JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The accused Respondent Sanyasi Madi killed his father on July 22, 1961 at village Podabatta, police station Malkangiri, Nowrangapur Subdivision, Koraput district. The defence pleaded right of private defence of the body. The learned Sessions Judge Koraput-Jeypore accepted the defence plea and acquitted the accused. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased was not good terms with his wife and son. The deceased used to have frequent quarrels with his wife. It is said that the deceased had abandoned his family about six years ago. The deceased returned home about six months before the date of occurrence. The deceased used to treat his wife inhumanly all along. The accused son was always staying with his mother and tried to vindicate the cause of his mother who was so badly treated by the father all along. In the evening on the date of occurrence the deceased returning from market and quarreled with his wife and then chased his son the accused with a Kati (knife) saying all the time that he would first kill his son (accused) and then the mother. Thus pursued, the accused is said to have turned round and dealt a few blows with an axe which the accused was holding. This resulted in the instantaneous death of the father. On the following day (July 23, 1961) First Information Report was lodged by a villager P.W. 6 at the local police station about 19 miles from the place of occurrence. On July 24, 1961 the police arrived, made inquest over the dead body, arrested the accused and seized the Kati (knife) and Tangia (axe). After investigation the accused was committed and sent up for trial on a charge of murder u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. The defence taken by the accused was right of private defence of person in the circumstances hereinbefore stated. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the accused had killed the deceased there having been three eye-witness to the incident, the accused?s own confession before the Magistrate and extra-judicial confession before others. The only question is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the accused had right of private defence of person and whether he exceeded such right. 4. The only question is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the accused had right of private defence of person and whether he exceeded such right. 4. This leads us to the consideration of the evidence of the eye-witnesses as regards the circumstances in which the accused had inflicted the axe blows on the father who was chasing the accused after quarrelling with the mother. P.W. 1 an adjoining neighbour saw the accused flying in front of his house with an axe and deceased chasing him with a Kati; the deceased cried out that he would kill the accused and his mother; then the witness saw the accused giving two blows with his Tangia. This witness only saw two blows on the back of the deceased while the deceased had already fallen down. The witness said that the accused acclaimed that his father was preparing to kill the accused and his mother all these days and so the accused killed the deceased. P.W. 2 also saw the accused being chased by the deceased. The witness said that near his house he saw Sanyasi (accused) turning round and striking a blow with the Tangia on the back of the deceased?s left ear when the deceased fell down. In cross examination the witness further reiterated that he saw the deceased chasing the accused. The next eye witness P.W. 3, while corroborating what the other eye-witness said, deposed that the deceased returned from market and began to quarrel with his wife and son and threatened to kill both and go to jail. The witness further said that this was the usual state of affairs in the deceased?s house. The witness saw the wife of the deceased going out crying 'Marijibi' (I will die). The witness found the deceased chasing the accused saying that he would first kill the accused and then his mother; that the accused had a Tangia and the deceased had a Kati; the deceased so chased up to Paluku Goud?s house when accused struck him. The injuries on he deceased found by the doctor P.W. 4 were five in number all round about the back side of the deceased?s neck. The injuries tally with the support the eye-witnesses version of the occurrence. 5. The injuries on he deceased found by the doctor P.W. 4 were five in number all round about the back side of the deceased?s neck. The injuries tally with the support the eye-witnesses version of the occurrence. 5. The consistent evidence of the eye-witness is that the deceased had chased the accused with a deadly weapon in his hand to kill the accused. From records it appears that the distance from the deceased?s house to the place where the accused had struck the blows is about 66 yards. This shows that the deceased was after the life of the accused and would have killed the accused, if the accused had not, in self-defence, turned round and struck the blows with the axe in his own hand. 6. The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. In the present case, the situation was this: M.O.I. Kati (knife) which the deceased has in his hand while chasing the accused was a deadly weapon capable of causing death. When evidently there as reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he was going to be killed by his chasing father the deceased and when the deceased had approached him while chasing with a knife all the while shouting that he would kill the accused-the accused had the right of private defence of the body even to the extent of causing the deceased?s death. 7. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the defence plea of right of private defence of the body and acquitting the accused. The order of acquittal is upheld. The Government Appeal is dismissed. Das, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed