"If the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he would be justified in using deadly force in self-defense, even though it may afterwards have turned out that the appearances were false. If these requirements are met he could use deadly force even though there was in fact neither purpose on the part of the other person to kill him or do him serious bodily harm, nor imminent danger that it would be done, nor actual necessity that deadly force be used in self-defense." While we recognize that charges similar to the one at issue have been deemed proper even though they have omitted any references to the doctrine of retreat and the question of freedom from fault, Grady v. State, 51 Ala. App. 143, 283 So.2d 453, 456-57 (1973), we find that the instant charge was properly refused because the second portion singles out a part of the evidence and assumes, as facts, certain considerations which, under the testimony, were issues for the jury. See King v. State, 19 Ala. App. 153, 96 So. 636, cert. denied, 209 Ala. 446, 96 So. 639 (1923).

Additionally, even if there were some evidence of inability to retreat, requested charge number 18 was properly refused because under the circumstances of this case the defendant had a duty to retreat and that charge omitted all reference to the doctrine of retreat. Rogers v. State, 275 Ala. 588, 590, 157 So.2d 13 (1963); Smith v. State, 230 Ala. 18, 21, 158 So. 808 (1935); Grady v. State, 51 Ala. App. 143, 145, 283 So.2d 453 (1973). Charge 22 was properly refused because it ignored the question of freedom from fault.

" The refused charge is a proper statement of the law and has a long history of approval beginning with Kennedy v. State, 140 Ala. 1, 37 So. 90 (1903); Grady v. State, 51 Ala. App. 143, 283 So.2d 453 (1973); Abercrombie v. State, 33 Ala. App. 581, 36 So.2d 111 (1948). However the refusal of a charge, though a correct statement of the law, is not a cause for reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's general charge.

This charge pretermitted consideration of freedom from fault and the qualified duty to retreat as essential elements of the defense of self-defense, and it was properly refused. Grady v. State, 51 Ala. App. 143, 283 So.2d 453 (1973); Mitchell v. State, 53 Ala. App. 58, 297 So.2d 383, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 742, 297 So.2d 388 (1974). In any event, the court's oral charge properly covered all elements of the defense of self-defense.