Judgment :- MOHAMMED, J. The accused in a murder case is the appellant. He has been convicted of an offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge. Thalassery. The correctness of the said conviction and sentence is challenged in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution case in short is this : On 10-2-1990 at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased Narayanan was walking along the public road in Payyavoor Market, appellant Sudhakaran came from the opposite direction and intercepted him. He, then hit the deceased repeated with MO 1 bill-book and caused grievous injuries on the body of the deceased. PWs. 1 to 3 and 6 saw the incident. When the persons gathered appellant went west-wards with MO. 1 weapon. The injured was taken by the PWs. 7 and others to the Government Hospital, Taliparamba in a jeep. After examining the deceased, doctor declared him dead. PW. 16 Doctor conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P-7 Certificate. PW 1 who was an employee of a hill produce shop went to the police station and gave First Information Statement. While PW 1 who was in the police station the appellant with MO 1 weapon came and surrendered before the police. MO 1 produced by the appellant was taken into custody by PW 20 under Ext. P-4 mahazar. The appellant was arrested thereafter at about 10 p.m. and PW 20 registered case against him under section 302 IPC. PW 21 Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation and charge was laid on 22-3-1990. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him under section 302 IPC. The defence case as revealed from the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC is thus : The deceased slapped the accused on his right cheek and he was having injury on his face. Though he made a request to the police to get him examined by a Doctor, it was not done. This defence version makes this court to understand that the appellant was putting up a case of private defence. It was in fact to establish this defence case, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. Before examining the above plea projected by the appellant, it is highly necessary to ascertain whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the offence in this case is culpable homicide amounting to murder. It was in fact to establish this defence case, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. Before examining the above plea projected by the appellant, it is highly necessary to ascertain whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the offence in this case is culpable homicide amounting to murder. PW 16 the Assistant Civil Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Taliparamba conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 11-2-1990. The Ext. P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by PW-16. All the injuries noted in Ext. P-7 are ante-mortem. There are in all 14 injuries of which injury nos. 5 and 12 are stated to be fatal. Injury no. 5 is "Incised gaped wound on the right side of the neck 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 2 cm size obliquely cutting the muscles and all the blood vessels and nerves." Injury no. 12 is "Incised gaped wound 13 cm x 4 cm antroposteriorly on the left side of head cutting the skull in the entire length and reaching the brain." The cause of death was found to be hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries no. 5 and 12, so deposed the PW 16 Doctor. This is a case where the appellant surrendered before the police within few hours of commission of the offence with MO 1 weapon which was used by him for perpetrating the crime. This is not challenged by the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3 and 6 uniformly established that the appellant had inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased. Their evidence would sufficiently corroborate each other in all material particulars. The court below has placed much reliance on their evidence. We do not see any tangible reason for not affording credibility to the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. In this situation, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of the fatal injuries inflicted by the appellant with M.O. 1 weapon. It necessarily leads to conclusion that this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC. 5. In this situation, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of the fatal injuries inflicted by the appellant with M.O. 1 weapon. It necessarily leads to conclusion that this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC. 5. The point now remains to be considered is whether the appellant has a right of private defence under section 96 IPC which proclaims that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. It is valuable right and it has a social purpose as observed by the Supreme Court in Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971 (3) SCC 244) : (1971 Cri LJ 1296). What is intended by this provision is to create a disciplined behaviour among the human beings. When a persons knows that he has a right of private defence he will not commit an offence as against another person who has a similar right against him as well. This knowledge no doubt is a guarantee for maintaining mutual respectability among the human beings in the standard of social behaviour. No such behavioral pattern can be attributed in the case of the appellant. There is evidence in this case that the appellant had purchased MO 1 bill-book from the shop of PW 9 at about 7 p.m. on 10-2-1990. It was that weapon which was used by him for inflicting injuries on the body of the deceased, within a short span of 30 minutes thereafter. This is only a deliberate action to extract the deceased by acting as an 'offending individual'. There is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased was un-armed and he was walking through a public market. The deceased was neither aggressive not he behaved like an 'offending individual'. In Gurbachan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1974) 3 SCC 667 : (1974 Cri LJ 463) the Supreme Court held that no right of private defence exists against an un-armed and un-offending individual. Therefore the appellant has no right to claim private defence in the facts of the present case. 6. However, the appellant, in order to establish the plea of private defence, two defence witnesses we examined. DW 1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Payyavoor. Therefore the appellant has no right to claim private defence in the facts of the present case. 6. However, the appellant, in order to establish the plea of private defence, two defence witnesses we examined. DW 1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Payyavoor. What is apparently intended by examining this witness was to bring out that the deceased was the accused no Crime Nos. 80/88, 81/88 and 52/88. Even assuming it to be so that will not allow the appellant to exceed his right of private defence. The plea of private defence is referable to the actual commission of the offence and the antecedents of the parties have no relevance in this behalf. No attempt was made to bring out from this witness the defence case that the appellant was having injury on the side of his right cheek. As noticed the appellant had surrendered before the Payyavoor police station with MO 1 weapon immediately after the incident. If the appellant had injuries on his right cheek and inspite of the request the police did not get him examined by a Doctor, as contended, the question would have been put to this witness and truth elicited. Not even a suggestion in this regard was made by the defence during the examination of this witness. 7. Now let us turn to the evidence of DW 2 who is the father of the appellant. By examining this witness, an attempt was made by the defence to establish that deceased was the aggressor in the course of the transaction. His version is highly interested and we cannot attach any credibility to it. According to him, the deceased had slapped on the face of the appellant and that was the beginning of the incident. If that is true, in the normal course, he should have rushed to the scene to save his son. But he did not go and make any attempt to avoid further altercations. This is not a normal behaviour of a person like DW 2 who sees that his son is in danger. However, he candidly admits that the deceased was not having anything in his hand while he allegedly slapped on the face of the appellant. That means the deceased was un-armed in the transaction. If deceased was the aggressor this witness should have reported the matter immediately to the police station which is located near by. However, he candidly admits that the deceased was not having anything in his hand while he allegedly slapped on the face of the appellant. That means the deceased was un-armed in the transaction. If deceased was the aggressor this witness should have reported the matter immediately to the police station which is located near by. No such thing has been done in this case by DW 2. 8. It was argued that there was a loud noise from the scene of occurrence. That would suggest there was some tussle between the appellant and the deceased prior to the causing of the stab injuries on the body of the deceased, so goes the argument. That will not lead this court anywhere. Such vague suggestions have no value in a case of self defence. "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 can not 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 can not act on mere conjectures or bald suggestions." See : Sankar Rai v. State of Kerala (ILR 1992 (2) Ker 529). Therefore, the plea of self defence put up in this case is really an embellishment or the result of an after-thought. It remains as an unbelievable story and we have no hesitation to totally reject the case of self defence pleaded by the appellant. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.