Short Note : 1. The law of private defence is founded on two cardinal principles: (i) Everyone-has the right to defend one's own body and property, as also another's body and property. The law does not require him to be cowardly. (ii) This right cannot be used as a pretence for justifying aggression i.e. for causing harm to another person, nor for inflicting more harm than is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 2. In view of the law as stated above, this Court is definitely of the view that Ghasiram and his companions had gone to the house of Bhagatram duly armed, had forcibly entered his house, had assaulted the appellant and two others and therefore, the appellant who was faced with forcible entry of number of persons duly armed inside his house and his companions subjected to assault, had the right to defend his property as also person The prosecution version does not appear to be truthful, because the genesis of the quarrel has been suppressed and the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on the person of the appellant. This Court is, therefore, clearly of the view that the appellant had acted in exercise of the right of person and property and was fully justified in attacking Ghasiram and others. In view of this, the conviction of appellant Bhogilal under section 302 of the IPC is clearly wrong and could not be sustained. State of M. P. v. Salegram and others, 1971 JLJ 292 relied on. Appeal allowed.