R. D. SHUKIA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant challenges his conviction under Sec. 302 of I. P. C. for having committed murder of Nahrriya on 26/11/1987 in village Dindwad vide order dated 17/5/1988 of lind Addi. Sessions Judge, Alirrajpur Distt. Jhabua passed in S. T. No. 101/88. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that nearly two years prior to this incident deceased Nahriya was arrested in a case of murder. It appears he was released on bail or after trial. After about a year this accused appellant developed contact with the daughter of deceased and thereafter began living with her and his mother-in-law i. e. wife of the deceased. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that deceased was demanding some money from the accused as he has kept his daughter and he was also objecting to close relation with his wife. On the date of incident there was some altercation between the accused and deceased. The accused assaulted the deceased by a Musal (a heavy wooden log used for pounding the rice ). Deceased Nahriya raised alarm. His sister and daughter came there and tried to intervene but the accused further gave blows and ran away. One Khumliya (P. W. 4) also came on the spot. Rukhali (P. W. 2), sister of the deceased and one Kansingh narrated him the story. ( 4 ) P. W. 2 Rukhaliwent to the out-post Phoolmal Police Station Serwa and made a report Ex. P/3. The same was sent to Police Serwa whereby a case was registered against the accused. The Police- officer P. W. 5 Bhawani prasad Head Constable visited the spot; prepared the site map, seized stained and unstairled earth. Inquest Report of Nahriya was also prepared and the same was sent for post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested. The Musal was also seized from the spot. P. W. 1 Dr. N. S. Thakur conducted the autopsy on the body of Nahriya on 27/11/1987 at about 2 P. M. He found the injuries as follows: (1) Clean lacerated wound on the right -side of the occipital bone of skull size 2x 1/4" x 1/4. Clotted blood was present. (2) Abrasion at mid of therace vertebral on the back size 2x 1/8x 1/8. There was a fracture of occipital bone. It has caused damage to the brain. Clotted blood was present. (2) Abrasion at mid of therace vertebral on the back size 2x 1/8x 1/8. There was a fracture of occipital bone. It has caused damage to the brain. The cause of death was injury to the skull and depressed fracture on the occipital bone. The injuries were homicidal. ( 5 ) THE accused abjured the guilt and pleaded self-defence. After trial learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased tried to assault the accused by Phaliya (a heave sharp edged cutting weapon) and, therefore the accused caused injuries by means of a Musal in exercise of right of his self-defence. It has also been submitted that despite the admission of fact of self-defence by the prosecution witnesses the same has wrongly been rejected by the learned Trial Judge. ( 7 ) AS against it learned counsel for the State has submitted that the story of self-defence is afterthought as the same has got explained through a hostile witness viz. Wife of the accused (who is also the daughter of the deceased ). There was no dispute as to the fact of injuries found on the body of the deceased and as to the made of death. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 Rukhali claims to be the eyewitness. She has stated that on hearing the sound of thud, she went to the house of deceased who was her brother and whose house is situated by the side of her house and saw the accused causing injuries by means of Musal. The similar statement has been given by P. W. 3 Sangi, daughter of the deceased. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 Sangi has admitted the suggestion made by the defence counsel that deceased was having a Phaliya He tried to assault the accused and in that situation accused retaliated and caused injuries by means of Musal. She was declared hostile and when questioned by the prosecutor she denied this fact of assault made by her father by Phalia. The similar suggestion was given to Rukhali (P. W. 2) also. But she denied the suggestion. She was declared hostile and when questioned by the prosecutor she denied this fact of assault made by her father by Phalia. The similar suggestion was given to Rukhali (P. W. 2) also. But she denied the suggestion. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, P. W. 4 Khumliya has stated during the cross-examination that Rukhali (P. W. 2) Sangi (P. W. 3) have told him immediately after the incident that deceased had tried to assault the accused by Phaliya and he (deceased) was assaulted in retaliation thereof. ( 11 ) LEARNED trial judge has rejected the defence story on the ground that Sangi (P. W. 3) has turned hostile and has simply answered the suggestive question of the defence counsel in affirmative, and the same was also denied - subsequently when questioned by the prosecutor. ( 12 ) P. W. 4 Khuliya has not been declared hostile, though certain questions were put by the s Court to show that the defence story was not disclosed by him to the police. ( 13 ) IT is a carnal rule of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of the accused proving his case is not as onerous as is on the prosecution. ( 14 ) THE prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while the accused is required to show the probability of defence, if the defence story is probablised because of the admission by the prosecution witnesses or proof adduced by the accused the same has to be accepted and the accused shall be entitled for the benefit of doubt. The accused is entitled to put up the defence story including the plea of self-defence by way of suggestion to the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination, by adducing independent evidence or by making statement court while explaining the circumstances appearing before him. (i. e. when questioned u/s. 313 of Cr. P. C. ). ( 15 ) IN this case suggestion was thrown to the prosecution witness Rukhali (P. W. 2) (though denied but the same was accepted by P. W. Sangi; no doubt, P. W. 2 Sangi is the wife of accused but at the same time she is the daughter of deceased. The fact of defence pica was also admitted by P. W. 4 Khuliya. ( 16 ) P. W. 2 Rukhali has stated that accused caused injuries on head, both the shoulders and the back. The fact of defence pica was also admitted by P. W. 4 Khuliya. ( 16 ) P. W. 2 Rukhali has stated that accused caused injuries on head, both the shoulders and the back. During cross-examination in para 5 of her statement she stated that the accused gave four Musal blows. But the medical report shows that only one blow was given on the head. The second injury (i. e. abrasion) appears to be because of the fall. Thus, the statement of P. W. 2 Rukhadi stands falsified to that extend and it appears that she has exaggerated the story of the prosecution. The case of the defence has to be examined in this background. From the medical evidence, it appears that the accused had given only one blow on the head, and the fact of apprehended assault by means of Phaliya also stands probablised. In our opinion, therefore the defence has been successful in proving the apprehended assault by the deceased and that to by means of Phaliya. ( 17 ) THE right of private defence of the body commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and it continues so long the apprehension of danger to the body continues. It is not necessary that the actual assault is made. The accused is not required to wait for the actual assault. The accused would be within his right to retaliate if there is a reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. The deceased had a criminal record he was armed with Phaliya: He tried to assault the accused with that weapon. Faced in such a situation the accused was within his right to have caused injury in order to save his life. The weapon used shows that there was no premeditation. Had the accused intended to kill the deceased he could have used same other weapon. That also goes to show that faced with the danger (assault of Phalia), he retaliated and caused injury by means of Musal which must have been either lying or kept somewhere in the house. ( 18 ) THE right of private defence of body extends too causing of death if such assault may reasonable cause an apprehension that the death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. ( 18 ) THE right of private defence of body extends too causing of death if such assault may reasonable cause an apprehension that the death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. ( 19 ) THOUGH it is also true that while exercising the right of private defence the accused is not entitled to take undue advantage or use more force than that is absolutely necessary. In this case only one blow has been given on the head and that proved fatal and, therefore, it cannot be said that accused has taken undue advantage 9f his position/or has used more force than what was necessary. ( 20 ) IN our opinion, therefore the accused was within his right while causing injury to the deceased which proved fatal and the accused is entitled for the benefit of the same i. e. accused caused injuries to deceased in exercise of right of self-defence of body. ( 21 ) AS a result the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the accused are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I. P. C. for causing murder of Nahriya. The accused be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .