ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.
1. The sole appellant herein was tried along with 12 others for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of one Sheodan. The other accused were tried under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. The appellant was also tried for an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.2. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Six other accused were convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years R.L for causing the gun-shot injuries to P.W.2. The remaining six accused were acquitted. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted the six others but confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant. Hence the present appeals.
2. The prosecution case is as follows.
One Khazan filed a criminal case against Rambir, one of the acquitted accused, prior to the occurrence. In that case P.W.1 Girendra Pal Singh and P.W.2 Ishwari Singh were witnesses. P.W.2 was already examined. The case was fixed for hearing four or five days after the occurrence in question. On 19.6.74 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M., P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased with some others were sitting at the chaupal of P.W.1. They heard some noise coming from the house of Girendra Pal Singh. The deceased and others went towards that house. There they found the appellant and one Nannua armed with gauss and other accused armed with lathis. The accused asked Smt. Ganga Devi wife of Girendra Pal Singh's brother to call the male members of the family and they tried to beat Girendra Pal Singh who wielded his danda in self-defence. Then Rambir exhorted his son Dhananjai, the appellant kill them whereupon Dhananjai fired five shots which hit the deceased and also P.W.2. The deceased fell down and died. At the direction of Rambir the accused removed the body of the deceased. Girendra Pal Singh, P.W.1 gave the F.I.R. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence, held the inquest over the dead body and sent the same for postmortem. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found four gun-shot injuries on the dead body. He also examined P.W.2 on whom he found two gun-shot injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant, however, pleaded that the accused Gopi was in the service of P.W.1 but two or three days prior to the occurrence he started working at his house which was resented by P.W.1 and he abused and hit Gopi who reported the matter to the appellant and went to the chaupal of Girendra Pal Singh and complained about his behaviour. Then P.W.1 and his companions beat him with lathis and having received injuries he and his father Rambir went to the Police Station. The appellant was also examined and the Doctor found on him, a contusion on the fore-arm, an abrasion on the right elbow and a lacerated wound scalp deep above occipital prominence. The Doctor opined that all these injuries were simple. The High Court acquitted other accused giving them benefit of doubt. So far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court accepted his presence at the scene of occurrence as it was not in dispute. The High Court also considered the appellant's plea that he had right of self-defence but rejected the same and accordingly convicted him.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the appellant and since 12 accused are acquitted, the appellant can not be convicted on the self-same evidence and at any rate in view of the finding of the High Court that the appellant received injuries earlier to the death of the deceased, he must be given the benefit of the general exception of the right of private defence or at least in the alternative he can be convicted under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C.
4. The acquittal of other 12 accused does not in any manner affect the prosecution case so far as the appellant is concerned. It was he who shot five times and deceased received two shots and died on the spot and P.W.2 also received gun-shot injuries. The injuries on the appellant were rather superficial except one injury- a scalp deep lacerated wound which was also a simple injury. No doubt, the High Court observed that the appellant must have received the injuries before he resorted to firing but the High Court also has considered all the evidence as well as other circumstances and ultimately held that there was no substance in the argument that the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. The High Court observed that the appellant armed with a gun along with some of his associates went to the scene of occurrence and started the trouble and even if he had received some minor injuries before indulging in firing, he could not plead any right of self-defence as he and his party men mast be held aggressOrs. We have no hesitation to say that the High Court has rightly given this finding. The evidence of the eye-witnesses would show that the appellant armed with a gun and others variously armed went to the house of P.W.1 and it was there the trouble started. The fact that these people went there and started quarreling would show that the accused were the aggressOrs. At any rate the appellant by shooting five times can not be held to have so acted only in exercise of his right of self-defence. For all these reasons we see no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.