JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the sole accused-appellant Madan Pal against the judgment and order dated 22.11.78 passed by Sri S.B.L. Kakkar, Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1977 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. The First Information Report written by deceased Bhagirath's sister's son Umapati (P.W. 2) was lodged by one Ram Sewak, the brother of deceased Bhagirath on 7.4.76 at about 11.00 a.m. at Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, which was at a distance of about 5 miles from the place of occurrence, village Nauhai. It was scribed at Police Station Rath by Head Constable Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5). The case was registered vide General Diary (Ext. Kha 4). The investigation of this case was taken up by P.W. 8 Sri Yadya Dutt Rai, S.O. Jalaun, Police Station Rath, who examined the complainant P.W. 1 Ram Sewak and Raghubar. 3. The prosecution story as disclosed in the First Information Report is that there was an enmity on account of the election of the Village Pradhan as the family members of the complainant and the deceased have helped Paras Ram, who was successful as Pradhan. Deceased Bhagirath was elected as Up-Pradhan. The accused Madan Pal as well as Dayaram as Bhagirath had helped Chiranji Lal in the said election who was defeated. As the party of the appellant was unsuccessful in the election of the Pradhan, the appellant and his party-man were aggrieved against the deceased. As Bhagirath had also refused to put his signatures on the motion of no confidence being carried out against Paras Ram, Pradhan, consequently, the supporters of the appellant felt much aggrieved. On 5th April, 1976, a she goat of Daya Ram was injured by a bullock cart which was intercepted by Madan Pal, Daya Ram and Bhagirath. They demanded the price of the she-goat and Bhagirath had helped the owner of the bullock cart, on account of which some exchange of hot word took place and the appellant had extended a threat to the deceased Bhagirath. On 7.4.76 Ram Sewak and deceased Bhagirath alongwith Rati Ram, Sripat, Binda, Indal etc. were sitting and engaged in conversation at a1 ut 10.00 a.m. when the accused-appellant Madan Pal came from the side of the Chak-road and started abusing Bhagirath as well as the complainant. On 7.4.76 Ram Sewak and deceased Bhagirath alongwith Rati Ram, Sripat, Binda, Indal etc. were sitting and engaged in conversation at a1 ut 10.00 a.m. when the accused-appellant Madan Pal came from the side of the Chak-road and started abusing Bhagirath as well as the complainant. Thereafter, deceased Bhagirath also replied in abusive language. Thereupon, the accused-appellant gave a threat to deceased Bhagirath and said that he was believing in parti-bandi and they will teach him a lesson. Thereafter, he went to his house and brought with him his licensed rifle. He was also accompanied by his brother Bhagwat, who was having a lathi. Both of them had threatened the complainant and the deceased, whereupon both of them stood up, and the brother of the complainant Har Govind and nephew of the complainant Badri also came out of the house. In the meantime the accused appellant Madan Pal fired a shot from his rifle at Bhagiragh deceased, which hit him and he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, Har Govind, the brother of the complainant, and Badri, the nephew of the complainant, tried to catch hold of the accused-appellant and ultimately he was over-powered and his rifle was snatched away and in that scuffle the rifle was broken. The, rifle contained three live cartridges and one empty cartridge. The appellant was made to sit and the dead body of Bhagirath was kept at the door. 4. As stated above, the investigation of this case was taken up by P.W. 8, Yagya Dutt Rai, the then Station Officer. Police Station Rath. He examined the complainant Ram Sewak (P.W.1) and Raghubar at the Police Station and then he went to the spot at about 12.30 p.m. the same day. He took the accused Madan Pal into custody and as he was injured he was sent for medical examination. This incident was witnessed by Rati Ram etc. 5. The post-mortem examination on the body of Bhagirath was conducted by Dr. H.C. Pandey (P.W. 7). Per postmortem examination report (Ext. 7) the following Ante-mortem injuries were found: 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of front chest, 1.5 cm below Right clavicle and 8 cm from mid plane. 2. H.C. Pandey (P.W. 7). Per postmortem examination report (Ext. 7) the following Ante-mortem injuries were found: 1. Gun shot wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of front chest, 1.5 cm below Right clavicle and 8 cm from mid plane. 2. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 2 cm x chest - cavity deep on right side of back 7 cm below root of neck just adjoining to mid plane. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty and alleged that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. He also alleged that the prosecution version as given in the First Information Report lodged by Ram Sewak (P.W. 1) does not contain the entire facts. Rather a number of injuries were received in the same occurrence by the appellant, who was examined by Dr. H.C. Pandey (P.W. 7) or. 7.4.76 at 1.10 p.m. and as many as 18 following injuries were found (Ext. Ka-1). 1. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bona deep on left side of head near centre and top of head 13 cm above left ear. Fresh blood coming from wound. Adv. X-ray. 2. Red bruise 4 cm x 2.5 cm on right cheek with contused swelling 9 cm x 6 cm alround bruise. Advised X-ray. 3. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm deep upto bone of left side of the head 9cm above left ear. 4. Red bruise 8 cm x 2.5 cm on top o right shoulder on lateral side. 5. Red bruise 16 cm x 2.5 cm on right side of back in thorasic region below right scapula oblique in directions. 6. Multiple red bruises on right side of back over right scapular region in an area of 16cm x 10cm. 7. Multiple red bruises (four in number) on posterior medial aspect of right fore-arm in an area 18 cm x 9 cm. 8. Red bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on dorsum of right hand medial side upto second phalnge of little finger with fracture of first phalynx of right little finger. X-ray is advised for right hand. 9. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the dorsum of right index finger distal phallynx. 10. 8. Red bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on dorsum of right hand medial side upto second phalnge of little finger with fracture of first phalynx of right little finger. X-ray is advised for right hand. 9. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the dorsum of right index finger distal phallynx. 10. Lacerated wound 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on dorsum of right middle finger middle kunckls. 11. Multiple red bruise on top of lateral part of left shoulder in an area of 13 cm x 10cm. 12. Red bruise 9 cm x 2 cm on part of left arm 3 cm above elbow joint. 13. Red bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on dorsum of left hand over 2nd and third metacarples. Advised X-ray. 14. Red bruise 6 cm x 3 cm on left patella. Advised X-ray. 15. Red bruise 8 cm x 2.5 cm on lateral side of left leg 7 cm above ankle joint. Advised X-ray. 16. Red bruise 8 cm x 4.5 cm on dorsum of left foot over Ist and 2nd and third and fourth metacarples with contused swelling over whole foot. Advised X-ray. 17. Red bruise 5 cm x 1 cm above dorsum of right foot in middle over metacarcels. Advised X-ray. 18. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm on dorsum of distal phallynx of right fourth toe. It may be mentioned here that P.W. 8. Yag Dutt Rai, I.O. went on the spot and sent the dead body of Bhagirath for post-mortem examination. Thereafter he examined witnesses of Panchayatnama, made a local inspection and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 12). He also took sample of blood stained cloths and plain earth (Exts. Ka 11 and Ext. Ka-13) from the spot. Then he prepared a memo (Ext. Ka/2). The rifle Ext. Kahl, belonging to the accused was handed over to the Investigating Officer by PW 3 Badri vide memo Ext. Ka/2. The rifle was in a broken condition. The licence Ext. 5 of the said gun and the three live cartridges Exts. 6 to 8 as well as an empty cartridge Ext. 9 were also given. The Investigation Officer thereafter examined Panna Lal, Binda, Tulsi, Indal etc. Then he returned to the police station and deposited the articles. 7. Ka/2. The rifle was in a broken condition. The licence Ext. 5 of the said gun and the three live cartridges Exts. 6 to 8 as well as an empty cartridge Ext. 9 were also given. The Investigation Officer thereafter examined Panna Lal, Binda, Tulsi, Indal etc. Then he returned to the police station and deposited the articles. 7. It may also be mentioned that the accused is also said to have lodged a report, Ext. 10, with regard to his version of the incident on 8.4.78. Ext. Ka 5 is the copy of the said report, while Ext. Ka-6 is the G.D. entry in this respect. The Investigating Officer submitted the .charge against the accused on 26.10.76 Ext. Ka-14. 8. The counter version of the occurrence as given by the appellant in his above mentioned report (Ext. Ka-10), a copy of which is Ext. Ka 5, was that he had gone to the house of one Ram Sahai in village Balrakh on the previous day of the incident and had come back to his village Nauhai the following day at about 8 or 9 a.m. According to him, he was having his licensed rifle and also its licence with him. While he reached near the Chakki of Prem, he turned towards the chak-road and as soon as he reached the chak-road the complainant P.W. 1 Ram Sewak, deceased Bhagirath, P.W. 3 Badri as well as Har Govind, Narain and Shiv Nath surrounded him. Ram Sewak had a gun, deceased Bhagirath and P.W. 3 Badri had kulharis, while Narain had a Bhala and Shiv Nath possessed a Lathi. It is further alleged that when he saw that Ram Sewak was armed with a gun, he went towards the well and in the meantime deceased Bhagirath came in front of him, after taking a round of the well he struck him with his kulhari which hit him from its blunt portion, as a result of which he fell down. In the meanwhile, Ram Sewak (P.W. 1) fired a shot from his gun which instead of hitting him hit Bhagirath deceased. In the mean time the mother of deceased Bhagirath came there and asserted that it was Ram Sewak (P.W. 1) who had fired at deceased Bhegirath. The accused-appellant was beaten by Ram Sewak and others but he was saved by the mother of deceased Bhagirath. In the mean time the mother of deceased Bhagirath came there and asserted that it was Ram Sewak (P.W. 1) who had fired at deceased Bhegirath. The accused-appellant was beaten by Ram Sewak and others but he was saved by the mother of deceased Bhagirath. The appellant received a number of injuries (examined by Dr. H.C. Pandey P.W. 7). His rifle and its licence were taken by Ram Sewak etc. The appellant stated that he did not file a complaint against the family members of deceased Bhagirth because the mother of deceased Bhagirath had herself saved him. 9. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Out of them, Ram Sewak (P.W. 1), Badri (P.W. 3)and Rati Ram (P.W. 4) are the eye witnesses of the incident. P.W. 2, Uma Pati had written the report. P.W. 5 Head constable Bahadur Singh had scribed the chick-report. P.W. 8, Yagya Dutt Rai, the Station Officer, had conducted the investigation of this case. P.W. 7 Dr. H.C. Pandey medically examined the injuries of the accused and also conducted the post mortem examination on the body of deceased Bhagirath. P.W. 6 is the owner of the bullock cart which had injured the she-goat of Daya Ram. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who has taken us to the entire evidence and material on the cord particularly through the statement of witnesses P.W. 1 Ram Sewak, P.W. 3 Badriand P.W. 4 Rati Ram, post mortem report of the deceased and injury report of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there were a number of infirmities in the prosecution version and a number of contradictions in the statements of witnesses namely P.W. 1 Ram Sewak, P.W. 3 Badri and P.W. 4 Ratiram, about the manner in which injuries were caused to the deceased and also to the accused. The injuries on the person of the accused appellant being 18 in number, and they having not been explained satisfactorily, it proves that in exercise of right of self defence, the accused caused injuries to the deceased. Under these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that there was no discrepancy in the statement of P.W. A-861 Ram Sewak, P.W. 3 Badri and P.W. 4 Rati Ram. Under these circumstances, learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that there was no discrepancy in the statement of P.W. A-861 Ram Sewak, P.W. 3 Badri and P.W. 4 Rati Ram. The injuries received by the accused appellant even if not explained, have been taken into account by the learned Sessions Judge. There was no justification to appreciate evidence on record in different way. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, noticeable feature of the prosecution version is that in the F.I.R. it was stated that Madan Pal the appellant came to the deceased Bhagirath who was sitting alongwith Rati Ram and some other persons, and started abusing deceased Bhagirath and told him that you are interested in partibandi and he would teach him a lesion and went to his house to bring his licensed rifle and came with his rifle accompanied by his brother who was armed with Lathi and fired On Bhagirath and informant Ram Sewak but they have taken no prosecution to save themselves from the apprehended attack by the appellant and his brother. Further the witnesses of fact have contradicted the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R. and there is embellishment in the prosecution version in as much as it has been stated in the F.I.R. that while coming to the deceased which hit him in his chest and he fell down and thereupon P.W. 1 Ram Sewak, his brother Har Govind and nephew Badri armed with Lathi tried to catch hold of the appellant and Bhagwat brother of the appellant ran away whereas the appellant was surrounded after giving some beatings. The appellant was given beatings and was caught and he was made to sit. 13. P.W. 1, Ram Sewak, in his statement stated that with his weapon the appellant fired which hit the deceased but did not state about the details of the injuries or the part of body hit rather made embellishment in the prosecution case. It was also stated that Badri and Har Govind, have given beatings to the appellant but did not explain the eighteen injuries received by the appellant. Similarly, P.W. 3 stated that his deceased father and the appellant was face to face, the abuses were exchanged and the shot from instiment of appellant hit his father. It was also stated that Badri and Har Govind, have given beatings to the appellant but did not explain the eighteen injuries received by the appellant. Similarly, P.W. 3 stated that his deceased father and the appellant was face to face, the abuses were exchanged and the shot from instiment of appellant hit his father. He alongwith Har Govind came forward and gave Lathi blows to the appellant who tried to save him but his rifle was broken. But stated in the cross-examination that there was no scuffle with him and Har Govind on one side and Madan Pal on the other side and stated that he did not make statement to the effect that rifle was broken in scuffle. Even though this statement was not given to the Investigating Officer but how he took it down is not known to him. 14. P.W. 4, Rati Ram stated that appellant was standing on the manure pit and started abusing Bhagirath who also exchanged abuses and thereafter Badri P.W. 3 and Bhagirath came close to the well and Bhagirath was not armed with any weapon. The appellant fired at deceased which hit trim and the deceased fell down. Har Govind and Badri started beating appellant who tried to save his rifle but the same was broken. This has not been explained as to why not the appellant fired from his rifle on the assailant, namely, Badri and Har Govind. He also did not explain number of injuries received by the deceased, rather contradicted the version of prosecution given in the F.I.R. 15. The appellant in his statement has given the details how the injuries were caused to the deceased and how he himself received the injuries. It is well settled principle that it is not necessary that accused must have pleaded the right of self defence. No doubt under Section 105 of the Evidence Act the burden to prove the guilt lies on prosecution. It does not change even where the accused pleads the right of self defence. In our humble opinion, however, the accused may raise a plea of self defence either by pleading the same specifically or by relying upon the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case. It does not change even where the accused pleads the right of self defence. In our humble opinion, however, the accused may raise a plea of self defence either by pleading the same specifically or by relying upon the probabilities and circumstances obtaining in the case. He can adduce positive evidence to prove his plea of self defence or rely on the prosecution case itself and introduce his plea in cross-examination of witnesses and also rely on probabilities and other circumstances. 16. There is a presumption regarding non-existence of the circumstances in support of his plea of self-defence, This presumption, however, is rebuttable and if after the examination of material and taking into account the prosecution evidence, a reasonable doubt is created about, the plea advanced by the accused pertaining to self defence, the benefit must go to accused. The burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act is also discharged by preponderance of probabilities in favour of his plea. There may be general exceptions or special exceptions, provisos contained in the Penal Code or in any law defining the offence, if the court after consideration of evidence is satisfied, in that event it has to ascertain as to which exception the accused was entitled. In the present case, after considering the entire evidence we are satisfied that as many as 18 injuries have been received by the appellant accused and a sizeable number of them on vital part of the body. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. After considering the entire evidence on record we are satisfied that these injuries were received by the accused appellant from the prosecution and in exercise of right of self defence of person the appellant has caused injuries to the deceased which proved fatal. We have also examined the aspect as to whether the appellant has exceeded right of self defence of person. After examining the nature of injuries, we are satisfied that the appellant did not exceed right of self defence of person. (See Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P. 1990 (27) A.C.C. 482 (S.C.)' and Sham Sunder v. Puran and another, 1990 (27) A.C.C. 680 (S.C.). 17. In view of the discussions made herein before, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. (See Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P. 1990 (27) A.C.C. 482 (S.C.)' and Sham Sunder v. Puran and another, 1990 (27) A.C.C. 680 (S.C.). 17. In view of the discussions made herein before, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. is set aside. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.