Short Note : It was alleged by the prosecution that Dhansingh (P.W.4), the deceased Gumji and the accused are the real brothers. All of them lived separately in village Kalidevi, Police Station Jhabua. The relation between the deceased and the accused were very much strained as the deceased used to claim the wife of the accused as his own wife. On the night intervening the 22nd and 23rd December, 1973 the accused went to the house of his brother Dhansingh (P.W.4), with a sword in his hand. After awakening Dhansingh, he told him that he had killed his brother Gumji Dhansingh then asked the accused to go to Sakru (P.W.2) and inform him as to what he had done. After the accused went to Sakru, he asked him to go to Sarpanch Raichand (P.W.1). After going to Raichand, the accused also told him that he had killed his brother with the sword. Raichand (P.W.1) then brought the accused to the house of the deceased and then found that the deceased Gumji was lying dead with injuries on his head. The accused was then taken to the Police Station, Jhabua where the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Raichand (P.W.1). The accused at that time had a Langoti and a sword with him, which were seized. The Investigating Officer Nepalsingh (P.W.8) recorded the report and came to the village and held the usual inquest. The dead body was referred to Dr. Kashyap (P.W.6), who found that the deceased had seven incised wounds on the different parts of his body. These injuries according to the doctor, were the cause of the death of the deceased. On these allegations, the accused was prosecuted and tried for the offence of murder. 2. The defence of the accused was that it was the deceased, who had come with a sword to his house; that finding the deceased armed with a sword and ready to strike at him, he ran away but was chased by the deceased, and that in these circumstances he may have dealt some blows because of which the deceased might have died. 3. In their statements before the trial Court, these witnesses have no doubt stated that when the accused came to them he stated that he had killed his brother, the deceased Gumji with the sword which he had that time carried with him. 3. In their statements before the trial Court, these witnesses have no doubt stated that when the accused came to them he stated that he had killed his brother, the deceased Gumji with the sword which he had that time carried with him. The witnesses, however also say that while making a statement the accused has also stated that it was the deceased who was armed with a sword and wanted to strike at him. Held : In the instant case apparently there was no reliable evidence about any particular motive on the part of the accused because of which the accused could cause the death of his real brother. The absence of motive becomes more material when we find that no direct evidence is available regarding the circumstances in which the deceased was subjected to the fatal injuries. We have, therefore, to examine the other evidence on record to find out if the accused on the basis of the other evidence could be convicted for the murder of the deceased. 4. Raichand (P.W.1), Sakru (P.W.2), Deva (P.W.3), and Dhansingh (P.W.4) have, as already stated above, referred to a confessional statement by the accused about his having caused the death of his deceased brother Gumji. They also admit that while the aforesaid confessional statement was made the accused also referred to the circumstances in which he inflicted those injuries. How could in these circumstances the learned trial Judge rely on that part of the aforesaid evidence only which implicates the accused and reject that evidence, which was by way of an explanation regarding the circumstances in which injuries were inflicted on the deceased. The statement of the accused made of before she aforesaid prosecution witnesses should in the aforesaid circumstances have been accepted either as a whole or not at all. If in a given case the accused admits that he has caused some injury to another person but had a legal justification also for inflicting these injuries, the evidence regarding the circumstances which were helpful to the accused could not be left out of consideration. In the instant case what the learned trial Judge has done is to accept that part of a particular statement of the accused, which supported the prosecution case but rejected that part which helped the accused. The course adopted by the learned trial Judge was, in our opinion, not at all justified. In the instant case what the learned trial Judge has done is to accept that part of a particular statement of the accused, which supported the prosecution case but rejected that part which helped the accused. The course adopted by the learned trial Judge was, in our opinion, not at all justified. Accordingly, in our opinion, evidence regarding extra-judicial confession by Raichand (P.W.1), Sakru (P.W.2), Deva (P.W.3) and Dhansingh (P.W.4) should not have been accepted by the learned trial Judge. 5. If this explanation which has been deposed to by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is true, then the accused in the circumstances in which he was placed, while running away and being chased by the deceased would go to show that the accused had every right to cause the death of the deceased and if he had not exercised that right he would either have been killed or subjected to grievous hurt. Considering the nature of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, we are of the view that in this case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the offence in question that the accused had given a well reasoned explanation for causing the fatal injuries on the person of the deceased and that the accused in those circumstances would not be guilty of any offence. Appeal allowed.