JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No.16-ST/7 of 2009/2011, decided on 5.5.2011/11.5.2011, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `.10,000/- with the default clause, for allegedly committing murder of his wife Smt. Neelam Kumari. Hence the present appeal. A- PROSECUTION CASE 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. The appellant, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the accused’ was originally resident of Sundernagar, District Mandi. He had married Smt. Neelam Kumari, sister of PW6 Upender. To establish his business he shifted to Kala-Amb and initially started work in a factory. Later he opened a grocery shop. By his earning, he had also constructed his two storeyed house at Kala-Amb where he resided with his wife and three minor children. 2.(ii) On 28.10.2008 in the early hours of the morning, around 4.00 am, PW1 Shyam Lal, the tenant of the accused residing in the lower storey was awaken-up by his wife PW3 Maya Devi who had heard noise of quarrel from the upper-storey, occupied by the accused, fearing some thing wrong, Shyam Lal came out and went upstairs, he saw the accused was beating his wife. He was having a knife (Ex.P1) in his hand. Though, he tried to intervene, but accused warned him to mind his own business as it was his personal matter and asked him to leave immediately apprehending of happening of some untoward incident, Shyam Lal straightway went to Police-Post, Kala Amb and informed police. PW19 ASI Parveen Rana recorded his complaint in daily-diary Ext.PW14/A and proceeded to the spot alongwith some police officials and Shyam Lal where they reached around 5.20 a.m. and found Neelam Kumari, lying dead in the pool of blood with a slit throat on the stairs leading to the roof of the house. 2.(iii) Police had also joined the photographer and took photographs A-1 to A-17. PW19 aforesaid examined the dead-body and found a sharp edge bleeding wound measuring 2”x4” on her neck. He also noticed blood on the stairs and Verandah. One leg of the deceased was lying on the bed while right leg was on the floor. Broken bangles, ‘Dupatta’ and ‘Chappel’ of the deceased were lying on the spot. 2.(iv) The accused was present on the spot. He also noticed blood on the stairs and Verandah. One leg of the deceased was lying on the bed while right leg was on the floor. Broken bangles, ‘Dupatta’ and ‘Chappel’ of the deceased were lying on the spot. 2.(iv) The accused was present on the spot. His hands and clothes were stained with blood. On enquiry by PW19 ASI Parveen Rana, he told him that he had done whatever he wanted to do. 2. (v) The blood stained knife Ext.P1, lying on the spot was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/A. Its sketch-map Ext.PW19/F was also prepared. The broken bangles Ext.P.2 lying on the floor, were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Her slippers Exts.P4 and 5 were also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C. Blood lying on the spot was picked up with the help of cotton and blood stained cotton Ext.P.3 was put into a small bottle and after packing and sealing the same was also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/D. ‘Ruqa’ Ext.PW19/A was sent to the Police Station to lodge FIR (Ext.PW19/B) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site-plan Ext.PW19/D. 2.(vi) On receiving information about the incident in question Dy.S.P. alongwith S.H.O. Subhash Chand visited spot. The dead-body of the deceased was taken into possession after having prepared the inquest papers Ext.PW20/B, it was sent for autopsy. 2.(vii) The postmortem examination was conducted by PW9 Dr. Sunil Gupta and Dr. Manisha Aggarwal. On examining the dead body, the doctors noticed the following injuries: (i) One incised wound [size 10.5 cm x 4.5 cm x 5.5 cm] was present on the front of neck 2½” above supra sternal notch placed horizontally, edges and margins were clean cut and smooth. Major arteries and veins of neck were cut smoothly through and through bilaterally. Trachea, oesophgus, muscles were also cut through and through transversely. Depth of wound on extreme right and left were same. Whole of the cavity of wound was found filled with blood. (ii) One incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x .5 cm was placed on right lateral side of chest, 10” behind and 4” below right nipple. Margins edges were cut clean and smoothly. Depth of wound on extreme right and left were same. Whole of the cavity of wound was found filled with blood. (ii) One incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x .5 cm was placed on right lateral side of chest, 10” behind and 4” below right nipple. Margins edges were cut clean and smoothly. (iii) One incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on anterior surface of right shoulder 2 cm right and 2.5 cm below lateral of end of right clavicle margins and edges were cut clean and smoothly. (iv) One incised wound 3 cm x .3 cm x 2.5 cm on neck 1 cm below the wound No.1 and was placed 3 cm left to midline edges and margins were cut cleanly and smoothly. In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was heamorrhagic shock due to cutting of major arteries and veins of the neck by sharp weapon. Probable time between injury and death was within three minutes and between death and postmortem is 14 to 26 hours. The postmortem report is Ext.PW9/B. In the opinion of the doctor, injuries aforesaid could be caused by knife Ext.P.1. 2.(viii) Viscera and blood stained clothes were sent for the chemical examination. As per forensic examination report Ext.PW18/B, human blood of Group ‘A’ was found on the knife Ext.P.1 and the pieces of bangles were similar on the basis of colour and design (Ex.PW20/L), but however no poisonous substance was found in the Viscera. 2.(ix) The accused was arrested and was got medically examined from PW8 Dr. S.M. Ali on the same day, i.e., 28.10.2008 on the written request Ext.PW8/A of the police. Doctor did not find any visible injury on his person. However, history of washing of his hands was mentioned. The grey-coloured pants worn by him, was having blood stains mainly on lower and anterior parts. History of not changing the Pants was stated. Doctor issued his Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW8/B. Pants Ext.P.6 was sealed and sent for forensic examination, which also contained human blood of “A” group. The report is Ext.PW18/A. 3. On completing investigation, police came to the conclusion that the accused had committed murder because he suspected the deceased-wife, of illicit relations with PW11 Ajay Kumar, @ ‘Bihari Babu’. The Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. 4. The report is Ext.PW18/A. 3. On completing investigation, police came to the conclusion that the accused had committed murder because he suspected the deceased-wife, of illicit relations with PW11 Ajay Kumar, @ ‘Bihari Babu’. The Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. 4. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. B-DEFENCE VERSION PUT TO THE PROSECTION WITNESSES AND HIS PLEA UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 6. The deceased mother of three children, was alleged to be of a loose character, having affairs with PW11 Ajay Kumar (Bihari Babu), who was said to be an affluent person as compared to the accused. It is ventilated that the deceased used to take lift on his motorcycle from her shop to her house. The deceased allegedly wanted to live with him. The accused is said to have complained to his neighbours that his wife did not obey him and because of the above conduct of the deceased the accused used to remain in a pensive-mood. 7. Further that 5/6 days prior to the alleged incident deceased alongwith her daughter had allegedly gone to her native place and the accused left Kala-Amb alongwith his two sons next-day. Deceased returned on 26.10.2008 and broke-open the locks of her residence and next-day the accused came there with his sons. It is alleged in defence that during intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 the accused and his son Khushal Rana (PW7) had slept in a separate room and the deceased alongwith minor son and daughter were in the adjoining room. The deceased is alleged to have come out from her room and met her paramour Ajay Kumar on the stairs of her house. Said Ajay Kumar pushed the accused and escaped. The above story was being projected in the statements of hostile witnesses and PW7, the son of the accused. 8. The case of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that during the intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 he saw his wife in the arms of Ajay Kumar, on this, he got flared-up. Ajay Kumar pushed him aside and escaped. Neelam was having a knife in her hand. 8. The case of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that during the intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 he saw his wife in the arms of Ajay Kumar, on this, he got flared-up. Ajay Kumar pushed him aside and escaped. Neelam was having a knife in her hand. To defend himself, he caught hold of her hands, in scuffle the knife struck against the neck of the deceased and sustained a cut injury. He also stated that he was very much infuriated with anger on seeing her in compromising position with her paramour Ajay Kumar or someone else and pleaded innocence. 9. The accused was also called upon to enter into his defence. He examined DW1 Ravinder Singh, a neighbour to prove the photographs Ext.D.1 to D.4 of the family of accused and DW2 Shri Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited to prove the certificates Ext.D.1 and D.2 with respect to the call details of the mobile phone numbers given therein. But none of the cell-phone numbers could be connected with the deceased, nor the accused could capitalize anything from the photographs. C- TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS. 10. The learned trial Court discarded the defence version but while taking note of the hostility of unfavourable prosecution witnesses, with a motive to save the accused by suppressing truth and while relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, which is under challenge in the present appeal. D-CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THIS COURT. 11. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused, has led us through the evidence on record and vehemently argued that PW1 Shyam Lal did not support the case of the prosecution as such declared hostile and the other witnesses of the vicinity also did not support the prosecution case, rather probablised the defence version. The learned Counsel submitted that the circumstances on record suggest that the accused was attacked by his wife with a knife when she was noticed in the company of paramour and in order to save himself in exercise of his self defence he caught hold of her, from both the hands, in that process she sustained the cut injuries on her neck. He alternatively argued that if in any event the accused is proved to have caused fatal blows to the deceased-wife it was attributable to the grave and sudden provocation on seeing her in a compromising position with her paramour. To substantiate his point he also referred to the statement of PW7 Khushal Rana (13 years), son of the accused. 12. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and argued that the defence version of the accused is a cock and bull story only coined to save himself. It is also pointed out that PW1 Shyam Lal though declared hostile, but he admitted the case of the prosecution on material particulars and immediately without any loss of time, he had reported the matter to police and material facts were recorded in the daily-diary. When the police reached the spot the wife of the accused was found dead in pool of blood as stated above with a slit throat and other cut injuries and that the accused was also present on the spot with blood stained clothes and hands and admitted to have committed the offence. It is also argued that there was no reference of third person being present when both, i.e., accused was beating deceased and the knife was seen in the hands of the accused, thereafter she was found dead. It is further argued that the statement of Khushal Rana (PW7) son of the accused is wrong and manipulated one, made under influence and pressure of his grand-parents, only to secure benefit to the accused. Further that PW7 aforesaid was residing in the same family of the accused and admitted in the Court that his deceased-mother was a good person and even that he also loved his accused/father. He further stated that his grand-parents had accompanied him to Nahan three days prior to his examination in the Court, though denied having tortured him. Shri Sharma further argued that neither it is a case of self-defence nor of grave and sudden provocation. Rather it is proved to be a case of clear cut murder for which the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced. Shri Sharma further argued that neither it is a case of self-defence nor of grave and sudden provocation. Rather it is proved to be a case of clear cut murder for which the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced. It is also ventilated that the hostile witnesses stand fully contradicted with their earlier statements and they have tried to suppress the truth with obvious motives. E-RE-ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT IN APPEAL. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and cautiously reappraised and scanned the evidence on record. 14. First of all we would like to see where the case hinges from the evidence view point on factual aspects. 15. As already stated above, PW1 Shyam Lal was a neighbour of the accused, residing in the ground floor and the accused was residing with his wife in the upper storey alongwith three minor children. During the intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 deceased Neelam Kumari was in the company of her accused/husband. In the wee hours of the morning PW3 Maya Devi, wife of PW1 Shyam Lal, was attracted by some quarreling noise coming from the upper storey. She woke-up her husband (PW1) and told him that some altercation was going on inter se the accused and his wife. PW1 went up-stairs and saw that the accused was beating his wife and was having a knife in his hand. When he tried to separate him, he told him that it was his personal affair and he should leave the place. Immediately thereafter he went to Police Post, Kala Amb and informed police which was recorded in the daily diary Ext.PW14/A in the same manner to which he stated and the same was duly signed by him. PW1 Shyam Lal though declared hostile, but testified when examined in the Court that he had informed the police and his information was taken down in the Police-Post and police had also accompanied him to the spot. When they reached the spot, they saw that Neelam Kumari (deceased) was lying dead with slit throat. He also deposed that the accused had told police that he had killed his wife. The knife Ext.P.1 was lying on the stairs. When they reached the spot, they saw that Neelam Kumari (deceased) was lying dead with slit throat. He also deposed that the accused had told police that he had killed his wife. The knife Ext.P.1 was lying on the stairs. Police picked it up with the help of holder (Chimti) vide memo Ext.PW1/A. Though on further questioning by the learned Public Prosecutor he stated that on hearing the cries he did not go upstairs before visiting the Police-Post, thus, he was declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined. Pertinently then he also stated that he had seen the accused beating his wife and at that time he was possessed of knife. He also reiterated that the accused told him not to interfere it being a personal matter and that the accused had told police that he had dragged his wife from the roof where water-tank was situated, to the stairs of his house and also pointed out the said place regarding which memo Ext.PW1/E was prepared, which was signed by him. 16. Importantly, PW19 ASI Parveen Rana proved authenticity of the daily-diary Ext.PW14/A having been recoded at the instance of PW1 Shyam Lal whereby the brief account of the incident seen by PW1 was recorded. He had visited the spot alongwith photographer and other police officials and Shyam Lal (PW1) and found Neelam Kumari lying dead on the stairs with a bleeding injury on the neck within an hour of their quarrel. The accused was also found present there. He stated that his hands and clothes were smeared with blood. On enquiry, he informed PW19 ASI Parveen Rana that he had done whatever he wanted to do. The accused was arrested and medically examined. His pant was taken into possession and sent for forensic examination. 17. On the postmortem examination, PW9 Dr. Sunil Gupta noted as many as four sharp injuries as referred above. The cause of death was heamorrhagic shock due to cutting of major arteries and veins of the neck by sharp weapon and time between injury and death was within three minutes. 18. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that PW1 Shyam Lal was the only witness who had seen the accused having knife in the hand of the accused and he had also witnessed the beatings being given by the accused to the deceased. 18. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that PW1 Shyam Lal was the only witness who had seen the accused having knife in the hand of the accused and he had also witnessed the beatings being given by the accused to the deceased. The accused, did not tell as to why he was beating his wife. Rather he warned Shyam Lal aforesaid to leave the place and not to intervene as it being his personal matter. When Shyam Lal returned with police within an hour, Neelam Kumari was lying dead with the silt throat. The deceased was present on the spot. He stated to police that he had done whatever he wanted to do. All the circumstances lead us to the conclusion that the accused had attacked his wife with knife causing as much as four injuries on the vital part of the body which resulted into her death. 19. Further, PW9 Dr. Sunil Gupta stated opined that the injuries in question found on the dead body of Neelam Kumari could be caused with knife Ext.P1. The knife aforesaid was sent for the forensic examination which contained the blood stains of the same group as it was found on the wearing apparels of the deceased, corroborates the prosecution story. 20. Now the question arises whether any sort of self-defence was available to the accused as being pleaded? For that only the statement of PW1 Shyam Lal is sufficient to dislodge this version. The perusal of his statement categorically proves when he had gone up-stairs and saw the accused with the knife Ext.P.1 in his hand when he was beating his wife. Thus, it was not the deceased who was having the knife in her hand; which caused any apprehension to the accused of causing some bodily injury or death nor it gives any impression that the injuries were caused while defending herself as alleged. 21. Further, the accused has projected another story in the cross-examination that when he found the deceased in a compromising position with her paramour, the accused got flared up and pleaded that his action was attributable to grave and sudden provocation. 22. We have also examined this case from this angle. The accused tried to probablise his defence that the deceased wife was carrying illicit relations with PW11 Ajay Kumar. 22. We have also examined this case from this angle. The accused tried to probablise his defence that the deceased wife was carrying illicit relations with PW11 Ajay Kumar. Said Shri Ajay Kumar was working in Green Line Appliances in a factory at Kala Amb for the last about four years from the date of alleged incident. He had been residing in the factory premises. He was a follower of ‘Braham Kumari’s’ sect. On holidays, as stated by him, he used to attend ‘Satsang’ where 14/15 persons of the same sect used to assemble. He testified that all ‘Satsangies’ were having brotherhood relationship amongst them. Deceased Neelam Kumari was also its member. She occasionally referred to her disturbed family life and used to complain that her husband had been harassing her. Further that ‘Satsang’ was organized at Nahan by ‘Braham Kumaries’. Deceased alongwith her son had taken lift on his motorcycle to attend ‘Braham Bhoj’, from her shop to Nahan. After taking feast there, they returned to Kala Amb. He categorically stated that on 27.10.2008 he took three days leave and went to Delhi alongwith Subhash to meet his father, who was serving there. On his return on 30.10.2008 he came to know that deceased Neelam Kumari had been murdered by her husband. He denied that during the intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 he had conversation with the deceased on her telephone. He also denied that around 3.00 a.m. he had sex with her at her residence and also that when the deceased was lying with him in the compromising condition he was caught by the accused. It is also denied that he got up and gave a push to the accused and ran away. He categorically stated that he was not present there nor he had such relations with the deceased. He further denied that he was also known as ‘Bihari Babu’ at Kala Amb. 23. Another witness is PW7 Khushal Rana (PW13 years), the son of the accused from deceased Neelam Kumari. He was declared hostile and was contradicted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he stated that his parents had been quarreling with each other for sometimes past. His mother had also made a complaint to Pradhan. Another witness is PW7 Khushal Rana (PW13 years), the son of the accused from deceased Neelam Kumari. He was declared hostile and was contradicted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he stated that his parents had been quarreling with each other for sometimes past. His mother had also made a complaint to Pradhan. He also stated that his father used to ask his mother as to why she had been roaming with ‘Bhaiya’, but she told that he was a rich man and this was the cause of their verbal duel. According to him, because of this tension his mother had left for the house of his maternal-uncle alongwith his sister and brother and thereafter his father had also gone to Behli. His mother had come back to Kala Amb a day earlier, to his father. She broke-open the locks and next day his father also reached there. On Diwali night his father had heard some sound and both of them searched the rooms. The door was bolted from outside and they went to another inter-linked room and saw his mother with said ‘Bhaiya’ on the stairs of the house holding each other in arms. ‘Bhaiya’ pushed his father and climbed down the stairs. This caused hot exchange of words inter se his parents. Thereafter his mother tried to hit his father and knife was snatched. He also stated that his mother used to tell his father that Ajay Kumar (PW11) was a rich man and he should be given a room in their residence. On this, his father got enraged. Pertinently, he admitted that after stabbing by his father, police had come to the house. He also stated that his mother was of good natured woman, but stated not later as she used to give them beatings with slaps and at same time he stated that he loved his father as well. He also admitted that he was residing with his grand-parents, who were accompanying him, but denied that he was tutored to save his father. Further according to him, the room was bolted from outside but they came out from the room through the adjoining room which was not bolted from outside and found the deceased in the company of Ajay Kumar. The story which was stated by him cannot be taken as a gospel truth for more than one reason. Further according to him, the room was bolted from outside but they came out from the room through the adjoining room which was not bolted from outside and found the deceased in the company of Ajay Kumar. The story which was stated by him cannot be taken as a gospel truth for more than one reason. Firstly, he is the son of accused to whom he loved. Secondly, his mother is dead, he did not want to loose his father. Thirdly, he was residing with his grand parents and was amenable to be influenced by them to give favourable statement to secure acquittal. Fourthly, he is of a tender age and did not know what to do in such a difficult situation, but succumbed to the pressure of his elderly. 24. Further, his testimony gets tainted in view of the Site plan Ext.PW19/B prepared by the Investigating Officer. It does not show that both these rooms which were opposite to the bath-room and the kitchen were interconnected by a door or even window in between to come to another room as stated by him. Had she bolted the room from outside, she could have also bolted the interconnected door to avoid the presence of accused. Thus, if the door was bolted from outside in absence of any other alternative route to another room the accused and the said witness could not have come out. Therefore, this story cannot be accepted on its face value. 25. Therefore, the story propounded in defence is false and there is no probability of grave and sudden provocation in the instant case justifying the murder of his wife. 26. Further, PW2 Yash Pal is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat stated that the deceased had come to him to make a complaint against his husband. He had asked from the deceased about the reasons. In cross-examination he stated that the deceased had come to him a day prior to the occurrence and asked him to tell her husband not to come there as she wanted to live with another person. Upon this, he told her that this was not possible which is contrary to the social norms. He also admitted that ‘Bihari Babu’ was an affluent person and was man of means and she wanted to live with him. Upon this, he told her that this was not possible which is contrary to the social norms. He also admitted that ‘Bihari Babu’ was an affluent person and was man of means and she wanted to live with him. His statement is also a tainted version qua the second part, through the deceased must have complained to him about the untoward behaviour of the accused. 27. PW4 Suman Sharma and another Suman PW5 were the neighbours of the deceased. PW4 had heard the noise coming from the house of the deceased. She had recently delivered a baby, but denied any male voice. Both were declared hostile and did not know whether the deceased was roaming astray for the last about one month from the day of occurrence. According to PW5, she did not hear the accused quarreling with any body during his stay for the last few years in the locality. Though she stated that deceased Neelam Kumari used to roam astray and people suspected her character, however, stated that on account of rumors the accused always remained pensive. 28. PW6 Upender was also declared hostile to the prosecution, but in cross-examination by the accused he gave another story admitting that the accused had told him that Neelam ran away with ‘Bihari Babu’ and also stated that on enquiry by him, she told that she did not want to live with the accused. 29. All the above hostile witnesses are from the place of the accused who had tried to save the accused by suppressing truth. They stand fully contradicted with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, one important thing do emerge from their statements that the accused might have suspected his deceased-wife of infidelity, which caused tension in the family life and it served as a motive to kill her by the accused, whereas, the story which has been put-forth with respect to the presence of alleged paramour PW11 Ajay Kumar during the intervening night of 27/28.10.2008 could not be probablised. There is also nothing to dislodge the sworn testimony of PW11 Ajay Kumar. 30. The learned Counsel for the accused has cited judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 771 and ventilated that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There is also nothing to dislodge the sworn testimony of PW11 Ajay Kumar. 30. The learned Counsel for the accused has cited judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 771 and ventilated that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He also put reliance upon the judgments Earabhadrappa alias Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 SCC (Cri) 447, Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 CRI.L.J. 10, Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 2988 , State of U.P. v. Lakhmi, AIR 1998 SC 1007 , Sukka v. State of M.P., 1998 CRI.L.J. 3118 (DB Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Jamuna Prasad and another v. State of U.P. 2002 CRI.L.J. 2073 (DB Allahabad High Court) to further support his point 31. We have gone through these judgments carefully which are distinguishable on facts. The ratio decidendi of these judgments are not disputed, but its application in the fact situation is quite difficult. Since, we have already held that there was no grave and sudden provocation proved by preponderance of probabilities nor it was a case of exercise of a private defence or accidental death, rather it being a clear-cut case of murder, accordingly, the defence pleas are rejected as not proved even by probabilities. As such, the appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 32. Send down the record.