Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant and the other two co-accused were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 1979 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. All the three accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court held that the accused had acted in exercise of their right of private defence but had exceeded the same and, therefore, their conviction under Section 302 was not proper. It, therefore, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside their conviction under Section 302 IPC and by convicting them under Section 304, Part I, IPC, and sentenced them to suffer 7 years’ R.I. Out of the three convicted accused, only the appellant has filed an appeal challenging his conviction under Section 304, Part I, IPC and also the order of sentence.

3. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, IPC, is not sustainable as there is no evidence to show that he had inflicted any blow on the deceased. He submitted that the evidence which was led by