NARINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

                     [2010] 8 S.C.R, 779


                     NARINDER ~UMAR                                  A
                               v.
              STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
            (Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2008)
                        JULY 21, 2010
                                                                     B
         [AFTAB ALAM       AND      T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

     Ranbir Penal Code - s. 302 - Culpable homicide
amounting to murder - Exchange of hot words and abuses
between the accused-appellant and the victim leading to              C
death of the latter due to gunshot injury -Testimony of four
eye witnesses - Conviction of appellant - Justification of -
Held: On facts, justified - The version given by all the eye
witnesses was consistent in regard to the genesis of the
incident leading to the death of the victim - Ocular evidence        D
of the witnesses was also fully corroborated by the medical
evidence - In the absence of anything to suggest that the
witnesses had any reason to screen the real offender and
falsely implicate the appellant, the courts below were justified
in accepting their version - Plea of private defence raised by       E
the appellant not sustainable - Conviction upheld.

    Evidence -       Testimony of interested witness -
Appreciation of.

      FIR - Delay in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR to the        F
.Jurisdictional Magistrate - Held: Is not per se fatal to the case
of the prosecution -Effect of the delay has to be determined
in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case.

     According to the prosecution , when a 'bhangra'                 G
party was returning from the ' Baisakhi' Mela, one reveller
(the elder brother of the first informant) trampled the foot
of the accused-appellant, on which an exchange of hot
words and abuses ensued between the two. The
                              779                                    H
    780      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A appellant left the spot in anger but returned a short while
  later with a 12 bore gun in his hand, whereafter he fired
  at the elder brother of the first informant from close range
  and fled from the spot carrying the weapon with him. The
  victim was removed to hospital where he was declared
B dead. The trial court held the appellant guilty under
  Section 302 RPC, and sentenced him to undergo
  imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the
  conviction of the appellant.

      Before this Court, the appellant contended that he
C had been falsely implicated and that there were serious
  flaws in the prosecution story that entitled him to the
  benefit of doubt.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
      HELD:1. There is no room for interference with the
  judgment and order passed by the courts below. The trial
  court as well as the High Court have in their respective
  judgments critically evaluated the evidence adduced by
E the prosecution and the defence and correctly arrived at
  the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in
  bringing home the charge of culpable homicide
  amounting to murder against the appellant beyond any
  shadow of doubt. [Para 6] [787-A-C]

F      2.1. The prosecution case stands proved on the
  basis of the testimony of four out of five eye-witnesses
  examined at the trial. The deposition of the first informant
  (the younger brother of the deceased) which was
  recorded before the trial court gave a graphic account of
G the genesis of the incident leading to the death of the
  victim. Despite extensive cross-examination on various
  aspects nothing, that could possibly shatter his
  testimony, was extracted by the defence. The witness
  stuck to his version that it was the appellant who had
H
    NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                 781
                 KASHMIR
fired at the deceased leading to his death. [Paras 6 and       A
7] [787-D-E; 788-D-E]

     2.2. The statement made by the second witness, PW
4, is also to the same effect. The cross-examination of
this witness has also been extensive but nothing that          8
could affect the credibility of this witness or the
truthfulness of the version of the prosecution has been
extracted by the defence. [Para 8] [788-C-D]

     2.3. The third eye witness examined by the
prosecution is not related to the deceased or his family       C
in any way and, cannot, therefore, be described as
partisan in any manner. This witness too has given a
similar account as the one given by the first informant
about the genesis of the incident that led to the death of
the deceased. The cross-examination of this witness has,       D
like the other two eye witr:iesses, been extensive but there
is nothing worthy of any criticism for the defence as
regards his credibility or the truthfulness of his version.
The witness was firm that it was the appellant who had
fired at the deceased. [Para 9] [789-0-E]                      E

    2.4. To the same effect is the statement of the fourth
witness who testified that consequent to the event, the
deceased received gun shot injury at the hands of the
appellant. There is nothing in the cross-examination to
                                                               F
discredit his version either. [Para 10] [789-E]

    2.5. In the light of the consistent version given by all
these eye witnesses, both the courts below were justified
in holding that the prosecution had beyond any shadow
of doubt. proved the guilt of the accused-appellant · G
especially when there was no prior enmity between the
appellant and the witnesses or their respective families
to even suggest the possibility of false implication. [Para
11] [789-F]
                                                             H
    782    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A      3.1. In the present case, the ocular evidence of the
  witnesses was also fully corroborated by the medical
  evidence. The deposition of the Scientific Assistant
  proved that the 12 bore SBBL gun sent to the Forensic
  Science Laboratory for examination, was in normal
B working condition and had been fired through prior to its
  receipt in the lab and that tht:! cartridge case had been
  fired from the gun in question. The witness further
  deposed that the suspected holes present on the clothes
  of the deceased were gunshot holes. The prosecution led
c evidenc~ that the weapon in question was licensed in the
  name of the father of the appellant. [Paras 12, 13) [789-G-
  H; 790-D-E]

        3.2. Moreover, the defence has not disputed the place
  of occurrence or the fact that the deceased died due to
D a gunshot injury. On the contrary, the suggestions made
  in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses
  and the depositions of the defence witnesses
  acknowledged that the deceased did collapse on the
  spot because of a gunshot injury received by him. What
E the defence suggested was that the gunshot was fired
  by some one from the crowd and not the appellant which
  part of the version has been rightly turned down by the
  trial court as well as the High Court. [Para 14) [790-F-H;
  791-A-B]
F
        4. Merely because two witnesses were related to the
  deceased, does not make them unreliable witnesses
  particularly when in the statement recorded by the police
  at Hospital immediately after the occurrence, the version
G in all its essential details was given out by the witness
  attributing the gunshot injury to the appellant. In the
  absence of anything to suggest that the said four
  witnesses had any reason to screen the real offender and
  falsely implicate the appellant, the courts below were
  justified in accepting their version and holding the charge
H against the appellant proved. [Para 14] [791-B-D]
      NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                  783
                  KASHMIR
       5. There is no doubt some delay in the dispatch of a A
  copy of the FIR, but the same is not per se fatal to the
  case of the prosecution. It is fairly well settled that delay
  in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional
  Magistrate does not by itself render the case doubtful.
  What is important is whether there is an explanation for B
  the delay and, if so, how plausible it is any such
- explanation. Suffice it to say that whether or not delay
  has led to the false implication of an innocent person
  would depend upon and has to be determined in the
  context of the facts and circumstances of each case. No c
  hard and fast rule can in that regard be prescribed. The
  explanation offered by the prosecution in the present
  case has been rightly accepted by the courts below.
   [Para 15] [791-E-H; 792-A]

      6. As regards the contention that statements of some        D
 of the eye witnesses were recorded belatedly, this aspect
 too has to be seen in the background of the facts and
 circumstances of the case. Whether or not the delay has
 affected the credibility of the prosecution is a matter on
 which no strait-jacket formula can be evolved nor any            E
 thumb rule prescribed for universal application. The
 courts below have correctly appreciated this aspect and
 rejected the contention that the delay in the recording of
 the statements of some of the witnesses was fatal to the
 case. That is specially so when the prosecution version,         F
 based on the statement made by the first informant was
 known on the date of the incident itself. The first
 informant had in the said statement attributed the
 gunshot injury sustained by deceased to the ·appellant.
 Delay in' the recording of the statements of the other eye       G
 witnesses, two of whom were brothers of the deceased,
 was not, therefore, used to falsely implicate the appellant.
 [Para 16] [792-8-E]

      7. In regard to th,e submission that the injury inflicted
                                                                  H
    784      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A on the deceased was in exercise of the right of private
  defence of the appellant, there is nothing on record to
  suggest that the deceased had at any stage either
  assaulted the appellant or otherwise caused any injury
  to him to justify infliction of gunshot injury upon him in
B defence. The depositions of the witnesses examined at
  the trial are consistent that after the initial exchange of
  hot words and abuses on account of the deceased
  trampling the foot of the appellant, the appellant left the
  place and re-appeared sometimes later with a gun in his
c hand. It also appears from the depositions of the
  witnesses that the appellant without any provocation
  pushed the brother of the deceased with the barrel of the
  gun and shot the appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to
  appreciate how such an act could be described as one
  in self-defence. The trial court as also the High Court
0
  have come to the conclusion that the deceased was not
  armed nor was any attempt made by him on the life of the
  appellant. The plea of the private defence, therefore, fails
  and is hereby rejected. [Para 17] [792-F-H; 793-A-B]

E       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 2093 of 2008.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 27.9.2007 of the High
  Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No.
F 09 of 1996.

        J.C. Gupta, Tushar Bakshi, Sunita Sharma and Naresh
    Bakshi for the Appellant.

     Anis Suharwardy, Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Imam, Tabez
G Ahmed, Pervej Dabas and Wadi D. Kasana for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises

H
       NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                        785
             KASHMIR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

 out of an order passed by the High Court of Jammu and                   A
 Kashmir in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1996 and confirmation
 No.21/1996 whereby the appellant's conviction and sentence
 for an offence punishable under Section 302 RPC has been
 upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant dismissed.
                                                                         B
       2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 1:3th
  April 1992, the deceased Shri Kola Ram along with his
  brothers, Shri Balwant Raj and Tirath Ram the appellant and a
. large number of other people belonging to Village Nagri Parole,
  Tehsil and District Kathua were returning ht>me after celebrating      C
  Baisakhi Mela at Arawan a village at a distance of a few
  kilometers from Nagri. The mela goers from the village had it
  appears formed a small procession and were dancing their
  way back to the beats of a drum. The prosecution case is that
  when the participants reached near a rice' mill, owned by one
  Shri Dhatampal, the deceased, Kola Ram who was also one                D
  of the revellers trampled the foot of ttre accused-appellant,
  Narinder Kumar. This led to exchange of hot words and abuses
  between the deceased and the appellant. Other members of
  the party intervened to cool the tempers but the appellant left
  the spot in anger only to return a short while later with a 12 bore    E
  gun in his hand. By that time the dancing party had reached a
  place near the shop ·of Vijay Kumar in Nagri Parole. The
  appellant is alleged to have pushed aside the brother of Kola
  Ram with the barrel of his gun, fired at the deceased from close
  range and fled from the spot carrying the weapon with him. The         F
  deceased fell to the ground after receiving the gunshot injury
  and was quickly removed to Kathua hospital where he was
  declared dead.

      3. On receipt of information from the hospital regarding the       G
 arrival of a medico legal case, Shri Darbari Lal Sharma, ASI
 swung into action and rushed to the hospital along with other
 police personnel only to be told that the deceased had already
 passed away. The assistant sub-inspector recorded the
 statement of Balwant Raj, PW which was taken as the FIR
                                                                         H
    786     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A regarding commission of the offence that kick started
  investigation into the whole episode. A challan was eventually
  filed before the lllaqa Magistrate against the appellant who
  committed him to the Court of Sessions for being tried for
  offences punishable under Sections 302/323 RPC and Section
B 3 read with Section 25 of Arms Act. Before the Sessions Court
  the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed a
  trial. A 'trial accordingly followed at which the prosecution
  examined as m.any as 20 witnesses including PWs Balwant
  Raj, Khazan Chand, Babu Ram, Tirath Ram and Jia Lal who
c had, according to the prosecution, witnessed the incident.
  Among the others examined by the prosecution were Dr. K.P.
  Singh who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, Dr.
  J.L. Fotedar, the forensic expert and the police officer who
  conducted the investigation. In his defence the appellant
D examined DWs Ashok Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Ajay
  Sharma alia Bilu and Dr. Daljeet Singh as his witnesses.

        4. Appreciation of the evidence adduced before it led the
  trial court to hold that the prosecution had established the
  commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 RPC
E against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The Court,
  however, found no evidence to support the charge regarding
  the commission of the offence punishable under Section 3 read
  with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 323 of the RPC.
  The appellant was accordingly acquitted on those counts. By
F a separate order appellant was sentenced to undergo
  imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- subject to
  confirmation by the High CQJ.Jrt.

       5. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant
  preferred criminal appeal no.9 of 1996 which was heard along
G with confirmation reference No.21 of 1996 received from the
  Sessions Court. By the judgment impugned in this appeal the
  High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and
  confirmed his conviction and sentence as already noticed
  earlier.
H
     NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                     787
           KASHMIR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
      6. Having heard Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the     A
appellant and counsel for the respondent - State at length we
are of the view that there is no room for our interference with
the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. The trial
Court as well as the High Court have in their respective
judgments critically evaluated the evidence adduced by the          B
prosecution and the defence and correctly arrived at the
conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing
home the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder
against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. In the
course of the hearing before us the entire evidence available       c
on record was once again read out by learned counsel for the
 appellant in an attempt to show that the appellant had been
falsely implicated and that there were serious flaws in the
 prosecution story that entitled the appellant to the benefit of
 doubt. We regret our inability to accept that submission. In
                                                                    0
 our opinion, the prosecution case stands proved on the basis
 of the testimony of four out of five eye witnesses examined at
 the trial. The fifth witness namely Khazan Chand did not support
 the prosecution version and was declared hostile. The
 deposition of Shri Balwant Raj, the first informant which was
 recorded before the trial Court gave a graphic account of the      E
 genesis of the incident leading to the death of the victim Kola
 Ram. This witness happens to be the younger brother of the
 deceased. According to him, he along with his brothers Tirath
 Ram and Kola Ram, the deceased and Jia Lal had gone to
 village Arwan to see the Baisakhi Mela. On their way back the      F
 participants were dancing Bhangra. When the bhangra party
 reached a place near the flour mill of Dharampal, the deceased
 trampled the foot of the appellant leading to exchange of hot
 words and abuses between the two. The appellant thereafter
 went away from the bhangra party to his house while the            G
 remaining members of the bhangra party continued dancing
 their way back to their houses. When they arrived near the shop
 of Vijay Kumar the appellant returned to the spot with a gun,
 pushed the witnesses aside and fired at the deceased. The
  gun shot struck the deceased in the belly and chest. He started   H
    788     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A bleeding, and collapsed to the ground. The appellant ran away
  from the place of occurrence with the gun. The deceased was
  taken to the Nagri Hospital from where he was referred the
  hospital at Kathua. On his way to Kathua the deceased
  breathed his last. Police from Kathua came to the hospital and
B recorded his statement marked Ex. PW BR.

       7. In cross-examination of this witness, a number of
  suggestions were put to him like whether the bhangra party
  members had consumed alcohol, whici1 suggestion was denied
  by the witness. The witness further stated that within two to four
C minutes of the skirmish between the deceased and the
  appellant, the appellant had returned to the place opposite to
  Vijay Kumar's shop where the dancing party had reached in
  the meantime. Despite extensive cross-examination on various
  other aspects nothing, that could possibly shatter his testimony,
D was extracted by the defence. The witness denied the
  suggestion that he and his brothers were armed with Takwas
  (sharp edged weapons). The suggestion that the deceased
  and Jia Lal had beaten Anju and Billo on the spot was also
  denied. So also the suggestion that some one from the crowd
E had fired a shot which hit the deceased was denied by this
  witness. The witness stuck to his version that it was the
  appellant who had fired at the deceased leading to his death.

       8. The statement made by PW 4 Tirath Ram, is also to the
F same effect. This witness has, like PW Balwant Raj, narrated
  the sequence of events that led to the incident resulting in the.
  death of the deceased. According to this witness when the
  bhangra party reached near the shop of Vijay Kumar, the
  appellant came with a gun, pushed aside Balwant Raj the
G younger brother of the deceased with the barrel of the gun,
  aimed the gun at the deceased and fired at him as a
  consequence whereof the deceased collapsed to the ground.
  He was taken to the Nagri Hospital who referred him to Kathua
  Hospital where he was declared dead. The cross-examination
  of this witness has also been extensive but nothing that could
H
     NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                       789
           KASHMIR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
affect the credibility of this witnes,s or the truthfulness of the    A-
version of the prosecution has been extracted by the defence.

     9. That brings us to the deposition of Babu Ram, the third
eye witness examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
This witness is not related to the deceased or his family in any      8
way and, cannot, therefore, be described as partisan in any
manner. This witness too has given a similar account as the
one given by Balwant Raj about the genesis of the incident that
led to the death of the deceased. The cross-examination of
this witness has like the other two eye witnesses been                C
extensive but there is nothing worthy of any criticism for the
defence as regards his credibility or the truthfulness of his
version. This witness has also denied the suggestion that the
deceas.~d was armed with any weapon or he had caused any
injury tb Anju or Billo nor some unknown person had fired at
the deceased from the crowd. The witness was firm that it was         D
the accused who had fired at the deceased.

     10. To the same effect is the statement of Jia Lal, PW who
has testified that consequent to the event, the deceased
received gun shot injury at the hands of the appellant. There is      E
nothing in the cross-examination to discredit his version either.

      11. In the light of the consistent version given by all these
eye witnesses, both the Courts below were justified in holding
that the prosecution had beyond any shadow of doubt proved
                                                                      F
the guilt of the accused appellant especially when there was
no prior enemity between the appellant and the witnesses or
their respective families to even suggest the possibility of false
implication.

      12. Two other aspects need to be noted at this stage. The       G
first is that the ocular evidence of the witnesses mentioned
above gets fully corroborated by the medical evidence adduced
in the case. Dr. K.P. Singh, Registrar in the Government
Medical College, Jammu, who conducted the post mortem
examination and reported the gun shot injury to be the cause          H
    790       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A   of death. The witness reported as under:

          "A gun shot wound in the epigastria below the Xygphi
          sternum on the right side 3 cm from midline. Wound in the
          round from measuring circular with lacertated and averted
          margins with charring of skin in 1 cm area around it and
B
          black suiting around the skin. No wound of exit seen. On
          opening abdomen peritorium ruptured irregularly about 2
          area below wound of entry of gun shot. Liver ruptured in
          the form of laceration all over Gall Bladder also was
          ruptured and pellets were recovered. Upper pole of right
c         kidney was ruptured and pellets were recovered Funds of
          stomach having perorations 4 in number and pellets were
          recovered."

        13. Deposition of Rajinder Singh Jamwal, Scientific
D Assistant, proved that the 12 bore SBBL gun bearing No.5080
  sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, was
  in normal working condition and had been fired through prior
  to its receipt in the lab and that cartridge case marked F/174/
  92 had been fired from the gun in question. The witness further
E deposed that the suspected holes present on the clothes of the
  deceased were gunshot holes. The prosecution led evidence
  that the weapon in question was licensed in the name of the
  father of the appellant.

F      14. The second aspect which is equally significant is that
  the defence has not disputed the place of occurrence or the
  fact that the deceased died due to a gunshot injury. On the
  contrary, the suggestions made in the cross-examination of the
  prosecution witnesses and the depositions of the defence
  witnesses acknowledged that the deceased did collapse on the
G spot because of a gunshot injury received by him. All that was
  disputed was whether the appellant was the author of the injury.
  What is important is that the essential facts constituting the
  substratum of the story of the prosecution namely that the
  bhangra party had visited Aarwan in connection with the
H Baishaki Mela, that they were returning from Aarwan to Nagri
      NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                      791
            KASHMIR [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
 Parole, that when the party reached a place near Vijay Kumar's       A
shop a gunshot hit the deceased because of which he died are
not in dispute. What the defence suggested was that the
gunshot was fired by some one from the crowd and not the
appellant which part of the version has been turned down by
the trial Court as well as the High Court, and in our opinion,        B
rightly so. It is true that Babu Ram and Tirath Ram are brothers
 of the deceased but merely because they were related to the
 deceased, does not make them unreliable witnesses particularly
when in the statement recorded by the police at Kathua
 Hospital immediately after the occurrence, the version in all its    c
 essential details was given out by the witness attributing the
.gunshot injury to the appellant. In the absence of anything to
 suggest that Balawant Raj, Babu Ram, Tirath Ram and Jia Lal
 had any reason to screen the real offender and falsely implicate
 the appellant, the Courts below were justified in accepting their
                                                                      0
 version and holding the charge against the appellant proved.

      15. Mr. Gupta made a valiant attempt to argue that there
was a grave suspicion about the truthfulness of the prosecution
case on account of the delay in the dispatch of a copy of the
FIR to the lllaqa Magistrate. The FIR was registered on 13th          E
April, 1992 whereas a copy of the same was received by the
Magistrate only on 15th April, 1992 at 11 a.m. This according
to the learned counsel, cast a cloud over the veracity of the
prosecution case. A similar contention was urged by the
defence before the Courts below which was repelled. There is          F
no doubt some delay in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR, but
the same is not per se fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is
fairly well settled that delay in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR
to the jurisdictional Magistrate does not by itself render the
case doubtful. What is important is whether there is an               G
explanation for the delay and if so, how plausible it is any such
explanation. Suffice it to say that whether or not delay has led
to the false implication of an innocent person would depend
upon and has to be determined in the context of the facts and
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can in that         H
    792     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   regard be prescribed. The explanation offered by the
    prosecution in the present case has been accepted by the
    Courts below. We see no reason to take a different view.

         16. It was also contended by Mr. Gupta that statements of
  some of the eye witnesses were recorded belatedly. This
8
  aspect too has to be seen in the background of the facts and
  circumstances of the case. Whether or not delay has affected
  the credibility of the prosecution is a matter on which no strait-
  jacket formula can be evolved nor any thumb rule prescribed
  for universal application. The Courts below have, in our opinion,
C correctly appreciated this aspect and rejected the contention
  that the delay in the recording of the statements of some of the
  witnesses was fatal to the case. That is specially so when the
  prosecution version, based on the statement made by Balwant
  Raj was known on the date of the incident itself. PW Balwant
D Raj had in the said statement attributed the gunshot injury
  sustained by deceased to the appellant. Delay in the recording
  of the statements of the other eye witness two of whom were
  brothers of the deceased was not, therefore, used to falsely
  implicate the appellant.
E
         17. A feeble attempt was made by Mr. Gupta to argue that
  even if the appellant is proved to have fired at the deceased
  there was a possibility that any such gunshot injury was caused
  by him in private defence. The circumstances appearing in the
F case, argued Mr. Gupta, probablised that the injury inflicted on
  the deceased was in exercise of the right of private defence
  of the appellant. We have no hesitation in rejecting that
  submission also. The argument has, in our opinion, been made
  in total despair. We say this because there is nothing on record
  to suggest that the deceased had at any stage either assaulted
G the appellant or otherwise caused any injury to him to justify
  infliction of gunshot injury upon him in defence. The depositions
  of the witnesses examined at the trial are consistent that after
  the initial exchange of hot words and abuses on account of the
  deceased trampling the foot of the appellant, the appellant had
H
     NARINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF JAMMU &                        793
           KASHMIR [TS. THAKUR, J.]
left the place and re-appeared sometimes later with a gun in           A
his hand. It also appears from the depositions of the witnesses
that the appellant had without any provocation pushed the
brother of the deceased with the barrel of the gun and shot the
appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how such an act
could be described as one in self defence. The trial Court as          B
also the High Court have come to the conclusion that the
deceased was not armed nor was any attempt made by him
on the life of the appellant. The plea of the private defence,
therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.

    18. In the totality of the above circumstances, we see no
                                                                       c
reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
     -
B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.