The extent of self-defense is measured by the accused's perception of threat, not by an objective standard, under conditions of immediate danger.

1.The accused was charged under S.302 of the I. P. C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, who tried him, found that he had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence, but that he had exceeded that right. Therefore, he acquitted him of the offence under S.302, but convicted him under S.299 of the I. P. C. The accused appeals to this Court.

2. Shortly stated the facts of the prosecution are that at about 10-30 p.m. on April 30, 1977, at Morlem, the accused had a quarrel with his brother Vassu, during which he hit him on the head with a hammer causing Vassu's death.

3. The defence of the accused is as follows: that the deceased was much stronger than him; that he used to harass him on various occasions;, that on the night of the incident the accused (sic) (deceased?) beat him severely, threw him on the ground and throttled him; that while throttling the accused, the deceased had stated that he was going to kill the accused; that the accused felt suffocated and believed that the deceased who had on previous occasions also beaten and harassed him, would in fact kill him, that he therefore caught hold of the hammer, M. O. 2 which he found on the ground and hit the deceased on the head.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge states in his judgment that four cardinal conditions must exist before taking life of a person is justified on a plea of self - defence. Firstly, that the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter; secondly, that there must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or so apparent as to create honest belief of exceeding necessity; thirdly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and fourthly, there must have been a necessity for taking life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that the first three conditions were fulfilled and I am entirely in agreement with him, in view of the evidence on record which I do not have to discuss again. I have read it fully and more particularly the passages through which the advocates for the prosecution and defence have taken me. I adopt the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding his evidence on the three points. I must say that the learned Government Advocate was fair enough to admit that the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the three points could not seriously be disputed.

5. Regarding the findings on the fourth point, I am unable to agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Shri J. Dias supports his reasoning on this point. Shri Vaze, learned advocate for the defence, however, attacks that finding on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the accused had exceeded his right of private defence. I will analyse the facts of the case on this point.

6. The evidence shows that there was a dispute on account of a cashew grove which was being commonly cultivated by the accused, by the deceased and by their younger brother by name Arjun. All the three brothers were living in the same house, but in separate apartments. Arjun and his wife were living in one of them, the deceased and his mother Saraswati were living in another and the accused and his wife Sita were living in the third. The accused wanted his share in the income of the cashew grove, but the deceased who was living with the mother contended that the income should be given in the hands of the mother. There was a long - standing quarrel on this account. On one occasion, the deceased beat the accused. On another, he snatched a "coita" which was hanging from the thread around the waist of the accused. The deceased a