( 1 ) THAT brings us to the second contention. The complaint mark B contains the version attributed to the appellant. According to this version the deceased and the appellant were not on speaking terms on account of a false allegation about the encroachment over the land of the deceased by the accused. On the day of the incident the deceased came to the grazing ground near the appellant and challenged the appellant and the child accused Vagha Lakhman. This challenge was immediately followed by throwing of a stone at the appellant which struck his left knee. The appellant thereupon sat down and in the meanwhile the deceased came near him and aimed a blow at the appellant with his stick. The appellant warded off this blow by outstretching his left hand with the result that the stick struck on the left knee. Thereafter the appellant struck the deceased with his axe. This complaint if admitted in evidence would give out appellants version calling for consideration of the question of self-defence; and on account of the objection taken on behalf of the prosecution as to the admissibility of this complaint in view of the bar created by sec. 162 of the Code the question abou