FAZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five Years. ( 2 ) THE deceased Bhagrathibai was the wedded wife of the appellant. The deceased and the parents of the appellant were residents of the same village Tedawa. For some reasons about six months before the occurrence, the deceased was turned out from the house by her-in-laws and, therefore, the deceased was living with her mother in her parental house. It is said that on 12911985 the deceased Bhagrathibai had gone to the field to cut grass where the appellant is said to lave arrived with a Tangia. According to the prosecution, the appellant asked his wife deceased Bhagrathibai to accompany him to his house to which the deceased declined saying that she would go the other day. When the deceased proceeded to her parental house with the grass load on her head, it is said that the appellant gave a Tangia blow on herneck as a result of which shefell injured on the ground. In the nearby field, Shamu (PW 2) and Karu (PW 3) were present. Shamu went and informed Jhujhibai (PW 1) the mother of the deceased, who went to the place of occurrence and asked injured Bhagrathibai as to how she sustained injuries. The deceased is said to have told to her mother that it was the appellant who had caused her neck injury by Tangia. When the injured Bhagrathibai was being taken to hospital, she died of the way. Jhujhibai (PW 1) went to the Police Station Lanji where she lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/i ). ( 3 ) DR. Laxmikant (PW. 9) performed an autopsy over the dead body of Bhagrathibai, who as per his post mortem report (Ex. P/13), found incised wound spindle shaped with smooth clean cut edges 15 cm. x 8 cm x 4 cm over right side of neck 3 cm below right ear and lateral and over top of shoulder joint, cutting the neck muscles, blood vessels and 4th and 5th cervical vertebra. These injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp and hard object. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was syncope as a result of excessive haemorrhage from the injury. These injuries were ante mortem caused by sharp and hard object. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was syncope as a result of excessive haemorrhage from the injury. ( 4 ) AT the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded to be tried. The appellant took the defence that when he asked his wife deceased Bhagrathibai to accompany him to the house, she declined to go along with him and, therefore, there was an altercation between the two, the deceased was having a sickle in her hand and the appellant was having a Tangia, During the course of altercation, the deceased gave)-4 blows on the neck of the appellant by sickle and ultimately in exercise of right of private the defence of person he pushed the deceased as result of which she sustained injuries on her neck. The learned trial Judge accepted the plea of defence but took the view that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence and, therefore, instead of convicting him Under Section 302, convicted him under Section 304 Part-i of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as said above against which this Appeal has been preferred. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant after having received eight injuries on his person caused by the deceased herself, was Forced to cause a single injury to the deceased and having regard to the facts and circumstances in which he had used his Tangiai it could not be said that he had exceeded his right of private defence of person. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the appellant had examined Dr. M. R. Wasnik as D. W. 1, who deposed that he had medically examined the appellant on 30-1-1985 and as per his injury report, he found the following injuries on the person of the appellant: (1) Incised wound, sickle shaped over right neck just below the right mandible 3-1/2'1 x 1/3 muscles deep; (2) incised wound below and parallel to injury No. 1. (3) Two abrasions 2-1/2 x 1/2 parallel to each other over injury No. 2. (4) One incised wound 1 x 1/4 x skin deep below the injury No. 3. (3) Two abrasions 2-1/2 x 1/2 parallel to each other over injury No. 2. (4) One incised wound 1 x 1/4 x skin deep below the injury No. 3. (5) One abrasion 1" x. 1/4 over the posterior surface bf right elbow joint; (6) Incised wound 1/2 x 1/4 x skin beep above the umblicus; (7) One abrasion over the left side of neck. AND (8) Abrasion 1/2 over left side of neck. In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and sharp object. ( 6 ) THE aforesaid injuries were caused to the appellant in the same incident and admittedly, the deceased was having sickle with her at the time of incident. The prosecution has absolutely led no evidence at the trial to explain as to how these eight injuries were came to be received by the appellant out of which several injuries arc over the neck of the appellant caused by sharp edged weapon. In the absence of any explanation to these injuries found on the person of the appellant, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted al its face value. The learned trial Judge has, therefore rightly accepted the theory of self defence put forth by the appellant. But, the learned trial Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant had exceeded the right of self defence. ( 7 ) AS discussed above, the appellant had sustained as many as 8 injuries on his person caused by sharp edged weapon. Having regard to the injuries found on the person of the deceased, it can well be said that injuries found on the person of the appellant must have been caused by the deceased before she herself received the solitary injuries on her neck. As soon as the appellant received repeated assaults on his neck, a reasonable apprehension of danger to his body arose to him and consequently, the right of the self defence commenced as soon as he received those injuries when he felt imminent danger to his own person. In Such a situation, it was difficult to expect from the appellant to weigh with golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep him within the right. In Such a situation, it was difficult to expect from the appellant to weigh with golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep him within the right. It is settled law that the Such circumstances, every reasonable allowance should be made for the bona fide defender if he with the instinct of self-preservation strong upon him, pursues his defence a little Further than may be strictly necessary in the circumstances to avert the attack. It would be wholly unrealistic to expect of a person under assault, to modulate his defence step by step according to the attack. See Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat, in the present case also, under the circumstances discussed above, it could not be expected from the appellant that he should have weighed in golden scales as to what maximum amount bf force is necessary in using his Tangia while giving a single stroke by his Tangia. In my opinion, no case of exceeding is made out. The appellant was fully with his right to use the Tangia in exercise of his private defence of person. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code with sentence there under is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds arc cancelled. Appeal allowed. .