ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. Admittedly, the sole appellant, shot dead the deceased with the firearm. His plea throughout has been that he did so in the exercise of his right of self-defence while the prosecution case is that the accused has deliberately shot the deceased. The specific defence plea has been that the deceased and two others came to him when he was sleeping and inflicted injuries and that he was keeping a licensed gun underneath his bedding and after apprehending danger to his life owing to injuries inflicted by the deceased and others, he shot the deceased. The courts below accepted the plea of self-defence but held that the appellant exceeded the same. In that view, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for ten years. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it cannot be said that the accused had exceeded his right of private defence. He shot the deceased when he apprehended danger to his life. The accused should be acquitted giving him the benefit of general exceptions. 2. While appreciating the plea of self-defence the Court has to keep in view the limitations contained in Sections 99 and 100 Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, we have examined the medical evidence regarding the injuries found on the person of the deceased (sic accused). Except one injury rest are of a simple nature. In such a situation the question arose whether the accused was justified in killing the deceased outright by shooting him with his gun. We cannot find fault with the finding of the High Court that he has exceeded the same. However, having regard to the injuries and the fact that the occurrence had taken place a number of years ago, ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the accused is reduced. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction but the sentence is reduced to RI for five years. 3. Subject to above modification, the appeal is dismissed.