1981 PLP r (PCRLJ)

(1) Incised wound " x ' chest cavity deep on the outer side and front aspect of middle of left chest about 2" below and outer to left nipple. (2) Incised wound, " x ' chest cavity deep on the front of left chest 2 " below the left nipple and 1" above and front of injury No. 1. (3) A contusion 1" x " on the front of left side of head close to the upper border of the forehead. (4) Two abrasions " x 1/6" each on the left side of nose in its middle (5) Teeth bite 1" x 1" round on the front of left shoulder joint. On the same day he also examined Rashid appellant and found the following injuries on him (1) Lacerated wound " x " skin deep on the top and left side of head close to the midline. (2) Abrasion with contusion, " x " on the front and middle of upper lip. (3) Contusion, 5 x 4 , on the outer front and upper part of left shoulder near the upper end of the arm. (4) Contusion, 3" x 1", on the front of right thigh in its lower part. (5) Abrasion, ' x ", on the front and middle of right leg. (6) Abrasion 1" x ", on the front of left knee joint. The appellant of only suffered a lacerated wound on the top left side of his head but two contusion marks 5" x 4' and 3" x 1 on the top left shoulder and lower right thigh apart from three abrasions on the upper lip, right leg and left knee joint respectively. The dimensions of the contusions clearly show that formidable blunt weapon in the nature of a heavy sota was used. Since the appellant suffered a lacerated wound on the head the fact that he had a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt may ultimately result, cannot be entirely excluded. The teeth bite mark on the person of Nazir Ahmad deceased also shows that the appellant was very much hard pressed in his defence and he went to the extent of even biting the deceased. In such a situation, the appellant could not have measured the extent or nature of his action in golden scales. Even otherwise, the statement of the appellant must be read as a whole. According to his statement, he was attacked by the deceased and his brother with sotas. In these circumstances, the infliction of injuries by the appellant to the deceased appears to be justified. The appellant appears to have acted in the exercise of his right of self defence of his person and he is, therefore, not guilty of any offence.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the convic tion and sentence of Rashid appellant is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case The fine and/or compensa tion, if realised from him, shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.