- (1.) ARORA, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 23, 1976, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent Raja Ram of the offence punish- able under Section 302 I. P. C. but convicted and sentenced him under Section 20 of the Indian Arms Act.
(2.) ACCUSED Raja Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and Sections 23 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act for committing the murder of his father Khata Ram on April 14, 1975. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Barma (PW 3) the sister of the accused was married to Dharampal. Her relations with Dharampal were not cordial and, therefore, she left here in laws' house and used to reside with her father Kheta Ram in village Jodkiya. some days before the date of the incident, Mst. Barma opposed her desire to her brother accused Raja Ram that she attainted to go to her in laws house. The accused was, also, interested in sending her to her in laws house and, therefore, on the date of the incident, i. e. , April 14, 1975, he called Dharampal his brother in law to his house so that he could send his sister Mst. Barma with Dharampal. Kheta Ram the father of the accused however, came to know that Dharampal has been called. He was not happy with Dharampal and, therefore, when accused Raja Ram informed him that Dharampal had come to take Mst. Barma with him, Kheta Ram, who was not happy with Dharampal, came to the house in a furious state and acquired from Mst. Sareswati (PW 7) where Dharampal was. Dharampal and the accused Raja Ram both his themselves in the separate Kothas. Smt. Sarswati did not inform the where abouts of Dharampal to her father and, therefore, her father gave beatings to her by lathi. Mst. Barma tried to rescue her, but she too was given beatings by her father, upon which the accused Raja Ram came there. He was, also, given beatings by his father and, therefore, the - accused Raja Ram Look up the pistol which fell down from the Dub of the Tehmat of his father and fired which hit Kheta Ram on his abdomen and who died after receiving that injury. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses while the accused, in support of his defence, examined one witness, namely, DW 1 Jag Singh. There are two eye witnesses of the occurrence, viz. PW 6 Smt. Barma and PW 7 Smt. Sarswati, the evidence of who are sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 Kashi Ram, OW 2 Sohan Lal and PW 3 Bhagirath. The evidence of this witness is further sought to be corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 8 Dr. S. S. Bhargava and PW 9 Dr. S. S. Baid. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the evidence of PW 6 Smt. Barma and PW 7 Smt. Sarswati. Their statements are almost identical. They have stated that Mst. Barma used to reside with her father as her husband used to give beatings to her and left her to her father's house. Their brother asked their father Kheta Ram that we should send Mst. Bharma with Dharampal and Dharampal had come to take her with him, upon which Kheta Ram refused to send Mst: Barma with him. Dharampal was in the room at the first floor while both these witnesses were in the court yard. Their father came there and when he tried to go towards the room at first floor, Smt. Sarswati interrupted. Kheta Ram inflicted 7-8 injuries to Mst. Barma, due to which there was a fracture on the right hand of Mst. Barma. Thereafter accused Raja Ram came there and asked his father not to give beatings to his daughters, upon which his father gave beatings to their brother Raja Ram, also, and inflicted eight to ten injuries. Thereupon accused Rajas Ram fired with pistol on his father, and on receiving that injury, his father fell down and thereafter Bhagirath and Kashi Ram came there. From the statements of these two witnesses, it is clear that the deceased Kheta Ram gave beatings to Mst. Barma and Mst. Sarswati and when the accused Raja Ram tried to intervene and tried to rescue his sisters, he was, also, given beating by the deceased Kheta Ram with Lathi. The accused Raja Ram received as many as four injuries. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused had a right of private defence of person and he had rightly exercised the same. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and perused the record of the case. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned trial Court, does not require any interference. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence or record and has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. The evidence produced by the prosecution clearly shows that it was only on account of the action of the deceased Kheta Ram in giving beatings to Mst. Barma, Mst. Sarswati and the accused Raja Ram that it was in the right of self defence that the accused inflicted injury to the deceased by the firing of the pistol. A person facing an imminent peril of danger to his life or limb or to another is not expected to weight in golden scale the prescribed force used by the injured. Therefore, if in the heat of the moment, when Kheta Ram was inflicting injuries to his daughters and the accused, if the accused opened the fire from the pistol then in our view, he has not exceeded the right of private defence of person and the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. .;