M. C. JAIN, J. There are seven ap pellants, namely, Bhagone, Ratan Singh, Gaya Din, Kishore Singh, Pooran, Ram Dayal and Chandrabhan. They have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th December, 1980, passed by Sri S. P. Lai, the then III Additional Ses sions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 1979. All of them have been con victed under Section 147,1. P. C. , 148,1. P. C. , 3071. P. C. read with Section 149,1. P. C. and 3021. P. C. read with Section 149,i. P. C. and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous im prisonment, ten years rigorous imprison ment and life imprisonment for the aforesaid offences respectively. 2. The incident occurred on 25-2-1978 at about 8 a. m. in village Amita, Police Station Ail. District Jalaua. The report was made by Khachere PW 1 the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. The distance of the Police Station from the place of occurrence was five kilometers. The prosecution case was that the informant resided in village Amita and on the fateful day at about 8 a. m. he was preparing fodder for his cattle outside his house. The appel lants Bhagone, Ram Dayal Gaya Din, Ratan Singh, Kishore Pooran and Chandra Bhan came over there armed with axes and lathis and questioned him as to why he had fixed a door-frame in the new wall Bhagone cried aloud hurling abuses that his door frame be displaced and thrown away. Ratan struck an axe blow on his neck. He raised shouts which attracted Dhan Singh, Ganga Prasad, Ram Charan and Shyam Lal. They intervened, Bhagone struck, an axe blow on the head of Dhan Singh as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The remaining accused (Appellants) caused injuries to Ganga also with axe and Dandas. They also dis placed and threw away his door frame and other materials. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that persons on his side also threw tiles in self defence, which might have hurt someone. 3. Dhan Singh was first examined in District Hospital Orai on 25th February, 1978 at 12. 30 p. m. As per injury report Ex. Ka-11 he had sustained an incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm x brain deep on left parietal region. 3. Dhan Singh was first examined in District Hospital Orai on 25th February, 1978 at 12. 30 p. m. As per injury report Ex. Ka-11 he had sustained an incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm x brain deep on left parietal region. Brain matter was coming out of cranium mixed with blood. He was unconscious. Dhan Singh was taken to Lucknow and admitted to King Georges Medical College, Lucknow on 28-2-1978 on reference by the Superintendent, Civil Hospital, and Orai. He died on 2-3-1978 at 8 a. m. Post-mortem over his dead body was conducted by Dr. R. B. Misra, P. W. 5 on 2-3-1978 at 4. 00 p. m. The following two ante- mortem injuries were found on his person: (1) Lacerated wound 3. 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right side of head 6 cm above right eye brow, 10cm above right ear. (2) Incised wound curved 8 cm x 3 cm on bone deep 7cm above left ear 11 cm above left eye brow 2. 5 cm left and behind injury No. 1. 4. The death had occurred due to coma as a result of the head injury. Conse quent upon his death, the case was con verted under Section 302,1. P. C. Injuries of two other persons, namely, Khachere PW 1 and Ganga PW 2 were also medically examined in District Hospital Orai on 25-2-1978 at 12. 40 p. m. and 12. 35 p. m. respec tively. Khachere PW 1 had sustained a lacerated wound 3 cm x 1-1/3 cm x scalp deep on left parietal region and another lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep on inner surface of upper part of the left leg. He had also sustained five other injuries in the form of contusions on dif ferent parts of his body. One of them was designated to be grievous which was a con tusion 6 cm x 3 cm on front of left shoulder with fracture of left clavicle. Ganga P W 2 had sustained a lacerated wound 4 cm x 1/3 cm x scalp deep on left parietal region another lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/3 cm x scalp deep on right parietal region, one contusion and one abrasion. All his in juries were simple and caused by blunt object. 5. It appears that a cross First Infor mation Report Ex. All his in juries were simple and caused by blunt object. 5. It appears that a cross First Infor mation Report Ex. Kha 5 was lodged by Bhagone accused on 25-2- 1978 itself in which Khachere PW 1, Dhan Singh, Bal Ram, Raghuraj, Shyam Lal, Ganga Prasad, Ram Charan and Jiya Lal were named as accused. The counter version was that on the fateful day at about 8 or 8. 30 a. m. Khachere PW 1 and Balram were displac ing the bricks of his wall and were throwing the same. When he questioned them, they along with others named above attacked with axes. On his shouts Kishore, Chandra Bhan, Ram Dayal, Bharose and Ram Gopal rushed and intervened, but injuries were caused to Ratan Singh, Chandra Bhan, Bhagone and Kishore by the above named persons by axes and lathis. As Ratan had sustained serious injuries, he had directly been taken to the hospital by the villagers. 6. To be short, Ratan Singh, Chandra Bhan, Bhagone and Kishore accused are also the injured. Their injury reports are Ex. Kha 1 to Kha 4 respectively. They had been examined on 26-2-1978 at 11 a. m. , 25- 2-1978 at 7. 20 P. M. 25-2-1978 at 7. 35 p. m. and 25-2-1978 at 7 p. m. respectively. Ratan Singh had sustained in all six in juries out of which five were contusions and one abrasion. Chandra Bhan had sus tained an incised wound 1" x 1/10" x skin deep at frontal parietal bone of the scalp on the right side besides one abrasion and one contusion. Incised wound had been caused by sharp edged weapon and remaining injuries were caused by blunt object. Bhagone had sustained three con tusions and all his injuries were simple. Kishore had sustained five injuries out of which one was incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep at the parietal bone of the head on the left side 3" away from the left ear edge. Another was lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" skin deep on the frontal bone of scalp 2-1/2 away from injury No. l. Remaining injuries were contusions. Incised wound had been caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries had been caused by blunt object. 7. Another was lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" skin deep on the frontal bone of scalp 2-1/2 away from injury No. l. Remaining injuries were contusions. Incised wound had been caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries had been caused by blunt object. 7. At the trial, the prosecution ex amined in all seven witnesses out of whom Khachere PW 1, Ganga PW 2 and Shyam Lal PW 3 were eye-witnesses. Rest related to medical evidence and the evidence relating to investigation of the case. The appellant also examined two witnesses out of whom one was DW-1, Dr. Hari Das Verma who proved their injuries, DW 2, was Constable Clerk Shrish Nath Sharma who proved their cross First Information Report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the trial was held, believed the prosecution case and evidence, discarding the defence version of private defence of property. He according ly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned earlier. 8. We have heard Sri A. D. Giri, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. on behalf of State of U. P. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. 9. Learned Counsel for the appel lants has argued that the persons on the prosecution side were displacing and throwing the bricks of their wall and on raising objection by Bhagone accused, they made an attack causing injuries to accused Ratan Singh, Chandra Bhan, Bhagone and Kishore. To be short, the case put forth from the side of the appellants is of private defence of property. It has been argued that the prosecution side has not at all explained the incised wounds sustained by the accused Chandra Bhan and Kishore, which could be sustained only by sharp edged weapons. 10. On a careful consideration of the material and evidence on record, we find that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is partly acceptable that injuries were caused to Khachere PW 1, Dhan Singh and Ganga on the side of the prosecution by the accused persons in ex ercise of right of private defence of proper ty, but one of them namely, Bhagone ex ceeded such right of private defence. We wish to elaborate our point. 11. The First Information Report of prosecution itself says that Khachere PW 1 and others on his side had thrown tiles in defence which might have hit someone. We wish to elaborate our point. 11. The First Information Report of prosecution itself says that Khachere PW 1 and others on his side had thrown tiles in defence which might have hit someone. By saying so, Khachere-informant PW 1 meant to feebly explain the injuries sus tained on the side of the accused. But, this fact of throwing tiles is far away Irom truth when it is judged in the light of the incised wounds sustained by Chandra Bhan and Kishore accused. Each of them sustained an incised wound which could be caused only by sharp edged weapon. The prosecu tion has failed to explain these incised wounds sustained by the accused Chandra Bhan and Kishore. Indeed, the incised wound could not be sustained by hit of tiles. Khachere PW 1 has stated that per sons on his side had only thrown tiles in self defence. The same is the statement of Shyam Lal PW 3. Ganga PW 2 has stated that he did not throw any tile towards the accused-persons. Then it goes unex plained as to-how two of the accused-per sons sustained incised wounds. The evidence of the Investigating Officer Gulab Singh PW 4 is also relevant to be referred. He admitted in his cross-ex amination that at the spot he did not find any tile or the pieces of tiles. He also did not take in possession any door-frame. Now, it would be recalled that the prosecu tion case is that the accused persons had displaced the door-frame that had been fixed by Khachere PW 1 in his new wall and had thrown the same. Had the door-frame been displaced and thrown away, the In vestigating Officer would have found it at the spot and would have taken it in posses sion as an important case property. He found the bricks displaced from the north ern wall of the bam of Bhagone accused. This factual position found by the Inves tigating Officer at the spot supports the defence version that the persons on the prosecution side had displaced the bricks from the wall of Bhagone and had thrown the same. This was actually the one of contention which has been tried to be screened and twisted by the prosecution side. This factual position found by the Inves tigating Officer at the spot supports the defence version that the persons on the prosecution side had displaced the bricks from the wall of Bhagone and had thrown the same. This was actually the one of contention which has been tried to be screened and twisted by the prosecution side. A look at the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer indicates that the bara of the accused Bhagone is situated in the southern side in the north of which is the room of the complainant Khachere PW 1. What sounds to be probable is that with the opening of the door in the southern wall of his room, Khachere P W1, with the help of his supporters, wanted to trespass over the land of the bara of the accused Bhagone and it was with that design in view that the prosecution side smarted displacing the bricks of the north ern wall of the bara of Bhagone accused. Such act of the prosecution side gave rise to an objection from the side of Bhagone accused and he with his supporters wanted to resist Khachere PW 1 and others on his side from doing so. Over it, a fight ensued between the two sides. 12. As per Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, every person has a right to defend his body and body of any other person against any offence affecting human body. Every persons also has a right of private defence of property whether such property belongs to him or belongs to any other person Of course, such a right is subject to certain conditions and is regulated by certain restriction. If the prosecution side displaced the bricks of the northern wall of the bara of the accused Bhagone, right of private defence of property accrued to him and to other accused persons on his side. In exercise of such right of private defence of property, Bhagone and other accused acting in his support could cause injury to Khachere PW 1 and others on his side as his sup porters to repel their act of interfering with the right of one of them (Bhagone) in the use of his property bara. However, such right of private defence of property could not extend to the inflicting of more harm than that was necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 13. However, such right of private defence of property could not extend to the inflicting of more harm than that was necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 13. In the case at hand, the injuries caused by the accused persons to Khachere PW 1 and Ganga P. W 2 could have been caused in the right of private defence of property. But that cannot be case in respect of incised blow inflicted by Bhagone over the head of Dhan Singh whereof he died. 14. To support his argument for ac quittal on the ground of right of private defence of property, learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a case of Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U. P. , (1990) 3 SCC 190 ; 1990 (1) JIC 620 (SC ). We have gone through the same and find that the accused-appellant Bhagone who struck a forceful axe blow on the head of the deceased Dhan Singh resulting in his death cannot claim to be acquitted on the strength of this pronouncement of the Apex Court keeping in view the present facts, evidence and circumstances. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have ob served that the question whether a person having a right of private defence, has used more force than is necessary would depend on facts and circumstances of a particular case. Naturally, therefore, the facts, evidence and circumstances of the present case would be determinative as to whether Bhagone appellant could cause the death of Dhan Singh in the right of private defence. When we look into the evidence on this aspect of the matter, we find that the accused did not adduce any evidence indicating the circumstances, which necessitated the striking of the fatal axe blow by Bhagone appellant on the head of the deceased Dhan Singh. Of course, It can be gathered from the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the attending circumstances that the case falls under general exceptions of right of private defence, but it does automatically follow that such a right exercised by the accused could. extend to the causing of death of a person named Dhan Singh from the side of the complainant. As per Sec tions 100 and 103 of the Indian Penal Code the right of private defence of body and property can extend to the causing of death only under certain contingencies mentioned therein. extend to the causing of death of a person named Dhan Singh from the side of the complainant. As per Sec tions 100 and 103 of the Indian Penal Code the right of private defence of body and property can extend to the causing of death only under certain contingencies mentioned therein. Accused could lead evidence to indicate the existence of any or more of such contingencies, which they have not done. We are also conscious and it could be gathered from the prosecution evidence itself and other related cir cumstances emerging there from but the prosecution evidence and concomitant circumstances are also not indicative of any such contigency which could have ex tended the right of private defence on the part of the accused to the causing of death of Dhan Singh on the side of the com plainant. To say in other words, it is not possible to draw any such inference that death could be caused of Dhan Singh by accused-appellant Bhagone in the exer cise of right of private defence. It is the salutary principle of the right of private defence that in no case it extends to the inflicting of more harm than is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. The learned Counsel for the appellant has ar gued that two accused, namely, Chandra Bhan and Kishore sustained incised wounds. One incised wound was sustained by each of them. He pains taxingly urged that these sharp cut weapon injuries of Chandra Bhan and Kishore had not been explained by the prosecution and since sharp edged weapon (s) had been used from the side of the complainant, the ac cused could cause death of anyone on the side of the complainant. We do not find this argument to be convincing. It deserves mention that there is nothing to presume or indicate the nature and damaging capacity of the cutting weapon whereby the aforesaid persons on the accused side sustained one incised wound each. The simple fact that each of them sustained an incised wound cannot and does not give rise to an inference or presumption that a contingency had arisen for the accused to stretch their right of private defence to the causing of death of someone on the side of the complainant. It is also not shown that the accused side had been out numbered by the complainants side. 15. It is also not shown that the accused side had been out numbered by the complainants side. 15. On a combined, cumulative and global consideration of all the relevant factors the conclusion is inescapable that Bhagone accused exceeded the right of private defence by causing the death of Dhan Singh on the complainants side. He struck the forceful axe blow on his head which was vital part. The blow had been laid by him with such tremendous force that brain matter came out of the cranium. He had no justification whatsoever to strike such a heavy and fatal blow on the head of the victim Dhan Singh. But it was his individual act and it cannot be held that other accused are vicariously liable for the same. It was Bhagone that he in his individual capacity caused the death of Dhan Singh. The case is covered by Excep-tion-2 of Section 300, I. P. C. Since he struck the forceful fatal axe blow on the head (vital part) of Dhan Singh, he has to be imputed with the knowledge that his such act, was likely to cause death of Dhan Singh. His case is, therefore, covered by Part II Section 304, I. P. C. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that award of seven years rigorous imprisonment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 16. As a result of the foregoing dis cussion, we partly allow this appeal. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants Ratan, Gaya Din, Kishore, Pooran, Ram Dayal and Chandra Bhan, under Sections 147,1. P. C. , 148,1. P. C. , 307 I. P. C. read with Section 1491. P. C. and 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties dis charged. As regards the appellant No. 1, the conviction and sentence of Bhagone is modified as under: 17. The appellant Bhagone is con victed under Section 304, Part II, I. P. C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprison ment. He is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence passed against him. Appeal partly allowed .