Judgment

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. :- Dhabla is a small village in Raisen District of Madhya Pradesh. At about 7.30 a.m. on July 19, 1969, Mohammad, Naim, a resident of this village, died as a result of gun shot injuries sustained by him. The appellant before us, who belongs to the same village, was charged under S. 302, I. P. C. with having committed the murder of deceased Naim. That the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased were caused by a shot fired from a gun held in the hands of the accused was not disputed. The plea put forward by the accused in defence to the charge was mainly that he had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence. An alternative case was also faintly urged by him, namely, that the shot was not fired by him deliberately but the gun might have gone off accidentally. This plea was not, however, seriously pursued. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the plea of private defence put forward by the accused with the result that he was acquitted.

2. The State carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court considered the oral and documentary evidence with great care and thoroughness and ultimately held that the only conclusion that could reasonably be arrived at on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case was that there was absolutely no act on the part of the deceased and his companions which could have reasonably given rise to any apprehension in the mind of the accused of present and imminent danger to his person and hence there was no scope at all for upholding the plea of private defence put forward by him. In the light of the said conclusion, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. for having committed the murder of deceased Mohammad Naim. He was accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused has come up to this Court by filing this appeal under Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

3. The counsel appearing on both sides have taken us through the entire oral and documentary evidence. On our independent review of the evidence adduced in the case in the light of the arguments addressed to us by both sides, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in holding that the accused has totally failed to make out his plea of private defence and that he was liable to be convicted under S. 302, I. P. C.

4. From the evidence of the three eye witnesses, Sarfraj (P. W. 3), Naseem (P. W. 4) and Aziz (P. W. 14), it is established beyond doubt that the accused had fired the gun shot at the deceased and it resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased on account of multiple pellet injuries suffered by him. The evidence of Dr. Gurjar (P. W. 2), who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, and of the Ballistic Expert, Yadav (P. W. 12) fully corroborates the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. Though a faint plea had been put forward by the accused in the trial Court that the gun had gone off accidentally, that was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge in view of the uncontradicted evidence of P. W. 3, P. W. 4 and P. W. 14 that the accused had deliberately taken aim at the deceased and fired the shot.

5. The only question that remains to be considered is whether there was reasonable ground for any apprehension being generated in the mind of the accused that he was in imminent danger of being killed or being subjected to grievous hurt at the time when he fired the gun. It has come out in the evidence that shortly before the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and Sarfraj (P. W. 3) on one side, and the deceased Naim, Aziz (P. W. 14) and Naseem (P. W. 4) etc., on the other, at or near the house of Jaskaran (P. W. 7). In the course of the said quarrel, the accused who was armed with a lathi, inflicted some injuries on the deceased Mohammad