1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of this case would show that the incident started when deceased operated the disputed water course to which objection was raised by the appellant and his father. When the water course was meddled with by the deceased, prosecution case is that appellant and his father (co-accused) attacked the deceased. This was followed by a wrangle between the deceased and the co-accused (father of the appellant) as they grappled between each other.
3. Father then called his son, the appellant for the assistance. When wife of the deceased interfered, the appellant gave her a blow with a Club. Thereafter, appellant went and procured a lethal weapon (knife) and inflicted as many as 8 injuries on the deceased to which he succumbed.
4. The above description of the occurrence shows that appellant might have had a right of private defence of his property to start with but the procurement of the lethal weapon and the number of injuries inflicted by him would show that he has crossed all the frontiers of the right of private defence. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 304, Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code. We sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years (considering the number of injuries inflicted by him).
5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.