient of the offence in the region of doubt. That ingredient, in a case in which private defence is set up so that the commission of the injurious act is admitted even indirectly, the required "mens rea". This was also pointed out there (paras In other words, the result or tlie effect 143 to 148 at p. 93-94). of the total evidence is to be jndged by taking the whole evidence into account. No single feature of the evidence will determine the fate of the case. Tn the instant case, the totality of the evidence on record neither establishes even with reasonable possibility a right of private defence in favour of the appellants nor throw a cloud of doubt on the prose>· cution ease. Parasnath Singh appellant had two injuries, one a scabbed abra sion oa the lower, outer part of the left forearm, and the other a swelling over the dorsem of left hand with a fracture underneath. According to Dr. Udai Singh, P. W. 3, these injuries could be caus ed with a blunt weapon, including a lathi. But in cross-examination by the State Counsel, the Doctor explained that an abrasiqn with a lathi blow is possible only when the surface of the lathi is rough and the blow is a light one and the lalhi slips away from the place of its contact. He added that when a lathi blow is delivered and there is a full impact thereon on the person hit, it will always result in a contused wound or confusion. He also stated that injurv No. 1 appeared to have been caused by friction against hard substance. The age of these in; iuries, in the Doctor's opinion, appeared to be the same as those found on Jagdish Narain (P.W.). Dr. Udai Singh's opinion could be relied upon to hold Parasnath appellant received these injuries near about the time of occurrence; but his ooinion was not definite and cogent enough base a finding that these injuries were caused to the appellant with a lathi or like weapon. The version of Onkarnath was that J agdish Narain and Deep Narain were armed with ga~dasa and lathi res pectively and Parasnath had snatched the gandasa and wielded it in self-defence. This version was manifestly incredible. There was no cut-wound on any of the appellants. The very story of grappling received by Chhabinath and and the nature of injuries Onkarnath were inconsistent with the defence suggestion that the· deceased and his companion v;ere armed with lethal weapons. In our opinion, the presence of injuries the person of Parasnath, which could have been caused at or about the time of occurrence, coupled with the failure of the prqi; ecution to explairr those injuries, was on the facts of this case far from sufficient establish even a reasonable possibility of the injuries to the deceased and his companion having been caused in repelling an attack on Parasnath. The key to the problem is in the question : Where and pre cisely when were these injuries caused to Parasnath ? Were they 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] l S.C.R. <:aused in the grappling that took place in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh, or, subsequently in occurrence near the Darwaza of Ram Kishore Singh ? course of Parasnath Singh curiously enough, in his examination under s. 342, Cr. P. C. did not allege how and where he had received these injuries, although Q. No. 25 with referen.ce to the medical evidence was put to him. - Q. No. 13 specifically related to the aS>ault on the deceased and Jagdish Narain by Chhabinath Onkarnath with a gandasa and spear, respectively, in front of the Darwaza of Ram Kishore. emphatically denied his presence at the scene of occurrence. Onkarnath's ver- sion was that Parasnath received the injuries in the marpit in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh. According to Dr. Udit Narain Singh (D.W. 4), these injuries on Parasnaih were inflicted by the deceased following a quarrel in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh. In reply, the appellant A B ' c t • As already discussed, the prosecution had established by cogent and convincing evidence that, in fact, two incidents took place, one was the grappling in front of the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh and the other was the occurrence in which fatal injuries were caused to the deceased near the Darwaza of Ram Kishore by the lants. The distance between the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh and Ram Kishore is about 70-80 paces i.e. 365 to 420 ft. There wus an interval of a few minutes between the grappling and the fatal assault. The two incidents were separated by time and dis tance. There was no continuity of action. Assuming that Parasnath received the injnries in or about that grappling incident, then he could not be said to have received them in the course of the same occurrence in which the deceased was fatally assaulted. After their disengagement, both the parties had 'Ptoceeded from the Darwaza of Hanuman Prasad Singh towards their respective houses. The houses of the appellants were in viCinity, while those of the complainant party were farther away. The complainant party had already retreated and gone away to a distance of about 365 to 420 ft. when Chhabinath and Onkarnath returned armed with deadly weapons from their nearby houses and then pursued, overtook, surrounded and made a murderous assault In such a situation a right of on the deceased and his brother. to them. The question of exceeding private defence never accrued that right simply did not arise. A right of private defence given by the Penal Code is essentially one of defence or self-protection an,d not a right of reprisal or It is subject to the restrictions indicated in s. 99, which punishment. are as important as the right itself. One of them is that the harm inflicted in self-defence must be no more than is legitimately neces- sary for the purpose of defence. Further, the right is co-terminus with the commencement and existence of a rea_sonable apprehension of danger to body from an attempt or a threat to commit the offence {see s. 102). It avails only against a danger, real, present D E F G H A • B .. c D E ONKARNATH v. U.P. STATll (Sarkaria, I.) 93 i=inent. Such a dang,r did not exist here. There was no reason· able apprehension of harm, much less of grievous hurt or death even. if at any anterior time there was any-to the appellants from the fleeing complainant party when the latter were attacked by the former. Evidently, this assault wit)l intrinsically dangerous weapons. was made by Chhabinath and Onkarnath appellants on the deceased and his brother by way of vendetta to gratify the feeling of revenge that had burst into a blaze within them. The assault on the de ceased and his brother was exceedingly vindictive and maliciously excessive. The force used was o.ut of ali proportion to the supposed danger, which no longer existed, from the complainant party. Under these circumstances, therefore, the 3[Jpellants were neither entitled. to a right of private defence, nor to the benefit of Exception 2 to s. 300, Penal Code, and the offence committed in respect of Deep· Narain was nothing short of murder . Ordinarily, this Court does not enter upon a detailed examina-· tion of the evidence. But in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we ha:ve analysed the evidence and reached conclusions on it to. show that neither the trial court was justified in acquitting all the accused on the groun:d that this was a ca.se in which it was not reasonably possible to determine where the truth Jay, nor was the High Court right in accepting the prosecution version in toto without in attempting demur, explanations of the injuries of the accused. Courts of justice must endeavour to reach conclusions which are reasonably possible to· arrive at without stretching the imagination beyond the bounds of reason. indeed, by speculating excessively and, Tn the light of the above discussion, we would dismiss the appeal of Onkarnath Singh and Chhabinath Singh and uphold their con viction and sentence. But for reasons already stated, we accept the appeal of Parasnath Singh, Basdeo Singh and Gaya Singh· appellants and set aside their convictions and sentences. They may be set at liberty, if not otherwise required. P.H.P. Appeal partly allowed~