Judgment 1. The above appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.12.1991 in S.C.No.219 of 1991, on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304 (Part II) and Sec.324, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.304 (Part II) and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.324, India Penal Code re-, spectively, both sentence to run concurrently. 2. The appellant was facing a trial as accused in S.C.No.219 of 1991, with regard to an occurrence said to have taken place on 22.3.1991 at about 8.45 P.M. when he attacked one, by name Rajendran by using his knife, who along with P.W.1 and P.W.2. The appellant shouting in filthy language in the public street, which was objected by P.W. 1 and others, and later on, at the instance of P.W.4, a headmaster, P.W.2 and one, by name Rajendran. 3. On behalf of the prosecution fifteen witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15, ten documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-10 and seven material objects were produced as M.O.1 to M.O.7, of which, it is suffix to mention that P.W.1, 2 and 3 were eye-witnesses, of whom, P.W.2 has become hostile; P.W.1 and P.W.3 are husband and wife; P.W.4 was a headmaster who asked P.W.1, P.W.2 and Rajendran to specify the appellant/accused not to shout in filthy language in the public street. 4. Annoyed at the intervention of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Rajendran, the appellant/accused attacked Rajendran with knife on his chest and left thigh and caused grievous injuries, and also attacked P.W.2 on his right finger and caused a simple injury. Thereafter, the said Rajendran was taken for first aid to P.W.5; after initial treatment he was taken to the Government Hospital at Perambalur; but even before he was admitted, the said Rajendran, died. In the meanwhile, P.W.2 and the accused were also taken to the hospital, as the accused also sustained four injuries during the course of interception by P.W.I, P.W.2 and the accused were certified by P.W.9 and P.W.10 as simple in nature. 5. After the death of Rajendran, P.W.11, conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Rajendran and marked Ex.P-9, namely, the post-mortem certificate. Therefore, a complaint was given by P.W.7, the Village Administrative. 5. After the death of Rajendran, P.W.11, conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Rajendran and marked Ex.P-9, namely, the post-mortem certificate. Therefore, a complaint was given by P.W.7, the Village Administrative. Officer of Perambalur Village, and the same was registered by P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.15 conducted the investigation. 6. On the other hand, the petitioner/accused gave a statement that he was constrained to attack the said Rajendran as a self-defence as P.W.1, P.W.2 and Rajendran attempted to encircle and attack the appellant. 7. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in the light of the above evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304 (Part II), I.P.C. for causing grievous injuries on the deceased Rajendran, which, ultimately, caused the death of the deceased Rajendran and further convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sec.324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.304 (Part II) and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec.324, I.P.C. respectively, both sentences to run concurrently. 8. Mr.S.Kalyanaraman, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Court below failed to appreciate the defence taken by the appellant/ accused that he was constrained to attack P.W.2 and the deceased Rajendran only as a self-defence as P.W.1, P.W.2 and Rajendran encircled and attacked him, particularly when P.W.9 and P.W.10, the doctors, who treated P.W.1, P.W.2 and the appellant/accused certified that the appellant/accused also sustained nine injuries eventhough they are simple in nature. 9. Per contra, Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate, contends that the very fact that the appellant/accused has taken the claim of self-defence, proves the case of the prosecution that he participated in the commission of offence and attacked P.W.2 and the deceased Rajendran, as evidenced from the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.3, which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.4, namely, the headmaster, and P.W.11, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem immediately, and marked Ex.P-9, namely, the postmortem certificate. 10. Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate further contended that the self-defence can be resorted to only if the conditions under Sec.100, I.P.C. are complied with, namely, that he was unable to have recourse for the public authorities for his relief. 10. Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate further contended that the self-defence can be resorted to only if the conditions under Sec.100, I.P.C. are complied with, namely, that he was unable to have recourse for the public authorities for his relief. The appellant/accused, having failed to prove that he had a reasonable apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such an assault or that grievous injury would be otherwise the consequence of such assault and further would prove that he was unable to have recourse of the authorities for his relief he is not entitled to claim benefit of self-defence, as he has exceeded his limits, specified under Sec.100, Cr.P.C. 11. I have given a careful consideration to the submission of both sides. 12. In my considered opinion, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the appellant/accused has not discharged his burden to satisfy this Court that: (i) he had a reasonable apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such an assault or that grievous injury would be otherwise the consequence of such assault; and (ii) that he was unable to have recourse of the authorities for his relief; before causing such a grievous injury, which has resulted in the death of Rajendran. Having failed to do so, the appellant/accused is not entitled to claim the self-defence. Hence, the participation of the accused in the commission of offence stands proved, in view of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, read with the evidence of P.W.11 and Ex.P-9 and M.O.1. 13. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly, that the appellant/accused himself sustained nine injuries as evidenced in the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor, I am obliged to reduce the sentence from five years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence pun-ishable under Sec.304 (Part II) and confirm the order of conviction and sentence of the Court below in all other respects. The appellant/accused is at liberty to approach the jail authorities, seeking the remission of sentence under relevant Government Orders, if he is so advised. The appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.