JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 33 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 28.09.2011, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: “The deceased in this case was one Iyyanar. P.W. 1 is his father. The deceased and the accused belong to the same village. The deceased was running a Tuition Centre, where number of children were studying under him. It is alleged that on one occasion, the accused, who incidentally came there, had eve teased the children studying under him. This resulted in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The bystanders pacified him and separated them. Thereafter, there was no incident between them. On 21.09.2007, on account of the above incident, there arose a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. This time also, they were pacified and separated. Again on 22.09.2007. at 4.15 p.m., by the side of the house of one Mr. Selvam the accused and the deceased had met incidentally and they started quarreling with each other. In the said quarrel, abusive words were hurled by each other. In the course of the quarrel, it is alleged that the deceased took a wooden log and attacked the accused. In retaliation. the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased thrice. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 intervened. The accused stopped attacking the deceased and ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 immediately took the deceased to the Meenakshi Mission Hospital. Madurai at 6.15 p.m.” 1.1. P.W.5 - Dr. Anandbabu Prakash. examined him at 6.25 p.m. on 22.09.2007. He conducted surgery on the deceased by admitting him as inpatient. He gave intimation to the police about the same. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 1.2. P.W. 7 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, received the complaint of P.W.1 on 22.09.2007 at 11.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No. 504 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. He gave intimation to the police about the same. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 1.2. P.W. 7 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, received the complaint of P.W.1 on 22.09.2007 at 11.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No. 504 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P1 is the complaint of P.W.1 and Ex. P10 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 1.3. P.W.8 took up the case for investigation at 6.00 a.m. on 23.09.2007. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. He also prepared a rough sketch. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 9.30 and 11.30 a.m. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 1.4. P.W.6 - Dr. Alavudeen conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 23.09.2007 at 11.40 a.m. He found the following injuries: “1. An oblique stab injury noted on the front of upper left chest 1 cm below the mid of the clavicle size 4 x 1.5 cms x lung deep. On dissection, the wound passes backwards and inwards piercing the underlying muscles. pleura 3.5 cms x through and through and ends on the apex of left lung. 2. Two oblique stab wounds 1 cm apart present on the left loin measuring 4 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep. On dissection, the wound passes backwards and inwards piercing the underlying muscles and ends on the middle pole of left kidney with surrounding bruising through which the bowel loops found protruding. 3. An oblique stab on the middle of the left upper arm (defence wound) 4 x 1 cms x muscle deep. On dissection wound passes along the muscle plane. N.B. All stab wounds ends are pointed. 4. Drainage wound (surgical wound) found on left chest. Ex. P8 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the injuries on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 - knife. He further opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries.” 1.5. During the course of investigation, at 3.00 p.m.. in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. Ex. P8 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the injuries on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 - knife. He further opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries.” 1.5. During the course of investigation, at 3.00 p.m.. in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. P.W.8 arrested the accused at Madappuram Vilakku. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.9 and the witnesses to a coconut grove and produced M.O.I knife and M.O.4 banian. He recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He made a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. (But the report has not been marked). On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 1.6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and 15 documents and 4 material objects were marked. 1.7. Out of the said witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have spoken vividly about the entire occurrence. P.W.3 has spoken about the observation mahazar and a rough sketch prepared and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.4 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential discovery of material objects. P.W.5 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased and the fact that he died succumbing to the injuries. P.W.6 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.7 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.8 has spoken about the investigation done by him. 1.8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However. he did not choose to examine any witness on his side, nor marked any documents. Having considered all the above, the trial Court has convicted him under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, punished him. That is how. he is before this Court with this appeal. 2. However. he did not choose to examine any witness on his side, nor marked any documents. Having considered all the above, the trial Court has convicted him under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, punished him. That is how. he is before this Court with this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed, as their presence itself is doubtful. We have gone through the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 has stated that when he was at his house, P.W.2 came to him and told that there was a quarrel going on between the deceased and the accused in the Bazaar. Therefore, he went to the place of occurrence along with P.W.2. Then. P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the place of occurrence and at that time, the quarrel was still going on and in culmination of the said quarrel, the deceased attacked the accused and in retaliation, the accused attacked the deceased. Though these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination we find nothing on record to disbelieve their credibility. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject their evidences. After the occurrence, it was only P.W.1, who took the deceased to the hospital. This is also borne out by the records. Thus, the prosecution, from the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. has clearly established that it was this accused, who caused the stab injuries on the deceased, which resulted in his death. 4. Next, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that assuming that the accused had caused injuries on the deceased, there are enormous evidences available on record to prove that the accused had act ed in right of private defence of body and thus, he had not committed any offence. In this regard, the learned counsel would take us through the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically stated that in the bazaar, there was quarrel going on between the accused and the deceased. On seeing the quarrel. P.W.2 rushed to the house, informed P.W. 1 and then, both of them returned to the place of occurrence. According to their evidences, the quarrel was still going on. 1 and 2. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically stated that in the bazaar, there was quarrel going on between the accused and the deceased. On seeing the quarrel. P.W.2 rushed to the house, informed P.W. 1 and then, both of them returned to the place of occurrence. According to their evidences, the quarrel was still going on. P.W.2 has specifically stated that after their arrival to the scene of occurrence, the quarrel went on for about 10 minutes. During the said quarrel, it is also in evidence that abusive words were hurled by both, against each other. It was only at that juncture, unexpectedly, the deceased took out a wooden log and attacked the accused. Thus, it was only the deceased, who made the first attack on the accused, though it was not warranted, as the wordy quarrel was in progress. Quite naturally, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the accused would have had the apprehension that the deceased would repeat his assault resulting either in his death or in grievous hurt. Therefore, even before the 2 assault could be made by the deceased, the accused took out the knife and stabbed him. Thus, at the time when the accused caused injury on the deceased, he had the right of private defence of his body. 5. Now, the question is whether the right of defence of the body, which the accused exercised could extend to cause the death of the deceased. Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code states that if such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault or if such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault, then, the right of private defence would extend to causing the death. 6. Here, in this case, as we have already pointed out the deceased made the first attack suddenly, which the accused would not have even expected. The said assault was made with a formidable wooden log. Therefore, the accused would have had the reasonable apprehension that if any more attacks were made, either the same would result in death or in grievous hurt. Thus, he had The right of private defence which would extend to the causing of death. The said assault was made with a formidable wooden log. Therefore, the accused would have had the reasonable apprehension that if any more attacks were made, either the same would result in death or in grievous hurt. Thus, he had The right of private defence which would extend to the causing of death. Thus, act of the accused squarely fall within the ambit of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the act of the accused would not fall under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, as he had exceeded the right of private defence of body. We are not persuaded by the said argument. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ramzani v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 1345 , wherein in paragraph No. 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "19. It is trite that the onus which rests on an accused person under Section 105, Evidence Act, to establish his plea of private defence is not as onerous as the unstinting burden which lies on the prosecution to establish every ingredient of the offence with which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is further well established that a person faced with imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another, is not expected to weight in "golden scales" the precise force needed to repel the danger. Even if he at the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further, then what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it." 8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, at that juncture when unexpected attack was made by the deceased, that too, with a formidable wooden log, as a result of a long quarrel spreading for about 10 minutes, the accused would not have been in a position to measure the extent of his defence required to protect his body. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the accused cannot be expected to weigh his defence in 'golden scales'. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the accused cannot be expected to weigh his defence in 'golden scales'. Even if he at the heat of the moment had carried his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind, the law makes due allowance for it. 9. In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the very fact that the accused had caused four injuries on the body, would indicate that he had exceeded his right of private defence, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, if we look into the narration of the events, we are sure that the accused had not exceeded his right of private defence of his body, because he had the apprehension that the deceased would further attack him with wooden log and in that process, he would be killed. Therefore, the act of the accused, in our considered view, clearly falls within the ambit of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, it is not an offence, in view of the exception contemplated in Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.