JUDGMENT 1. This appeal of Bherulal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran dated May 11, 1971, whereby Bherulal has been convicted for an offence under section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The two associates of Bherulal, who were also tried along with him namely, Prahlad son of Surajmal Mina and Ramlal son of Brij Mohan Brahmin, were however acquitted by him giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. The prosecution case, as revealed by the confessional statement of the accused Bherulal, is like this: On the night between 9th and 10th June, 1970 deceased Prahlad son of Chhitar Mina borrowed some money from the accused Bherulal and after taking wine at the wine shop near -Mandola Darwaja', both of them proceeded for village Mandola. Prahlad had a bottle of wine with him. After having traversed some distance both of them stopped for taking rest in a field. It is said that Prahlad, taking Bherulal to be asleep, took out a knife from the pocket of the accused and tried to stab the accused. The accused Bherulal warded off the attack with his hand and the result was that he sustained knife injuries on his two fingers. Thereafter Bherulal snatched the knife from the hands of the deceased Prahlad and caused as many as 13 stab - wounds on the person of Prahlad resulting in his instantaneous death Then Bherulal returned to Baran and while doing so he went to the river and washed his clothes. He used to stay at Baran with P. W. 16 Bhagwandas. When the accused Bherulal reached home, Bhagwandas made enquiries as to how his clothes were drenched. Thereupon, it is said that an extra-judicial confession was made by the accused to Bhagwandas admitting the guilt of having committed murder of Prahlad. 3. Next morning, when the dead body of Prahlad was found lying in the field, a report was lodged by one Chhitar Khati. It was suspected that the murder was committed by Bherulal, Prahlad Mina and Ramlal Brahmin. All of them were arrested. When Bherulal was under arrest, he furnished information that he had hidden the knife exhibit-1 in the house of Bhagwandas and at his instance knife exhibit-1, which was found to be blood-stained, was got recovered. It was suspected that the murder was committed by Bherulal, Prahlad Mina and Ramlal Brahmin. All of them were arrested. When Bherulal was under arrest, he furnished information that he had hidden the knife exhibit-1 in the house of Bhagwandas and at his instance knife exhibit-1, which was found to be blood-stained, was got recovered. Bherulal was produced before the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran on July 16, 1970 for recording his confessional statement. This statement was recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which is on the record. In this statement also, it was confessed by Bherulal that when he was taken to be asleep deceased Prahlad took out a knife from his pocket and tried to attack him with the result that he sustained injuries on his fingers and at this stage he snatched the knife from the hands of the deceased Prahlad and caused stab-wounds. His plea, therefore, was that he caused injuries to the deceased Prahlad in the right of his private defence. 4. The confessional statements made by the accused were not retracted by him at the trial. The entire case hinges on the circumstantial evidence and the most crucial circumstances connecting the accused with the act of causing stab-wounds on the person of the deceased Prahlad are (1) his confessional statement, (2) the recovery of the knife exhibit-1 at his instance, (3) the conduct of the accused of washing his clothes while returning from the place of occurrence to the house of Bhagwandas (4) extra-judicial confession made before Bhagwandas, and (5) human blood found on the knife exhibit. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not contest the correctness of the circumstances brought on the record. His contention is that the confessional statement is a crucial circumstance and if it is taken to be a correct one, as has been accepted by the trial court, then a case of murder cannot be fastened on the accused Bherulal. According to Mr. Dave, the confessional statement must be taken as a whole and cannot be accepted piecemeal. This law is well-settled that a confessional statement must be accepted as a whole and not in parts as it is not capable of being bifurcated. He also urged that it is not open to the court to accept the inculpatory statement of the accused and reject the exculpatory part. This law is well-settled that a confessional statement must be accepted as a whole and not in parts as it is not capable of being bifurcated. He also urged that it is not open to the court to accept the inculpatory statement of the accused and reject the exculpatory part. The confessional statement of the accused is consistent throughout. He deposed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran that the knife was taken out by the deceased Prahlad from his pocket when he was taking rest in the field and when the deceased tried to stab the accused, Bherulal snatched the knife from the hands of the deceased and caused stab-wounds to him. As many as 13 stab-wounds were caused on the person of the deceased Prahlad. This fact cannot be ignored while considering the circumstances taken on the record., that the accused had to use force against the deceased only when he found himself in a danger and, therefore, it is difficult for us to come to the conclusion that the accused used his knife against the deceased with an intention to kill him. It is true that snatching of the knife from the hands of the deceased was sufficient to take the accused out of a danger, but it appears that the accused out of his zeal to save himself could not resist the temptation of attacking the deceased. From these circumstances one thing is clear that he used the force against the deceased in a zeal to exercise his right of private, defence and not with an intention to kill Prahlad. In this background the accused cannot justify the inflicting of as many as 13 knife injuries on the body of the deceased which resulted in his instantaneous death. Even if it is admitted that the force was used by the accused in the exercise of his right of private defence, he can not plead that he did not exceed that right when he deliberately inflicted as many as 13 injuries which were not at all necessary to get out of the danger which he off rehended at the posture of the deceased Prahlad. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the story, as revealed by the accused in his extra-judicial confession as well as in his judicial confession, appears to be correct and in such circumstances we cannot impart any motive to the accused to use force with an intention to commit murder. The only inference that can be drawn from the circumstances of this case is that the accused lost the balance of mind after he found himself in a danger and exceeded the right of his private defence by snatching the knife from the hands of the deceased, he indiscriminately inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased without caring for the result thereof. This conduct of the accused, of-course, no doubt takes him out of the purview of section 302 I. P. C., but he cannot escape the consequences for causing the death of the deceased and we feel that we can conveniently convict him under section 304 Part I. P. C. 6. The result is that we allow the appeal of the accused-appellant Bherulal and acquit him of the charge under section 302 I. P. C. and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him under that section. But we convict him under section 304 Part I, I. P. C. and award him a sentence of 8 years of rigorous imprisonment under that offence. 7. The accused-appellant is in Jail. He shall be released from the Jail after the sentence of 8 years R. I. is served out by him. *******