ORDER : K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Special leave granted. 2. Notice was issued on the question of the nature of the offence. The prosecution case is that the deceased Venu and the appellant are co-brothers having married sisters. Appellant's wife Sujata was staying with her father and the appellant was coming often and was staying with his father-in-law and the wife. He was working in an arrack shop. The deceased who stays in the same village on the previous night of the occurrence namely August 18, 1986, while the appellant and his wife were asleep, went and wanted to have sexual intercourse with Sujata. Because it was dark, by mistake he touched the appellant and thereafter the deceased finding that he touched wrong person, ran away from that place. On the next day, namely, August 19, 1986 at about 5.00 p.m. while the accused was on the way at Paramba near House No. VI/574 in Paraparambu Desom of Azhikode Village, the appellant came across the deceased. There appears to be an altercation between the appellant and the deceased in which the appellant had taken out the knife and hit the deceased and thereafter he ran away. PW 2 had seen the attack and PW 3 saw the appellant running away from the place of the occurrence. Thereafter PWs 7 and 8 also saw the appellant running away. PWs 4 to 6 have been examined to show that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession. Placing reliance on the evidence of extra-judicial confession, the trial court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court placing reliance on extra-judicial confession to PWs 4 to 6 and the direct evidence of PW 2, confirmed the conviction. Thus this appeal by special leave. 3. It appears from the judgment of the trial court and the High Court that the defence of the appellant in the course of cross-examination of witnesses as well as in his examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, was that there had been a scuffle and an altercation between him and the deceased during the course of which the deceased sustained the injuries. It could be seen that the motive for the quarrel is only the indecent behaviour of the deceased towards the wife of the appellant. It could be seen that the motive for the quarrel is only the indecent behaviour of the deceased towards the wife of the appellant. When there was scuffle and altercation, right of private defence obviously cannot be measured in golden scale. It is natural that the appellant was in anger, he must have hit the deceased with the knife in his possession. However, it can be said that he has exceeded his right of private defence. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 is set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The conviction and sentence are modified accordingly. If he has already completed seven years' imprisonment, he shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case. Otherwise he has to complete the balance period of sentence. 4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.