D.MURUGESAN, J.

The question that arises in this criminal appeal is as to whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants-accused have acted in their right of private defence while committing the murder of the deceased-Arunachalam.

2. Both the accused-appellants were put to face the trial in S.C.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and the learned Judge by his judgment dated 2.9.2005 found the first accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the second accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. Though the conviction and sentence are put in issue in this appeal, Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would restrict the challenge by submitting that the appellants have acted only in their right of private defence and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of right of private defence.

4. For the disposal of the appeal, the following few facts are to be stated:-

A1 is the wife of A2. The deceased-Arunachalam is the husband of P.W.1-Selvi. The deceased had illicit intimacy with A1. On 4.2.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased went to the house of the accused to demand the repayment of loan from A1. While so, just in front of the house of the accused, A1 attacked the deceased with a thonnai (wooden log) on his right head, right shoulder and knee and A2 cut the deceased with a billhook near his left eye and due to the said attack, the deceased fell down and both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.

5. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, on hearing the noise of her husband, the deceased, and A1, went to the place of occurrence along with her sister-in-law, P.W.2 and brother, P.W.3 and saw A1 attacking the deceased with a thonnai on his head by saying "was it not enough to have spoiled me and you wanted to spoil my daughter too". She also saw A1 attacking the deceased on his right shoulder and knee. Thereafter, A2, the husband of A1, also cut the deceased with a billhook near his left eye. When P.W.1 shouted, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence leaving the weapons at the scene. She saw the oozing of blood from her husbands head, nose and ear. Thereafter, she arranged a vehicle and took the injured firstly to the Government Hospital, Edappadi, where the doctor advised her to take the injured to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College & Hospital, Salem. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the said hospital at 12.45 a.m., on 5.2.2003, where the casualty medical officer, P.W.9 treated him and issued the accident register, Ex.P-11. In spite of the treatment, the injured succumbed to the injuries around 1.40 a.m., on 5.2.2003.

6. On receipt of intimation from the hospital, P.W.11, the Head Constable attached to Edappadi Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the complaint, Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 at 4.00 a.m. He handed over the complaint, Ex.P-1 and the death intimation, Ex.P-12 to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Cr.No.122 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P-13. He sent the First Information Report to the Court as well as forwarded the copies to the higher police officials.

7. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation and he proceeded to the scene of occurrence around 7.30 a.m., on 5.2.2003 and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-5 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-16 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He also made arrangements to cause photographs of the scene place. He also recovered the wooden log, M.O.2, the billhook, M.O.1, bloodstained earth, M.O.3 and sample earth, M.O.4 from the scene place under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-6 in the presence of the said witnesses. He there