JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 2, 1978, of the High Court of Delhi, maintaining the conviction of Mohd. Ramzani, appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of life imprisonment.

2. Appellants father, Mohd. Shafi, is the eldest of four brothers, others being Chhottey Khan, deceased, Mohd. Din and Abdul Rashid. Abdul Rashid and Mohd. Din were residing in the ground floor of house No. 2934 in Gali No.5, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, while the appellant, his father Mohd. Shafi, his mother an brothers and sisters were residing in the first floor of the same house No. 2934. Opposite house No. 2934, is House No. 2931 in which Chhottey - Khan deceased along with his wifes brother, Fakira and Abdul Rashid used to reside. Abdul Rashid was unmarried.

3. On April 8, 1974, Chhottey Khan deceased and Abdul Rashid gave a beating and caused injuries to Fatima, mother of the appellant and his sisters, Amina and Ashia. At the time no menfolk were present at home.

4. The occurrence in question took place on April 16, 1974 in the forenoon at about 11.00 a.m. It was preceded by a sharp quarrel between Abdul Rashid and Mohd. Din in the bazar. Chhottey Khan deceased accompanied by Abdul Rashid and his wife went to Mohd. Dins house and assaulted Sarmadi, wife of Mohd. Din and father caused a knife injury on her six-months old child. Thereafter, at a short distance from the house, Chhottey Khan deceased armed with an iron bar and Abdul Rashid, carrying a knife scuffled with the appellants father Mohd. Shafi, and caused him injuries. The appellant came to his fathers rescue and a scuffle ensued between Chhottey Khan deceased and the appellant, in the course of which both received injuries. After stabbing the deceased with a knife the appellant bolted away. Chhottey Khan was removed from the spot to Irwin Hospital. Mohd. Rashid went to the Sadar Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. about this occurrence at 2.40 p.m. Another information is stated to have been recorded at 3.45 p.m.

5. In the hospital, Dr. Amita Sethi examined Chhottey Khan and found six wounds on his person. Injury No.1 was a stab wound on the upper part of the posterior triangle on the left side of the neck. Injury No.2 was a Y-shaped wound on the left pectoral region. Injury No. 3 was located on the left elbow on the posterior surface. Injury No. 4 was situated in the supra public region, while injury No. 5 was a wound on the right fore-arm.

6. The learned trial Judge found that Mohd. Shafi, father of the appellant, was first man-handled and assaulted by Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid when he was proceeding to the Police Station to lodge a report. He, however, held that since the stab wound to Mohd. Shafi was caused on the thigh, there was no intentions on the part of Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid to cause any further injury to Mohd. Shafi when the appellant intervened and assaulted the deceased. On this premise, he held that the appellant had not caused the injuries to the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence.

7. The High Court held that the injuries inflicted by Ramzani, appellant to Chottey Khan make it a case of retaliation or retribution and not one of the exercise of his right of private defence. Nevertheless, the High Court conceded: "It appears to us that Mohd. Shafi was first attacked and injured. Ramzani naturally lost his temper and went for the persons attacking his father. If he had inflicted one injury perhaps it could be claimed that it was either in the heat of the moment or in the exercise of the right of private defence". According to the High Court, since the appellant had caused more than one stab wound to the deceased his case "was not within the realm of exercising the right of private defence."

8. Before us, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is two-fold. Firstly, it is urged that the circumstances brought on the record are sufficient to show with a balance of pr