ORDER 1.Leave granted. 2. The appellant was the first accused in a case of murder. He was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That conviction was confirmed by the High Court. When he filed the special leave petition we issued notice on 27-1-2000 limited to the nature of offence. The prosecution case was that on the date of occurrence, Ghever, son of deceased Smt Singari went to the house of the first accused for protesting against the act done by the appellant relating to the wall constructed in the property. It was when Ghever was inside the house of the accused that the appellant and other inmates of the house started beating him. This was followed by the deceased (mother of Ghever) running into the house and it was in that melee she was attacked resulting in serious injuries inflicted on her head. No doubt the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but even the narration of the facts of the prosecution case would clearly show that initially the appellant had the right of private defence as against Ghever who entered into the house of the accused for the purpose of protesting. It was done without the consent of the inmates of the house. It would amount to criminal trespass as per Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. The inmates of the house could have exercised the right of private defence to repel the aggression. When Ghever was followed by his mother the same right persisted with them for ejecting all of them from the house, particularly when the deceased was accompanied by the other male a members of her family. But in such a situation use of the right of private defence should not exceed the bounds provided by law. Ejection of those persons from the house did not warrant using of lethal weapons in the manner the accused did against them. By doing so the appellant had obviously exceeded his right of private defence. Hence, the conviction could not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a case of exceeding the right of private defence and hence the conviction should have been made under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 3. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Hence, the conviction could not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a case of exceeding the right of private defence and hence the conviction should have been made under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 3. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Considering the fact that the appellant is a sick person we think that a sentence of imprisonment for 7 years would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unless the jail authorities would take prompt steps for making medical facilities available to the appellant his condition would deteriorate. We direct the jail authorities to cause the appellant examined by the proper medical people for giving him necessary treatment while he undergoes incarceration pursuant to the order passed by us. The appellant is therefore directed to surrender before the jail authorities forthwith. 6. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.