ORDER : Dr. A.S. Anand, J. 1. The appellant along with two others was tried for committing the murder of Ram Roop on 25-3-1978. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302 and 392/34 Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others. Vide judgment dated 29-8-1978, the two co-accused of the appellant were acquitted. The appellant, however, was convicted for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code only and sentenced to life imprisonment. His plea of self-defence was rejected. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging his conviction and sentence. The appeal was partly allowed by the High Court on 31-10-1990 and while the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was set aside, he was convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment. Since the State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, their acquittal became final. By special leave the appellant has filed this appeal in this Court. 2. After examining the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the trial court and the High Court that the appellant had given a fatal blow to the deceased, Ram Roop in the manner suggested by the prosecution. The complicity of the appellant with the crime thus stands fully established. The High Court while considering the nature of offence observed: "In the instant case, evidence has fully established the fact that there was no intention on the part of the accused, Amarsingh, to cause Ram Roop's death as there was no premeditation. Suddenly, Ram Roop appeared on the spot armed with a gun and jumped on the roof of Vijaysingh's house to join issue with people and frayed temper. If by any objective standard reasonableness of accused's 'apprehension' is to be adjudged, how an ordinary man would react to the circumstances must provide the test. Appellant, Amarsingh's apprehension, in the circumstances proved, must be regarded as reasonable." 3. The High Court also noticed that the appellant had given a single blow with a farsa on the neck of the deceased which proved fatal. Admittedly, the deceased had not fired the gun nor is it the prosecution's case that he had even aimed the gun at the deceased. The High Court also noticed that the appellant had given a single blow with a farsa on the neck of the deceased which proved fatal. Admittedly, the deceased had not fired the gun nor is it the prosecution's case that he had even aimed the gun at the deceased. By causing death of Ram Roop, under these circumstances, the appellant had exceeded the right of self-defence. Under these circumstances the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code does not call for any interference and is well merited. So far as the sentence is concerned, the High Court has awarded a sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment. That sentence, if at all, errs on leniency and does not call for any interference either. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.