Honble YADAV, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.6.91 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in sessions case No.46/89 whereby he found accused- appellant Prahlad guilty of the offence under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram guilty of the offence under Sec. 323 IPC and sentenced both of them for six months RI. As both the above named accused persons were in judicial custody from 6.9.89 to 30.11.89, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to reduce the said period from six months sentence awarded to them. Accused-appellant Prahlad was acquitted under Section 325 IPC and both accused-appellants Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram were acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 325/34 IPC. (2). We noticed from perusal of the record that during the pendency of the appeal appellant No.1 Mangtu Ram had expired, but no order to abate the appeal against him has been passed. We therefore pass an order, abating the appeal against him. (3). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case now this Court is called upon to decide the appeal filed by appellants No. 2 and 3 namely Prahlad and Puran Ram on merits. (4). The prosecution case at the trial was that PW 1 Bagdawat Ram gave an oral information on 4.9.89 at 12.10 AM at Police Station Nohar to the effect that on 3.9.89 when his deceased brother Bajrang Ram was playing `Chopar at village Pandusar in Guhad under a pipal tree with Pabudan and Sadhuram etc. at about 4.00 PM, accused Mangtu Ram came there and asked to Bajrang Ram as to why he had uprooted the grass from his field. His deceased brother Bajrang Ram answered to accused Mangtu Ram that he has not gone to his field. Mangtu Ram accused started to abuse him who warned him not to abuse upon which accused Mangtu Ram gave him teeth bite on his left thumb. Bajrang Ram deceased threw Mangtu Ram on the ground. It is alleged that other persons sitting there intervened and both of them were separated. Mangtu Ram accused started to abuse him who warned him not to abuse upon which accused Mangtu Ram gave him teeth bite on his left thumb. Bajrang Ram deceased threw Mangtu Ram on the ground. It is alleged that other persons sitting there intervened and both of them were separated. His deceased brother Bajrang Ram narrated the aforesaid facts to PW 1 first informant at his house whereupon he advised him not to quarrel. (5). On the same day at about 5 or 5.30 PM when his deceased brother Bajrang Ram was going towards the house of Jora Ram Chippa from his house through lane he heard noise at his house. When he came out from his house he saw his deceased brother Bajrang Ram surrounded by accused-appellants Mangtu Ram Prahlad and Puran Ram near the house of Sohan Lal. At the scene of occurrence all the accused were abusing him. It is alleged that Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram were armed with lathies whereas Prahlad accused-appellant No.2 was armed with a sela. Prahlad gave a sela blow to his deceased brother Bajrang Ram who after receiving the said blow fell down on the ground. He rushed to the place of occurrence to intervene but at the exhortation of Mangtu Ram accused he was also assaulted by all the accused persons. On the exhortation of witnesses namely Mangtu Ram, Lichman Ram, Jeet Ram and Ramji Das Swami, the accused persons ran away towards the house of their brother Ram Chandra from the scene of occurrence. (6). On the receipt of oral information of brother of deceased PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, an FIR Ex.P1 was registered at Police Station, Nohar under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the three accused appellants under Sections 302, 307 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned committal court which committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. (7). The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant Prahlad under Sections 302 and 325 IPC. Similarly against Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram charges were framed under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323 IPC. (8). At the trial all the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (9). (7). The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant Prahlad under Sections 302 and 325 IPC. Similarly against Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram charges were framed under Sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323 IPC. (8). At the trial all the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (9). In support of prosecution story, the prosecution agency examined as many as 10 witnesses namely PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, PW 4 Mangtu Ram, PW 3 Lichman, PW 4 Dr. J.P. Swami, PW 5 Sohan Lal, PW 6 Ram Singh, PW 7 Anand, PW 8 Mahendra Singh, PW 9 Tara Chand and PW 10 Mangtu Khan and produced 41 documents from Ex. P1 to Ex.P.41. (10). The accused appellants in defence examined Dr. Vinod Kumar as (DW 1) and Hanuman as (DW 2). The accused-appellants also filed five documents in their defence Ex. D 1 to Ex. D 5. (11). Accused-appellant Mangtu Ram (against whom appeal is abated) gave his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that Marpeet took place between him and Bagdawat Ram PW1 in which both of them received injuries. After Marpeet he went to his Dhani at his field. Next day he went to police station Nohar. He was hospitalised at the instance of Sub Inspector and his injuries were examined in hospital which is being produced by him. Prahlad in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded his right of self-defence. It is stated by him that while he, Udai Singh and Hanuman were sitting in front of his shop deceased Bajrang Ram came there armed with sela, threatening him to kill. When he ran towards his shop, deceased Bajrang Ram gave him a sela blow on his buttock and he assaulted him in his self-defence. Next day he went to Police Station Nohar along with his father. Sub-Inspector of Police did not lodge his report. He was medically examined at the instance of police which is being produced by him. Accused appellant Puran Ram gave his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. (12). The learned trial Judge after placing reliance on the oral testimony of eye-witnesses namely PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, PW 2 Mangtu Ram, PW 3 Lichman and PW 5 Sohan Lal convicted the accused appellants as stated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. (13). (12). The learned trial Judge after placing reliance on the oral testimony of eye-witnesses namely PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, PW 2 Mangtu Ram, PW 3 Lichman and PW 5 Sohan Lal convicted the accused appellants as stated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. (13). We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor at length. We have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. We have also made close scrutiny of the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge against the appellants. (14). Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. K.L. Thakur questions the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge on the ground inter alia that in a murder case, the non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused-appellant Prahlad and accused-appellant Mangtu Ram (against whom appeal is abated) in course of Marpeet is a very important circumstance from which the learned trial Judge was under legal obligation to infer that the prosecution agency has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. It is next contended by him that denial of injuries by prosecution witnesses on the person of accused- appellant Prahlad and accused-appellant Mangtu Ram are vital to the prosecution story, therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed error in relying the depositions of so-called eye witnesses PW 1, 2, 3 and 5 who are unreliable. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge has committed serious illegality in disbelieving the defence version insisting upon defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case. (15). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in those cases where there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of accused, then in such a situation, the learned trial Judge ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to all the accused-appellants. According to him the learned trial Judge has committed error in not extending the benefit of doubt to the accused appellants. In support of his aforesaid submissions he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1) & another decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Ram Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2). (16). In support of his aforesaid submissions he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1) & another decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Ram Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2). (16). On the other hand the learned public prosecutor supported the judgment given by the learned trial Judge, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants. It is urged by the learned PP that the learned trial Judge had correctly addressed himself to the plea of right of private defence taken by the accused- appellants in the present case. He invited our attention towards paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment of the learned trial Judge wherein it is clearly held that the injuries received by accused- appellant No.2, Prahlad can be explained only by deceased Bajrang Ram which is not possible. In the aforesaid paragraphs it is further held by learned trial Judge that the eye witnesses have denied the injuries on the person of accused appellant Prahlad and Mangtu Ram during the course of Marpeet. According to learned Additional Sessions Judge the injuries of Mangtu Ram accused appellant No.2 (whose appeal is abated), are explained by the eye witnesses in their depositions to the effect that these injuries were received by accused Mangtu Ram by deceased Bajrang Ram in earlier Marpeet between them before occurrence. (17). It is pertinent to note at the very outset that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not correctly noted right of self- defence pleaded by accused- appellant Prahlad in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. in paragraph 4 of his judgment. (18). A close scrutiny of statement given by Prahlad under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that while he was sitting in front of his shop along with Udai Singh and Hanuman where deceased Bajrang Ram came armed with Sela threatening to kill him whereas the learned trial Judge has incorrectly noted in paragraph 4 of his judgment that while the appellant Prahlad, Udai Singh and Hanuman were sitting in front of the shop of Hanuman then deceased came there, armed with Sela. (19). The existence of Parchoon shop is admitted by all the eye- witnesses namely PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, PW 2 Mangtu Ram, PW 3 Lichman Ram and PW 5 Sohan Lal in their depositions. (19). The existence of Parchoon shop is admitted by all the eye- witnesses namely PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, PW 2 Mangtu Ram, PW 3 Lichman Ram and PW 5 Sohan Lal in their depositions. The existence of Parchoon shop is shown in Ex.P2 site plan and Ex.P2A description of the site plan by investigation officer by mark 9. Kachcha Chabutra appurtenant to Parchoon shop is shown by mark `6 by investigating officer in Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A. Kachcha boundary wall of the said Chabutra is shown by mark 4 in Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A. Upstairs attached to Chabutra and boundary wall leading to Parchoon shop is shown by mark `5 by investigating officer in Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A. Defence has given suggestions to eye witnesses examined by prosecution that Parchoon Shop was run by Banwari and accused-appellant in partnership. PW 1, 3 and 5 have denied the defence suggestion but PW 2 Mangtu Ram has expressed his ignorance as to whether Parchoon Shop was being run by Banwari Lal and accused-appellant Prahlad in partnership. The eye- witnesses have admitted that residential house of appellants was one Kilometre away from the village Pandusar where the occurrence took place. It is admitted by eye-witnesses that accused Mangtu Ram and Puran Ram both were residing one Kilometre away from the place of occurrence except accused-appellant Prahlad who was living in village Pandusar at the place of occurrence. The defence has also put suggestion to the eye-witnesses that while accused-appellant was sitting at the shop, deceased Bajrang Ram came there armed with Sela threatening to kill him. Apprehending assault from deceased Bajrang Ram accused-appellant Prahlad ran towards his Parchoon shop where he was given a Sela blow by deceased. The aforesaid suggestions given by the defence has been denied by prosecution witnesses. (20). PW 1 Bagdawat Ram has admitted in his deposition the existence of blood on Chabutra appurtenant to the Parchoon Shop. PW 9 Tara Chand, investigating officer has also admitted in his deposition before the learned trial Judge that he found enough blood on the Chabutara appurtenant to the Parchoon Shop but he has not taken blood stained soil from there. It is a million dollar question how enough blood was found by investigating officer on Chabutara appurtenant to Parchoon shop where as according to all the eye-witnesses occurrence took place in the lane in front of house of Sohan Lal (PW 5). It is a million dollar question how enough blood was found by investigating officer on Chabutara appurtenant to Parchoon shop where as according to all the eye-witnesses occurrence took place in the lane in front of house of Sohan Lal (PW 5). It is borne out from perusal of Ex. P2 site plan and from perusal of Ex. P2A description of site plan that Chabutara appurtenant to Parchoon shop was on a raised platform attached with upstairs leading to Parchoon Shop. The existence of enough blood on Chabutara appurtenant to Parchoon Shop and shifting of dead body from place of occurrence on a bed and placing it in the lane at place `2 marked in Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A lend support to the defence version to the effect that Marpeet took place on the Chabutara as suggested by defence not on the lane as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The existence of blood on the boundary wall of Chabutara is possible even if it is presumed that marpeet had taken place in the lane which is at lower level of Chabutara but existence of enough blood on the raised platform of Chabutara attached with upstairs is not possible by any stretch of imagination unless we accept the defence version according to which deceased Bajrang Ram came armed with Sela threatening to kill accused-appellant on Chabutara appurtenant to Parchoon Shop and he gave a Sela blow to the accused-appellant while he was running inside the shop and accused-appellant assaulted him in his self-defence on the Chabutara. (21). The investigating officer PW 9 Tara Chand has clearly stated in his statement on oath before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that during investigation he had recorded the statement of Banwari Lal, owner of Parchoon Shop shown by mark `9 in the site plan Ex.P2 and description of site plan Ex.P.2A who admitted that the said Parchoon Shop was being run by accused-appellant Prahlad at the time of occurrence. Defence version that Parchoon Shop belonged to accused-appellant Prahlad and Sela blows were exchanged between Prahlad and deceased Bajrang Ram in front of Parchoon shop on Chabutara is proved by DW 2 Hanuman. DW 2 has stated on oath that he along with accused-appellant Prahlad and Udai Singh were sitting on the Chabutara in front of the shop of accused-appellant Prahlad where deceased Bajrang Ram came armed with Sela. DW 2 has stated on oath that he along with accused-appellant Prahlad and Udai Singh were sitting on the Chabutara in front of the shop of accused-appellant Prahlad where deceased Bajrang Ram came armed with Sela. Deceased Bajrang Ram said that as father of accused- appellant Mangtu Ram had assaulted his brother PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, hence, he was determined to kill him. Hearing aforesaid exhortation of deceased Bajrang Ram, accused-appellant Prahlad ran in- side his shop but deceased gave him a Sela blow on his buttock in front of his shop on Chabutara. The accused-appellant took Sela which was lying in the shop and gave a Sela blow to deceased Bajrang Ram in front of his shop on Chabutara. DW 2 has given graphic description of exchange of Sela blows between deceased Bajrang Ram and accused-appellant Prahlad. A searching cross-examination has been done to this witness DW 2 but nothing could be brought out to discredit his sworn testimony. (22). The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the sworn testimonial value of DW 2 as learned defence counsel has not referred his statement during the course of his argument before him. The aforesaid reason given by the learned Sessions Judge in excluding the sworn testimony of DW 2 is not acceptable to us. It is held that criminal courts have no jurisdiction to exclude the sworn testimony of a defence witnesses simply because it was not referred by learned counsel for defence before the court during the course of his argument. It is further held that defence counsel have no legal authority to give concessions be- fore criminal courts to the effect that they do not want to place reliance on a defence witness. As a matter of fact, criminal courts are under legal obligation to examine the worth and reliability of defence witness or witnesses as the case may be even if the defence counsel does not want to place reliance on sworn testimony of a defence witness. (23). From the aforesaid discussion it is easily deducible that prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and has not presented the true version before the court and learned Additional Sessions Judge has illegally excluded the sworn testimony of DW 2 Hanuman from his consideration. (24). There are other reasons to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. (23). From the aforesaid discussion it is easily deducible that prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and has not presented the true version before the court and learned Additional Sessions Judge has illegally excluded the sworn testimony of DW 2 Hanuman from his consideration. (24). There are other reasons to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. PW 1 Bag- dawat Ram is an injured eye-witness, therefore, his presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be denied. He has categorically stated on oath that before arrival of Sohan Ram, PW 5 Mangtu Ram PW 2 and Lichman Ram PW 3 eye- witnesses to the place of occurrence, deceased Bajrang Ram was already assaulted. Thus the presence of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 at the time of assault on decea- sed Bajrang Ram becomes doubtful. (25). Now we have to examine the sworn testimonial value of statement of PW 1 Bagdawat Ram with great care and caution as he is real brother of the deceased Bajrang Ram. PW 1 Bagdawat Ram has stated on oath that he has seen the teeth bite on the thumb of deceased Bajrang Ram caused by accused-appellant Mangtu Ram. It is stated by him that teeth cuts were visible on the thumb of deceased. A close scrutiny of post mortem report of deceased Bajrang Ram Ex.P 13 conducted by medical jurist Dr. J.P. Swami PW 4 reveals that no teeth bite injury was found on the thumb of the deceased. According to autopsy report Ex.P 13 two ante mortem incised stab wounds were found by PW 4 medical jurist at the time of post mortem of the deceased. According to PW 4 medical jurist these injuries could be caused by Sela. Absence of teeth bite injury on the thumb of deceased at the time of post mortem report makes the prosecution story doubtful regarding first quarrel between deceased Bajrang Ram and accused-appellant Mangtu Ram which gave rise to the subsequent Marpeet on the same day at 5.00 or 5.30 PM in the lane. Absence of teeth bite injury on the thumb of deceased at the time of post mortem report makes the prosecution story doubtful regarding first quarrel between deceased Bajrang Ram and accused-appellant Mangtu Ram which gave rise to the subsequent Marpeet on the same day at 5.00 or 5.30 PM in the lane. Defence has given suggestion to eye witnesses that in fact Marpeet took place between Mangtu Ram accused-appellant and Bagdawat Ram PW 1 and after Marpeet Mangtu Ram went to his Dhani at his field and deceased Bajrang Ram armed with Sela came to the Parchoon shop of accused-appellant Prahlad threat- ening to kill him as his father accused-appellant Mangtu Ram assaulted his brother Bagdawat Ram PW 1. Bagdawat Ram PW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased Bajrang Ram was challaned by police for keeping and selling illicit liquor. Defence has put suggestion to PW 1 that deceased at the time of Marpeet was under the influence of liquor but he denied. This circumstance also probabili- ses the plea of self-defence taken by the appellants. (26). It is deposed by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 before the learned trial court that they did not see injuries on the persons of accused-appellants Mangtu Ram and Prahlad at the time of occurrence whereas PW-9 Tara Chand, investigating officer, admitted in his deposition that when he arrested accused- appellants Mangtu Ram and Prahlad he found injuries on their persons and got them examined in government hospital by a medical jurist. In arrest and search memo of accused-appellant Mangtu Ram (Ex.P 34) his injuries are mentioned. Similarly in arrest and search memo of accused-appellant Prahlad (Ex.P. 35) his injuries are noted by PW-9 Tara Chand. It is stated on oath by PW-9 Tara Chand, investigating officer, that at the time of arrest dhoti and baniyan of accused-appellant Mangtu Ram and shirt, pent and kachha of accused-appellant Prahlad were found to be blood stained but he did not think it proper to take their blood stained clothes in his possession. Injury report of accused- appellant Mangtu Ram Ex.D 4 duly proved by Dr.Vinod Kumar, Medical jurist DW 1 reveals seven injuries on his person. From perusal of injury re- port Ex.D4 we are satisfied that these injuries cannot be said to be minor, superficial or self- inflicted. Perusal of injury report of accused-appellant Prahlad Ex.D 5 duly proved by Dr. Injury report of accused- appellant Mangtu Ram Ex.D 4 duly proved by Dr.Vinod Kumar, Medical jurist DW 1 reveals seven injuries on his person. From perusal of injury re- port Ex.D4 we are satisfied that these injuries cannot be said to be minor, superficial or self- inflicted. Perusal of injury report of accused-appellant Prahlad Ex.D 5 duly proved by Dr. Vinod Kumar DW 1 in his deposition before learned trial Judge reveals; one incised wound 3x 1.5 x 1 cm on the right gluteal (muscles of the buttock and hip) region by a sharp edged weapon. This injury also cannot be said to be ei- ther minor or superficial or self-inflicted caused on the vital part of the body of the accused-appellant Prahlad. (27). In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to explain the injuries on the persons of above-named two accused-appellants which lead towards an irresistible conclusion that the evidence of prosecution witnesses exam- ined by the prosecution agency are unreliable and the injuries received by the accused-appellant Mangtu Ram and accused-appellant Prahlad probabilised the plea of right of self-defence taken by the appellants. (28). From the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that in the present case the prosecution agency has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occu- rrence and has failed to present the true version before the Court. We are also of the opinion that the prosecution witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of accused-appellants named above are lying on a most material point therefore their evidence is held to be unreliable. (29). We are of the view that the statement of DW 1 Dr. Vinod Kumar and the injury reports prepared by him at the instance of investigating officer Ex.D 4 and Ex.D 5 create a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. It is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case. It is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version. Here, in the present case, the learned trial Judge has committed error in believing the prosecution version irrespective of the fact that the prosecution agency failed to explain the injuries received by the accused-appellants named above. Here, in the present case, the learned trial Judge has committed error in believing the prosecution version irrespective of the fact that the prosecution agency failed to explain the injuries received by the accused-appellants named above. The view taken by the trial Court to the effect that the injury received by accused-appellant Prahlad can be explained only by deceased Bajrang Ram is held to be perversed. The learned trial Judge has no legal jurisdiction to insist upon the defence to prove its case by adducing oral evidence with same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case. (30). It is well to remember that even if the plea of self- defence is not taken by accused but from the totality of the evidence available on record, the Court is able to infer about the existence of right of private defence even then such a right of private defence cannot be denied to an accused person. It is further to be remembered that if the truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed together making it impossible to separate it even in such a situation the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused-appellant. In the present case, denial of right of self-defence by the learned trial Judge to accused-appellants tantamounts reconstructing a new case for prosecution which is not permissible in criminal jurisprudence. (31). The present case also deserves to be examined on the point as to whe- ther accused-appellant Prahlad has exceeded his right of self-defence. PW 1 Bagdawat Ram, an eye-witness who is real brother of deceased has lodged first information report Ex.P1 where he alleged only one injury caused by accused-appellant Prahlad by Sela to deceased Bajrang Ram but in his deposition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he stated that accused-appellant Prahlad had caused two Sela injuries to deceased and one Sela injury to him. The statement of PW 1 regarding two injuries caused by accused-appellant Prahlad to deceased is an improvement made by him which is not believable. There is another reason to reject his statement on this score. Injury report (Ex.14) of PW 1 reveals that no Sela injury was found on his person by medical jurist Shri J.P. Swami PW 4 at the time of preparation of his injury report. All the injury found on the person of PW 1 were caused by blunt weapon. There is another reason to reject his statement on this score. Injury report (Ex.14) of PW 1 reveals that no Sela injury was found on his person by medical jurist Shri J.P. Swami PW 4 at the time of preparation of his injury report. All the injury found on the person of PW 1 were caused by blunt weapon. During the course of his statement on oath PW 4 Dr. J.P. Swami categorically stated that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon to Bagdawat Ram PW 1 whereas PW 1 has stated on oath that injury No.1 abrasion on his left hand was caused by accused-appellant Prahlad by his Sela from its sharp edged side. Dr. J.P. Swami PW 4 specifically denied that injury No.1 on the left hand of PW 1 Bagdawat Ram could not be caused by Sela from his sharp edged side but it could be caused if it is used from blunt side. In our opinion ordinarily it cannot be presumed that a man armed with Sela which is a sharp edged weapon, he will use it from blunt side instead of using it from its sharp edged side. (32). PW 1 Bagdawat Ram himself has stated on oath that when other eye-witnesses namely PW 2-Mangtu Ram, PW 3- Lichman Ram and PW 5-Sohan Ram came on the scene of occurrence deceased Bajrang Ram was already assaulted. Statement of PW 1 is corroborated by the statement of PW 2. PW 2 has stated that when he came on the place of occurrence deceased Bajrang Ram was lying injured on the ground. We find that the eye-witnesses have neither given the correct account regarding how the incident started nor they have correctly stated regarding exchange of Sela blows between deceased Bajrang Ram and accused-appellant Prahlad nor they have satisfactorily explained the Sela injury received by accused- appellant abovenamed. Thus question of exceeding right of self- defence in the present case does not arise. (33). In our considered opinion an accused pleading the right of private defence need not to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if on the basis of the circumstances of a particular case applying the test of preponderance of probabilities the version becomes acceptable. (33). In our considered opinion an accused pleading the right of private defence need not to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough if on the basis of the circumstances of a particular case applying the test of preponderance of probabilities the version becomes acceptable. The burden placed on the accused is discharged no sooner he creates a doubt in the mind of the court and satisfies the court that the version disclosed by him in facts and circumstances of that particular case is more probable. (See D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7/88 Para 48 decided on 5.9.94 in which one of us was a member). (34). It is held that the provisions envisaged under exception II to Section 300 IPC do not mean to expect from a person whose life is placed in danger to weigh with nice precision the extent and degree of force which might to be used in such a situation in exercise of his right of self-defence. In our opinion an accused person cannot be held guilty to have exceeded his right of self- defence unless Court is satisfied that the accused person has used force more than necessary as a cruel man in an unusual manner. In the present case, we are satisfied that accused-appellant Prahlad after receiving Sela injury from deceased Bajrang Ram on vital part of his body has not used force more than necessary to save his life. (35). We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of learned trial Judge and acquit the appellants from all the charges levelled against them. The accused-appellant Puran Ram is on bail he need, not to surrender. His bail bond is hereby ordered to be cancelled. Accused appellants Prahlad be released from jail forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.