According to the medical evidence the first accused ’had a laceratedwound 1" 101% and scalp deep over the right frontal area of the scalp andanother lacerated wound f" long over the left parietal region. The secondaccused had two abrasions, by J" each, over the right parietal region ofthe scalp and the left side of the forehead respectively. (Though thedefence elicited this evidence they adduced no evidence as to how theseinjuries were caused.) The third accused had a contusion 1" by 1" overthe frontal area* of the scalp.
The presiding judge directed the jury on the law relating to privatedefence of the body and drew their attention to the evidence that wasrelied on to establish the plea of private defence. It was contended thatthe learned judge misdirected the jury in that he failed to direct themto consider whether the appellants had also acted in the exercise of a rightof private defence against house-trespass. We are quite satisfied that,having rejected the plea of private defence of the body, the jury wouldnot have accepted that of private defence of property, which was basedon the same evidence. It is clear that they disbelieved the evidence thatMack entered the room voluntarily and was not pushed and pulled intothe verandah and the room by the appellants. Moreover, in view of theprovisions of sections 96 and 97 of the Penal Code, in the exercise of a rightof private defence against house-trespass the appellants were not entitledto take the risk of killing Mack unless the house-trespass was committedunder such circumstances as reasonably caused apprehension that deathor grievous hurt would be the consequence if such right was not exercised.If they had satisfied the jury that they reasonably entertained such an.apprehension, then in view of the learned judge’s directions regarding the-right of private defence of the body the jury would have acquitted them.
The appeals are dismissed.
Appeals dismissed..