Honble YADAV, J.–In the intervening night of 29th and 30th May, 1994 at about 12.30 A.M. Mani Lal son of Bhera Ji resident of village Otiya PW 1 gave a verbal information at police station Dhambola and on the basis of said oral information, FIR Ex.P.1 was registered at the aforesaid police station. According to the allegations made in the FIR Ex.P.1 Smt. Meera accused-appellant always used to quarrel with her father-in-law and mother-in-law deceased Smt. Kuri for partition of joint land and animals. On 27th May, 1994 also accused-appellant Smt. Meera quarrelled with her mother-in-law deceased Smt. Kuri and during the course of her quarrel she was alleging that deceased Smt. Kuri was creating obstacles in partition of land, bullocks and animals. It is alleged that on 29.5.94 at 10 AM on the date of occurrence first- informant had gone to village Ganji to buy grain i.e. maize. His father and mother were at their house. His brother Rama, wife of Rama and his sister had gone to Sagwada Nursing Home to work as as labourers. He returned back to his house at abut 12 noon with maize grain i.e. Makka. After his arrival at his house, his mother Smt. Kuri went to Jungle to collect fire woods. His mother Smt. Kuri deceased was carrying an axe with her while she was going to Jungle to collect fire woods. After some time his brothers wife accused-appellant Smt. Meera also proceeded towards Jungle to collect fire woods. His father had gone to Jungle with animals for grazing. His father returned with animals in the mid-day and asked from him whereabouts of his mother. The first-informant told him that she had gone to Jungle to collect fire woods. On the date of occurrence at about 2.30 PM he heard shouting from Jungle to the effect that a woman was murdered. Meantime Ranchore son of Soma resident of village Otiya PW 4 came running from Jungle and told him that his mother Kuri and his brothers wife Smt. Meera accused appellant were quarrelling with each other. His brothers wife smt. Meera accused-appellant had assaul- ted his mother Smt. Kuri with stone who was lying unconscious in the valley of Umariyawali. Meantime Ranchore son of Soma resident of village Otiya PW 4 came running from Jungle and told him that his mother Kuri and his brothers wife Smt. Meera accused appellant were quarrelling with each other. His brothers wife smt. Meera accused-appellant had assaul- ted his mother Smt. Kuri with stone who was lying unconscious in the valley of Umariyawali. Ranchore and first-informant went to the valley of Umariyawali with water in a `lota where they saw Kamla son of Kana resident of Galandar PW 3 and Laxman son of Hakra resident of village Otiya PW 12 were standing. It is further alleged that Laxman PW 12 had caught hold of the accused- appellant Meera whereas his mother deceased Smt. Kuri was lying injured in the valley. It is also alleged in the FIR that blood was oozing out from the wounds of the deceased Kuri. When first- informant saw his mother Kuri he found her dead. Kamla PW 3 told him that while he was going to his village Galandar from village Anpura he saw accus- ed-appellant Smt. Meera assaulting with stone on the head of Mst. Kuri deceased with intention to commit her murder. When Kamla saw the aforesaid incident in the valley of Umariyawali he ran towards the hillock and started shouting upon which Ranchore and Laxman came running. When accused-appellant Smt. Meera saw them she started to run away but on his exhortation she was apprehended by Laxman PW 12. According to the FIR Ex.P.1, after some time many people of the village Otiya assembled there who sent first informant and Bakhatram to lodge FIR at Police Station. (2). On the basis of First Information Report Ex.P.1 lodged at Police Station Dhambola, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation a charge- sheet u/S. 302 IPC was submitted by Investigating Officer against accused-appellant Meera in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Shimalwara who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur for trial. (3). The learned Sessions Judge gave sufficient opportunity to the prosecuting agency to adduce its evidence in support of prosecution story. Prosecuting agency has examined PW 1 Manilal, PW 2 Bakhatram, PW 3 Kamla, PW 4 Ranchore, PW 5 Manohar Singh, PW 6 Mohandas, PW 7 Kuber, PW 8 Lalu, PW 9 Bansilal, PW 10 Dr. (3). The learned Sessions Judge gave sufficient opportunity to the prosecuting agency to adduce its evidence in support of prosecution story. Prosecuting agency has examined PW 1 Manilal, PW 2 Bakhatram, PW 3 Kamla, PW 4 Ranchore, PW 5 Manohar Singh, PW 6 Mohandas, PW 7 Kuber, PW 8 Lalu, PW 9 Bansilal, PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav, PW 11 Gopal Singh and PW 12 Laxman and also produced Ex.P.1 to P. 18 prove its case. (4). Statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and she was given opportunity to adduce evidence in her defence. Accused-appellant has not examined any witness in her defence except bringing on record the statement of sole alleged eye-witness Kamla PW 3 recorded by Investigating Officer under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.D.1. (5). The learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused- appellant convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Sec. 302 IPC for imprisonment to life by his impugned judgment dated 31.8.95, against which the instant Jail Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. (6). The accused-appellant is an indigent person. She is not in a position to engage a lawyer of her choice to defend herself before this court. In such a situation, Shri T.R. Singh was appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court on 20.4.98 to defend her on State expenses. (7). It is urged by learned Amicus curiae at the first instance that the prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to establish at what stage of the occu- rrence accused-appellant Smt. Meera received two injuries on her forehead mentioned in the injury report Ex.P.14 and also deposed by Medical Jurist PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav before trial court. Learned Amicus curiae invited our attention to arest and personal search memo Ex.P.15 of accused-appellant Meera prepared by Investigating Officer wherein the injuries received by accused-appellant are mentioned which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. According to learned Amicus curiae probability of accused-appellant to have caused injuries to deceased in her self-defence cannot be ruled out simply because she has not pleaded her right of self-defence in her statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. or simply because she did not adduce any evidence to establish her right of self- defence. (8). According to learned Amicus curiae probability of accused-appellant to have caused injuries to deceased in her self-defence cannot be ruled out simply because she has not pleaded her right of self-defence in her statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. or simply because she did not adduce any evidence to establish her right of self- defence. (8). In support of his aforesaid submissions the learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshmi Singh and another vs. State of Bihar (1), another decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Ram Singh and others vs. State of Haryana (2). He also placed reliance on decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Laxman Singh and three others (3). (9). The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of learned Amicus curiae and supported the judgment given by learned Sessions Judge. According to learned Public Prosecutor since accused-appellant has not pleaded right of her private defence in her statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. nor she had adduced any evidence in support of her self-defence therefore she is not entitled to claim her right of self-defence in this appeal before this court. (10). It would be expedient to narrate the undisputed facts available on record at the outset before entering into the rival contentions raised at the Bar. (11). It goes without saying that two injuries received by accused-appellant on her forehead of skull cannot said to be minor or superficial injuries. These injuries on the vital part of body of accused-appellant Meera are not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P.1. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation himself found these injuries on the person of accused-appellant Smt. Meera and he made a reference about these injuries in her arrest and personal search memo Ex.P.15. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation further found clothes of accused appellant soaked in blood. Indisputably, blood stained clothes of accused-appellant were taken into possession by Investigating Officer which is evident from perusal of seizure memo Ex.P.16. These blood stained clothes of the accused- appellant were sent to Director, State Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur (In short FSL) through forwarding letter Ex.P.11 of Superintendent of Police Doongarpur in sealed cover which is proved to be received in the office of Director, F.S.L. on 14.6.94 by Ex.P.12. These blood stained clothes of the accused- appellant were sent to Director, State Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur (In short FSL) through forwarding letter Ex.P.11 of Superintendent of Police Doongarpur in sealed cover which is proved to be received in the office of Director, F.S.L. on 14.6.94 by Ex.P.12. The report from F.S.L. has not been produced by the Prosecution Agency for the reasons best known to it. It is further admitted by Prosecution Agency that injuries of accused- appellant Smt. Meera were examined by Medical jurist PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav who has prepared post mortem report of deceased Smt. Kuri. (12). There is possibility that these injuries were caused to accused-appellant when she and deceased were standing face to face. These injuries further probabi- lise that it may be caused by deceased Kuri in quick succession when the accused-appellant Smt. Meera was not apprehending any assault from her otherwise by reflect action she ought to have made an attempt to ward off these injuries on her forehead by her hand and in the process of doing so she would have also received injuries on her hand or finger. Medical Jurist PW 10 Dr. Daljit Yadav has stated on oath before the learned Sessions Judge that these two injuries on the forehead of accused-appellant can be caused by an axe if assault is made from its blunt side. It is apparent from perusal of Ex.P.1 that deceased Kuri had gone to Jungle to collect fire- woods on the date of occurrence carrying an axe with her, whereas there is no allegation that accused-appellant Meera was also carrying an axe with her when she had gone to collect fire- woods in Jungle. It is further apparent from perusal of Description Memo of site plan Ex.P.2 and site plan with index Ex.P.3 prepared by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation that only one axe was found by him, lying on the place of occurrence shown in the site plan Ex.P.3 by mark `E. The statement of Investigation Officer PW 11 Gopal Singh reveals that al- though he has taken the axe lying on the place of occurrence in his possession and got it deposited in Malkhana but he has not given the description of the axe. PW 12 Laxman has stated on oath that the axe found on the spot was blood stained. PW 12 Laxman has stated on oath that the axe found on the spot was blood stained. We are of the opinion that testimonial value of his statement is to be examined in the light of independent witness PW 10 Medical Jurist Dr. Daljit Yadav who had in his deposition stated that injury Nos. 1 & 2 received by accused-appellant Meera could be caused by an axe if it is used from its blunt side. PW 4 Ranchore who has not been declared hostile also admitted in his statement on oath before the trial court that the axe which was lying on the place of occurrence was soaked with blood. (13). Indisputably, in the present case, the prosecution has examined only one eye-witness PW 3 Kamla who is not a natural witness but happens to be on the place of occurrence by chance. PW 3 in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.D.1 before the Investigating Officer has stated that on 29.5.94 in the morning he proceeded from his village galandar to village Anpura to settle the marriage of his brother and while he was returning to his village Galandar from village Anpura and he reached in the valley of Umariyawali at about 2.30 PM he saw accused-appellant assaulting her mother- in-law with stone whereas in his deposition before the learned Sessions Judge he stated on oath that while he was returning to his village Galandar from Ganji he said the occurrence. P.W.3 Kamla could not be able to ex- plain this change of village from which he was returning. As a matter of fact, the Investigating Officer ought to have made an investigation into the fact as to whether on 29.5.94 PW 3 Kamla has gone to village Anpura to settle the marriage of his brother as alleged by him or not. In absence of any link evidence by producing a resident of village Anpura where PW 3 alleged to have gone to settle the marriage of his brother the question of his presence on the scene of occurrence becomes doubtful. In absence of any link evidence by producing a resident of village Anpura where PW 3 alleged to have gone to settle the marriage of his brother the question of his presence on the scene of occurrence becomes doubtful. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to explain how and in what circumstances in FIR Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that PW 3 Kamla has seen the occurrence while he was returning to his village Galandar from village Anpura whereas in his deposition he has stated that he was returning to his village Galandar from village Gangi when he saw the occurrence. In his deposition before the trial court PW 3 has not stated that he was returning to his village Galandar from village Anpura after settling the marriage of his brother. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the presence of PW 3 Kamla on the spot becomes doubtful. (14). The potentiality and reliability of statement of alleged sole eye-witness PW 3 Kamla deserves to be examined from another angle which further makes his statement unreliable. In his deposition before the learned Sessions Judge he has stated that he has no relationship in village Otiya but he knew from before deceased Kuri whereas he stated on oath that he did to know accused appellant Smt. Meera. If that part of the statement of PW 3 Kamla is taken to be correct then by no stretch of imagination his shouting which is quoted in verbatim in inverted comma in the FIR Ex.P.1 in his own words to the effect that accused-appellant Meera was running away from the place of occurrence after committing murder of her mother-in-law Mst. Kuri is not believable. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that unless alleged eye-witness PW 3 Kamla knew from before both deceased Mst. Kuri and accused appellant Smt. Meera he cannot be presumed to know the relationship between Kuri and accused- appellant Meera as alleged in the FIR Ex.P.1 in verbatim. For the aforesaid reasons, his disclosure of the offence committed by the accused-appellant to the prosecution witnesses quoted in verbatim in the FIR Ex.P.1 does not inspire our confidence. (15). PW 1 Mani Lal, PW 2 Bakhat Ram, PW 4 Ranchore and PW 12 Laxman have categorically stated on oath that they have not seen the occurrence. For the aforesaid reasons, his disclosure of the offence committed by the accused-appellant to the prosecution witnesses quoted in verbatim in the FIR Ex.P.1 does not inspire our confidence. (15). PW 1 Mani Lal, PW 2 Bakhat Ram, PW 4 Ranchore and PW 12 Laxman have categorically stated on oath that they have not seen the occurrence. It is true that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer realised that the injuries on the person of accused-appellant Smt. Meera is to be explained, therefore, he made an attempt to make an improvement in the statements of PW 3 and PW 12 recorded by him under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.D.1 and P 18 on record indicate that as if accused-appellant herself had caused these injuries on her forehead by stone as she did not want to live after committing murder of her mother-in-law. Alleged sole eye-witness PW 3 Kamla has not stated either in his examination-in-chief or in his cross-examination about the aforesaid fact therefore question of con- fronting him with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as envisaged under Section 145 IPC does not arise in the present case. (16). It is borne out from statement of PW 11 Investigating Officer Gopal Singh that he supported the aforesaid statement made before him by PW 3 and PW 12 at the time of recording their statements u/S.161 Cr.P.C. In order to fill up the lacunae PW12 Laxman was examined by the prosecution who emphatically denied in his statements on oath before learned trial court that he has stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused-appellant Meera has herself inflicted injuries on her forehead. PW 12 Laxman was confronted with his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.18 upon which he emphatically denied and stated on oath that he has not given such statement before the Investigating Officer. He emphatically denied that alleged eye-witness PW 3 Kamla has disclosed the occurrence to him. He however, admitted that blood was oozing out from the wounds of accused-appellant on her forehead. PW2 Bakhatram has stated on oath that he did not see accused-appellant Meera on the scene of occurrence. The aforesaid statement of PW 2 Bakhatram can be easily said to be the last nail on the coffin of the prosecution story. (17). He however, admitted that blood was oozing out from the wounds of accused-appellant on her forehead. PW2 Bakhatram has stated on oath that he did not see accused-appellant Meera on the scene of occurrence. The aforesaid statement of PW 2 Bakhatram can be easily said to be the last nail on the coffin of the prosecution story. (17). The statement of PW 1 Manil Lal is to be tested with reference to the version contained in the FIR Ex.P.1 which was registered at Police Station Dhambola on the basis of the oral statement. In the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 it is alleged as a motive for the offence that the accused-appellant always used to quarrel with her mother-in-law Kuri deceased for creating obstacles in partition of joint land and animals but in his statement on oath before learned trial court he stated that the relationship between accused-appellant Meera and deceased Kuri was cardial. The statement on oath given by PW 1 Mani Lal is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference. ^^esjh ekWa dk ehjk ds lkFk dHkh >xM+k ugha gqvk FkkA (18). In the present case, it is not possible to disintegrate truth from falsehood, hence, the accused-appellant is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. The prosecution fails to explain injuries on the person of accused-appellant which tantamount to concealment of the origin and genesis of the case. (19). PW 1 changed the motive alleged in FIR Ex.P.1 altogether and stated that it were Kalia son of Naniya and his wife Shanti who provoked accused-appellant Meera to kill deceased Kuri on the pretext that she was a witch. It is stated by PW 1 Manilal that prior to the occurrence the provocation by abovenamed persons to accused-appellant Meera was disclosed to him by accused-appellant herself yet he did not mention it in the FIR Ex.P.1. The aforesaid contradiction in the statement of PW 1 is sufficient to reject his testimony. Thus motive alleged in FIR Ex.P.1 becomes a figment of imagination alleging that accused-appellant Meera has committed murder of deceased Kuri as there used to be always quarrel between them as deceased Kuri was in habit of creating obstacles in partition of joint land and animals amongst the family members who were living jointly (20). Thus motive alleged in FIR Ex.P.1 becomes a figment of imagination alleging that accused-appellant Meera has committed murder of deceased Kuri as there used to be always quarrel between them as deceased Kuri was in habit of creating obstacles in partition of joint land and animals amongst the family members who were living jointly (20). It is well to remember that in those cases where factum of Marpeet in a prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence, ordinarily motive alleged by the prosecution assumes importance. In the present case, the prosecution fails to prove motive against the accused-appellant as alleged in the FIR Ex.P.1 From peru- sal of description memo of site plan Ex.P.2 and site plan with index Ex.P.3, it is established beyond doubt that altercation and scuffle between deceased Kuri and accused- appellant must have continued at least between half to one hours. Places of scuffle with several blood stones shown in the site plan with index Ex.P.3 with mark A,B,C,D, E and F bear testimony to the aforesaid fact. The sole eye-witness PW 3 Kamla cannot be presumed to have seen the origin of Marpeet between deceased Kuri and accused-appellant Meera. PW 3 Kamla cannot be presumed to be a witness to have seen at what stage accused-appellant Meera received injuries on vital part of her body. (21). From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has not only committed an error of fact in appreciating the oral statements of prosecution witnesses named above but he has also committed an error of law in not extending the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Meera. In view of above facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge was in error in brushing aside the serious infirmities in the prosecution case regarding non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused-appellant Smt. Meera on untenable grounds which are not acceptable to us. In view of the inherent improbabilities the serious omissions and infirmities in the statement of sole chance witness PW 3 Kamla and after evaluation of all facts and circumstances in totality it is clear that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error of law and fact in not extending the benefit of doubt to accused-appellant. (22). (22). Coming to the argument of learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Chandralekha that as the accused-appellant has not pleaded in her statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. about her right of private defence and she has also not adduced evidence in support of her aforesaid right of self-defence before the learned Sessions Judge, therefore she is not entitled to claim her right of self-defence before us. We are of the view that in the present case right of private defence of accused-appellant Meera has been spelt out from the statement of prosecution witnesses themselves, therefore, this Court can take into consideration that plea of right of private defence holding that proving the right of self-defence is not a straight jacket formula but it differs from case to case. In our humble opinion defence is not required to prove right of self- defence as prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all pale of doubt. The defence has only to probabilise the plea relating to right of self-defence. In the present case circumstances narrated hereinabove clearly probabilise the plea of right of self-defence in favour of accused appellant and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to us. (23). It is to be imbibed that in a murder case non-explanation of injuries sus- tained by an accused during the course of occurrence is a very important circumstance of which the courts exercising criminal jurisdiction are to infer that the prosecuting agency has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence provided injuries on the person of accused are not minor or superficial. In the case on hand injuries of accused-appellant cannot said to be either minor or superficial. From the injuries of accused-appellant as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, it is probable to infer that she has caused injuries to deceased Kuri in exercise of her right of self-defence to save her life therefore, in such a situation, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant. (24). We are fortified in taking the aforesaid view from the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshman Singh (supra). (25). An identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh (supra) where in para 5 it was ruled by their Lordship which reads thus : ``5. (24). We are fortified in taking the aforesaid view from the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Lakshman Singh (supra). (25). An identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh (supra) where in para 5 it was ruled by their Lordship which reads thus : ``5. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We find that the eye-witnesses have neither given the correct account regarding how the incident started nor explained satisfactorily the in- juries caused to the appellant No.4 and 5. (26). In case of Ram Singh (Supra) all accused persons were acquitted by the Apex Court as injuries caused to them in that case were not explained satisfactorily by prosecution. Here in the present case also the injuries caused to accused-appellant Meera are not satisfactorily explained by prosecution hence her conviction is also not sustainable. (27). We are of the view that an accused is not required to prove his/her right of private defence 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 (See decision rendered by Division Bench in which one of us was member in Mangtu Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan (4). (28). The view which we are taking in the present case is also buttressed from the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Raj. vs. Laxman Singh and three others (supra). (29). We, therefore, allow this Jail Appeal and set-aside the judgment impugned dated 31.8.95 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur in sessions case No. 65/94 and acquit the accused-appellant. She is ordered to be released from Jail forthwith if she is not wanted in any other case.