JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:

2. On 22.10.1997, at about 5 or 5.30 p.m., PW1 Rajesh, the first informant along with Santosh Supekar and Shivraj, deceased were standing and talking outside the house of Santosh Supekar. While they were so involved, the appellant, Udaikumar, who was known to Rajesh, accompanied by an unknown person came there and holding Rajesh took him to the side saying that he had been summoned by one Ram Hallele. While going away Rajesh turned around in time to see that Shivraj was being stabbed by the appellant and while the victim was successful in warding off the first blow, the other blows stuck home. Rajesh thereupon rushed towards the house of one Babar Saheb and narrated the incident to him and information was conveyed by Babar Saheb to the police. The police reached the place shortly thereafter. In the meanwhile, Rajesh had returned to the scene and noticed that Shivraj was lying dead. ASI Jukte recorded the statement of Rajesh, Ex.19 and on the basis, a formal FIR was registered at the Police Station. The dead body was also despatched for the post-mortem. The ASI also recorded the statement of PW2 Sunita, sister of the deceased and PW4 Santosh. He also arrested the accused and on his interrogation, a knife was duly recovered. During the course of the trial, the appellant put up a defence that the injuries had been caused by him in the exercise of his right of private defence as the deceased who was an expert in karate had first attacked him and caused him an injury on the neck. He also stated that he had been able to disarm the deceased and had caused some injuries to him thereafter. In the course of the hearing before us, Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel for the appellant has first and foremost contended that the prosecution story was false and that the appellant had been roped in for some unknown reasons. We have gone through the entire evidence and are of the opinion that this argument has no merit as the case against the accused is proved by the evidence of the eye witnesses whose presence cannot be doubted and in addition the fact that the accused had caused the injuries, has also been admitted though he has pleaded the right of private defence. Mr. Kanade then fell back on the alternative argument that he had caused the injuries in his right of private defence and therefore no case of murder could be spelt out.

3. Mr. Kanade's argument with regard to the right of private defence flows from the cross-examination of PW4 Santosh, an eye witness who deposed as under.

"It is true that the deceased was a teacher of Karate. It is true that the knife was taken out by the deceased and there was scuffle between the accused and deceased. It is true that the deceased was held by his collar of the accused. It is true that the knife had fallen from the hands of the deceased in the scuffle and the same was taken by the accused and the deceased was stabbed with it. It is true that first blow was inflicted on the thigh, second was on hand and the third one was on the chest."

4. It is significant that despite the fact that this statement had been made by Santosh in his cross-examination, the Public Prosecutor did not challenge the correctness thereof in any manner. In other words, it is clear that the prosecution itself has accepted this statement as being true. It is well settled that in order to make out a case of private defence, the accused need not plead it in specific terms (as it would, indeed, be a very courageous accused who would come out and take the risk of admitting his presence) but if the circumstances justify an inference with regard to such a right, the Court must examine that possibility as well. In this background, we are of the opinion that the plea of priv