Judgment :- The appellant/accused in S.C. No. 11/1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. He pleaded right of private defence. The Court below found that he had exceeded the right of private defence. Accordingly, it was found in terms of Exception 2 to Section 300 that he has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I to Section 304, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence. This is under challenge in this appeal. The contention urged by the appellant is that this is a case where absolute private defence was available to him. Evidence of occurrence witness. PW-2, was on unequivocal terms that the deceased had in his hand a bottle and with that bottle he had threatened the accused/appellant that the accused/appellant should not move further and that the appellant/accused had pleaded to the deceased to spare him without doing any harm. It was in spite of that there was scuffle and during that scuffle, the appellant drew M.O.-1 knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased and he ran away. To avert the threat on him from the hands of the deceased and because of an apprehension of grievous hurt that may be caused by the deceased with the bottle in his hands, he was exercising his right under Section 100. That right extended even to causing death to come under Secondly of Section 100, IPC. It is further contended that even going by the evidence of PW-4, the wife of the deceased, she came to the scene of occurrence after the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. She was doing her work in the kitchen. Hearing the quarrel, she came outside. It was at that time she saw the accused stabbing the deceased on his chest. Thereafter, once or twice he stabbed the deceased and ran away. Therefore, she could not have witnessed what had happened really just before the stabbing because she had been in the kitchen when she heard the quarrel. What were the words spoken to during the quarrel is not spoken to by PW-4, whereas it is spoken to by PW-2. Thereafter, once or twice he stabbed the deceased and ran away. Therefore, she could not have witnessed what had happened really just before the stabbing because she had been in the kitchen when she heard the quarrel. What were the words spoken to during the quarrel is not spoken to by PW-4, whereas it is spoken to by PW-2. Therefore the evidence of PW-2 is more relevant in this case and his evidence proved that the deceased was the real aggressor and the accused had to exercise his right of private defence. Going by the evidence of PW-9 Doctor, who conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem certificate, there were five injuries on the body of the deceased. Injury No. 1 on the chest alone was fatal. Injuries 2 and 3 were on the front of right forearm and on the inner aspect of the right upper arm and injury No. 4 was only a linear abrasion of 3 cm. in length on the outer aspect of the front of right forearm and injury No. 5 is an incised injury on the back of the middle of right middle finger. Except injury No. 1, others are not fatal. Therefore, it cannot be taken that the appellant had exercised more force than what was required for averting attack of the deceased on his body which caused apprehension of grievous hurt from the hands of the deceased with the bottle in his hand. The deceased had a bottle in his hand and had threatened the accused/appellant with that bottle not to proceed further. It was contended by the Public Prosecutor that even the first injury itself caused on the chest was a deep injury. Even in inflicting that injury itself, the accused had exceeded his right of private defence. Two or three more injuries also were inflicted by the accused/appellant. Therefore as rightly found by the court below, he had exceeded the right of private defence. Therefore, the conviction has to be sustained, he submits. The force used while exercising the right of private defence to avert the threat shall not exceed. But one cannot say how much force shall be required for averting a particular assault. The facts of the case as spoken to by the witnesses have to be evaluated to consider whether one had exceeded right of private defence. In this case, the incident is admitted. But one cannot say how much force shall be required for averting a particular assault. The facts of the case as spoken to by the witnesses have to be evaluated to consider whether one had exceeded right of private defence. In this case, the incident is admitted. It was from the hands of the accused/appellant, the deceased sustained the fatal injury. Therefore, homicide is an admitted fact. Whether it is justified or culpable is the issue in question. Homicide is justified if it comes within ambit of any of the six clauses in Section 100. As spoken to by PW-2, the occurrence witness, he had witnessed the incident. He was coming after his day's job. He heard both the deceased and the accused quarrelling (with) each other. He had seen the bottle in the hand of the deceased. He had heard the deceased threatening the accused not to proceed further. He had also heard the accused pleading the deceased to spare him and not to harm him. It was in spite of that the deceased proceeded towards the accused. This resulted in a scuffle and finally the accused taking M.O. 1 knife and inflicting an injury on the chest of the deceased causing injury No. 1 which was really fatal. The deceased was the real aggressor as he, on threatening the accused had proceeded towards the accused with the bottle. PW-2 had further deposed that the bottle was a pint bottle. Necessarily, any blow with such bottle on the body of the accused shall cause grievous hurt. In such situation, if the deceased had advanced towards him, the accused shall have a reasonable apprehension that the possible assault from the deceased may cause grievous hurt. Therefore the situation squarely fell within clause secondly of Section 100, I.P.C. So the accused did have the right of private defence in such circumstances. The fatal injury inflicted was on the chest as spoken to by PW-2 as well as PW-4. PW-2 had not seen any of the injuries being inflicted on the deceased whereas PW-4 had spoken to that further more injuries had been inflicted by the accused. Such injuries are only minor incised injury on the forearm and middle finger. Certainly, much force had been used to inflict the 1st injury. That was immediately after the deceased had advanced towards him with the bottle. Such injuries are only minor incised injury on the forearm and middle finger. Certainly, much force had been used to inflict the 1st injury. That was immediately after the deceased had advanced towards him with the bottle. In such circumstances, it cannot be taken that for infliction of such or other minor injuries, he had exceeded private defence. He was not acting so brutally or cruelly to inflict injuries. Therefore, I am of the view that accused/appellant did not exceed the right of private defence. Consequently, he had the excuse of committing homicide of the deceased going by clause secondly of Section 100, I.P.C. The conviction under Section 304, Part I is therefore set aside and consequently the accused stands acquitted of all the charges, allowing this appeal. Bail bond executed by him is cancelled. Appeal allowed.