A person is justified in causing harm to another person in order to defend themselves or others from imminent harm, provided that the harm caused is not excessive.

1. - Eight persons were tried for the offence under Sections 147, 304/149, 325/ 149 and 323/149 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu and by his decision dated 15.2.80. two accused namely Chandgiram and Sukh Ram were acquitted while the other six were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Only Gangaram accused appellants was given benefit of probation while the five other accused appellants have been sentenced as under:-

2. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently.

3. All the accused appellants have been acquitted for the offence under Section 304/149 IPC.

4. The incident out of which the case arises occurred on 13.3.79 at about 8,00 P. M. The report about this was lodged by complainant party as well as by the accused appellants. The version of the complainant namely Kehar Singh in his report is, that near the bus stand of village Kaloth, when the villagers were lighting fire of the occasion of Holi, Shanker and others had collected there. Kehar Singh was informed that the appellants and others accused were attacking Shanker with lathies and he went there to intervene and he was also given blows. On account of injuries Shanker had one fracture on the arm, two fractures on his kg and another of the femur hone. The injured persons were examined medically. On 2 5.1970, Shanker died in the hospital. Post mortem on his body was conducted and according to the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, the cause of death was circulatory failure and shock due to secondary hemorrhage.

5. The version of the accused persons, according to the First Information Report lodged by them was that Kehar Singh had come to the liquor shop of Chandgi Ram and he demanded liquor on credit. Chandgi Ram agreed for the first time but refused to give again, upon which Kehar Singh came back with Shanker and others armed with weapons and attacked them and there persons namely Chandgi Ram. Sukh Ram and Sultan received injuries The Injury reports are Ex, D-2, D-3, and D-4. The total injuries of the accused are 15. According to the appellants the complainant party was the aggressor and had inflicted blows and the incident had taken place Bada of Chandgi Ram where he has bis liquor shop. Blood stained mud was also collected from this Bada as is shown by memo Ex. D-9.

6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the version of P.W. 2, Kehar Singh and arrived at the conclusion that two different incidents had taken place at two different sites and it was near the Holi fire that Shanker was been by the accused appellants and therefore, they were guilty. However, looking to the nature of the injuries, the offence under Section 304 IPC was not said to be made out. P.W. 4, Shri Chand is the son of deceased Shanker and he was also injured in the incident. He has given reason as to why the appellants attacked Shanker and according to him 2-3 months prior to the incident, there was some quarrel between Chandgi Ram and his sister about the collection of grass and for this reason his father was attacked.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised a number of pleas in order to argue that the occurrence did not take place as suggested by the prosecution and the version given out by the accused is correct. Firstly, it is contended that the cause of the incident as given by P.W. 4, Shri Chand is remote and does not furnish any motive for attacking Shanker. Next it is contended that all the witnesses in the case are relatives and the independent witnesses who were present at the time of lighting the Holi have not been examined, which means that the incid