SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 27 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- accused enters his defence. In the case on hand, it appears that on 19.07.2013, in all eight prosecution witnesses were examined. At the end of the day, the trial court recorded the further statement of the accused appellant. The Question No. 12 reads thus: “Question 12: - Do you want to submit anything else? Answer: - Manua alias Ramakant, Kamlkant and Ramakant had killed my elder brother Siyaram, & for that I had lodged F.I.R. My wife Sangita and Siyaram's daughter Gudiya were the eye witnesses of this case. The accused persons, with intention to erase evidence, had assaulted me and my wife Sangita, and burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. They wanted to kill me too. That's why they poured kerosene oil on me as well. The daughter of Siyaram died of sickness. This incident had been caused by Ramakant, Kamlakant and Ramakant.” 95. On 14.11.2013, the second further statement of the accused appellant was recorded by the trial court wherein the Question No. 8 reads thus: “Question 8 : - Do you want to submit anything else? Answer : - I am innocent. I may be acquitted.” 96. On 21.07.2016, the third further statement of the accused appellant came to be recorded by the trial court wherein the Question No. 4 reads thus: “Question 4 : - Do you want to submit anything else? Answer : - I and my brother Siyaram were living at village Basadiya, Police Station-Dhaurhara. The brahmins of Basadiya had committed murder of my brother Siyaram. I was complainant in that case. Due to their fear, I started living at Naamdar Purwa. My wife and the daughter of Siyaram were witnesses of his murder. His daughter had died. The accused persons of the murder of Siyaram had killed my wife and family for erasing the evidence. They intended to kill me as well due to which I sustained injuries.” 97. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law where there is any infirmity or lacunae in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a false plea which is not accepted by a Court. 98. Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (i) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (ii) Such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence. (iii) The circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 99. If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled only then a Court use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise. [see Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622] 100. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. In the American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Vol. 30, the expression “preponderance of evidence” has been defined in Article 1164. In America the term means “the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, and is