https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297664 Private defence was rejected because the evidence did not support a self-defence plea; the incident occurred in a public lane, the prosecution version of the place of occurrence was not displaced, and the material showing the complainant side as aggressors was insufficient. The occurrence was treated as a sudden free fight without premeditation or undue advantage, bringing the matter within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The convictions were therefore modified: the appellant who inflicted the fatal axe injuries was held liable under Section 304 Part II, while the appellant who struck after taking the axe from the injured victim was held liable under Section 304 Part I, with corresponding reduction of sentence. en-us Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:24:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297664 Private defence was rejected because the evidence did not support a self-defence plea; the incident occurred in a public lane, the prosecution version of the place of occurrence was not displaced, and the material showing the complainant side as aggressors was insufficient. The occurrence was treated as a sudden free fight without premeditation or undue advantage, bringing the matter within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The convictions were therefore modified: the appellant who inflicted the fatal axe injuries was held liable under Section 304 Part II, while the appellant who struck after taking the axe from the injured victim was held liable under Section 304 Part I, with corresponding reduction of sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297664