The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the right of private defence under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the reasonable interval between the development of apprehension and the commission of the offence to preempt the offence by public authorities, and the principle that more harm than necessary shall not be inflicted.

K.T. Thomas, J.

1. Appellant inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased with the handle of a spade and the skull bone was broken. He died almost instantaneously. Appellant did not seriously dispute the allegation that it was he who beat the deceased like that. He pleaded right of private defence of his person as well as property. Both were repelled by the sessions judge and he was convicted of the offence under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. This is his appeal.

2. Prosecution case is that at about 5.30 p.m. on 17-6-1987 while the deceased was trying to restore a sluice on a bund (for diversion of water flow), appellant rushed towards him with a spade and inflicted more than one blow on his head with its handle. When deceased fell down, appellant ran away with the spade. Deceased sustained extensive cracks on his skull including separation of skull bone at the left lambdoid suture. No doubt, the injury was necessarily fatal.

3. Some more details of the prosecution case are necessary for appreciation of evidence. Appellant had a small extent of paddy field situated on the north of deceased's land. Deceased raised banana cultivation in his land. Appellant had prepared his field for raising paddy cultivation. A water channel was running in between the two plots. It is alleged that appellant had earlier reclaimed half of the land in the water channel which abutted his paddy field and added it to his field. Appellant provided a sluice on the northern bund of the property of one Raghavan which was situated on the immediate east of deceased's land. (Appellant's idea in doing so was to divert the water to a public stream on the southern side of Raghavan's land). But deceased apprehended that excess water would flow into his land through Raghavan's plot and it would adversely affect his banana cultivation. He, therefore, filled up the opening on the bund. It was around 4 p.m. on the date of occurrence and deceased left the place. When appellant went there, he noticed that the opening on the bund was filled up and hence he reopened it again. Deceased came back to the place and on seeing what the appellant did, he had an exchange of words with the appellant. He squatted on the ground near that the place to close the opening on the bund. Appellant picked up a spade, and rushed to him from behind and inflicted one or two blows on his head with its handle.

4. Appellant did not dispute in so many words that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by him. According to him, the incident happened as follows: While he was restoring the opening on the bund, deceased reached there and kicked him and he fell into the water channel. Deceased took up a spade and pressed its handle on his chest. Appellant tried to squirm out, snatched the spade and in self defence beat the deceased.

5. To prove his version, he examined D.W.1 (Krishnan) who gave evidence in accordance with the defence version. Learned Sessions Judge declined to place reliance on the testimony of D.W.1. P.Ws.1 to 3 gave evidence in support of the prosecution version. Learned Sessions Judge found their testimony reliable and hence found that the incident happened in accordance with the prosecution version.

6. P. W.1 is the nephew of the deceased. First Information Statement (Ext.P1) was furnished by him. P.W.2 is cultivator in the neighbouring field. He also said that appellant inflicted two or three blows with the handle of a spade on the head of deceased while the latter was squatting near the disputed opening on the bund. P. W.3 is another eye witness. He also had his own cultivation in another field situated in the vicinity. P. W.3 was occasionally employed by others including the appellant to do manual work in their fields. His evidence is also consistent with the prosecution version. We went through the testimony of those three witnesses and we are satisfied that they spoke the true version. Some discrepancies elicited from them du