Ramdas with intention to cause his death, convicted under‘ Section 302/34 30f the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life andjto pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for one year. . Conviction of the appellants is impugned on the ground that without any iota of: evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. . During lpendency of the appeal appellant No.2 namely Amulsai Rajwar i a f son of Ranajee‘t died and as far as appellant No.2“ is concerned, this appeal stangs abated; . As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day of 1-1 0-2002 at about 7.00 a.m., on account of previous enmity due to land dispute, the present appellants assaulted the deceased Ramdas by lathi and club resulting into his instantaneous death. Sundari Bai (PW/2) went to they Police Station, Baikunthpur and lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P/3. Morgue was lrecorded vide EXP/17'. investigating officer left for scene of ‘ occujrrence and after summoning the witnesses, inquest over dead body‘i of Ramdas was prepared vide EXP/13. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Patna vide Ex. E/4-A where Dr. i l l A.K.’ Sharma (PW/5) conducted autopsy‘vide Ex.‘P/4 and found follovVing injuries. i.) One lacerated wound over the left occipital region in the size of 4" x 1 1/2” upto bone deep; :i’i) Lacerated wound over right parietal‘region in the size of 3 1/2” x r 1 1/2” upto bone deep;. i Vi ii') lncised wound over left mastoid region behind theyleft ear in the size of 2” x 1/2" x 1/2" ; Y iv) ‘ InCIsed wound over left frontal region obliquely Situated In the ‘3lzeof 11/2 1/2” 1/2, 1 incised over left supra orbital margin in the size of 2” x 1/2” x 1 1/2 3 Two abrasrons on the back at thoracrc regron In the srze of 2" 2” and at lumber regron In the Size of 1 1/2” 1" ’ One abrasion over back of left elbow in the size of 2” x 2”;’ viii) One abrasion over right knee at lower part in the size of 2” x I 1"; I ix) Bruise over back of Ieft kneein the size of 3" x 3" x) *J-bematoma present over left Side of chest In the Size of 4" 4" on dissection clotted blood present under the skin and fifth and Sixth ribs were fractured With underlytng puncture on left lung” Cause of death was coma due to head injury and puncture of left lung and mode of death was homicidal in nature 5. During the course of investigation the accused-appellant No.2 Amulsai (since died) was taken into custody and he was also examined by Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW/5) who found the following injuries vide Ex.P/5. ‘ i) abrasion over right side of forehead in the size of 1" x 1”; ii) brUIse & swelling present on dorsal surface at 2”“ ‘ ‘ metacarpal region In the Size of 3" x 2" skin a I iii) complaining of pain In right Side of upperlaw. 6. During course of investigation, appellant Ram Kumar was taken into custody and on his disclosure statement Vlde EX P/6 one club having Iron‘handle was seized Vlde Ex P/7 and on disclosure statement of accUsed Dev Slngh Vlde Ex.P/8, one Tendu club was seized Vlde l l Ex.P'/9. Blood smeared soil and plain soil were seized from the incident plgde vide EXP/16. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer l a vide Ex.P/1 8. Blood stained clothes of the deceased Ramdas were seized vide EXP/19. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/14. 7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed befor‘e the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received‘t'he case on transfer for trial. 8. In ordem :to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution i has examined as. many as fourteen witnesses? Statements of the accused/a‘ppellant vT/ere recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. They have taken the defence that deceased Ramdas was searching the appellants for assaulting and caused injuries to them. At the time of incident, deceased Ramdas came near the‘ house of the appellants _ andlcaused repeated injuries over forehead and body of Amulsai (srnce dred) and when Amulsar the father of the appellants No 1 and 3 shouted for help, they came there and rn exercrse of rrght of prrvate defence they caused rnJurres to Ramdas, resulting into his death. i . . ‘ ’L They acted in self-defence and have not exceeded the right of private l defehce. l 9. After‘ affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. l 10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused thejudgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 11.Learnéd counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in the present case the appellants have not disputed the fact that/they have caused injuries to Ramdas, resulting into his death. Learned counsel furtherv‘ submits that initially deceased Ramdas caused injuries to Amulsa‘i, father of the present appellants No. 1 and 3 over his forehead and body and when he shouted for help, the present appellants came ”‘sf from their house an_d in exercise of their right of private defence, they caused injuaries to Raamdas, resulting into his death although they have exceeded their right of private defence, but the act attributed to the appellants does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II .of the IPC and the present appellants are in custody for more than eight years and four months. 12.0n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the judgment impugned and submits the present appellants have not proved the fact that they have assaulted Ramdas in exercise of their right bf private defence and in absence of such proof and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the only inference can be drawn l l agairtst the appellants that they caused injuries to Ramdas, resulting into his instantaneous death which shoWs their grave intention for causi‘ng homicidal death of the deceased. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted & sen’fénced the present appellants as aforementioned. 13.ln order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence available on record. 14.ln thje present case, homicidal death of Ramdas as a result of fafal injuries found over his body has not been disputed on behalf of the appellants, even otherwise from the evidence of Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW/5) and autopsy report Ex.P/5, it is established that the death was homicidal in nature. As regard to quality of any crime in question although the appellants have not disputed homicidal death caused by them? but is further established by,the evidence of PW/2 Sundari Bai, PW/3 — Vishnu, PW/4 Lavango, PW/6 Umesh Kumar, PW/7 — Anil t *‘ , Kumar Rajware, PW/8 Krishna Kumar and PW/9 — Harish Chand. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses are sufficient for drawing inference .5 that the present appellants have caused injuries to Ramdas, resulting in his death. 15,As per evidence of Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW/5), he has examined appellant No.2 Amul Sai (since died) on 31-10-2002 vide Ex.P/5 and found one abrasion over right side of forehead in the size of 1" x1”, bruise and swelling present on dorsal surface*at 2m metacarpal region in the size of 3" x 2” and he was complaining the pain over right side of Jawi l l 16.Defence has suggested PW/2— Sundari Bai in para 6 of her cross examination that Ramdas was searching of the present appellants for killing them. They have also suggested her that Ramdas had assaulted Amulsai, pushed and pressed his neck. ‘The suggestion has been ' debnyied by this witness saying that she did not know. As per her ‘ \ evidence, after hearing the sound of quarrel,‘ she came out from her hou'se and saw the incident which is corroborated by the evidence of VPW/3‘ — Vishnu, PW/4 Lavango, PW/6 Umesh Kumar, PW/7 — Anil Kumar Rajware, PW/8 Krishna Kumar and PW/9 — Harish Chand. As per their evidence, they were not present on the spot right from the i I beginning but after hearing the sound of quarreL they came from their houses and have seen the incident. PW/9 Harish Chand has admitted \.,J in para 2 of his cross examination that the accused Ram Kumar Was ,7 shouting that “Doudo Doudo Marta hai”. He has also admitted that r accused Amulsai (since died) was an old person. a f f 17.Perusal of the‘ report (EXP/5) of Dr. A.K. Sharma. (PW/5) reveals that accused Qmulsai (since died) had also received injuries during the course of incident and one abrasion over forehead of this accused was 1" x 1" and bruise and swelling present on dorsal surface at 2nd t metacarpal region in the size of 3" x 2" were found. The prosecution has not explained the fatal injuries found over the body of the accused I Amulsai. Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not explained as to how the incident took place and they have not stated about genesis of the incident. On the other hand, as per suggestion given by the defence to the witnesses the incident took place in front of , l . the house of the appellants where they were present naturally. When Ram‘das assaulted the accused-Amulsai (since died), the present appelants came out from their house and have caused injuries to Ramdas in exercise of the right of private defence. ln absence of contra evidence, it is difficult to hold that the appellants have not caubséd any injury to deceased Ramdas in exercise of the right of private defence. Defence is not required to prove or adduce any z j evidence relating to exercise of the right of private defence'and the l >7 1‘ used, part of the body effected and other similar circumstances..- l ‘ « same can be inferred on the basis of Circumstances, injuries and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. ln‘the present case, evidence of prosecution witnesses and injuries found over the body of the accused Amulsai (since died) are sufficient for drawing inference that the present appellants have caused injuries to Ramdas in exercise of the right of private defence. tr‘18.Evidence of prosecution witnesses does not disclose the fact that Ramdas was having any dangerous weapon, for apprehension of the appellantsthatRamdas may killthem. Except three injuries sustained iby Amulsai, no other injury was noticed and as pe’r suggestion given w by the defe‘nce, when Ramdas caused injuries to accused-Amulsai (since died), the present appellants also caused injuries to Ramdas, although that was not after considerable time but causing ten injuries to Ramdas, they exceeded the right of private defence available to them under Section 100 of the IPC. That apart, the appellants have not .g§§% caused any injury to the deceased with intention to cause his death x l whichlamounts to homicidal death of deceased. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused persons clearly reveal that in exercise of the right of private defence they have caused injuries to Ramdas, resulting into his death and while causinig injuries they have exceeded their right of private defence. 19. As relgards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even othen/vise, motive only aids in criminality and gan be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon l l l l. ? v 20.If the aforesaid fact is considered, the only inference would be possible that the appeliants have caused injuries to the deceased without any intention to cause his death, but during the course of same incident i . a‘ccused-Amuisai (since‘died) had also received injuries which is evident from the report (EXP/5) of Dr.A.K. Shrma (PW/5). Thus, considering the injuries fOUnd on the body of the accused-Amuisai (since died) and the injuries over the body of Ramdas, the act of the appellants does not travel beyond the scope of Section 3304 Part-II of r the LPTC? 21. While cgnvicting the appellants under Section 302 of the l.P.C., learned Sessions ‘Judge has not considered the aforesaid circumstanCes and thereby committed the illegality. " ~‘ t“ 22.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the l.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part—ll of the l.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.l. for ten years and to, pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of nne to further undergo Judge ii Raju R.l.E for six months. Sdl- :T'P- Sharma R.N.Chandrakar