The right of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing the aggressor for the offence committed by him.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 03.10.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa in Sessions Trial No. 169/2006 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 2000 in default of payment of three to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged on 10.7.2006 by Nepali Rathore (PW -1) alleging that on that day at about 10.40 p.m. accused persons assaulted him including one Jitendra alias Pintu and Vikas Rathore alias Lala. It is alleged that on that day one Vakil Singh Rathore alias Bablu (PW -3) after being abused by the appellant had taken Jitendra alias Pintu and Vikas Rathore alias Lala near his house. It is also alleged that Vakil Singh Rathore alias Bablu had gone there in connection with some money transaction. It is alleged that as soon as this witness, along with one Jitendra alias Pintu and Vlkas Rathore alias Lala reached there, the present appellant and other accused persons started abusing them and when the complainant party protested against such abuses, they took out sword and assaulted them causing injuries on various parts of their body. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before competent Court.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, accused Rajesh and Suresh have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused /appellant for the offences mentioned above.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

6. It is to be noted that a counter report was also lodged by the accused/ appellant vide Crime No.3 78/2006 at about 11.40 p.m. on the same day and on the basis of which a case under sections 456,323,34, 147 and 148 was registered against Nepali Rathore, Jintendra alias Pintu, Vikas alias Lala and Vakil alias Babloo.

7. Cow1Sel for the appellant submits that in fact it is the complainant Nepali Rathore and his friends who were the aggressors and when they entered the house of the appellant and assaulted him as well as other members of the fan1ily, the appellant exercising the right of private defence caused some injuries to the complainant party. He further submits that from the FIR it is clear that Vakil alias Bablu Rathore was abused by the appellant and other accused persons on account of which he had taken his friends to the house of the appellant to assault him and other members of his family. He submits that the witnesses have improved their version before the Court and thus taken a totally different story saying that the appellant had called Vakil alias Bablu and as they were sitting near the house of Vakil alias Bablu, he took them to the house of the appellant where he assaulted Nepali Rathore, Jitendra alias Pintu and Vikas alias Lala. He referred to the statements of Nepali Rathore (PW -1), Jitendra alias Pintu (PW -2), Vakil Singh Rathore (PW-3) and Vikas alias Lala (PW-5). He submits that the doctor who examined the victims has not stated that the injuries caused to them were grievous in nature and therefore the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the appellant. He submits that even if entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at best the act of the appellant may fall within the ambit of section 324 IPC. According to him, even if the injuries sustained by the victims are taken to be serious in nature, the act attributed to the appellant can not travel beyond section 325