1. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the 'IPC'). However, the Trial Court, upon examining the evidence available on record, was pleased to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under S.304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant has come before this Court.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a medical practitioner. There was enmity between the appellant and the deceased over a money transaction. The deceased, armed with a pistol, went to the clinic of the appellant and shot him. Thereafter, the appellant snatched the pistol from the deceased and shot him down. Both the appellant and the deceased registered FIRs against each other. As the deceased had died, the FIR registered against him was closed and the appellant was charged for the offence as aforestated.

3. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even if the version of the prosecution is taken as such, it would only be a case of exercise of right of private defence by the appellant. The nature of the injury suffered would be insignificant and the right of private defence cannot be calculated with arithmetical precision. The appellant ought not to have been charged for the offence punishable under S.302 of the IPC and in any case, the offence punishable under S.304 Part I of the IPC is also not made out. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 333.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the post - mortem report of the deceased and the evidence of the doctor would show that it is a case where the right of private defence was exceeded by the appellant. The deceased was shot by the appellant on vital parts which has been duly taken note of by both the Courts below.

5. As stated, the deceased was the aggressor. He was the one who went to the clinic of the appellant, armed with a pistol and attacked him. Then, the appellant attacked the deceased in retaliation.

6. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the right of private defence cannot be brushed aside and cannot be weighed in a golden scale. In such a case, the approach of the Court shall not be pedantic. It should be seen from the point of view of a common and reasonable person. When an attack is sought to be made on the accused by a person, who goes to the place of the accused, armed with a pistol and thereafter, shoots him on his head causing injury, there is no way the accused person would apply his rational mind in exercising his right of private defence.

7. Considering the principle governing the right of private defence, this Court, in Darshan Singh (supra) was pleased to hold as under:
"54. In Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971) 3 SCC 244, the court observed that:
"18. The right of self - defence is a very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly. Situations have to be judged from the subjective point of view of the accused concerned in the surrounding excitement and confusion of the moment, confronted with a situation of peril and not by any microscopic and pedantic scrutiny. In adjudging the question as to whether more force than was necessary was used in the prevailing circumstances on the spot it would be inappropriate, as held by this court, to adopt tests by detached objectivity which would be so natural in a court room, or that which would seem absolutely necessary to a perfectly cool bystander. The person facing a reasonable apprehension of threat to himself cannot be expected to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude of only that much which is required in the thinking of a man in ordin