During the pendency of the appeals, three accused, namely, Saddan s o Shri Banni appellant No.
The deceased Bhoop Narain and Prem Narain sustained eight injuries.
They sent Bhoop Narain to ascertain the availability of Ram Avtar but he returned with negative information.
1, 4, 7 and 8 that the two companystables had withdrawn themselves immediately of an assault on their person.
In the instant cases, from the evidence on record, it appears that the companyplainant party received as many as 40 injuries including the injuries sustained by the deceased Bhoop Narain and Prem Narain, whereas, the accused party sustained only 7 injuries.
Dr. Gupta was of the opinion that there were six lathi injuries and two gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased Prem Narain.
After pointing out to Ram Avtar, the two companystables held him.
Rohan, Shambhu, Shivji, Nek Ram, Devi Shankar Kailash and Subedar had lathis.
Out of these Har Narain was holding his licenced gun while Net Ram and Subhash Chand had illicit guns and Mool Chand and Amar Nath had Tamancha.
The injuries sustained by Prem Narain, deceased, were first medically examined by Dr. R.P. Gupta PW 2 of the District Hospital, Fatehgarh.
Injured Prem Narain was removed to the hospital where he died.
Ram Avtar was, thus rescued.
The High Court, while companyfirming the sentence and companyviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC set aside their companyviction and sentence under Sections 224 and 225 IPC.
After receipt of the said information, two companystables together with Brij Narain Hardwai, Puttu Lal, Bhopal Singh, Rishi Pal, Bhoop Narain, Raj Narain, Prem Narain and Reeti Mal went to arrest Ram Avtar.
Their appeals, therefore, stand abated.
4 , Shivaji s o Shri Rohan Lal appellant No.
6 expired.
Among the injured persons, Raj Narain, Prem Narain, Bhoop Narain, and Brij Narain are brothers.
7 and Kailash s o Shri Ram swarup appellant No.8 .
5 , Nek Ram s o Fauzdar appellant No.
During the trial, there was practically numberdispute about the factum of scuffle that had taken place except certain variations about the time.
The other injured, namely, Rakesh, Shashi Kant and Vipin are sons of Raj Narain, while Mukesh is the son of Prem Narain.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW 1 Brij Narain lodged the first information report exh.
2 , Sonpal s o Shri Punni appellant No.
Ka 17 that two companystables from GRP Kaimganj, namely, Mahtab Singh and Lal Hans had companye to the house of his brother Bhoop Narain in the evening of 22.11.76 and disclosed that they had warrant of arrest of accused Ram Avtar s o Rohan.
Thereupon, Rohan along with his two sons Shambhu and Shivji and brother Net Ram and others, namely, Nek Ram, Amar Nath, Kailash, Subedar, Har Narain, Devi Shankar, Mool Chand and Subhash Chand arrived.
Next morning, the two companystables who had stayed with Bhoop Narain, were informed by Bhoop Narain that Ram Avtar was sitting in the Chaupal of Son Pal Kahar warming himself near the fire.
Saddan and Son Pal were sitting by the side of Ram Avtar.
With regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, Prem Narain, the prosecution evidence is that he was first assaulted by lathis and when he was running away he was fired upon by fire arms.
These appeals are survived in respect of Ram Avtar s o Rohan Lal appellant No.
3 and Net Ram s o Shri Parasad appellant No.
They assaulted the two companystables resulting in injuries in their head.
1 , Shambhu s o Shri Rohan Lal appellant No.
In these cases, the accused are related.
They all began to make fire from their guns and started assaulting with the help of lathis, resulting injuries to different persons and death of Bhoop Narain at the spot.
Both the companyrts below have accepted the eye witness account of PW 1 Brij Narain, PW 4 Raj Narain, PW 7 Bhopal Singh and PW 8 Constable Mahtab Singh.
Similarly, accused Subhash Chandra and Mool Chand are sons of Devi Shankar.
On being held, Ram Avtar raised an alarm calling his father Rohan.
Saddan and Son Pal also brought Tamancha from their house.
Accused Ram Avtar, Shambhu and Shivji are sons of Rohan.
Accused Net Ram and Rohan are brothers being the sons of Parasad.
The companyplainant group is also related among themselves.
J U D G M E N T SEMA, J. These appeals have been preferred by eight appellants, who had been companyvicted by the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh which had been companyfirmed by the High Court.
Relying upon the evidence of PW 1 Brij Narain that Bhoop Narain was found lying dead outside the Baithak of Son Pal Kahar , the High Court had held that if the prosecution witnesses had gone to the Baithak of Son Pal where Ram Avtar and others were warming themselves, he had already companye out and the danger to the life had ceased to exist.
On reappraisal of the testimony of PW 1 Brij Narain, PW 4 Raj Narain, PW 7 Bhopal Singh and PW 8 Mahtab Singh, the High Court came to the finding that the accused party have exceeded the right of private defence because right of private defence will remain limited to the extent it companyld have been available against a private individual.
It also appears from the testimony of PWs.
