Judgment Santhosh, J.- These two appeals have been filed by one and the same accused, one through the Jail and the other through his Counsel. The appellant Yellappa Yellappa Mandar of Nelliharvi, Kalghatgi Taluk, has been convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar in, Sessions Case No. 23 of 1967. He has also been convicted for an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous Imprisonment. In these appeals, the appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence passed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: The deceased Seetavva was a widow. She lost her husband about two years before the occurrence. She had developed illicit intimacy with the accused, who was an unmarried man. P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, the uncle, and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, the brother of the deceased Seetavva were objecting to the intimacy of the deceased with the accused and advised her to give up the illicit intimacy. But the deceased refused to do so and persisted in carrying on the illicit intimacy with the accused. The prosecution case, as put-forward in Court is, that the accused suspected that the deceased had developed ilhcit-intimacy with P.W. 16 Chinnayya. The accused therefore developed hatred against the deceased on account of her illicit intimacy with P.W. 16 Chinnayya. A few days before the occurrence the accused beat the deceased because of her intimacy with P.W. 16 Chinnayya. P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parashuram Singh brought this fact to the notice of the police patil P.W. 6, Pampana Gouda, and P.W. 6 Pampana Gouda held a panchayathi, sent for both the accused and deceased and advised them to behave properly. On 21st December, 1966, the prosecution case is, the deceased was sleeping in her hut with her son P.W. 4 Bhim Singh, aged about 9 years. The deceased had bolted the door of the hut from inside. At about mid-night the accused is stated to have entered the hut by making an opening in the that attacked the deceased and inflicted injuries on her. The deceased had bolted the door of the hut from inside. At about mid-night the accused is stated to have entered the hut by making an opening in the that attacked the deceased and inflicted injuries on her. In the skirmish that took place, P.W. 4 Bhim Singh, the boy who was sleeping by the side of his mother, also got some injuries and woke up, and, raised a hue and cry. This attracted the attention of the neighbours who came near the hut of the deceased. P.W. 3Basavanneppa, P.W. 8 Basana Gouda, P.W. 9 Rustumsab, and P.W. 11 Channappa Gouda, gathered around the hut of the deceased. They sent word to P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh the uncle of the deceased and also to P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh the brother of the deceased. They also came there. Thereafter they found that there was an opening in the thatti and after entering into the hut they discovered the deceased lying dead with a number of bleeding injuries on her person. They also saw the accused lying on the lap of the deceased with bleeding injuries. They thought that both the accused and the deceased were dead, so they closed the door of the hut and sent for the police patil P.W. 6 Pampana Gouda. After the arrival of P.W. 6 Pampana Gouda they opened the door and all of them went inside. But to their surprise they found the accused was not in the hut, and, they only saw the dead body of Seetavva lying there with bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the prosecution case is, that P.W. 6 Pampana Gouda the police patil went to Kalghatgi police station which is about 9 to 10 miles away from the scene of occurrence and gave a complaint as per Exhibit P-6 at about 4-00 a.m. to P.W. 23, Ramachandra the Sub-Inspector of Police who was in charge of the police station. P.W. 23 Ramachandra, registered a case, submitted the first Information report to the Court and sent express report to his superior officers. In the meanwhile the accused appeared at the police station. He had some injuries on his person. Therefore a panchanama of his injuries as per Exhibit P-5, was prepared and he (accused) was sent along with P.W. 21 Dasappa, Police constable to the hospital at Hubli for necessary medical aid. In the meanwhile the accused appeared at the police station. He had some injuries on his person. Therefore a panchanama of his injuries as per Exhibit P-5, was prepared and he (accused) was sent along with P.W. 21 Dasappa, Police constable to the hospital at Hubli for necessary medical aid. P.W. 23 thereafter went to the scene of occurrence, held an inquest over the dead body of Seethavva and sent the same for post-mortem examination. He also examined some of the witnesses in the case. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharwar for offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no dispute in the case that Seethavva met with an unnatural death. P.W. 1 Doctor Chandra Gowda, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Seetavva on the morning of 22nd December 1966 found the following injuries which he noted in Exhibit P-1, the post-mortem certificate. The Doctor found as many as 12 injuries on the body of Seetavva. Injury Nos. 9 and 10 were serious injuries, which in the opinion of Doctor were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 9 was a vertical chopped injury in the left of the back in the middle 1½“ medial to the injury No. 8 measuring 3? × 1? × bone deep. Injury No. 10 was a chopped injury on the right back, transverse in direction commencing 1? from the midline extending over the right scapular region in the upper one-third measuring 3? × 1½ ? × cavity deep. The right scapula was cut 1½? in length from the medial border. The Doctor also noticed that there was a cut injury on the skull bone in the region of the right parietal eminence 1½ in length, corresponding to external injury No. 10. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and intercostal muscles were torn corresponding to external injury No. 8. The left 8th and 9th ribs were completely fractured. The lower lobe of the left lung was cut in its middle measuring 2”× 1?× 1?. corresponding to external injury No. 9. The intercostal muscles between the 2nd and 3rd right ribs were cut measuring 2” in length, just by the side of vertebral column. The left 8th and 9th ribs were completely fractured. The lower lobe of the left lung was cut in its middle measuring 2”× 1?× 1?. corresponding to external injury No. 9. The intercostal muscles between the 2nd and 3rd right ribs were cut measuring 2” in length, just by the side of vertebral column. The upper lobe of the right lung was also cut measuring 1½” in length and 1? deep, corresponding to external injury No. 10. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above said injuries. He was also of the opinion that the external injury Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 11 and internal injury No. 1 might have been caused by a sickle like M.O. 1; external injury Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and internal injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the opinion of the Doctor might have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon like an axe. There could therefore be no doubt that Seetavva met with a homicidal death. As stated already the accused when he went to the police station at about early in the morning on 21st December 1966 had number of injuries on his person. The police officer P.W. 23 Ramachandra. who observed these injuries sent the accused through police constable P.W. 21 Dasappa to K.M.E. Hospital at Hubli for necessary treatment. Exhibit P-15 is the wound certificate filed by the prosecution through the Investigation Officer P.W. 23 Ramachandra. It discloses that there were six injuries on the person of the accused. Injury No. 1 was an incised wound over the back of the neck in its middle transversely placed, 5¾“× 3? vertebral column deep and cerveal spine was visible. Injury No. 2 was a lacerated wound obliquely placed in the lower part of the occipital region in the medium plane 2“× ¼” × 1/8“; clinically there was no evidence of fracture of the underlying bone. Apart from these, there were three other wounds. The opinion of the Doctor as indicated by Exhibit P-15 was that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and the other injuries were simple in nature. Apart from these, there were three other wounds. The opinion of the Doctor as indicated by Exhibit P-15 was that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and the other injuries were simple in nature. The Doctor was also of the opinion, that injury No. 1 was caused by a body coming in contract with hard sharp object with violent force, and that injury No. 2 could be caused by a body coming in contact with a blunt and hard object with violent force., The other injuries could be caused by the body coming in contact with sharp object with force. P.W. 4 Bhim Singh, the son of the deceased has stated, that on the night in question he was sleeping in the hut with his mother Seetavva. They had closed the door bolting it from inside. When they were so sleeping, he got up after receiving an injury on his left hand. He saw his mother was crying “save me”. Then he identified the accused by his voice. The accused asked him (P.W. 4) to keep quiet. He thereafter shouted for help. Then number of persons came near the hut accompanied by P.W. 13 his grand-father and P.W. 14 his uncle. They entered into the hut and flashed the torch light which they were holding. He found his mother lying dead with multiple injuries and the accused was also lying on her lap with one injury on the side of his neck. Thereafter he was taken to the house of P.W. 14. P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 8 Basana Gouda, P.W. 9 Rustumsab, P.W. 11 Channappa Gouda, P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh and P.W. 19 Mallana Gouda, have also stated that they all went near the hut of the deceased attracted by the cries. They all entered the hut through the open space of the thatti. They found Seetavva lying dead with bleeding injuries. They also found the accused lying over the lap of the deceased with bleeding injuries. They noticed a sickle lying nearby. Thereafter they closed the thatti of the hut and sent word to the police patil P.W. 6 Pampana Gouda. After the arrival of the police patil they opened the door of the hut and went inside. Then they discovered that the accused was not in the hut and only the body of Seetavva was found lying in a pool of blood. After the arrival of the police patil they opened the door of the hut and went inside. Then they discovered that the accused was not in the hut and only the body of Seetavva was found lying in a pool of blood. The case put forward by the accused when he was examined in the Court of Session under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was, that on the night in question he had gone at about 9-00 p.m. to the hut of Seetavva who was his mistress. He asked Seetavva to open the door. Immediately thereafter P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 13 Parasuram Singh, P.W. 14 Sahadeva Singh, Ajjappa and Devappa who have not been examined in the case came there, caught hold of him and took him inside the house. The P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh hit him on the back side of his head with a stick. Ajjappa began to hit him with a chopper on the right and left flanks. On seeing this Seetavva intervened to save him. Then P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh hit her with an axe and Devappa hit her with a sickle. Thereafter Seetavva fell down to the ground. He extricated himself from the hands of P.W. 3 Basavanneppa and went to the Padasala. There P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh hit him on the back side of his neck with an axe. Then he fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Some time thereafter he regained consciousness and found Seetavva lying dead inside the hut. Fearing that he would also be killed by these persons he left the place and proceeded towards Bommigatti, where he saw a truck and asked the driver of the truck to give him a lift to Kalghatgi police station. In the police station he found some police constables in charge of the station. He told the constables that he had been beaten by P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh and others. Then one of the police constables went and brought the police Sub-Inspector and again he narrated the incident before the Sub-Inspector. Before the Sub-Inspector he has stated, that he was beaten P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, Ajjappa, and Devappa in the house of his keep Seetavva, and further stated that Seetavva was also done to death by those persons. Then the Sub-Inspector took his signature on two papers. Before the Sub-Inspector he has stated, that he was beaten P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, Ajjappa, and Devappa in the house of his keep Seetavva, and further stated that Seetavva was also done to death by those persons. Then the Sub-Inspector took his signature on two papers. Thereafter he was sent at about 1-00 a.m. in a truck to the K.M.C. Hospital at Hubli. The question for consideration is, whether the version put forward by the prosecution is true or the version put forward by the accused is true. Though the accused might not have proved by a positive evidence his plea, if the preponderance of the probabilities are in favour of the accused's version, there is no doubt that the accused will be entitled to succeed. There is considerable force in the contention of Sri Chouta, learned Counsel for the appellant, that P.W. 4 Bhim Singh was not sleeping on the night in question with the deceased Seetavva in her hut. P.W. 4 Bhim Singh has himself admitted in his cross-examination, that himself and his elder brother were residing with their uncle P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh since the last two years after the death of their father. He has also stated, that his mother was not allowed in the house of either P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh or P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh. P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh the uncle of the deceased has stated as follows. “Even we were not on talking terms with her (deceased). She lost her husband during her prime of youth. The children of Seetavva were living with us yet they used to go to their mother.” P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh the brother of the deceased has stated in his cross-examination as follows: “4. I did not go to the house of Seetavva and she also did not visit our house because she did not care to our advice. So her children were in our house since for the last two years.” It may also be pointed out that P.W. 4 Bhim Singh, is a child witness and if he was living with P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, it would not have been difficult for P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh to tutor P.W. 4 as they like. The evidence of P.W. 4 Bhim Singh is, that he identified the accused by his voice. The evidence of P.W. 4 Bhim Singh is, that he identified the accused by his voice. It may also be mentioned that in the First Information Report Exhibit P-6 there is no reference to the injury sustained by P.W. 4 Bhim Singh. Sri Chouta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has also pointed out that P.W. 4 Bhim Singh was sent to a Doctor only at about 5-30 p.m. on 21st December, 1966. It is therefore difficult to believe the version of P.W. 4, that he was sleeping in the hut of the deceased on the night in question. There is also considerable force in the contention of Sri Chouta, that the other witnesses, who speak to have come near the hut of Seetavva after hearing the cries, are also not speaking the truth. P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 114 Parasuram Singh, according to the defence were the very persons who had attacked both the deceased and the accused and caused various injuries on their person. The various other witnesses are in one way or the other interested in P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. These witnesses admittedly do not profess to have seen the occurrence. They came to the hut only after the occurrence and speak to the finding of the accused and the deceased lying with bleeding injuries in the hut. So their evidence is not much helpful in deciding the question as to how the occurrence took place. One important point to be noted in deciding the question whether the prosecution version is true is the significant fact that according to the medical evidence there are injuries on the body of the deceased which were caused both by an axe and a sickle. P.W. 1 Dr. Chandra Gouda has stated in his examination-in-chief as follows: “External injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 11-and internal injury No. 1 might have been caused by the sickle M.O. 1. External injuries Nos. 8, 9, 10 and internal injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 might have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon like an axe.” From this it follows that number of injuries have been inflicted on the deceased both by an axe as well as a sickle. It is apparent from this that more than one person should have attacked the deceased with these weapons. 2, 3 and 4 might have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon like an axe.” From this it follows that number of injuries have been inflicted on the deceased both by an axe as well as a sickle. It is apparent from this that more than one person should have attacked the deceased with these weapons. It is very difficult to believe that the accused would have carried with him both an axe and a sickle, attacked the deceased with both these weapons and inflicted the numerous injuries on her. The fact that various injuries found on the body of the deceased were inflicted both by an axe and a sickle fits in more with the version of the accused that number of persons attacked the deceased by both an axe and a sickle. Again we find the injuries on the person of the accused, according to the medical evidence, should have been caused by two different weapons. According to the opinion of the Doctor as per Exhibit P-15 the wound certificate produced by the prosecution, injury No. 2 was caused by the body coming into contact with blunt and hard substance with violent force. Injury No. 2 is a lacerated wound. The Doctor has also opined that the other injuries, including injury No. 1 were caused by the body coming in contact with hard sharp object with violent force. It is therefore clear from this, that the injuries have been caused on the accused both with a sharp weapon as well with a hard blunt weapon. This again shows that more than one person must have attacked the accused. It is impossible to accept the theory of the prosecution that when the accused attacked the deceased with two weapons, the deceased retaliated and caused injuries on hint by using two other weapons. The case of the accused is, that he was beaten by P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh both with sharp cotting weapons and also with sticks. The fact that on the body of the accused there were some injuries which should have been inflicted by more than one weapon also fits in with the accused's version, and not with the prosecution story as put forward before the Court. The fact that on the body of the accused there were some injuries which should have been inflicted by more than one weapon also fits in with the accused's version, and not with the prosecution story as put forward before the Court. The evidence let in by the prosecution clearly establishes that P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh strongly disapproved of the intimacy between the accused and the deceased. P.W. 3 Basavanneppa has stated that P.W. 13 and P.W. 14 belong to a respectable family in the village, that they were well-off; that they commanded respect and that none went against them in the village. P.W. 4 Bhim Singh has also admitted that his grandfather and his uncle used to tell his mother not to allow the accused into the house, but she was unwilling to heed their advise. He has also further stated, that his mother was not allowed to come to the house of P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, and that he and his brothers were throughout residing after the death of their father in the house of P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh. P.W. 4 Bhim Singh has admitted that some quarrel took place between his mother and P.W. 3 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh about a week prior to the occurrence with regard to the conduct of his mother with the accused. P.W. 3 Rustumsab has stated in evidence that the ladies of the house of P.Ws. 13 and 14 did not even come to see the body of the deceased. P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh has admitted in his evidence that just before the occurrence the deceased had gone to the Darga at Sisanhal accompanied by the accused. There is therefore considerable force in the contention of Sri Chouta that P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh were furious with the deceased and the accused and that they had every motive to murder the deceased and the accused. There are also other circumstances in the case which in our opinion do not fit in with the prosecution version. The evidence clearly discloses, that when thevarious witnesses entered the hut of the deceased they found the accused lying with bleeding injuries over the body of the deceased. There are also other circumstances in the case which in our opinion do not fit in with the prosecution version. The evidence clearly discloses, that when thevarious witnesses entered the hut of the deceased they found the accused lying with bleeding injuries over the body of the deceased. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution how the accused himself came to be lying with bleeding injuries unconscious over the body of the deceased. There was also on the back side of the neck of the accused a big injury. It is highly improbable that the deceased could have caused an injury like that on the back of his neck. We may also point out that only a sickle was found inside the hut. No axe or sticks were found in the hut. All these factors fit in more with the theory of the accused that some other persons, possibly P.W. 13 Sahadeva Singh, P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh and others, attacked the deceased and himself and caused injuries on them. Again P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh has admitted in his evidence that the police Sub-Inspector P.W. 23 Ramachandra, had questioned him regarding the offence saying that he was one of the assailants who had committed the murder of Seetavva. This again fits in with the version of the accused that earlier the police were under the impression that Seetavva was murdered by P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh and others. P.W. 23 Ramachandra the police Sub-Inspector has admitted that he arrested the accused only on 25th December, 1966, i.e., four days after the occurrence. All these circumstances probablise the verson of the accused. The evidence also shows that the prosecution has suppressed certain facts which were in favour of the accused and not placed these matters before the Court. It may be mentioned that though the accused had serious injuries on his person the prosecution did not examine the Doctor who treated him. It is not disputed that the police Sub-Inspector himself had sent the accused first for medical aid to the Doctor. But strangely enough the Doctor had not been examined in the case to prove the injuries found on the body of the accused. The learned State Public Prosecutor informs us, that though the Doctor was cited as a witness he has been given up as unnecessary. But strangely enough the Doctor had not been examined in the case to prove the injuries found on the body of the accused. The learned State Public Prosecutor informs us, that though the Doctor was cited as a witness he has been given up as unnecessary. Again the complaint given by the accused at the earliest point of time to P.W. 23 Ramachandra, police Sub-Inspector has not been produced before the Court. When questioned, P.W. 23 Ramachandra, denied that the accused gave any complaint and stated that the accused was not in a condition to speak. P.W. 21 Dasappa, the police constable has stated that the police Sub-Inspector P.W. 23 instructed him to take the accused to the K.M.C. Hospital at Hubli at about 1-00 a. m. and that they reached Hubli at about 5-00 a.m. and the accused was admitted in the hospital by 5-00 a.m. But strangely enough the panchanama, Exhibit P-5, regarding the injuries on the body of the accused is said to have been prepared between 4-30 a.m. and 5-00 a. m. It may be mentioned, it is in evidence that Hubli is about 18 miles from Kalghatgi. It is clear, from the evidence of P.W. 21 Dasappa, the police constable, that panchanama Exhibit P-5 could not have been prepared between 4-30 and 5-00 a.m. at Kalghatgi when accused was far away in Hubli. If really the accused was at the station before 1-00 a.m. and had given a statement of the occurrence to P.W. 23, it is obvious that investigation had started and that Exhibit P-6 which was given at 4-00 a. m. would not be the first information in the case and hence would not be admissible in evidence. It may also be pointed out that at the earliest point of time the accused has mentioned that he got the injuries on his person due to assault by some persons. In Exhibit P-15 when the Doctor questioned the accused at about 6-00 a.m. on 21st December 1966, he has stated that the injuries on his person were due to an assault by some persons at 12 midnight. Even in the Committal Court when he (accused) was questioned by the Magistrate, he has stated that on the night in question he was beaten by P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 13 Sahadevasingh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, Ajjeppa and Devappa. Even in the Committal Court when he (accused) was questioned by the Magistrate, he has stated that on the night in question he was beaten by P.W. 3 Basavanneppa, P.W. 13 Sahadevasingh and P.W. 14 Parasuram Singh, Ajjeppa and Devappa. Further when the accused was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sessions, he has fully set out as to how the incident took place on the right in question. We have earlier set out in detail the statement’ made by the accused as to how he was beaten by different persons with sticks, sickle and axe. We have also mentioned how the deceased came to the rescue of the accused, how she was attacked by P.W. 14 with an axe and how Devappa hit the deceased with a sickle. As mentioned already facts and circumstances of the case fit in more with the version put forward by the accused rather than the version of the prosecution. In H. Singh v. State of Punjab1 their Lordships have laid down that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Where he is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus was discharged if he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability. As soon as the preponderance is established the burden shifts to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus. Basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Where an accused person pleads an Exception he must justify his plea, but the degree and character of proof which he is expected to furnish in support of the plea, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof expected from the prosecution which is required to prove its case. The onus on the accused may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings; just as in civil proceedings the Court which tries an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so must a Criminal Court hold the plea made by the accused proved, if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him. After going through the evidence and the various circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the accused version. The various circumstances mentioned above do not at all fit in with the prosecution version of the occurrence. After re-assessing the entire evidence we are of the opinion, that the prosecution has not established the charges beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and the accused is therefore entitled to an acquittal. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. S.V.S.-----Appeal allowed.