ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The appellant, along with accused, Babu Santu Patil, was tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, accused Babu Santu Patil was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 but was convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of court and was directed to pay fine of Rs 100, in default to undergo h further simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was further convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay fine of Rs 200, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. So far as the appellant, Shankar Balu Patil is concerned, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 500, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. The appellant was further convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a day and to pay fine of Rs 200, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. Against the order of acquittal of accused Babu Santu Patil charged under Section 302 IPC, no appeal was preferred by the State of Maharashtra. On appeal being preferred by both the accused persons, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence so far as accused Babu Santu Patil is concerned. But in relation to the appellant, the conviction under Section 302 IPC has been converted into one under Section 304 Part I IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. His conviction, however, under Section 452 has been maintained. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. So far as accused Babu Santu Patil is concerned, he did not file any appeal before this Court. The present appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant Shankar Balu Patil alone. At the time of grant of leave, this Court confined the appeal only for considering as to whether the appellant exceeded right of private defence of person. 4. In the present case, Dr. Nagumahanti Rao, PW 2, who examined the appellant, stated that he found light swelling and ecchymosis upon the right shoulder joint of the appellant. At the time of grant of leave, this Court confined the appeal only for considering as to whether the appellant exceeded right of private defence of person. 4. In the present case, Dr. Nagumahanti Rao, PW 2, who examined the appellant, stated that he found light swelling and ecchymosis upon the right shoulder joint of the appellant. The same doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Ishwara Dattu Patil and found the following injuries on the person: 1. Incised and cutting wound of 5" x 11/2 “1/2' on the chest, oblique in nature, over 4th rib to 7th rib. There was gaping in the wound and bleeding was present. 2. An incised and cutting wound of I" x 11/2" X 1/2" across the right index finger, middle and posterior aspect, the finger bone was cut with bleeding present. 5. The doctor opined that there was cut of fourth to seventh rib piercing the left pleura which was also cut. Apart from that, he found that anterior lobe of the left lung was cut W' deep and internal bleeding was present. The doctor clearly stated in his evidence that Injury on the chest was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The nature of the injuries upon the accused and those upon the deceased clearly go to show that the appellant exceeded the right of private defence. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and taking a lenient view of the matter awarded sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. 7. Bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which the matter must be reported to this Court within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order by the trial court.