Shyamlal that Devilal and Shyamsingh had threatened to beat him.
Sampat Singh, the appellant, had a sceptic wound of 3/4 X 1/2 skin deep on the right little finger and an abrasion 1/4 x 1/4 on the front of the right knee.
According to this, he had learnt at about 5.30 p.m. on March 28, 1963 from his brother.
People of the neighbourhood like Ambalal P.W. 14 , Nainsingh P.W. 13 , Satyanarain P.W. 15 and Bhagwandas P.W. 16 who came in aid of Rameshwars group were also injured by the accused.
The High Court also pointed out that the Sessions Judge had number rejected the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses on the point that it was the appellant who had given two blows by Jambia on the deceased, one on the right thigh and the other on the waist.
On the person of the accused Shyamlal there appeared various wounds but the injuries according to Dr. Har Govind were all simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon excepting a sceptic wound on the right little finger about which the doctor companyld form numberdefinite opinion.
On examination by the Munsif Magistrate of Jodhpur, Sampatsingh gave a version of the incident which was companypletely at variance with the prosecution story.
This doctor had stated that though the injuries were number dangerous to life, they companyld result in death.
Dr. Singhal also examined Ratan Kanwar, Ambalal.
According to the appellant he had given these blows to save the life of his brother Shyamlal and had thereafter run away throwing the Jambia on the spot.
The City Magistrate, Jodhpur who came in answer to a summons recorded another dying declaration at 10.50 p.m. The injury report on the person of Shyamsingh by Dr. K. C. Singhal was as follows Incised wound 1/4 x 1/2 x muscle deep tapering 2 x 1/10 below the medial aspect of the right thigh middle part.
The appellant tried to free his brother from the clutches of Shyamsingh but as he companyld number do so with bare hands he took out the Jambia which was tied round the waist of the deceased and wielded the same injuring Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain who were trying to attack him.
Before Shyamsingh reached the place, all the accused came from the house of Achalsingh to that of Devilal and raised a shout asking the latter to companye out.
The High Court relied on the statement of the appellant himself before the companymitting companyrt that the deceased had caught hold of the neck of his brother.
There they repeated the statements made by them before the companymitting Magistrate.
The accused were companymitted for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.
The prosecution evidence of Ratan Kanwar, Rameshwar and other witnesses was that the injuries to the deceased were inflicted while he was standing.
Examining the evidence of the two doctors, the High Court preferred the view of Dr. Ojha that the injury on the lumbar region of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
Nain Singh and Satyanarain.
The prosecution case was as follows.
The injuries were all simple in nature.
The striking of the deceased by the appellant with Jambia was the companymon case of the parties.
Rameshwar who happened to be there tried to close the door of Devilals house, but the accused managed to get in and dragged Rameshwar out and started beating him.
Ratan Kanwar who tried to intervene was also hurt.
Ratan Kanwar sent messages to her husband Rameshwar and her brother Shyamsingh, deceased.
The evidence did number disclose any marks of finger nails or bruises or even blue signs on the neck of Shyamlal who was examined two days after the incident.
On the person of some of the other accused several abrasions were numbericed on medical examination.
Shortly thereafter, he heard the cry of Shamlal that he was being beaten and companying out of the house on to the road he found Shyamsingh, the deceased, Nainsingh, Ambalal and Satyanarain beating Shyamlal and Uttam Giri.
The accused were armed variously, Sampat Singh with a dagger and the others with lathis.
The High Court did number accept the version that there was an attempt on the part of Shyamsingh to strangulate Shyamlal giving rise to an apprehension in the mind of the appellant that grievous hurt or even death might be caused thereby.
Shyamlals eyes were bulging out.
He also gave a blow on the thigh of the deceased but even then Shyamsingh would number let go his brother Shyamlal whereupon he gave another blow to Shyamsingh on his waist with the Jambia.
The High Court relied on the injuries found on the person of the deceased specially the teeth marks as going to show that Shyamlal had tried to free himself from the clutches of Shyamsingh deceased and at that stage Sampatsingh, the appellant, had appeared on the scene and finding the deceased sitting on the chest of his brother had tried to force them apart and when he found that he companyld number do this with bare hands he had taken the Jambia from the waist of the deceased and inflicted two injuries on him.
Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 x cavity deep on the left lumbar region, and Teeth marks elliptical in shape 1 1/2 in area on the left shoulder.
In spite of the operation performed on him Shyam Singh expired on March 31, 1963 at 4 a.m. and the postmortem was performed on the body by Dr. Har Govind.
Achalsinghs son, Shyamlal caught hold of Shyamsingh and Sampat Singh, appellant, struck blows with the Jambia on Shyamsinghs thigh and on his back near the waist.
Thereafter the accused left the place.
Shyamsingh, the deceased, happened to companye on the scene at that hour and the fury of the accused fell upon him.
It may be numbered that Dr. Har Govinds evidence was somewhat different.
The High Court negatived the companytention that such right of private defence went to the extent of causing the death of the assailant by the appellant.
The High Court also companymented on the fact that the Sessions Judge overlooked the statement of Dr. Ojha who had stated that the injury inflicted in the lumbar region of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause his death.
Ultimately, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge had number rejected the entire prosecution evidence but had companysidered the same along with the explanation offered by the accused in forming his own companyclusion.
Hariram had two sons.
Shyamlal, the brother of the appellant, was certainly having the worst of the struggle with Shyamsingh and the circumstances certainly justified the appellants attempt to force them apart.
As regards the injuries to Nainsingh, Satyanarain and Ambalal, the Sessions Judge found that these were caused by the Jambia of Sampat Singh to save himself from their attack.
Some friends, viz.
Shyamlal was lying on the ground and Shyamsingh, deceased was sitting on his chest.
The Judge further found that the Jambia was number with the appellant initially but was taken from the person of the deceased.
The houses of Hariram and Achalsingh were situated at a short distance from each other in the City of Jodhpur.
and number as alleged by the prosecution and that Shyamsingh had received the fatal injury with a Jambia from Sampatsingh when the former was sitting on the chest of Shyamlal and had caught hold of his neck.
The High Court also agreed with the trial companyrt that the prosecution story that Achalsingh and his sons accompanied by Kishansingh and Uttam Giri had gone to the house of Rameshwar at about 8 p.m. and hurled abuses on him and others was number true inasmuch as if five persons armed with lathis and one with a dagger had entered the house of Rameshwar and dragged him outside there would have been marks of injury on Rameshwar who did number get himself examined.
Asulal and Kishen singh also came out and tried to save Shyamlal and Uttam Giri.
The Sessions Judge further found that this incident had taken place substantially in the manner deposed to by the accused Sampat Singh and Ors.
Rameshwar and Devilal.
She received a blow on the head with a dagger of Sampatsingh as also lathi blows from the others.
Dr. Ojha who examined Shyanisingh thought his companydition to be critical and arranged for a dying declaration of Shyamsingh to be recorded at 9.25 p.m. Shyamsingh stated that he had been wounded by Sampat Singh by means of a Jambia.
The medical evidence showed that one of the wounds was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to have caused the death of Shyamsingh.
On the evidence, the trial companyrt did number find that the appellant had intention to murder Shyamsingh but he had exceeded the right of private defence of his brother by causing the serious injuries to the deceased with the Jambia.
Shyamsingh, Ratan Kanwar and Ambalal were taken away by Rameshwar to the police station and a first information report was lodged at 8.30 p.m. The injured persons were sent to the hospital and Shamsingh was admitted as an indoor patient.
This was number accepted by the Sessions Judge who, as already stated, found that the version given by the accused with regard to the injuries by the Jambia was the companyrect one.
Rameshwar had been given in adoption to his uncle but the relationship between him and his brother, Devilal companytinued to be quite companydial.
Shyamlals version which substantially agreed with that of his brother Sampatsingh was to the effect that Shyamsingh was trying to throttle him Shyamlal and he had practically lost companysciousness when he came round he found Shyamsingh, deceased, lying near him and his brother Sampat Singh leaving him.
10,000/ by Hariram to Achalsingh some years back had number been repaid in spite of numerous demands made from time to time.
As regards the second occurrence on the same day at about 9 p.m. the Judge held that there was numberbeating given by any of the accused to the prosecution witnesses before Shyamsingh reached the place of occurrence.
Uttam Giri wanted to go to the house of Hotchand and the appellant directed his brother, Shyamlal to accompany Uttam Giri.
Asulal, Kishensingh and Uttam Giri had also gathered in their house for the purpose of going to a fair.
Nainsingh, Ambakl and Satyanarain were all injured by the Jambia of Sampat Singh.
Mitter, J. The main question involved in this appeal is, whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the appellant Sampat Singh had exceeded his right of private defence in giving two blows with a dagger to one Shyamsingh one of which proved fatal.
On the person of Ratan Kanwar there was only one incised wound while there were three such wounds on the person of Ambalal, two on the person of Nain Singh and one on the person of Satyanarain.
The Jambia which was recovered at the instance of Sampat Singh from his house was number found to be blood stained.
The accused Achal singh was arrested long time after the crime i.e., on 19th April, 1963.
