prepared by the investigating officer from therein, itself. As per Section 97, IPC it can be seen that when there is a trespass, owner of the property will be entitled to oust the person. In this case the case evident from the evidence is that deceased went to the property of the appellant when the appellant was using abusive words. It also came out in evidence that the deceased pulled down the appellant, thereafter he went inside and took a sword and inflicted the injuries. It can be seen from the evidence before the court that the appellant is entitled to private defence as contemplated under Section 97, IPC. But, by virtue of Section 100, IPC the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death only when an assailant reasonably cause the apprehension that death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Thus, the vital aspect to be considered is regarding the reasonable apprehension of death in the mind of the appellant. There is no positive evidence adduced by the appellant. Surely, only because no evidence is adduced, it cannot be said that he is deprived of raising the said defence. If materials are available, the appellant can surely raise the plea of private defence and may even cause death. In the decision reported in George Dominic Varkey v. State of Kerala
