Judgment The appellant - accused has been convicted for an offence punishable underS.304, Part I, I.P.C., and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in Sessions Case No.5 of 1980 or, his file. The allegation against the accused - appellant was that on 31st October, 1979 at 7 a.m. at Rajendram village, the accused caused the death of one Paramasivarn by stabbing him with a knife. 2. The facts need narration. P.W.I., Sundaramurthi, and P.W.2, Natarajan, and Paramasivarn, the deceased, and P.W.4, Ramaswami, were brothers. The occurrence which was on 31st October, 1979 was preceded by an earlier incident The accused is alleged to have hit P-.W.5, Bagyathammal, mother of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 and deceased Paramasivarn, on her mouth. That was on 30th October, 1979 in the evening. P.W.5, Bagyathammal, reported the matter to P.W.4, On the night of 30th October, 1979 at about 7 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 4 went in search of the accused to his house (admitted by P.W.I). On seeing them, the accused took to his heels. On the next day, that is on 31 st October, 1979, at about 7 am. the accused went to take his usual tea at Varadarajan's tea - stall which is opposite to the cycleshop run by P.W.2. At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased, brother of P.Ws. 1 and 2, were at the shop and they gave a chase to the accused who ran for his life. According to the prosecution, the deceased caught him from behind. But according to the defence the accused fell down and all the three pounced upon him. The fact remains that he was caught and was manhandled and it was at. that time the accused took out a pen - knife and gave a stab on the chest of Paramasivarn, who succumbed to the injury a little later. A complaint was given by P.W. 1. Sundaramurthi,and P.W,10,Sub - Inspector of Police, registered it in Crime No.730 of 1979 underS.302, I.P.C. P.W.11, Sengamalai, took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.Pi, and then a rough sketch, Ex.P16, and held inquest between 12 noon and 3 p.m. on 31st October, 1979 and prepared inquest report, Ex.P17. He then sent the body of Paramasivam for postmortem examination. P.W.3, Manaharan, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.Pi, and then a rough sketch, Ex.P16, and held inquest between 12 noon and 3 p.m. on 31st October, 1979 and prepared inquest report, Ex.P17. He then sent the body of Paramasivam for postmortem examination. P.W.3, Manaharan, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital. Kulilalai, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Paramasivarn and he found an incised gaping wound 1 1/2 } 2 cm. going deeper in the chest cavity and situate over the fourth intercostal space 4 cm. medical to right nipple. Internal examination revealed that there was injury to the lung. In the view of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the right lung and that the injury to the right lung is necessarily fatal and that death should have been sudden. In the meanwhile, the accused has preferred a complaint, Ex.P15 and that was also registered by P.W.11 in Crime No.73l of 1979 underSs.323 and 324,. I.P.C. That complaint was later referred as non - cognizable. The accused was arrested on the 31 st October, 1979 at 4.30 p.m. and a voluntary confession was given by the accused. Most unforturately, the neither the Public Prosecutor nor the learned Sessions Judge has cared to mark the admissible portion of the confession without which the recovery is not possible A charge sheet was later laid, 3. The accuses filed a statement. It is seen from the statement that P. W.5, mother of the deceased and P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 came to his house and scolded him and that he made a sign to go away, but accidentally his hand fell on her mouth and that P.W.1 and P.W.4 Ramaswami, came to his house that night, that he ran away, that on the next morning as he was under the impression that there was a panchayat, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 came to his house and scolded him and that he made a sign to go away, but accidentally his hand fell on her mouth and that P.W.1 and P.W.4 Ramaswami, came to his house that night, that he ran away, that on the next morning as he was under the impression that there was a panchayat, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 and the deceased would not do anything, he went to the tea - stall of Varadarajan, and at that time the deceased anned with a knife and P.W.2 armed with a cycle - chain, chased him and that he opened a knife which was with him and ran away saying not to approach him and that as he was running P.W.2 hit him with a cycle - chain, that he fell down at the threshold of his house and P.W.2 his him and the deceased Paramasivam caught hold of him and then he gave a stab, that the deceased was injured and that he slabbed in exercise of his high of private defence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the accused that he gave the stab in the exercise of right of his private defence, but however, came to the conclusion that he exceeded the right of private defence and therefore found hirn guilty underS.304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant is aggrieved and has filed this appeal. 5. The prosecution case is that on 31 st October, 1979 the accused armed with a knife appeared before P.Ws.l and 2 and the deceased who were seated in the cycleshop and provoked them to fight. P.Ws. 1,2 and the deceased attempted to apprehend him, and the accused began to ran and then he stood, and Paramasivarn caught hold of the accused and the accused gave a stab on the chest of Paramasivarn. This is a story trotted by P.Ws.l and 2 who are the only ocular witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4, the other brother, has not seen the occurrence, The learned Sessions Judge has not believed this case, and in my view, rightly. If really the accused is bold enough to challenge all the three persons he would not. have urn away when on the previous night P.Ws. 1 and 4 came to his house. Secondly, if he had an inkling that P.Ws. If really the accused is bold enough to challenge all the three persons he would not. have urn away when on the previous night P.Ws. 1 and 4 came to his house. Secondly, if he had an inkling that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased were lying in wait for him at the cycle-shop, he would not have ventured to go the tea-stall which is just opposite to the cycle-shop of P.W.4. It is therefore that the learned Sessions Judge said that he is unable to believe that the accused would have challenged P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased who were seated in the cycle-shop. It is obvious that the accused unaware of the fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased were lying in wait in the cycle-shop, went to the tea-stall of Varadarajan to take tea. But, when they began to chase, the accused ran for his life and fell down near the house of the accused. The fact that the occurence took place near the house of the accused itself is indicative of the fact that the accused who was in the tea-stall was chased and that the accused came as near as his house and has fallen down. According to prosecution, the accused was caught near his house. Even assuming that it is true., there is clear evidence of the fact that he was man handled both by P.Ws.l and 2 and the deceased. The deceased caught hold of the accused from behind and made it impossible for him to extricate; himself from the clutches. However he did extricate and gave a single stab on the chest of Paramasivarn which unfortunately proved fatal. The learned Sessions Judge rightly comes to the conclusion that the accused has exercised his right of private defence. But would, however, say that he has exceeded the right of private defence as both P.Ws.l and 2 and the deceased, Paramasivarn, were not armed with any weapon. But this is not the case of the accused. The accused would however say that P.W.2 was armed with a cycle-chain and deceased was armed with a knife. In judging the conduct of a person who pleads that he had a right of private defence, allowance must necessarily be made for his feelings at the relevant time. But this is not the case of the accused. The accused would however say that P.W.2 was armed with a cycle-chain and deceased was armed with a knife. In judging the conduct of a person who pleads that he had a right of private defence, allowance must necessarily be made for his feelings at the relevant time. The accused was faced with an assault which causes a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and that would have crated in his mind some exitement and confusion. At such a moment, the uppermost feeling in his mind will be to ward off the danger and to save himself and it is therefore the accused dealt a blow on the chest of the deceased. It is no doubt true that the accused should not use more force than reasonable and necessary. But the means which the accused adopts of the force which he uses, should not be weighed in “golden scales”. It all depends on the circumstances in which the accused was placed while dealing the blow. In this case, the accused would have reasonably felt that his life was in imminent danger or that P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased would cause grievous hurt to him. It is in such circumstances he gives a single stab on the chest of Paramasivam, to save himself and in dealing the blow he has exercised the right of private defence and he would not, therefore, be guilty of the ofence charged. The appeal is allowed, the conviction and the sentence are set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted. B.S. ----- Appeal allowed.