JUDGMENT In this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Court at Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1984, decided on 30.9.1988. According to the prosecution, the appellant is said to have fenced certain Government lands which was objected Lo by the villagers of the village Pandriya. A panchayat is said to have been held to compel the appellant to remove the fencing. The Panchayat fizzled out as the appellant did not agree to remove the fencing. It is said that the deceased Ramji, who was a Panch of the village, persuaded the appellant to remove the fence yet he declined to oblige him too. It is said that the appellant gave two blows of Tangia to Ramji, who was taken to the hospital in the injured condition. In the Hospital, injured Ramiji was examined by Dr. Guin (PW 11), who as per his injury report (Ex. P/8-A) found one incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm over the middle of the skull and second incised wound over left side chest. Both the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. The report (Ex. P/1) of the incident was lodged by Keshav Singh (PW 1). On the memorandum made by the appellant, a tangia was seized from his possession as per seizure memo Ex. P/3. The deceased Ramji was admitted in the Hospital. During the treatment, abscess was formed in the head injury which resulted into his death after a month i.e. on 30.10.1983. Dr. G.B. Singh (PW 15) performed autopsy over the dead body of Ramji, who as per his post-mortem report (Ex. P/15-A) found that the caused of death was due to brain abscess as a result of head injury. The injury No.2 in the chest was simple in nature. At the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and took the plea of self defence. The learned trial Judge rejected the plea of self defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as said above against which this appeal has been preferred. The injury No.2 in the chest was simple in nature. At the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and took the plea of self defence. The learned trial Judge rejected the plea of self defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as said above against which this appeal has been preferred. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plea of self defence is made out from the prosecution evidence itself and that at best it can be a case of exceeding only. In our opinion, the submission appears to be justified. The incident occurred at the place where the appellant is said to have fenced some Government land. The appellant too has sustained injury as deposed by Dr. Guin (PW 1), who examined the appellant on 30.9.1983 and as per his injury report (Ex. P/7-A) found a lacerated wound on the middle of his skull 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm and a contusion on the left scepule 5 cm x 2.5 cm. Both these injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. Both these injuries of the appellant are on the vital part. It appears that the appellant was first assaulted and it was thereafter that he came out with a Tangia and gave a blow to the deceased Ramji. The injury does not seem to be a serious as he survived for ~ month and died on 30.10.1983 due to brain abscess. In these circumstances, it is clear that the appellant had caused the single head injury in exercise of his right of private defence of person. But causing an injury by a weapon like Tangia on on head with great force does indicate that the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence. We, therefore, hold the appellant guilty for an offence under section 304 Part-I of the Penal Code. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code' with sentence thereunder is set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under section 304 Part-I of the Penal Code. The appellant is in jail since September, 1983. In the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code' with sentence thereunder is set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under section 304 Part-I of the Penal Code. The appellant is in jail since September, 1983. He has, thus, served out jail sentence of about 9 years without remissions which, in our opinion is more than sufficient for the offence for which he has been found guilty. The sentence of the appellant is, therefore, confined to the period already undergone by him. The appellant now be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.