Private defence in murder cases fails where injuries are minor, medical evidence is weak, and eyewitnesses contradict the defence.

Private defence was held unavailable where the accused's injuries were only minor abrasions, the medical evidence did not show any wound or serious injury supporting immediate necessity, and the accused had not promptly sought medical examination after the occurrence. The eye-witness account also contradicted the defence version. The Court noted that concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless perverse or causing manifest injustice, and no such error was shown. On that basis, the plea of private defence failed and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the plea of private defence in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The plea of private defence was rejected because the medical evidence of injuries on the accused did not inspire confidence, the injuries were only minor abrasions, and there was no wound or serious injury suggesting an immediate necessity to inflict fatal injury. The accused had also not promptly obtained medical examination after the occurrence, while the eye-witness account negated the defence version. The Court further noted that concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless they are perverse and result in manifest injustice, which was not shown here.

Conclusion: The plea of private defence was not available to the appellant, and the conviction was maintained.

---