Short Note : 1. The accused had taken a loan from the deceased Hukumchand, who had gone to the field of the accused armed with a knife to demand repayment of the loan. There ensued an altercation in between them and ultimately the accused appellant was convicted under section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code. The question that arose for decision was whether the accused appellant had exceeded the right of self-defence. Held : In the opinion of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge does seem to have erred in law and facts in convicting the accused appellant by holding that he had exceeded the right of private defence. The learned Sessions Judge actually missed the provisions of law contemplated by section 102 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, undisputedly, the deceased went to the field of the appellant accused with a dangerous weapon i.e. a big knife for demanding repayment of the loan. The prosecution witnesses have also stated that the deceased was a bully type of person, physically strong and rude. It is also undisputed that the accused did receive a knife injury on his thigh and abrasions on his band and neck. From these circumstances, it is apparent that the contents of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the village Choukidar, Prema (P.W.2) are true, wherein he had told immediately after the occurrence that the deceased had attacked him with a knife and he had apprehended that he could kill him if not repelled and overpowered. In the absence of any eye-witness, the only material before the Court was in the shape of certain undisputed circumstances and the extra-Judicial confession. It could reasonably be inferred from these circumstances and the confession that there was a quarrel giving rise to a scuffle and after the deceased attacked the accused with a knife, in order to defend his person, the accused picked the 'Katarna' lying on the field and in the heat of the moment dealt various blows. It is true that the injury received by the accused was on his thigh, but it does not mean that the apprehension of danger to his body came to an end. It is true that the injury received by the accused was on his thigh, but it does not mean that the apprehension of danger to his body came to an end. On the contrary, after receiving an injury on his thigh, he was further more justified in hitting the deceased with a view to completely overpower him so that he may not be able to inflict other injuries on his person with the knife held by him. It cannot be said that all the 8 injuries were caused before the accused received the injury on his thigh. It might have been that during the scuffle, while trying to, protect him from the attack, some of the injuries might have been inflicted even before the accused was injured and the remaining might have been caused afterwards with a view to completely overpower him. What is to be actually seen in such cases is the commencement of the right of private defence of person on a reasonable apprehension of danger to his body and the point of time at which the said right ceased to be available. If there would have been evidence or circumstances to infer that after receiving the injury on his thigh, there was no further apprehension of danger to the person of the accused, then obviously, it would have been correct to hold that the right of private defence ceased to be available but there is nothing on record to infer this. The right of private defence is based on the general principle that where one endeavours to commit a crime by force it is lawful to repel that force in self-defence. If you proceed to hit one by force he has every right on apprehending injury on his person, to overpower you by using necessary force so that you may not be able to cause any injury to him or may not be able to repeat further injury. The right commences, irrespective of the fact that actual injury was caused to the person in defence or not. What is relevant is the apprehension and the continuance of the same. In such a situation, with a knife in the hand of a person and the type of the person whom the accused was facing, it was impossible for any body to weigh carefully the quantity of force that might be legally used to control the aggressor. What is relevant is the apprehension and the continuance of the same. In such a situation, with a knife in the hand of a person and the type of the person whom the accused was facing, it was impossible for any body to weigh carefully the quantity of force that might be legally used to control the aggressor. In the opinion of this Court, despite the fact that the number of injuries caused by the accused with the 'Katarna' were more and the injuries were caused with great force, it cannot be said that in the circumstances of the case, he exceeded the right of self defence, Appeal allowed.