Judgment Kemal Pasha, J. 1. The 1st accused in S.C. No.490/2007 of the IVth Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.983/2012. The 2nd accused in the said case is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.748/2012 and the 4th accused in the case is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.745/2012. Altogether 5 accused persons were indicted by PW21 alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 342, 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The 5th accused being a juvenile, was dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The 3rd accused absconded and the case against him was not committed. A1, A2 and A4 had faced trial. The court below found them guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 324 and 364 IPC and sentenced each of them, to imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 364 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that the sister of the deceased namely, Mari, was given in marriage to one Gireesh, who is the brother of A3. Allegedly on account of the tortures from the hands of Gireesh, Mari committed suicide. Consequently, a criminal case was registered and the said Gireesh and his parents were remanded to judicial custody. A1, A2 and A4 herein along with A3, allegedly helped Gireesh and his family to get bail in the said case. Subsequently, the said Gireesh also committed suicide. It is alleged that there was enmity between A1 and others towards the deceased and vice-versa. The prosecution case is that on 21.11.2004 at 8.15 p.m., while the deceased was coming back to his house through the pathway lying in front of the courtyard of the house of the appellants, the appellants dragged him to the courtyard and severely beat him by using iron rod and sticks. Thereafter, they dragged him into the hall room, and then to the kitchen of the house of these appellants. 3. Thereafter, they dragged him into the hall room, and then to the kitchen of the house of these appellants. 3. On hearing the hue and cry, CW1, who is the wife of the deceased, and PW3, who is the mother of the deceased, rushed to the spot for his rescue and when they attempted to intervene, they were attacked and beat by the appellants, thereby they took to heels and escaped. CW1 directly went to the Murickassery Police Station and reported that her husband was being attacked. By the time, the appellants, along with the other accused, subjected the deceased to severe attack by using various weapons like iron rods, coffee stick and firewood. The police reached the spot and rescued the deceased and sent him to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Adimali, where he was attended by PW14 Doctor. As his condition was critical, he was immediately referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and on the way, he died. CW1 and PW3 were also admitted at the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Adimali. 4. On the basis of Ext.P14(a) F.I.Statement furnished by CW1 before PW18, ASI of Police, Murickassery Police Station, PW18 registered the crime through Ext.P14 FIR. The investigation was taken over by PW23. He reached the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, conducted the inquest, and prepared Ext.P13 inquest report. Thereafter, at 10.30 a.m. on 23.11.2004, he reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar, by which he seized MO12, MO13, MO14, MO15, MO16, MO17 and MO18, and collected blood and bloodstained soil. 5. PW23 placed A3 under arrest at 7.30 p.m., and A1 and A2 under arrest at 8.30 p.m. On 23.11.2004. He placed A4 under arrest at 2.30 p.m. and A5 under arrest at 11 p.m. on 25.11.2004. On the basis of Ext.P4(a) information furnished by A2 and as led by him, PW23 reached the kitchen at the scene of occurrence and seized MO3 iron pipe from among the firewood kept near the hearth, which was taken out and produced by A2, through Ext.P4 mahazar. The material objects were produced before court and forwarding note was filed for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. Ext.P17 certificate of chemical analysis was obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. A2, A4 and A5 had sustained injuries and they had obtained treatment from the District Hospital, Idukki. The material objects were produced before court and forwarding note was filed for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. Ext.P17 certificate of chemical analysis was obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. A2, A4 and A5 had sustained injuries and they had obtained treatment from the District Hospital, Idukki. There had occurred a fracture of the left hand of A5, an injury on the head of A2 and a severe injury on the head of A4. Crime No.116/2004 was registered in connection with the injuries sustained to A2, A4 and A5. The said crime was registered through Ext.P16 FIR, on the basis of Ext.P15 F.I.Statement furnished by A4 before PW19, Head Constable of Police, Murickassery Police Station. Subsequently, the said crime was referred as false by the police. Consequently, a protest complaint was filed, which was taken on file and the same was also tried along with this case. PW21, who is the successor in office to PW23, completed the investigation and filed the final report. 7. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 23 were examined, Exts.P1 to P30 were marked and MOs 1 to 20 were identified. Exts.D1 to D14 being contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence against them and contended that they have sustained injuries in the incident and they obtained treatment from the District Hospital, Idukki. According to A4, she was attacked by the deceased with MO1 iron rod. As no grounds were made out to acquit the appellants under Section 232 Cr.P.C.,they were called upon to enter on their defence. On the side of the appellants, DW1 was examined. Again, the prosecution and the appellants were heard. The court below found the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 324 and 364 IPC, convicted them thereunder, and sentenced them as aforesaid. 8. We heard Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.745 and 748 of 2012 and Sri.Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.983/2012. We also heard Sri.Roy Thomas, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the evidence of the prosecution are contradictory in nature and it is shrouded with inconsistencies and contradictions. We also heard Sri.Roy Thomas, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the evidence of the prosecution are contradictory in nature and it is shrouded with inconsistencies and contradictions. It is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to find any guilt on the part of these appellants and the appellants are entitled to an acquittal. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the available evidence in this case is sufficient to bring out the guilt of the appellants beyond doubt and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are not liable to be interfered with. 9. Even though Ext.P14(a) F.I.Statement was furnished by CW1, who is the wife of the deceased, subsequently she has not turned up to adduce evidence before the court below. It seems that she was not available for examination and her whereabouts were not known. Even though the prosecution case is that the deceased was attacked by the appellants at the courtyard of the house of A2 and thereafter he was forcefully dragged into the hall room and then into the kitchen of the house, the case furnished by CW1 in Ext.P14(a) is based on some other facts. As per the contents of Ext.P14(a), her case was that there was a cordial talk between A2 and the deceased, just prior to the incident, followed by invitation from the part of A2 to the deceased to his house, and thereby the deceased entered inside the house of A2 along with A2. A1 and A3 were also present in the house. The version of CW1 is that she also went behind the deceased. She could see A1 inflicting a blow on the head of the deceased with an iron rod thereby the deceased collapsed. Immediately, she intervened to the rescue of her husband and then A1 inflicted a blow on her hand with an iron rod. Immediately, she rushed out and took to heels. According to her, A2 was holding a firewood and A3 was holding a coffee stick. All of them beat the deceased. She rushed to the police station, informed the matter, and came back with the police. The deceased was taken into a jeep and was taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Adimali, from where the deceased was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. All of them beat the deceased. She rushed to the police station, informed the matter, and came back with the police. The deceased was taken into a jeep and was taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Adimali, from where the deceased was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. On going through the contents of Ext.P14(a), it seems that the then case of CW1 was that the deceased was cordially invited into the house of A2 and he was attacked inside the house. It further reveals that she also gained entry into the house of A2 for the rescue of her husband. It seems that the versions of CW1 in Ext.P14(a) are quite contradictory to the prosecution case as such. 10. It seems that the court below has heavily relied on the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 to find the guilt of the appellants. Even though PW2, PW5 and PW6 were also cited and examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence, they turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case fully. PW1 is the neighbour of the deceased as well as the appellants. According to him, by about 7.30 p.m. on 21.11.2004, he heard a scream from the direction of the house of the appellants. When he rushed to the spot, he could see A1, A2, A3 and A4 beating the deceased, who was lying inside the hall room of the house. According to him, A2 beat the deceased with a stick, A4 beat the deceased with an iron pipe, A3 beat the deceased with a stick, and A1 beat the deceased with an iron rod. When he tried to intervene to the rescue of the deceased, he was threatened and intimidated by the appellants thereby he came out of the house. After some time, the wife of the deceased procured the presence of the police, and the deceased was taken to the hospital. He identified MO1 as the iron rod used by A1, MO2 as the stick used by A2, and MO3 as the iron pipe used by A4. According to him, the son and daughter of A2 were also present at the house. He identified MO1 as the iron rod used by A1, MO2 as the stick used by A2, and MO3 as the iron pipe used by A4. According to him, the son and daughter of A2 were also present at the house. In cross examination, it has come out that his versions before the court below were totally contradictory to his versions in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Those severe contradictions were marked as Exts.D1 to D4. On the side of the prosecution, a contradiction was marked as Ext.P1. Therefore, the clear stand taken by PW1 regarding the incident is that the whole incident had occurred inside the hall room of the house of A2. He has no case that he had seen any attack on the deceased at the courtyard of the house or inside the kitchen of the house. 11. PW3 is the mother of the deceased. Her versions in chief examination is also similar to the one narrated by CW1 in Ext.P14(a). According to her, she could hear the cordial talk between A2 and the deceased just prior to the incident and thereafter she could hear a scream from the house of A2. Immediately, she rushed to the house of A2 and there, she could see A4 sprinkling water mixed with chilly powder into the eyes of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellants dragged the deceased into the house of A2. She along with CW1 pulled him back. At that time, A1 came behind her and beat her with an iron rod. Prior to that, CW1 was beaten by A1 with the iron rod. CW1 ran to the police station. When she was again attacked, she also ran away. From her versions, it is evident that she had no occasion to see the attack on the deceased by the appellants inside the house of A2. According to her, even prior to such attack, she had ran away from the spot. The contradictions in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Exts.D5 to D7. 12. PW4 is the father of PW1. According to him, he heard the sound of a scream by about 8 p.m. on 21.11.2004 from the side of the house of A2. Immediately, he rushed to the spot. Then, he could see CW1 running to the police station by stating that her husband was being murdered. 12. PW4 is the father of PW1. According to him, he heard the sound of a scream by about 8 p.m. on 21.11.2004 from the side of the house of A2. Immediately, he rushed to the spot. Then, he could see CW1 running to the police station by stating that her husband was being murdered. He could see PW3 screaming and crying aloud by stating that her son was being murdered. When he reached the house of A2, he could see the appellants and the other accused beating the deceased inside the house of A2. Even though at first, he stated that MO1 iron rod was with A2, immediately he corrected it and stated that it was with A1. According to him, A2 was holding MO2 stick and A4 was holding MO3 iron pipe. He identified MO4 as the stick which was with A3. When he asked them as to whether they were attempting to do away with the deceased, they jumped towards him and thereby he retreated to the roadside. Even after that, he could hear the sounds of beating. The contradictions in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are marked as Exts.D8 to D12. It seems that PW1, PW3 and PW4 have substantially deviated from their versions before the police. It seems that they have not, in fact, supported the prosecution case. Even the court charge reveals altogether a different version regarding the incident. It seems that PW3 has supported the version of CW1 in Ext.P14 (a). The prosecution case is totally different from the contents of Ext.P14(a) and, the versions of PW1 and PW4 regarding the incident are contradictory to the versions of PW3 and the contents of Ext.P14(a). 13. The learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out that the appellants had sustained serious injuries in the attack against them by the deceased and his wife CW1 and mother PW3. It is also their case that prior to the said attack, the deceased had pelted stones on the roof of the house of A2, thereby smashing and breaking the tiles on the roof. Thereafter, the deceased forced open the front door and gained entry into the kitchen and attacked A4. It seems that the prosecution has examined PW19 to prove Ext.P15 F.I.Statement furnished by A4 relating to the incident, based on which Ext.P16 FIR was registered. Thereafter, the deceased forced open the front door and gained entry into the kitchen and attacked A4. It seems that the prosecution has examined PW19 to prove Ext.P15 F.I.Statement furnished by A4 relating to the incident, based on which Ext.P16 FIR was registered. According to A4 in Ext.P15, on 21.11.2004, by 8 p.m., while she was about to serve supper to her children, she could hear the deceased uttering threatening words towards her husband, by standing at the road in front of their courtyard. By uttering threatening words, the deceased pelted stones on to the roof of their house thereby the tiles of the roof became broken and pieces of the broken tiles and stones fell inside the house. According to her, she made her children to take shelter beneath the slab in the kitchen. The deceased forced open the door of the house and trespassed into the kitchen and thereafter she was attacked. According to A4 in Ext.P15, the deceased was holding an iron rod with which he beat on the hand and thigh of A5, who is the son of A4, who came out from beneath the slab. By the time, CW1 came over there with a knife and PW3 came over there with a stick. CW1 beat on the back of her neck with the blunt edge of the knife and PW3 beat her with the stick. The deceased beat on her head with the iron rod thereby she sustained a severe injury and blood oozed out. By that time, her husband A2 and the husband of her elder sister A1, along with one of their neighbours A3 rushed to the spot. CW1 inflicted a cut on the head of A2. Thereafter, CW1 and PW3 ran away from the house with the weapons. Her version is that during the scuffle, the deceased fell down thereby forcefully hitting his head on the kitchen slab, whereby he sustained injury. 14. PW22 was the Doctor, who examined A2, A4 and A5 on 21.11.2004 at 9.45 p.m. Ext.P19 is the wound certificate in respect of A2, which shows that he sustained lacerated wound 3 cm over parietal area left side, lacerated wound posterior aspect of thigh left 3 cms, and small contusion in the right index finger. 14. PW22 was the Doctor, who examined A2, A4 and A5 on 21.11.2004 at 9.45 p.m. Ext.P19 is the wound certificate in respect of A2, which shows that he sustained lacerated wound 3 cm over parietal area left side, lacerated wound posterior aspect of thigh left 3 cms, and small contusion in the right index finger. Ext.P20 is the wound certificate of A5, which shows that he sustained swelling of left elbow joint and local tenderness was present and movements restricted due to pain. There occurred a fracture. Ext.P21 is the wound certificate of A4, which shows that she sustained (1) lacerated wound 10 cms over scalp in the midline extending from frontal to parietal area (2) contusion and abrasion 2cms over left hypochondrium, and (3) contusion over right shoulder. It seems that the prosecution was fair enough in bringing out into evidence Ext.P15 as well as Exts.P19, P20 and P21. It seems that A5 has sustained a grievous hurt and A4 has sustained a severe injury, which is 10 cms long on the middle of her head. 15. PW14 had examined the deceased and prepared Ext.P8 wound certificate. He had noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- "(1) Multiple lacerated injuries of varying size on the scalp from forehead to occipital region. (2) Multiple contusions anterior and posterior chest. (3) Multiple contusion on the lower limb both sides." He examined CW1 and prepared and issued Ext.P9 wound certificate, which shows that CW1 had sustained a contusion on the scalp extending from the frontal to parietal region more towards left. PW14 has examined PW3 also and issued Ext.P10 wound certificate, which shows the following injuries: "(1) Contusion scalp on the vault of scalp. (2) Contusion on the right thigh horizontally placed. (3) Contusion on the back of chest lumbar region horizontally placed. (4) Contusion both forearm dorsal aspect." 16. After the inquest, the body was sent for postmortem examination. PW15, while working as the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, conducted the autopsy on 22.11.2004 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. and prepared and issued Ext.P4 postmortem certificate. He has noted the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- "(1) Lacerated wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm, obliquely placed on the top of head. Its right front and was 6 cm above the top of ear. He has noted the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- "(1) Lacerated wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm, obliquely placed on the top of head. Its right front and was 6 cm above the top of ear. (2) Lacerated wound 4.5 x 1 x 1 cm, sagittally placed on the top of right side of the head. Its front end just above the parietal eminence. (3) Lacerated wound 5 x 1 x 1 cm on the top of middle of head 7 cm above the root of nose. (4) Lacerated wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm over the left parietal eminence of the head. (5) Lacerated wound 6 x 1 x 1 cm on the top of left side of the head sagittally placed just above the parietal eminence of the head. (6) Lacerated wound 2.5 x 1 x 0.8 cm on the back of head 3 cm above the mastoid process. On dissection, the whole areas of the scalp tissues was contused in its full thickness. The vault of the skull showed multiple fissured fracture with coronal suture separation of both sides. One of these fissured fractures extending downwards in to the right side of the middle cranial fossa through the temporal bone and crossing the hypophyseal fossa seen terminated in the left middle cranial fossa. Under surface of the brain showed laceration 8 x 6 x 3 cm. Haemorrhagic contusion 5 x 2 x 1 cm on the top of left side of the brain. Subdural and subarachnoid spaces of the brain had diffuse haemorrhages. Sulci of brain narrowed and its gyri flattened. (7) Abrasion 6 x 4 cm on the right side of the face and adjoining areas of the bridge of nose 4 cm below eye. (8) Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on the tip of nose. (9) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 x 1.5 cm, on the back of right arm 7 cm above the elbow. (10) Abraded contusion over the area 12 x 8 cm nearly circular in shape on the back of right arm 10 cm below the tip of shoulder, varying in sizes from 1 x 0.5 x 0.3 cm to 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm with intervening clear areas of 0.8 cm to 1 cm. (10) Abraded contusion over the area 12 x 8 cm nearly circular in shape on the back of right arm 10 cm below the tip of shoulder, varying in sizes from 1 x 0.5 x 0.3 cm to 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm with intervening clear areas of 0.8 cm to 1 cm. (11) Linear abraded contusion, two in number 10x 0.5 x 1 cm each obliquely placed, one below the other on the front of chest involving both sides, 2 cm apart. The lower right end of the upper one being 6 cm below the front fold of arm pit. (12) Abraded contusion 8 x 3 x 1 cm on the front of middle of chest horizontally placed involving both sides, just above the stomach pit. (13) Linear abraded contusion 9 x 2 x 1.5 cm, obliquely placed on the outer aspect of right side of the chest. Its lower outer end was 10 cm below arm pit. (14) Linear abraded contusion 7 x 2 x 1.5 cm, obliquely placed on the outer aspect of the right side of the trunk. Its lower outer extent being 5 cm above the top of hip bone. (15) Multiple abraded contusions 25 x 10 x 2 cm involving the back of right elbow and adjoining areas of the forearm. (16) Abraded contusion 8 x 5 x 2 cm on the back of right hand just below wrist. (17) Abraded contusion 14 x 10 x 4 cm on the outer aspect of right thigh. Its upper extent being 8 cm below top of hip bone. (18) Linear abraded contusion 11 x 3 x 4 cm on the front of right thigh 7 cm below thigh fold. (19) Abraded contusion 10 x 8 x 4 cm on the front of right knee. (20) Abraded contusion 10 x 7 x 3 cm on the front and outer aspect of right leg 5 cm below the knee incorporating a lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on its upper extent. (21) Abraded contusion 7 x 3 x 1 cm on the front of right leg 5 cm above the ankle. (22) Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the outer aspect of right leg just above the ankle. (23) Multiple abraded contusions over an area 4 x 2 x 2 cm on the outer aspect of left ankle. (21) Abraded contusion 7 x 3 x 1 cm on the front of right leg 5 cm above the ankle. (22) Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the outer aspect of right leg just above the ankle. (23) Multiple abraded contusions over an area 4 x 2 x 2 cm on the outer aspect of left ankle. (24) Abraded contusion 7 x 2 x 2 cm on the back of left leg 8 cm below knee. (25) Abraded contusion 5 x 3 x 2 cm on the back of left leg just below knee. (26) Multiple abraded contusions over an area 12 x x 3 cm on the front of left thigh 6 cm above knee. (27) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the outer aspect of left thigh just above knee. (28) Multiple small abrasions over an area 7 x 3 cm involving the back of the root of the fingers of left hand sparing the thumb. (29) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the back of middle of runk 3 cm below root of neck. (30) Abraded contusion 12 x 4 x 1 cm on the back of middle of trunk 4 cm above the natal cleft." 17. The opinion expressed by PW15 as to the cause of death of the deceased is that the death was due to head injury. According to him, injury Nos.1 to 6 could be caused by beating with MO1. Further, according to him, injury Nos.1 to 6 are independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos.7 and 8 could be caused by the coming into contact of that portion of the body with a hard and rough object. Injury Nos.9, 11 to 26 and 30 could be caused by beating with MO2 to MO4. Injury No.27 could be caused while coming into contact of that portion of the body with a rough surface. Injury No.10 could be caused by human bite. It seems that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. There is no reason to have a different opinion than the one expressed by PW15 as to the cause of death of the deceased. It stands proved that the deceased died due to head injury, and that the death is homicidal. 18. It seems that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. There is no reason to have a different opinion than the one expressed by PW15 as to the cause of death of the deceased. It stands proved that the deceased died due to head injury, and that the death is homicidal. 18. According to the versions regarding the incident, it seems that the prosecution has failed to prove the true genesis of the incident occurred. At first, the prosecution had tried to bring out a case that the deceased was attacked at the courtyard and was then dragged into the hall room and then into the kitchen, where he was again attacked. The prosecution had no case that the deceased was attacked inside the hall room. We have carefully gone through Ext.P5 scene mahazar and Ext.P12 site plan prepared by PW16 village officer. It seems that A2 and his family were living in very poor circumstances. There are no windows to the house. By standing at the courtyard, it may not be possible for anyone to see the incident that was going on inside the kitchen. May be because of that handicap, the prosecution has subsequently forced to shift the scene of occurrence from the kitchen to the hall room. At the same time, the prosecution has no case that any such incident had occurred inside the hall room. PW3 has not stated anything in evidence that she could see the attack on the deceased by these appellants. Her evidence is limited to the fact that water mixed with chilly powder was poured into his eyes and he was attempted to be dragged into the house and when she along with CW1 intervened, they were attacked and thereby they ran away from the spot. Regarding the evidence of PW1 and PW4 also, it is evident that they had no case that the deceased was attacked at the courtyard or inside the kitchen. Their case is that the deceased was attacked inside the hall room of the house of A2. At the same time, the prosecution has no case that any such attack was staged by the appellants towards the deceased inside the hall room of the house of A2. 19. It seems that the explanation offered by A4 through the contents of Ext.P15 has some elements of truth in it. At the same time, the prosecution has no case that any such attack was staged by the appellants towards the deceased inside the hall room of the house of A2. 19. It seems that the explanation offered by A4 through the contents of Ext.P15 has some elements of truth in it. She has a clear case that stones were pelted to the roof of their house by the deceased after exerting threat and intimidation, and thereby the tiles on the roof became broken and pieces of tiles as well as the stones fell inside the house. There was total panic in the house and thereafter the deceased forced open the door of the house and trespassed into the kitchen and attacked A4 and A5. Her further versions are that CW1 and also PW3 trespassed into the kitchen and staged an attack towards them. On hearing the hue and cry, her husband A2, along with her relative A1, and neighbour A3 came to their rescue. They were also attacked. It is a fact that A2, A4 and A5 sustained injuries. A5 sustained a grievous hurt and A4 sustained a severe head injury. 20. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has come out that the deceased was quarrelsome. From the evidence of DW1, it has come out that on the previous night of the incident, A2 was about to be attacked by the deceased and he took to heels and escaped. Because of fear of life from the part of the deceased, he hired the jeep of DW1 to reach the house. Ext.P5 scene mahazar clearly shows that broken tiles of the roof of the house were seen lying scattered at the courtyard and also inside the house. The prosecution has no case that such a damage was caused by the appellants to cook up evidence in their favour. Even though the prosecution has attempted to explain that the injuries found on the body of A2, A4 and A5 were received by them while all of them were standing in the congested kitchen room while attacking the deceased, from their own weapons, the said explanation can only be taken with a pinch of salt. It cannot be believed that A5 sustained grievous hurt and A4 sustained the very long injury on her head as injuries inflicted accidentally from the weapons, which were being used by the appellants themselves. 21. It cannot be believed that A5 sustained grievous hurt and A4 sustained the very long injury on her head as injuries inflicted accidentally from the weapons, which were being used by the appellants themselves. 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled to the 'right of private defence' when a person who has attacked the house of A2, A4 and A5 and pelted stones on the house and damaged the tiles, the pieces of which fell inside the house, forcing open the door and committing house trespass into the kitchen of the house and staging an attack towards the inmates, to defend it properly. In order to establish the right of private defence, the burden on the accused is not that much severe as the burden on the prosecution to prove the occurrence. What is expected from the part of the accused to harp upon the right of private defence and to establish the right of private defence is only proof through preponderance of probabilities. The preponderance of broad probabilities in the case pointed out by A4 in Ext.P15 and the contents of Exts.P19, P20 and P21, clearly reveal that they had exercised their right of private defence. The incident happened to be inside the kitchen of the house of A2, A4 and A5. The prosecution has no case that these appellants have gone to the house of the deceased and attacked him or gone to any other place to attack the deceased. On the contrary, the deceased happened to be inside the kitchen of house of A2, A4 and A5. In such circumstances, the prosecution is duty bound to prove as to how the deceased had gained entry into the kitchen of the house of A2, A4 and A5. The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show as to how the deceased happened to be inside the kitchen of that house. Normally, the deceased was not expected to be there. When he happened to be there, the prosecution ought to have proved the circumstances in which he happened to be inside the house, beyond the shadow of doubt. There is no evidence to show as to how the deceased happened to be inside the kitchen of the said house. Normally, the deceased was not expected to be there. When he happened to be there, the prosecution ought to have proved the circumstances in which he happened to be inside the house, beyond the shadow of doubt. There is no evidence to show as to how the deceased happened to be inside the kitchen of the said house. When Ext.P5 shows the broken tiles from the roof of the house lying scattered at the courtyard as well as inside the house, and the subsequent presence of the deceased inside the kitchen of the house, it points towards the possibility of the correctness of the versions of A4 regarding the incident. The nature of the weapons allegedly made use of, also has to be considered. The weapons include firewood, which points towards the fact that the deceased was there at the kitchen of the house. Further, it points towards the fact that there was no prior preparation for an attack from the part of the appellants and the other accused; otherwise they would have been ready with other lethal weapons. The preponderance of broad probabilities point towards the possibility of the fact that A2, A4 and A5 were exercising their right of private defence. Further, the first appellant, who happened to be there, also had intervened to the rescue of A2, A4 and A5. Especially, when it has come out in evidence that the deceased was quarrelsome and had attempted to attack A2 and chased him with a knife on the previous date of the incident, the same also points towards the possible exercise of the right of private defence. 22. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the appellants had not taken any plea of right of private defence during the trial stage, it is trite law that at any time the said plea can be taken out, and at anytime they may be able to set up the right of private defence in order to take shelter under Section 100 IPC. The apprehension that was probably caused in this case by the deceased in the mind of A4 and A5 and subsequently in the mind of A2, is clearly covered by first and secondly of Section 100 IPC. The apprehension that was probably caused in this case by the deceased in the mind of A4 and A5 and subsequently in the mind of A2, is clearly covered by first and secondly of Section 100 IPC. Even at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that they have exceeded the right of private defence, when the trespasser was resisted and attacked by way of right of private defence inside the kitchen of the house of A2, A4 and A5. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants to the decision in Subramani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 KHC 634 (SC)], wherein it was held in paragraph 11 that the plea of right of private defence can be taken up at any stage and the proof expected from the person, who takes up the plea, is preponderance of probabilities. 23. From the discussions made above, we are of the considered view that failure of justice has occasioned on account of the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against these appellants through the impugned judgment. The prosecution has failed to bring out the guilt of the appellants beyond doubt. The preponderance of broad probabilities in the case point towards the lawful exercise of the right of private defence by the appellants in this case. Matters being so, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. In the result, all these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below as against these appellants are set aside. All the appellants are acquitted under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and they shall be set at liberty forthwith. They shall be released from custody, if their continued presence in custody is not required in connection with any other case against them. The Registry is directed to send the gist of this judgment forthwith to the concerned prison, where the appellants are undergoing incarceration.