Evidence Act relating to burden of proof which shifts upon the accused in the event of invocation of general exception. In paragraph 52, the learned Judge has observed that, the entire evidence on record clearly shows that, there was dispute with regards to certain amounts due or not due from accused. The business transaction was two years old. The talk between the parties over phone so also deceased visiting shop of accused indicate that the relationship between the parties was not so strained that it could lead to provide ground/motive for committing murder. Deceased had visited alone to the shop of accused on previous day of incident and returned unharmed. Both came together to APMC market to ofice of informant. Thus, it cannot be held that accused had any intention to commit murder of deceased over the issue of non payment of dues, though the said dispute did exist then. In paragraph 54 it is observed that from the evidence of eye witness, it is absolutely clear that the knife was removed after informant, PW 6, co-worker came to the spot. The intention of the accused initially appears to be keeping them at bay and hence, knife was waived to scare them. The facts clearly give serious blow to the theory of prosecution to premeditation. A premeditated person having thought of bringing knife with determination to kill someone would not wait, but,
