Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, J.-Having heard Mr. Jain for the appellant,, we see no reason whatsoever for interfering with the well-considered
judgment of the Delhi High court.
2. The deceased Gurdas was unarmed and there was no justification on the part of the -appellant for inflicting a severe blow on his head with a
takwa. The injuries received by the members of the appellant''s party were far too trivial to justify the killing of Gurdas. In fact the appellant himself
had received no injury at all. Even assuming, therefore, that the appellant had a right of private defence of person or property, he clearly exceeded
that right. The High court was as lenient as a court would be in reducing the offence from S. 302 to S. 304 Part I, Penal Code, and the sentence of
life imprisonment to a period of three years.
3. The order of conviction and sentence is accordingly confirmed and the appeal dismissed.