Judgment :- PAREED PILLAY, J. A case of fratricide. Accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his elder brother Narayana Rai by shooting him with a gun on 12-10-1986 at about 5 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod found the accused guilty u/S. 302 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. P.W. 1 younger sister of the accused and Narayan Rai (deceased) lodged Ext. P-1 first information statement before P.W. 14 Crime was registered by P.W. 14 and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 15 Circle Inspector. Venue of the occurrence is the veranda of the house owned by the accused where he and his brother (deceased) were residing with their families along with P.W. 1 P.W. 8 doctor conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P-6 post-mortem certificate. P.W. 15 held inquest. Ext. P-4 is the inquest report which is attested by P.W. 6. P.W. 5 is a brother of the accused and the deceased who proved motive for the crime. 3. Prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W. 2, wife of the deceased to establish its case against the accused. P.W. 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 who lodged the first information statement was not in the house at the time of the incident. She stated that while she was collecting grass in a field near the house she heard the sound of a gun shot from the house and that when she rushed to the place of occurrence she saw the accused running away from the scene. According to P.W. 1, accused told her that he has shot his elder brother and that he may or may not come back. On reaching the house P.W. 1 found Narayana Rai dead. 4. P.W. 2, widow of the deceased is the solitary eyewitness in the case. She deposed that her husband came from the bazaar at about 5 p.m. that he was sitting on a bench on the chavady (closed veranda) checking the list of provisions purchased, that she was sitting inside the adjacent room and breast feeding her youngest child and that the accused who was sitting on another bench at the other end of the veranda took a gun and shot at the deceased. She further deposed that her husband fell dead and the accused throwing the gun ran away from there. She identified the gun as M.O. 1. She further deposed that her husband fell dead and the accused throwing the gun ran away from there. She identified the gun as M.O. 1. P.W. 2 fainted. She stated that the accused and the deceased were not in good terms on account of property dispute and that the accused wanted the deceased to vacate the house. She further stated that the accused and deceased used to quarrel. 5. P.W. 3, a neighbour hearing the sound of a gun shot from the house of the accused came there and saw accused running towards south. She saw Narayana Rai lying wounded. P.W. 5, elder of the deceased deposed that on hearing the death of Narayana Rai he came to the place of occurrence and saw Narayana Rai lying dead. He further stated that accused and deceased were in inimical terms and that there was a civil suit between them. 6. While questioned under section 313, Cr.P.C. accused stated that he had constructed the scene house, that in 1983 he asked the deceased to shift from his house to his own house, that he filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdrug, that the suit was decreed in his favour, that on 12-10-1986 when he came to the house the deceased and his wife scolded him, that the wife of the deceased (P.W. 2) took a knife and stood near the door-step and that the deceased took a big knife and came near him and apprehending danger to his life he acted in self-defence. 7. The shooting incident is admitted by the accused. But his contention is that he is protected by the right of private defence. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the house belonged to the accused, that the suit filed by the accused against the deceased was decreed in favour of the former, that the latter had no business to continue in the house and that in view of the hostile attitude adopted by the deceased and P.W. 2 he was compelled to act in self-defence. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no iota of evidence justifying the action of the accused and as there is no evidence even faintly suggesting a plea of self-defence contention of the accused in that regard is totally ill-conceived 8. Presence of P.W. 2 at the lace of occurrence is not a matter in controversy. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no iota of evidence justifying the action of the accused and as there is no evidence even faintly suggesting a plea of self-defence contention of the accused in that regard is totally ill-conceived 8. Presence of P.W. 2 at the lace of occurrence is not a matter in controversy. Accused himself admitted presence of P.W. 2 at the scene. P.W. 1's evidence shows that accused had made the extra-judicial confession that he had caused the death of his elder brother. That apart, evidence of P.W. 2 shows the manner in which the incident occurred. Defence contention that the deceased was armed with a big knife is only to be rejected as no such knife was seen in his hand or near him. P.W. 1 who came to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident stated in categoric terms that she did not find any knife in the deceased's hand. From the cross-examination of P.W. 2 accused could not elicit any answer which could suggest that the deceased was the aggressor. P.W. 2 affirmed that neither she nor the deceased had any knife with them. From the evidence tendered by P.W. 2 it is not possible to spell out a plea of private defence in favour of the accused. 9. The medical evidence in the case also rules out the plea of private defence of the accused. P.W. 8 who conducted autopsy opined that death was due to injury to the brain. The injuries were gun shot injuries. The bullet he recovered from the head of the deceased was preserved and it was produced before the police. He identified it as M.O. 4. P.W. 8 noted the following ante-mortem injuries in Ext. P-6 post-mortem certificate : "(1) A rounded lacerated wound about 1 c.m. in diameter back of scalp about 8 c.m. above the neck. (2) A rounded lacerated wound about 1 c.m. in diameter back of scalp about 2 c.ms. to the left of the first wound. (3) A rounded lacerated would about 1 c.m. in diameter back of scalp about 2c.ms. above and 0.5 c.m. to the left of the first wound. (4) A rounded lacerated wound about 0.5 c.m. diameter back of scalp about 1 c.ms. above the first wound. The margins of all the four wounds are inverted and ecchymosed. (3) A rounded lacerated would about 1 c.m. in diameter back of scalp about 2c.ms. above and 0.5 c.m. to the left of the first wound. (4) A rounded lacerated wound about 0.5 c.m. diameter back of scalp about 1 c.ms. above the first wound. The margins of all the four wounds are inverted and ecchymosed. The skin surrounding the wounds is blackened and tattooed with grains of gun powder. (5) A lacerated wound with everted edges about 5 cms. long and 2 c.ms. broad, left side of frontal region of scalp through which muscles and brain matter protrude out." From the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 and from the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, contention of the accused that he shot the deceased while the latter tried to assault him with a weapon can be straightway ruled out. 10. The evidence in the case would show that deceased and family were residing in a portion of the house. Even if the house belonged to the accused and even if he had obtained a decree against the deceased, he had no justification to cause the fatal injuries on the deceased. 11. On the plea of self-defence it is not open to anyone to justify his act of aggression against another, the absence of any evidence that he was placed in such a dangerous position that he would have lost his life or suffered bodily harm. Though the burden on the accused in pleading self-defence is not that high as prosecution's burden to establish its case against the accused, it is nevertheless important and cannot be based on mere surmises or stray suggestions. It is trite law that an accused can rely on the prosecution evidence itself to substantiate his plea of self defence. When no such evidence is available or where there are no indicative circumstances which would enable the accused to plead right of private defence, Court cannot act on mere conjectures or bald suggestions. To justify the act of killing accused must positively establish that there was danger to his life or that he apprehended great bodily harm. That apart, accused must be blemishless in bringing about the encounter. It must also be established that there was no alternative for him but to act in self defence. To justify the act of killing accused must positively establish that there was danger to his life or that he apprehended great bodily harm. That apart, accused must be blemishless in bringing about the encounter. It must also be established that there was no alternative for him but to act in self defence. Of course, when a man is assaulted he is not obliged to modulate his defence step by step. From a reading of the evidence of P.W. 2 and from the attendant circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that the accused exercised his right of private defence while he shot the deceased. On going through the evidence, we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against the accused. Conviction and sentence entered against the accused are confirmed. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.