Private defence must be probable and proportionate; excessive force can still attract culpable homicide liability.

The right of private defence is a strictly defensive plea that the accused must establish on a preponderance of probabilities, and it may arise even from prosecution evidence; however, it cannot rest on conjecture and must be supported by the surrounding facts showing reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. Applying that standard, the Court held that the plea was not established to the extent accepted below. Even if some basis for defence existed, the response went beyond what was necessary for protection, and minor inconsistencies or superficial injuries on the accused did not displace the prosecution case. The conviction was restored in modified form under Section 304 Part I IPC, with the acquittal set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents had established the plea of right of private defence on the evidence on record; (ii) whether, even if such right had arisen, the respondents exceeded its permissible limits so as to warrant conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents had established the plea of right of private defence on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The right of private defence is a valuable but strictly defensive right under the Penal Code. Its existence depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances, and the accused need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt; a preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. The burden lies on the accused under the Evidence Act, and the plea may be established from prosecution evidence itself. However, the plea cannot rest on conjecture or speculation, and the entire incident must be examined to see whether there was a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and whether the accused acted defensively.

Conclusion: The plea of private defence was not established to the extent accepted by the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if such right had arisen, the respondents exceeded its permissible limits so as to warrant conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Analysis: The evidence showed that there may have been some initial foundation for private defence, but the response went beyond what was necessary for protection. The High Court had erred in treating minor inconsistencies, superficial injuries on the accused, and the alleged non-recovery of support from the field as sufficient to uphold acquittal. The injuries on the accused were not of such a character as to displace the prosecution case, and the factual circumstances showed that the defensive right, if any, was exceeded.

Conclusion: The respondents were liable for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the conviction was restored in that modified form.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the conviction was modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the custodial sentence was fixed at eight years.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of private defence must be supported by a reasonable probability on the evidence and, even where some defensive right exists, the accused is liable if the force used exceeds the necessity of protection.

---