JUDGMENT S.Z. Hasan, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Sri O.P.Garg, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, sentencing the appellant to four years R.I. under Section 304, Part II IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that Dubey Lal deceased, who a washerman, was a drunkard and was not on good terms with his wife Sarju Dei. Chaman Lal accuses is their son. At the time of occurrence he was about 16 years of age. On June 30, 1980 at about 4 P.M. Chaman Lal accused along with his mother came there and his mother tried to enter the house. The deceased Dubey Lal stopped her. After some altercation Dubey Lal deceased went inside his house and brought a banka. It is said that the accused gave two blows with his knife after taking out the same from his pant. After receiving two injuries the deceased fell on the ground and died after a short while. A report was lodged by Santu (P.W.1) at 6.30 P.M. on the same day. Suraj Dei (P.W.2) Santu (P.W.1) and Bhai Lal (P.W.3) were examined on behalf of the prosecution as ,witnesses of fact. The accused denied the charge. He examined Ram Lakhan Dikshit (P.W.1) to show that he acted in self-defence. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused with a finding that he exceeded the right of self-defence. 3. According to the statement given by the accused and the nothing done by the Judge, the accused was about 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. The deceased was the father of the accused 5 and when the occurrence took place, the mother of the accused was trying to enter his house and the deceased was trying not to permit her to do so. The deceased was the father of the accused 5 and when the occurrence took place, the mother of the accused was trying to enter his house and the deceased was trying not to permit her to do so. Ram Lakhan Dikshit (D.W.1) has stated that the deceased was saying that he would not open the gates of his house and would not permit his wife to enter the house, that when the wife of the deceased tried to enter, the deceased brought out a banka and wielded the same on his wife, that by chance the blow missed and it hit the chabutra, that when the wife tried to move onward, the deceased again wielded the banka in his wife but the accused caught the hand of his father, that the deceased extricated himself and said that the accused and his wife would have to die at his hands, that the deceased attacked the accused with banka and the accused wielded his knife on the deceased, that when the deceased again tried to assault him with banka the accused gave the second blow with knife and thereafter the deceased fell on the ground. No beating was done after the deceased fell down. Ram Lakhan Dikshit (D.W.1) is a respectable person and there seems to be no good ground to reject his testimony specially when certain facts corroborate the same. Bhai Lal (P.W.3) has admitted that the deceased was drunk, that he was enraged when he came out' with a banka and wielded the same an the accused. Santu (P.W.1) also admits that the deceased was not permitting his wife to enter his house and the deceased fell down after receiving two knife blows. From his statement it also appears that no beating was done after the deceased fell down. There are two injuries on the chest of the deceased. The accused could not have any intention to kill his father and make his mother a widow nor he could gain any being described as orphan with bleak future. He was admittedly 16 years at that time. It is also in evidence that the accused was arrested by the Chaukidar and taken to the Thana. So the aforesaid 1ects and circumstances corroborate the statement of D.W.1 Ram Lakhan Dikshit. The onus the accused in such cases is not so onerous as on the prosecution. He was admittedly 16 years at that time. It is also in evidence that the accused was arrested by the Chaukidar and taken to the Thana. So the aforesaid 1ects and circumstances corroborate the statement of D.W.1 Ram Lakhan Dikshit. The onus the accused in such cases is not so onerous as on the prosecution. Direct evidence of the accused, the circumstances of the case, the probabilities and some facts gained from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses can create reasonable doubt regarding the existence (sic exceeding) of right of self-defence. As already stated, the accused was aged about 16 years at that time. The situation should not be judged from the court-room angle, but i we should place ourselves under the situation the accused had to face, at that time. A person faced with imminent peril of life and limp of himself or another is not expected to weigh in "golden scales" the precise force needed to repel the danger, if he in the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further, then what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. So under the circumstances of the case it is not possible to agree with the learned trial Judge that the accused exceeded his right of self-defence. Believing the statement of Ram Lakhan Dikshit (D.W.1) which is corroborated by the prosecution evidence and attending circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the accused acted in self-defence so his conviction has to be set aside. 4. The appeal is allowed, the order of conviction has to be set aside. 5. The appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge referred Jo above. He is on bail. His bail bonds discharged.