( 1 ) WE heard the learned counsel. The main plea was that the accused had a right of private defence initially and by inflicting fatal injuries on two deceased the accused had only exceeded the right of private defence and therefore the offence could be brought down to Sec. 304, Part-1 of the indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) IN order to countenance the said contention we first perused the evidence of the eye witnesses in this case, which evidence was believed by the trial Court and the High court. Public Witness-1 and Public Witness-6 and those two eye witnesses. The evidence of those eye witnesses can be summarised as follows: ( 3 ) THERE was a brawl between the appellant on the one side and deceased Bashir and his brother deceased Pared on the other side. After the brawl subsided both sides retreated from the scene. The appellant went into a hotel and a little while thereafter he went out of the hotel followed by his brother Saji who was then armed with a stick. The said brother saji went towards deceased Bashir. He was followed by the appellant moving towards bashir and then appellant was armed with a knife. Then, Bashir picked up a stone and hurled it. It did not hit any one of the accused. Suddenly, appellant plunged his knife on the chest of Bashir. Again he stabbed him on the axilla. By then brother of Bashir by name pareed rushed to the scene. Then appellant stabbed Pareed also on the abdomen. ( 4 ) THE act of Bashir pelting stone cannot, in the aforesaid broad setting of facts, be regarded as an act of aggression. It could only be an act of defence against an aggression perpetrated by the two accused. When both the accused were armed - one with a stick and another with a knife and moved towards the deceased Bashir who was then an unarmed, Bashir had a right of Private defence to repel the said aggression. Hence bashirs picking up a stone and pelting the same is not an act of aggression, but only an act of resisting the aggression. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid set of facts we are not disposed to consider whether appellant had exceeded the right of private defence, for, he had no right of private defence even initially. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.