Short Note : 1. The prosecution evidence conclusively established that the appellant was in possession of the disputed field and that the deceased had gone there to forcibly sow paddy in it. In view of this the appellant definitely had the right of defence of property and he was entitled to use such force as was necessary to prevent the trespass by the deceased. However, the evidence disclosed that the appellant dealt three axe blows from the blunt side on the deceased. Thus he used force disproportionate to the occasion and though he had the right of defence of property, he definitely exceeded Conviction under section 302 altered to S. 304, Part I, IPC. Appeal partly allowed.