Obul Reddi, J.- This referred trial and appeal arises out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicting the accused Rama Rao (A-1) under section 302, Indian Penal Code, under two counts and sentencing him to death subject to confirmation by this Court. Before the trial Court, there were two other accused (A-2) and (A-3) along with this appellant (A-1) facing a charge under section 302 read with section 34 or section 109, Indian Penal Code. A-1 the appellant before us, faced two charges under section 302, Indian Penal Code one for causing the death of Nalitham Gangayya (deceased 1) and the other for causing the death of Rajana Audayya (deceased 2). The occurrence was at about 11 p.m. 30th November, 1965, in the Harijanpeta of Krishnapuram village near Amudalavalasa. According to the witnesses present P.Ws. 1 to 5 at the time of the occurrence, there was illicit intimacy between A-3’s second wife, Savitri and A-1, and she used to visit A-1 during nights at his lodge in Harijanpeta. There were disputes in the locality among the residents ever since A-3’s second wife who incidentally happens to be his wife’s sister came to reside with him, Sometime prior to the occurrence, Gangayya (D-1) advised A-2, father of A-1 that it was high time that he got his son married, but this advice was resented by A-2. P.W. 1, the wife of the first deceased, her daughter (P.W. 2), her son-in-law (P.W. 3), her eleven year old son (P.W. 5) and P.W. 4 a nine year old boy, son of (P.W. 9) went to cinema house and were returning home at about 10 p.m. When they heard the shouts of A-3 and Gangayya (D-1), near the house and they all rushed to see what it was about, they, saw the first deceased on one side and A-2 and A-3 on the other altercating and A-2 telling the first deceased that he has always been casting aspersions by concreting stories against married women. This accusation made the first deceased to assert that what he stated, was not false and that it was an open secret. Immediately thereafter they started pushing each other and got ready to fight. It is at this stage that A-1 armed with a knife (M.O. 3) rushed from his lodge and aimed at D-1. This accusation made the first deceased to assert that what he stated, was not false and that it was an open secret. Immediately thereafter they started pushing each other and got ready to fight. It is at this stage that A-1 armed with a knife (M.O. 3) rushed from his lodge and aimed at D-1. P.W.1, the wife of D-1, in order to avert the impending danger to her husband pulled him (D-1) aside with the result that the attack of A-1 fell on the head of A-2, his own father. Then, Gangayya (D-1), releasing himself from the grip of his wife advanced towards the accused. A-2 and A-3 caught hold of D-1’s hands while A-1 gave him a fatal stab on his neck resulting in his death shortly thereafter. After Gangayya (D-1) dropped down, Audayya, the second deceased abused A-1 for the ghastly deed committed by him. A-1 then stabbed Audayya (D-2) for having come on the scene. On receipt of the injury, D-2 shouted to his brother (P.W. 3), "I am killed" and P.W. 3 held his brother to take him to the hospital, but he died before they could walk less than 100 yards. A-2 who received the injuries in the course of the same transaction gave a report at 11-15 p.m. to the Head Constable (P.W. 14) who was then on duty at Amudalavalasa Police Station. The Head Constable on the strength of Exhibit P-20 registered a case and sent A-2 with a requisition to the local hospital for examination and treatment. He then went to the scene of occurrence by 10-20 a.m., and saw the dead body of Gangayya (D-1), lying as the scene of occurrence and P.Ws. 1 and 2 by its side, and recorded the statement (Exhibit P-1) of P.W. 1. He went further up and found the dead body of Audayya (D-2). On the strength of Exhibit P-1 he registered a case under section 302, Indian Penal Code, against A-1, A-2 and A-3 and sent express F.I.Rs. to the concerned superiors. The further investigation in the case was made by P.W. 19, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Autopsy on the dead body of Gangayya (D-1) was conducted by P.W. 6, an Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Srikakulam. He found an external stab injury 1¼" x ¼" x 2" edges clear cut, and the corners sharp and gaping. The further investigation in the case was made by P.W. 19, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Autopsy on the dead body of Gangayya (D-1) was conducted by P.W. 6, an Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Srikakulam. He found an external stab injury 1¼" x ¼" x 2" edges clear cut, and the corners sharp and gaping. The injury was directed obliquely downwards and towards the right side of the neck. On dissection, the Medical Officer found the right carotid artery and the right internal jugular vein were cut. In his opinion, the death was due to haemorrhage on account of the injury cutting the carotid artery and internal jugular vein, and the deceased would have died within a few minutes after the receipt of the injury and a sharp double-edged weapon similar to M.O. 3 could have caused the injury. P.W. 11, the Assistant District Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Srikakulam conducted the post-mortam examination on Audayya (D-2) and found a stab injury ¼" long, ½" wide and 3" deep in the middle with clean cut margins and with sharp ends, at the extremities. The injury was on the left side of the neck ½" above the middle of the left collar bone directing downwards and inwards cutting the subclavian vessels, pleura and left lung, and the left lung had on incised injury of about ½" X ½". In the opinion of P.W. 11, death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account, of the injury and it could have been caused by a sharp instrument Similar to M.O. 3. In his opinion, the deceased could have survived for about 10 or 15 minutes and if supported he could have walked also. Therefore, there is no doubt from the opinions expressed by the two medical officers that the injury found on D-1 and the injury op D-2 were fatal, and that they could have been caused by a sharp-edged instruments similar to M.O. 3. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish that A-1 and A-1 alone had caused the fatal injury found on each of the two deceased. The case of the prosecution rests on the oral testimony of P.Ws. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish that A-1 and A-1 alone had caused the fatal injury found on each of the two deceased. The case of the prosecution rests on the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5 who were present at the time of the occurence, in addition to a statement made by A-1 under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the Inspector of Police (P.W. 20) leading to the recovery of M.O. 3 which was found to have been stained with human blood by the Serologist. The case of A-1 as revealed by him in his statement before the Court of Sessions when questioned under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, is to the effect that at about 9 p.m., on the fateful night A-3 came to his father and told him that Gangayya (D-1) asked him to give him a rupee and on his refusal D-1 beat A-3 and on that occasion P.W. 3 and D-2 were also present. In the meantime P.W. 3, D-1 and D-2 went to A-1’s house and A-2 told then that it was not proper on D-1’s part to beat A-3 for refusing to give him a rupee as he was also a driver like D-1. P.W. 3, D-1 and D-2 then threatened to attack A-3 and wanted to know if A-2 was going to extend his support to him. A-2 pacified and sent them all to their respective houses. An hour later, 15 people from Voosavamipeta armed with sticks and knifes came upon the houses of A-1 and A-2 and when A-2 stopped them from further advancing, they beat A-2 and when A-1 went with his mother., P.W. 3 and D-2 beat them also. D-1 then advanced with a knife towards his father and he was obstructed by A-1 and for causing obstruction he received a knife injury on his head. Thereupon D-1 attempted to stab A-1. And A-1 managed to withdraw his hand and at that time D-1 received injury. According to A-1 he was also beaten by P.W. 3 with a stick on his head and he fell down and he was not aware of what transpired subsequently. The learned Counsel Mr. Thereupon D-1 attempted to stab A-1. And A-1 managed to withdraw his hand and at that time D-1 received injury. According to A-1 he was also beaten by P.W. 3 with a stick on his head and he fell down and he was not aware of what transpired subsequently. The learned Counsel Mr. Krishnareddy appearing for A-1 argued hat D-1, D-2 and P.W. 3 accompanied by 15 others attacked A-1, A-2, A-2’s wife and A-3, that all of them suffered injuries at the hands of D-1, D-2; P.W. 3’ and their men that A-1 is not responsible for the fatal injury on the person of D-1, as he injury might be due to an accident when A-1 managed to withdraw from the grip of D-1. The learned Counsel further contended that none of the eye-witnesses could have witnessed the occurence as it was a dark night, that P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, and 5 were not present at the time of the occurence and that the prosecution has changed is version relating to the cause for the occurence from what it was during the investigation stage, that A-1 is not in any way responsible for the fatal injury on D-2 that A-1 never gave any statement under section 27, Evidence Act attributed to him, that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 bristles with inherent improbabilities that the learned judge having disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 relating to the parts ascribed to A-2 and A-3 should not have made their evidence the basis for convicting the appellant. The learned Counsel also contended that even if the prosecution story is to be accepted, no offence has been made out against A-1 for he was acting in the exercise of his right of private defence and that he (A-1) did not cause more harm then was necessary for the purpose of defending himself or his father and mother. It is therefore necessary to scan the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 in the light of the criticism offered by the defence. P.W. 1 is the wife of D-1 and has been living with her husband and children for the last 8 years. Her husband was lorry driver of the Sugar Fatory at Amudalavalasa. A-1 used to eat in his father’s (A-2’s) house and retire to his own house which is to the south of his father’s house. P.W. 1 is the wife of D-1 and has been living with her husband and children for the last 8 years. Her husband was lorry driver of the Sugar Fatory at Amudalavalasa. A-1 used to eat in his father’s (A-2’s) house and retire to his own house which is to the south of his father’s house. A-2 and A-3 live close by. A-3 has two wifes and one of them by name Savitri is stated to be having illicit intimacy with A-1, who happens to be a bachelor. Savitri used to visit A-1 in his lodge. This illicit relationship was known to D-1 and about 10 days prior to this occurence D-1 told A-2 to get his son (A-1) married and this suggestion or advice was resented by A-2 accusing D-1 of always fabricating such stories. On 30th November, 1965, P.W. 1 her daughter (P.W. 2), her son-in-law (P.W. 3) eleven year old son (P.W. 5) and another neighbour’s son (P.W. 4) went to see ‘Moogamanusulu’ which was screend at Avudalavalasa. D-2 the elder brother of P.W. 3 joined them in the cinema hall. After the first show was over, they were all returning P.W. 1 and her children walking ahead while D-2 and P.W. 3 were coming behind them at a distance of about 20 yards. By the time they reached their street, they heard the shouts of A-3 and D-1 and on hearing the shouts, P.W. 1 and her children walked fast and noticed A-2 scolding the first deceased as to why he was always accusing family women. D-1 retorted saying that there was nothing false about what he stated and that he himself may shortly see with his own eyes. Immediately thereafter A-1 come out holding a knife and went at D-1 asking “what did you say? What would be know later on”. He then aimed his knife at D-1 and P.W. 1 pulled her husband aside to ward off the blow and this blow fell on the head of A-2. D-1 then pushed his wife away and advanced towards the accused. It is at this stage that A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the first deceased each by one arm facilitating A-1 to plunge his knife. A-1 then stabbed D-1 on the neck below the adem’s apple and with this stab D-1 leaned down on his wife’s shoulder saying that he was killed. It is at this stage that A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the first deceased each by one arm facilitating A-1 to plunge his knife. A-1 then stabbed D-1 on the neck below the adem’s apple and with this stab D-1 leaned down on his wife’s shoulder saying that he was killed. P.W. 1 made her husband to walk a few feet but he dropped down dead on the ground near a date tree at the scene of occurrence. Meanwhile the second deceased came to the scene of occurence abusing A-1 for what he had done. Then A-1 resenting D-2’s interference stabbed him on the left side of the neck and D-2 fell down. P.W. 3 then lifted his brother and with his support made him walk intending to go to the hospital, but within about 15 minutes, P.W. 3 returned and told P.W. 1 and others, that the second deceased also dropped down dead near the house of ore Lakshminarasamma. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 2 daughter of P.W. 1. She conforms to every detail spoken to by her mother and gives out a parrot-like version. Even according to her, her father (D-1) pushed her mother asking her not to hold him and went forward when A-2 and A-3 caught hold of her father (D-1) by their arms and then A-1 stabbed her father on his neck with a knife similar to M.O. 3. The explanation for the injury on A-2 is that when A-1 attempted to stab her father, she and her mother pulled D-1 aside with the result that the aim of the knife fell on A-2. While her mother does not refer to her daughter (P.W. 2) also puling D-1 aside to ward off the blow aimed by A-1, P.W. 2 embellishes the story further by stating that she and her mother pulled D-1 aside in order to save him from the first attack of A-1. P.W. 3 is the son-in-law of D-1 and brother of D-2. He also went to the cinema house along with P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 where his brother (D-2) joined him. He and his brother were walking a little behind P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 while returning from the cinema show. By the time they reached the scene of occurrence he heard the shouts of A-3 and his father-in-law and therefore he went near. 1, 2, 4 and 5 where his brother (D-2) joined him. He and his brother were walking a little behind P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 while returning from the cinema show. By the time they reached the scene of occurrence he heard the shouts of A-3 and his father-in-law and therefore he went near. He sees the altercation between A-2 and D-1. While A-2, A-3 and D-1 were altercating and pushing each other A-1 rushed from his house with a knife similar to M.O. 3, and aimed a blow at the first deceased saying ‘what did you see?. It is not this stage according to this witness, that P.W. 1 pulled her husband in order to save him from the danger of the attack which resulted in A-2 father of A-1 receiving an injury on his head. It is then, because D-1 escaped A-2 and A-3 caught hold of his arms and held him while A-1 inflicted the fatal injury. Both P.W. 2 and 3 speak to the next attack on D-2. P.Ws. 2 and 3 confirm the Version of P.W. 1 regarding the second stage of the occurence viz., the attack on D-2. After the first deceased fell down D-2 came on the scene and questioned A-1 for having stabbed D-1 and A-1 resenting his interference immediately plunged his knife into the left side neck of D-2; he was then held by P.W. 3 who made him walk towards the hospital and P.W.3 returned within fifteen minutes stating that D-2 also died. According to P.W. 3 after they proceeded some distance towards the hospital, D-2 dropped down dead at one Lakshminarasamma’s house. P.W. 3 had also given him some water before D-2 dropped down at Lakshminarasamma’s house. P.W. 4 is a boy aged about 9 years and lives in a house near the scene of occurence. He repeats verbatim the entire story receited by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 from the picture house to the scene of occurence. He Was proceeding ahead with P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 while P.W. 3 and D-2 were walking behind them. He heard the shouts of A-3 and D-1 in the front yard between the houses of P.W. 3 and A-3. A-2 scolded D-1 for his loose talk about a family woman which elicited a retort from D-1 that A-2 would shortly be witnessing it himself. 1, 2 and 5 while P.W. 3 and D-2 were walking behind them. He heard the shouts of A-3 and D-1 in the front yard between the houses of P.W. 3 and A-3. A-2 scolded D-1 for his loose talk about a family woman which elicited a retort from D-1 that A-2 would shortly be witnessing it himself. It is at that stage that A-1 armed with a knife came out from his house and aimed at D-1 and when P.W. 1 pulled him aside the knife hit the head of A-2. Then the deceased pushed aside P.W. 1 and went towards the accused for a fight. A-2 and A-3 caught hold of his hands and A-1 stabbed him with a knife below the adem’s apple. The deceased then leaned on P.W. 1’s shoulder, walked a few paces and fell down dead near the date tree opposite to the shed of one Surayya. D-2 then comes on the scene abusing A-1 for having stabbed D-1 and this intrusion resulted in A-1 stabbing D-2 on the left side of his neck. D-2 cried ‘brother, I am killed’ and P.W. 3 came and held D-2. At this stage P.W. 4 goes home. P.W. 5 is an eleven year old son of the first deceased who speaks to the same facts as spoken to by P.W.s 1 to 4. While returning from the cinema with P.W.s. 1, 2, 3 and 4 he heard the shouts near his house and the accusation of A-2 that his father (D-1) was defaming a family woman. It is then that A-1 goes out of his house and aims to stab D-1. This stab fell on A-2 as his mother (P.W. 1) pulled aside her husband. Then A-2 and A-3 catch hold of the arms of D-1 and A-1 stabs him on the neck below the adem’s apple. His father leans on his mother’s shoulders walks a little distance and dies near the date tree opposite the house of Surayya. When D-2 came or. the scene. A-1 abused him for his intrusion and stabbed him on the left side of his neck. P.W. 3 on hearing the cry of his brother (D-2] that he was killed, rushes towards him and takes him towards the hospital side but dies near the house of Lakshminarasamma. When D-2 came or. the scene. A-1 abused him for his intrusion and stabbed him on the left side of his neck. P.W. 3 on hearing the cry of his brother (D-2] that he was killed, rushes towards him and takes him towards the hospital side but dies near the house of Lakshminarasamma. The other evidence connecting the appellent (A-1) with the crime is the statement made by him to the Circle Inspector of Police (P.W. 20) under section 27 of the evidence Act. The Inspector of Police arrested A-1 at his house in the presence of P.W. 12 and another when A-1 came out with a statement. The admissible portion of the statement (Exhibit P-10) is to the effect that he had hidden a kinfe in the eaves of his thatched house and he would show it to the Inspector accompany in him. While the Village Munsiff (P.W. 12) corroborates the evidence of the Inspector relating to the statement made by A-1, he admitted in cross-examination that he was not present when A-1 picked out the knife from his house as A-1 and P.W. 20 only went inside and he had not seen the place from where A-1 picked out the knife. It is because one of the two prosecution witnesses, the Village Munsiff does not speak to the discovery of the knife in his presence, the learned Counsel Mr. Krishna Reddy attacked the recovery as a mere fabrication. Of the five eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 4 and 5 were not examined at the inquest which was held the next morning. P.W. 3 who was present with P.W. 1 when the Head Constable came to the scene of occurence to take a report from P.W. 1 did not question P.W. 3 and P.W. 3 was examined only at the inquest. In Exhibit P-1 P.W. 1 speaks to the presence of P.W. 3 alone at the time of the occurrence when D-1 and D-2 were attacked but does not speak about the presence of her daughter (P.W. 2) her son (P.W. 5) or her neighbour’s son (P.W. 4). In Exhibit P-1 P.W. 1 speaks to the presence of P.W. 3 alone at the time of the occurrence when D-1 and D-2 were attacked but does not speak about the presence of her daughter (P.W. 2) her son (P.W. 5) or her neighbour’s son (P.W. 4). Her statement is significantly silent regarding the part played by her in puling her husband away in order to ward off the impending danger to him when A-1 first aimed the knife nor does she say that the first aim missed her husband resulting in an injury onA-2According to Exhibit P-1, A-1 stabbed his father (A-2) thinking that A-2’ was the deceased. She has also not mentioned in Exhibit P-1 the further development in the prosecution case that A-2 and A-3 after A-1’s aim missed and fall on A-2 that A-2 and A-3 caught hold of her husband by their hands facilitating A-1 to strike a fatal injury on D-1. Her earliest version in Exhibit P-1 is to the effect that when she intervened to take away her husband A-1 stabbed him with a knife on the chest. It is only in her evidence that she stated that A-1 stabbed on the need below the adem’s apple. There is absolutely no reference regarding the arriva1 of D-2 on the scene accusing A-1 of what he had done to D-1 and A-1 stabbing D-2 for his interference. Therefore, there is no doubt that the story of the prosecut or has been developed from what it was in Eshibit P-1 as to implicate two other persons A-2 and A-3 and furnish more details embroidering and embellishing the prosecution story. The question now is in view of the fact that P.Ws. 1 to 5 have in substance changed the manner of attack on D-1 and D-2 and also introduced two other accused as having played their part in facilitating the commission of the offence by A-1 whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses can withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. We may advert at this stage whether it would have been possible at all for the eyewitnesses to have witnessed the occurence as the waning moon-set on the night in question was at about (L. 21-43 minutes). We may advert at this stage whether it would have been possible at all for the eyewitnesses to have witnessed the occurence as the waning moon-set on the night in question was at about (L. 21-43 minutes). P.W. 1 has admitted that if there were no lights and no moon-light it would have been difficult for her to witness the occurrence and she claims that there was moon-light in addition to the hurricane lanterns burning at the thresholds of A-2 and A-3’s houses as if A-2 and A-3 had lit the lanterns to create evidence against themselves. P.W. 2 also says that the occurrence was at about 10-30 p.m. or 11 p.m. and that there was moon-1ight, but if there was no moon-light and no harricane lanterns, it would all be dark and nothing would be Visible. To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 3 that if there Were no lights or moop-light it would not have been possible to discern beyond two yards. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 19) is to the effect that none of these witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 3) stated before him that there was moon-light and that there were lanterns at the houses referred to by them. None of them stated before the Committing Magistrate or in their statements under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code that there was moon-light and hurricane lights burning at the houses of A-2 and A-3 or at any other house near the scene of occurrence. Neither the Head Constable who visited the scene of occurrence at about 12-15 p.m. nor the Sub-Inspector who came subsequently in the early hours speak to the hurricane lights burning near the houses of A-2 and A-3 or other house at the scene of occurrence. This is a significant omission in Exhibit P-1. On their (P.Ws. 1 to 3) own showing if there were no lights and no moon-1’ght it would not have been possible for them to see anything beyond two yards. Therefore, the question is whether the present version in the Court of Session that they were able to witness the details of the attack on D-1 and D-2 and the part played by A-1 not to speak of the parts played by A-2 and A-3 who have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge can be relied upon. Therefore, the question is whether the present version in the Court of Session that they were able to witness the details of the attack on D-1 and D-2 and the part played by A-1 not to speak of the parts played by A-2 and A-3 who have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge can be relied upon. This is not the only material omission which has been pointed by the learned Counsel for the defence, but there are several others including the change in the prosecution case relating to the motive for the crime. The story of P.Ws. 1 to 5 going to the cinema house and watching the occurrance while on their way to their houses has come out for the first time in the Court. The basis that this is not the case of the prosecution at the earlier stage is to be found in column 11(a) of the two inquest reports, Exhibits P-8 and P-9. The Sub-Inspector admitted that as noted in column 11 (a) of Exhibit P-8 the quarrel was over a loan of one rupee and that it was not due to the illicit intimacy of A-1 with Savitri. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were the eyewitnesses who were examined at the inquest and the information noted in column 11(a) was admittedly or the basis of their statements. There was absolutely no reference when P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were first examined by the Head Constable or the Sub-Inspector that the quarrel arose ever the accusation of D-1 regarding the illicit intimacy of A-1 with Savitri. The learned Counsel finds support for his argument in the report Exhibit P-20 given by A-2 immediately after the occurrence. In this report A-2 stated that the deceased Gangayya (D-1) was overdrunk and asked for a rupee near Lakshmamma’s house and when he told him that he did not have the amount he caught hold of his shirt and when A-3 rebuked him for that D-1 slapped him. This was the or gin of the quarrel according to Exhibit P-20 the report given by A-2. This was the or gin of the quarrel according to Exhibit P-20 the report given by A-2. There is no doubt on the showing of the investigation officer (P.W. 19) that the quarrel which led to the double murder was not due to A-2 taking exception to the scandal spread by D-1 regarding the illicit intimacy of A-1 with Savitri but it is due to the dispute over A-3’s refusal to give or lend one rupee to Gangayya (D-1). P.W. 4’s presence was not spokem to by P.W. 1 when she was first examined by the Head Constable and later by the Sub-Inspector nor did P.Ws. 2 and 3 mention the presence of P.W. 4 or P.W. 5 at the time of theoccurrance. We can understand P.W. 1 omitting to mention the name of P.W. 4 as he is only a boy of nine years but we cannot understand even at the stage of the inquest her failure to mention the name of her son as having been presents The fact that they were examined soon after the inquest by the Inspector of Police does not lend any sanctity to the testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 5. A careful scrutiny of their evidence would reveal that their evidence is a parrot-1ike repetition of the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. We are doubtful if at that late hour 11-30 p.m this boy would have been present watching every step or detail of the occurence. Even P.W. 9, the mother of P.W. 4, did not come out of the house. According to P.W. 4, there were about 10 or 15 persons who had gathered there and that one Appalaswamy had come there after Gangayya (D-1) was attacked. Gangayya (D-1) it may be noticed was stabbed between the house of this Appalaswamy and the lodge of A-1 and if Appalaswamy had been examined he could have thrown considreable light at least regarding the attack on the second deceased. The presence of Appalaswamy is not spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.W. 3 stated that he was not aware if Appalaswamy and some residents had came out and witnessed the occurence. According to P.W. 5 he and his mother (P.W. 1) were standing near his house and her mother went near his father after he was stabbed and when his father cried “Sura (referring to P.W. 1). 1 and 2 and P.W. 3 stated that he was not aware if Appalaswamy and some residents had came out and witnessed the occurence. According to P.W. 5 he and his mother (P.W. 1) were standing near his house and her mother went near his father after he was stabbed and when his father cried “Sura (referring to P.W. 1). I am killed.” Till then his mother was near him. If this statement of P.W. 5 is to be believed then it would appear that P.W. 1 did not pull aside her husband when A-1 first aimed the knife at D-1 and her husband did not push her aside and proceed towards the accused. Therefore it is evident that what his mother stated is not true and that in order to make it appear she watched the attack from very close quarters she ascribed some heroic part of herself. Even in her evidence P.W. 1 does not mention that P.W. 4 or P.W. 5 had witnessed the occurrence, P.W. 3 claims to have lifted up his brother after he was stabbed, helped him to walk with his support towards the hospital till he fell down at the house of Lakshminarasamma. Lakshminarasamma has not been examined, and Gangamma from whose house P.W. 3 is stated to have brought water and gave the second deceased has also not been examined. The place where D-2’s corpse was found in more than 130 yeards from the scene of the occurence. It is the case of the prosecution that Audayya (D-2) was stabbed about 22 feet south of his house and that he walked the distance of 130 yards, after he received the fatal injury. There is no trail of blood between the scene of occurrence and the place where the dead body of D-2 was noticed by the Head Constable. It is for this reason that Mr. Krishna Reddy argued that nobody had seen the attack on D-2 and if he was attacked at the scene of occurrence, one would expect some blood-stains on the way if he was really taken from the scene of occurrence towards the hospital side up to a distance of 130 yards. To improbabalise the story of the prosecution Mr. Krishna Reddy argued that nobody had seen the attack on D-2 and if he was attacked at the scene of occurrence, one would expect some blood-stains on the way if he was really taken from the scene of occurrence towards the hospital side up to a distance of 130 yards. To improbabalise the story of the prosecution Mr. Krishna Reddy pointed out that the blood-stains were noticed on the clothes of P.W. 3 and in fact his clothes were not seized by the police and the absence of blood-stains or the non-seizure of his clothes would go a long way to show that P.W. 3 was not present at the time of the occurrence and that he came subsequently on the scene. According to P.W. 3 within minutes after the attack on D-1 and D-2, he came back near the corpse of D-1 to inform P.W. 1 and others that D-2 died on the way to the hospital. It is not known why he left the corpose of his brother D-2 without asking anybody to guard it or why he should come back to the corpse of D-1 without going to the police station nearby. P.W. 14’s (the Head Constable) evidence shows that when he came to the scene of occurrence, he saw only P.Ws.1 and 2 crying and therefore recorded the statement of P.W. 1 to her narrator. P.W. 3 was not present then and it is P.W. 1 who told him that the dead body of D-2 was also lying further up and the Head Constable moved towards the corpse of D-2 P.W. 3’s evidence is to the effect that he was present near the corpse of D-2 but his statement was not recorded by the Head Constable, and that he was examined only at the time of the inquest. Having regard to the fact, that D-2’s body was recovered 130 yards north of the scene of the occurence and also having regard to the fact that neither Gangamma nor Lakshminarasamma has been examined and also for the reason that P.W. 3 was not examined that night and did not even given a report it would be difficult to believe that D-2 met his death at the scene of occurrence and in the manner stated by P.W.s. 1 to 5. Another circumstance which to a great extent improbablises the story of the prosecution is this. Another circumstance which to a great extent improbablises the story of the prosecution is this. When A-1 was examined by the Medical Officer (P.W. 7) on 1st December, 1965 under a requisition issued by the police, there were two injuries on him, injury 1 being a lacerated injury on the right side of the forehead 2“above the internal end of the right eye brow. The second one was a linear abrasion over the dorsum of the left forearm just above the left wrist. A-2 suffered three injuries and injury 1 is a lacerated injury over the scalp 4” above the bridge of the nose vertical in direction 1“x 1/8” in dimension. The second was a contusion over the external aspect of the left arm in the middle 4“x 1/2” in dimension. The third was a contusion over the external aspect of the right arm 2“above the lateral epicondy 2” x 1/2“in dimension. A-3 had three injuries all abrasions. In the opinion of the Medical Officer it is possible that injury 1 on A-1 could have been caused by a blunt object like a stick and injury 2 by the pointed end of M.O.3. The injuries found on A-2 and A-3 in his opinion could have been caused by blunt weapons. In addition to these three injured, the mother of A-1 was also injured and it is not known for what reason she was not sent to the hospital. The mother of P.W. 4 who was examined as P.W. 9 stated that she saw the next morning A-2’s wife having injuries on the right and left upper arm and that she was crying. A-1 has also referred to her mother having received injuries when he and his mother Went to the scene of occurrance. The prosecution has not chosen to explain the injuries on A-1 to A-3 or the injuries which P.W. 9 had seen on A-1’s mother. It is therefore argued by the learned Counsel that the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 had suppressed facts in order to deliberately implicate A-1 setting up a false story. It is the defence version that 10 or 15 persons were there along with D-1 and D-2 and they attacked A-2 and when A-1 intervened he was beaten or. It is therefore argued by the learned Counsel that the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 had suppressed facts in order to deliberately implicate A-1 setting up a false story. It is the defence version that 10 or 15 persons were there along with D-1 and D-2 and they attacked A-2 and when A-1 intervened he was beaten or. his forehead and when tried to ward off the blow he received an injury on his left forearm and that similarly A-3 was also beaten by D-1 and D 2 and those who came in support of them. According to them it is at that stage that D-1 came up on him with a knife. In this connection it may be pertinent to look into the evidence of P.W. 9. According to her, her son P.W. 4 told her that right that some people fought although he did not tell her how many people fought. He only told her that there was stabbing. If P.W. 4 had really witnessed the occurrance as is claimed by him he would have certainly told his mother that A-1 had attacked D-1 and D2 and would not have stated that there was a fight between some people. The evidence of P.W. 9 is more in conformity with the defence version that both sides fought than the version of the prosecution that the entire attack was by A-1 and that D-1 and D 2 were helpless victims. There is a duty cast on prosecution to explain the injuries found on four persons on the accused’s side but for reasons best known to the witnesses they have suppressed the circumstances under which A-1 to A-3 received injuries. Under Exhibit P-20 the police had information even by 11-15 that night there was a fight and in the course of the fight A-2 was beaten by D-2. The re does not appear that any investigation has been directed on the strength of Exhibit P-20. Further there is this inescapable circumstances namely that P.Ws. 1 to 5 have given parts to A-2 and A-3 which they never attributed to them in their earliest statements to the police. When P.Ws. The re does not appear that any investigation has been directed on the strength of Exhibit P-20. Further there is this inescapable circumstances namely that P.Ws. 1 to 5 have given parts to A-2 and A-3 which they never attributed to them in their earliest statements to the police. When P.Ws. 1 to 5 could go to the export of developing the story and implicating innocent persons presumably after knowing that wound certificates were issued to A-2 and A-3 and that A-2 had aheady made report to the police, it will be rather unsafe and dangerous to place reliance on their testimony when they give A-1 the part, that he stabbed D-1 while. A-2 and A-3 caught hold of D-1. There is yet another infrimity in the evidence of the witnesses that while they told the Sub-Inspector that A-1 pursued D-2 and stabbed him, obviously to account for the corpse being found 130 yards away from the scene of occurrence they row resile from that statement and say that the (D-2) was stabbed at the scene of occurrence where D-2 was stabbed. The reason is obvious viz., that they wanted to make it appear that they had witnessed the attack on D-2. There is one other circumstance which makes us feel that P.Ws. 1 to 5 either were not present at the time of the occurrence and even if they were present near about the place of occurrance they could not have seen the attack on D-1 and D-2 as from the almanac of that date there was little moon-light at the time of the occurence. We have already disbelieved their story relating to the hurricane lanterns burning near about the scene of occurence. The opinion of the medical officer regarding the kind of weapon that could have caused the injury on the head ofA-2 lends a further support to our conclusion. P.Ws. 1 to 5 claim that A-1 when he first aimed his knife at D-1 he missed the aim as P.W. 1 pulled her husband away and that the stab fell on the forehead of A-2. Curiously enough the opinion of P.W. 7 relating to the injury found on the head of A-2 is that it could have been caused by a blunt weapon. Curiously enough the opinion of P.W. 7 relating to the injury found on the head of A-2 is that it could have been caused by a blunt weapon. The prosecution in this case has even gone to the extent of examining a photographer to show that A-1 is a bad character by filing a photograph of his and introducing a knife in his hands. The photographer had however to admit that the knife shown in the hand of A-1 in M.O. 12 (Photograph of A-1) is a painted one which was not there originally in the photograph and that it could be washed and was introduced in his hand by his assistant. This evidence only shows to what extent the presecution was prepared to go in order to make it appear that A-1 alone is responsible for stabbing D-1 and D-2. We are unable to appreciate how this evidence was allowed to come on record ignoring the fact that the previous bad character even if true is not relevant except in reply, unless the evidence of good character of the accused person is adduced. We have no doubt that in this case P.Ws. 1 to 5 who could not have witnessed the occurrance in view of the act that it was a dark night have implicated A-1 more on account of suspicion than based on what they had witnessed and suspicion cannot be substituted for legal proof. The very fact that the defence version was given at such an early stage and to a large extent has been corroborated is a strong reason for thinking that the defence Version was very likely to have been true. There is no doubt that the prosecution witnesses are not telling the truth and therefore it is not possible to get a true picture of the case. Therefore, it is difficult for us in view of the serious infirmities pointed out to say with certainty that it is A-1 who gave the fatal stab to D-1 and D-2. There is the further fact that the witnesses are all related to the two deceased and there is no satisfactory evidence to lend assurance and satisfy the Court that they were present at the time of the occurrence and are speaking the truth. There is the further fact that the witnesses are all related to the two deceased and there is no satisfactory evidence to lend assurance and satisfy the Court that they were present at the time of the occurrence and are speaking the truth. The trend of the prosecution case shows their P.W.s. 1 to 5 were motivated to implicate A-1 and give him the major role in the attack on D-1 and D-2. The learned trial Judge went wrong in relying on the discovery of the knife as corroborating the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. It is fallacious to treat the object (M.O. 3) seized by the Inspector as equivalent to the fact discovered within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act There is nothing to show that in view of the evidence of the village Munsif the object seized by P.W. 20 has been produced by A-1 in direct consequence of the information furnished by him relating to the discovery of the knife. We are not prepared to attach any importance to the statement (Exhibit P-12) made by the first accused as the knife was not discovered in direct consequence of the information furnished by the accused. The learned Counsel Mr. Krishna Reddy has next argued that even if the prosecution case is to be accepted A-1 is not guilty of having committed any offence as what was done was in the exercise of his right of private defence. The right of private defence of the body under section 100, Indian Penal Code extendi: subject, to the restriction mentioned in section 99, Indian Penal Code, to the voluntary causing of death or any other harm to the assailant if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is an assault which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt or death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. In this case admittedly four persons were injured A-1, A-2, A-3 and the mother of A-1 and one of the injuries found on A-1 in the opinion of the Medical Officer could have been caused with a knife and the rest of the injuries on the accused with sticks or blunt objects. In this case admittedly four persons were injured A-1, A-2, A-3 and the mother of A-1 and one of the injuries found on A-1 in the opinion of the Medical Officer could have been caused with a knife and the rest of the injuries on the accused with sticks or blunt objects. It is not necessary to detail the injuries described by the Medical officer in Exhibit P-3, P.4 and P.5 given to A-2, A-1 and A-3 respectively, if there is sufficient evidence to show that the acts of the accused came under self-defence even if they had denied the acts in their statements still they cannot be denied of the benefit of this privilege. In this case A-1 in his statement made under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, which we have already adverted, stated that fifteen people accompanied by D-1 and D-2 came to attack him and his father at his house and when he came out from his house with his mother P.W. 3 D-1 and D-2 beat them and that D-1 advanced towards his father with a knife and that he had obstructed and then he (A-1) received aninjury on his head and that D-1 attempted to stab him when he (A-1) caught hold of his (D-1’s) hand. In addition to this statement there is Exhibit P-20, to which reference has already been made. This earliest report given by A-2 soon after the occurance also narrates the attack on A-2 and A-3 by D-1, D-2 and P.W. 3, and the Veesavanipeta people. P.W. 9 has also stated that her son (P.W. 4) had told her that both sides had fought and that there was stabbing. That A-2’s wife was also injured is also spoken to by P.W. 9. The question is in these circumstances when his mother, father of A-3 and A-1 himself received injuries whether he is entitled to the exercise of the private defence to the extent of voluntarily causing the death of the assailants. In all these cases, the question to be asked is not what a perfectly cool by-stander would think absolutely necessary but whether there was reasonable apprehension of danger to life having regard to all the circumstances. In all these cases, the question to be asked is not what a perfectly cool by-stander would think absolutely necessary but whether there was reasonable apprehension of danger to life having regard to all the circumstances. The instinct of self preservation acts strongly upon the accused when he pursues to defend himself and a person who is assaulted, and more so in a case when four persons on his side have been attacked with sharp edged instruments and sticks, is not bound to modulate his defence step by step according to the attack made. The question will be not whether there was an actually continuing danger to his life but whether there was a reasonable apprehension of such danger. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not necessary that the first accused should Weigh his right of private defence in golden scales nor does the law require that he should wait till he receives grievous injuries to exercise the privilege. The evidence on record will fully justify that there was reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the attack on his and his father and mother, unless he himself dealt with the assailents in the exercise of the right of private defence. It may be relevant in this connection to notice the oft quoted observations of Viscount Sankey, L.C. in the famous case of Wolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions1 “Just as there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution so there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either case, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the Prisoner there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence............ Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is reason. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is reason. able doubt created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution had not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law..........and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” Therefore, there are certain fundamental principles which govern the trial and decision of criminal cases and the onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies upon the prosecution and in this case, we have no hesitation to hold on a careful examination of the prosecution evidence that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against A-1 with the result the reference is rejected, the criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused (A-1) is acquitted. K.N.R. ----- Reference rejected. A-1 acquitted.