Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1951 on the file of the Sessions Court at Parur. He stood charged for the offence of murder punishable under S. 302, Indian Penal Code. After considering the evidence in the case, the learned Sessions Judge found that the act proved against the accused did not amount to the offence of murder, but only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly the accused was convicted under Part I of S. 304, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. It is against such conviction and sentence that the accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The case against the accused is that at about 10 O'clock on the night of 2.5.1124 the accused attacked deceased Ulahannan Ouseph Alias Kunju, inflicted a deep cut on the right side of his neck with a knife and thus caused his death. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at the point marked A in the Arappamattom lane in Thondikuzha Kara, Karikode Pakuthy, Thodupuzha Taluk. The situation of this lane as well as the point at which the occurrence is stated to have taken place are shown in the sketch Ext. I prepared and produced by the investigating officer. On the question that Ulahannan Ouseph Alias Kunju met with his death on the night of 2.5.1124 as the result of a cut sustained by him on the right side of his neck, there is no dispute in this case. This fact is also conclusively proved by the evidence recorded at the trial. Pw.1 is the brother and Pw. 2 is the widow of Ulahannan Ouseph. P.Ws. 5,7 and 8 are independent witnesses who are well acquainted with him. All these witnesses identified the dead body found in the Arappamattom lane on 3.5.1124 and which is described in Ext. B report prepared after holding an inquest on the dead body, as that of Ulahannan Ouseph. After the inquest the body was subjected to post-mortem examination by the Medical Officer Pw. 10 and Ext. G is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. Of the 8 injuries found on the body of Ulahannan Ouseph and which are described in Ext. B report prepared after holding an inquest on the dead body, as that of Ulahannan Ouseph. After the inquest the body was subjected to post-mortem examination by the Medical Officer Pw. 10 and Ext. G is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. Of the 8 injuries found on the body of Ulahannan Ouseph and which are described in Ext. G, the first injury was a gaping wound 4" x 11/2" bone-deep across the right side of the neck beginning from the thyroid cartilage and cutting the cartilage and all the soft tissues up to the cervical bone. This was a fatal injury according to Pw. 10. These items of evidence establish beyond doubt that Ulahannan Ouseph, the husband of Pw. 2, had sustained the wound on the right side of his neck and that he died as the result of that injury, on the night of 2.5.1124. 3. The plea of the accused is that he had nothing to do with the injury which resulted in the death of Ulahannan Ouseph. It is urged on behalf of the accused appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is extremely unreliable and that such evidence does not establish the case alleged by the prosecution. At the outset it may be mentioned that there is no direct evidence to prove the act attributed to the accused. The act is sought to be proved by the several items of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also by a confessional statement given by the accused. According to the prosecution the accused made the fatal attack on deceased Ulahannan Ouseph on the night of 2.5.1124 while they were returning home from the toddy shop at Ezhumuttam, after getting themselves fully drunk. The several connecting links in proof of this version are furnished by the evidence given mainly by P. Ws.1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9,12 and 13 also by Exts. A to C, J, H and N. The learned Sessions Judge has believed such oral and documentary evidence. Pw. 2, who is the widow of the deceased Ulahannan Ouseph, has stated that he had left home at about noon on 2.5.1124 and that thereafter he never returned to his house. A to C, J, H and N. The learned Sessions Judge has believed such oral and documentary evidence. Pw. 2, who is the widow of the deceased Ulahannan Ouseph, has stated that he had left home at about noon on 2.5.1124 and that thereafter he never returned to his house. On the morning of 3.5.1124 she met his brother Pw.1 and told him that her husband had not returned home on the previous night and that a search should be made to find him out. This version is corroborated by Pw.1 also who has stated that on the morning of 3.5.1124 he went out in search of Ulahannan Ouseph and that in the course of the search he found him lying dead in the Arappamattom lane. Pw. 3 who is the wife of the accused has also admitted that on the morning of 3.5.1124 Pw.1 had been to her house in search of deceased Ulahannan Ouseph. The fact that Ulahannan Ouseph and the accused were together seen in the toddy shop at Ezhumattam is sworn to by P.ws. 7,8 and 9. Pw. 9 is the salesman in that shop. Pws. 7 and 8 had gone there to take liquor as usual. All these three witnesses have deposed to the fact that the accused and Ulahannan Ouseph had their drinks from the shop and that they remained in the shop till about 9 P.M. When P.Ww. 7 and 8 were about to return from the shop, they invited the deceased also to go with them, because all of them were neighbours and had to go in the same direction. The deceased was inclined to accompany them, but the accused interceded and told the deceased that they can go together after witnessing the dramatic performance that was to commence soon at a place in the neighbourhood of the shop. Agreeing to this proposal the deceased kept back in the company of the accused while the other two returned to their homes. Sometime later the accused and deceased also left the shop. Pw. 9 saw them thus leaving the shop at about 9 P.M. Pw. 12 is another witness who too had visited the same toddy shop on the night of 2.5.1124 to enjoy a drink. He has stated that while he was returning from the shop he saw the accused and the deceased together, proceeding along the Arappamattam lane. Pw. 9 saw them thus leaving the shop at about 9 P.M. Pw. 12 is another witness who too had visited the same toddy shop on the night of 2.5.1124 to enjoy a drink. He has stated that while he was returning from the shop he saw the accused and the deceased together, proceeding along the Arappamattam lane. This witness had been present at the inquest and Ext. B report shows that even at the time of the inquest he had stated the fact of his having seen the accused and the deceased together going along the Arappamattam lane. They were engaged in some talk the details of which could not be made out clear by the witness. Since those who persons were proceeding slowly, the witness went ahead of them and thus could not witness what transpired thereafter. The next witness who saw these two persons in the Arappamattam lane is Pw. 5. His house is a little to the east of the lane and about half a furlong to the north of the spot where the dead body of Ulahannan Ouseph was found on 3.5.1124. Pw. 5 has stated that while he was at his house he heard some abusive language from the lane and thus proceeded up to the boundary of his compound touching the lane, to see who were the persons engaged in the exchange of such vulgar and abusive language. On reaching the boundary of the compound, he saw that the persons engaged in the exchange of such foul language were Ulahannan Ouseph and the accused and that they were proceeding towards the south along the lane. These persons appeared to be fully drunk and so Pw. 5 did not feel inclined to ask them anything about their behaviour. He simply returned to his house. The house of Pw. 13 is some distance further to the south of the spot where the accused and the deceased were seen by P.W. 5. The house of this witness is a furlong east of the accused's house. There is a lane leading to the west of Arappamattam lane and this lane passes just in front of the house of this witness. Pw. 13 has stated that at about 10 on the night of 2.5.1124, when he came out from his house, he saw the accused alone going to the west towards the direction of his house. There is a lane leading to the west of Arappamattam lane and this lane passes just in front of the house of this witness. Pw. 13 has stated that at about 10 on the night of 2.5.1124, when he came out from his house, he saw the accused alone going to the west towards the direction of his house. The witness saw the accused at a distance of 15 feet and he has stated that since it was a moon light night he could clearly identify the accused. The witness has further stated that the accused was alone and that there was none else in his company. 4. The witnesses whose evidence has already been referred to are all except Pws.1 and 2, independent witnesses and there is no reason to think that they have sworn to a false version incriminating the accused. Nothing has been elicited from those witnesses to suggest that they are in any way ill-disposed towards the accused or that they have any particular bias in favour of the prosecution. On a consideration of the evidence given by these witnesses, we are satisfied that their version to the extent already referred to is true. The learned Sessions Judge has also accepted that version as true and we see no reason for rejecting their evidence. It is clearly proved by the evidence of these witnesses that on the evening of 2.5.1124 the accused and deceased Ulahannan Ouseph were together at the toddy shop at Ezhumattam, that both of them together left the shop at about 9 P.M. and that they wee proceeding together along the Arappamattam lane until they reached a point some distance to the south of the place where Pw. 5 met them and thereafter the accused alone was seen returning home. 5. On the morning of 3.5.1124 Pw.1 went to the house of accused and enquired about the deceased. In the reply given by the accused he was clearly making an attempt to conceal the fact that himself and the deceased were together in the toddy shop till 9 P.M. and that they had together returned from the toddy shop. The accused said that he had parted the company of the deceased even before night fall on the previous day. Pw.1 who had already got information from Pws. The accused said that he had parted the company of the deceased even before night fall on the previous day. Pw.1 who had already got information from Pws. 7 and 8 that the accused and the deceased were together seen in the toddy shop at Ezhumattam at about 9 P.M. on 2.5.1124, pointedly drew the attention of the deceased to that fact and yet the accused was not prepared to admit that fact to be true, but made an attempt to evade a direct answer. This conduct on the part of the accused was certainly inconsistent with the innocence now pleaded by him and it betrayed a guilty conscience on his part. The other incriminating circumstance against the accused is furnished by the detection of traces of blood on the knife recovered from him at the time of his arrest on 5.5.1124 and also on his clothes recovered from his house on 4.5.1124 as per the search list Ext. C. Ext. J is the mahazar prepared at 8.30 A.M. on 5.5.1124 when the accused was arrested and brought to the police station and when the knife which was in the possession of and recovered from the accused was taken into policy custody. This knife has been identified at the trial as M.O.11. In the statement given by the accused himself in the Sessions Court at the close of the trial he has clearly admitted that this knife belongs to him and that it was recovered from him by the police at the time of his arrest. On the night of 2.5.1124 Pw. 7 had occasion to get this knife from the accused for a temporary use while they were in the toddy shop at Ezhumattam. After such use the knife was returned to the accused himself. This witness has also identified M.O.11 as the knife belonging to the accused and which he had seen in the possession of the accused on the night of 2.5.1124. Thus it is conclusively established that M.O.11 belonged to the accused and it was with him on the night of 2.5.1124. The knife was sent to the Chemical Examiner under Government and Ext. N. is the certificate issued by him about the result of the chemical analysis of the traces of the materials found on the knife. It is definitely stated in Ext. The knife was sent to the Chemical Examiner under Government and Ext. N. is the certificate issued by him about the result of the chemical analysis of the traces of the materials found on the knife. It is definitely stated in Ext. N certificate that human blood was detected on the knife mentioned as item I in the certificate. This knife is M.O.11 itself. Thus human blood was detected on the accused's knife which was recovered from him when he was arrested on 5.2.1124. This highly incriminating circumstance has not been explained on behalf of the accused. Then there are the clothes recovered from the accused's house as per Ext. C search list on 4.5.1124. It is stated in Ext. C that the cloth and the neriathu (upper cloth) worn by the accused on 2.5.1124 had been washed and spread in the room of his house for getting dried and that these clothes were taken from that place and produced before the police by Pw. 3, the wife of the accused. Even though these clothes had been washed certain traces of mud and other materials were still visible on the clothes. These facts as well as the details of the description of these clothes are given in Ext. C which is attested by Pws.1, 3 and 21. The truth and correctness of the statements contained in Ext. C are sworn to by Pws.1 and 21. Pw. 3 has no doubt made an attempt to deny the correctness of these statements. It is obvious that she has taken up such an attitude at the stage of the trial merely with the object of helping the accused and as such no reliance can be placed on her statement questioning the correctness of Ext. C. We agree with the lower court in relying on the evidence of Pws.1 and 21 and in holding that Ext. C contains a correct account about the search conducted in the house of the accused and the recovery of the clothes as a result of the search. These clothes were also sent to the Chemical examiner and the result of his examination of these clothes is given in Ext. N certificate. The description of the cloth mentioned as item 2 in Ext. N agrees with the description of the cloth mentioned in Ext. C. Ext. These clothes were also sent to the Chemical examiner and the result of his examination of these clothes is given in Ext. N certificate. The description of the cloth mentioned as item 2 in Ext. N agrees with the description of the cloth mentioned in Ext. C. Ext. N states that human blood was detected on items 2, 3, 6 and 7. On behalf of the accused-appellant it is argued that these items include the clothes recovered from the body of Ulahannan Ouseph at the time of the inquest. No doubt it is so. But only one neriathu was recovered as per Ext. B. Similarly another neriathu was recovered as per Ext. C. Items 3 and 6 mentioned in Ext. N are these to neariathus and human blood was detected on both these clothes. Necessarily it follows that human blood was detected on the neriathu recovered as per Ext. C also. As already pointed out the description of the other clothes recovered as pera Ext. C tallies with the description of item 2 in Ext. N. Human blood was detected on this item also. Thus human blood seems to have been detected on both the clothes belonging to the accused and which he was wearing on 2.5.1124 and which were recovered from his house as per the search evidenced by Ext. C. This also is a highly incriminating circumstance and the accused has not been able to explain away this circumstance. 6. When the accused was arrested at 8.30 A.M. on 5.5.1124 the police examined his person and on such examination they noticed a scratch 3/4" in length on the right side of his nose. This injury is made mention of towards the close of Ext. A mahazar. The accused was accordingly sent to the Medical Officer who examined him thoroughly and issued the wound certificate Ext. H describing the three injuries that were found on his person. The first of these injuries was a dried scratch 3/4" x 1/8" on the right side of the nose at its root. The second injury was a scratch 1" long on the right side of the back at its middle, and the third was a dried abrasion of the size of a quarter rupee on the left knee cap. Pw. 10 the Medical Officer who examined the accused has questioned him as to how he sustained these injuries. The second injury was a scratch 1" long on the right side of the back at its middle, and the third was a dried abrasion of the size of a quarter rupee on the left knee cap. Pw. 10 the Medical Officer who examined the accused has questioned him as to how he sustained these injuries. The reply given by the accused was that he sustained these injuries in the course of a struggle at 10 P.M. on the night of 2.5.1124. This fact is recorded in Ext. H certificate itself. In the sworn statement also given by Pw. 10 he has testified to the fact that the accused has mentioned to him that these injuries were sustained by him in the course of a struggle at 10 P.M. on 2.5.1124. There is no reason to doubt the truth of such a version spoken to by Pw. 10, particularly when it is supported by the statement contained in Ext. H certificate. This item of evidence is again highly incriminative as against the accused and it goes to establish conclusively that the injuries found on his person were sustained by him while he was engaged in a tussle with the deceased on the night of 2.5.1124. 7. The question for consideration is whether the several items of circumstantial evidence already referred to are sufficient to warrant a conclusion that it was the accused who inflicted the fatal injury on Ulahannan Ouseph on the night of 2.5.1124 and thereby caused his death. It will not be wrong or opposed to any rule of law of the offence charged against him merely on the strength of the circumstantial evidence provided that such evidence is so conclusive as to lead only to one conclusion, viz., that it establishes beyond doubt the guilt of the accused when the circumstantial evidence is so thorough and convincing it can be accepted and acted upon as good as direct evidence. In the present case there is clear and conclusive evidence definitely proving the following facts. The accused and the deceased were together in the toddy shop at Ezhumattam on the evening of 2.5.1124 till about 9 P.M. They left the shop together and both of them proceeded towards the south along the Arappamattam lane. In the present case there is clear and conclusive evidence definitely proving the following facts. The accused and the deceased were together in the toddy shop at Ezhumattam on the evening of 2.5.1124 till about 9 P.M. They left the shop together and both of them proceeded towards the south along the Arappamattam lane. They were fully drunk and while they were proceeding along the lane they were engaged in a wordy quarrel by using foul and abusive language against each other. They were seen in that condition at about 9.30 P.M. by Pw. 5. A little later the accused alone was seen going towards his house, by Pw.13.On the next morning the dead body of Ulahannan Ouseph was found in the Arappamattam lane and at a point to the south of the spot where the accused and deceased were together seen by Pw. 5 and some distance to the north of the place where the accused alone was seen by Pw.13. The clothes worn by the accused on the night were washed by him and spread for drying. In spite of such washing human blood was detected on these cloths when they were subjected to chemical examination after they have been recovered from the accused's house. M.O.11 knife which belonged to the accused and which was in his possession on the night of 2.5.1124 and which was recovered from him at the time of his arrest, was also subjected to chemical examination and human blood was detected on that knife also. The accused is seen to have sustained certain minor injuries as described in Ext. H wound certificate on the night of 2.5.1124. These injuries were admitted by him to have been sustained at 10 P.M. on the crucial night and in the course of a struggle. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances is to lead to the irresistable conclusion that the accused sustained the minor injuries already mentioned, in the course of a tussle between himself and the deceased and that the fatal wound on the deceased was inflicted by the accused himself at that time. The several links in the chain of the circumstantial evidence are complete in themselves and it is impossible to explain them away in favour of the innocence of the accused. The several links in the chain of the circumstantial evidence are complete in themselves and it is impossible to explain them away in favour of the innocence of the accused. Thus we hold that the lower court was fully justified in holding that the circumstantial evidence already adverted to has conclusively proved and established the fact that it was the accused who inflicted the cut on the neck of the deceased Ulahannan Ouseph and caused his death. 8. There is also a confessional statement given by the accused. Ext. O is that statement. It was duly recorded by a competent Magistrate who has been examined as Pw. 23. As already stated, the accused was arrested at 8.30 A.M. on 5.5.1124. He was produced before the Magistrate within a few hours of the arrest and the confessional statement Ext. O was recorded at 12 noon on the same day. Even though the accused has pleaded that he had been arrested even on 3.5.1124 and that it was on account of the police torture that he happened to give the confessional statement as embodied in Ext. O. There is nothing in the evidence in the case to show that there is any basis for this allegation. The internal evidence furnished by Ext. O is sufficient in itself to expose the hollowness of the plea that the version given in Ext. O was put to the accused by the police and that he was compelled to repeat the same. The prosecution case against the accused was that he was guilty of the offence of murder. The confessional statement in Ext. O is couched in such a manner as to make out a case of private defence for the accused. It is too much to believe that the police would have induced the accused to put forward such a version as to undermine the very charge against the accused. Ext. O shows that the Magistrate proceeded to record the confession after interrogating the accused on all the relevant aspects and after satisfying himself that the accused was making the confession of his own free will. The questions directed towards that end are recorded in Ext. O together with the answers given by the accused. On a perusal of Ext. Ext. O shows that the Magistrate proceeded to record the confession after interrogating the accused on all the relevant aspects and after satisfying himself that the accused was making the confession of his own free will. The questions directed towards that end are recorded in Ext. O together with the answers given by the accused. On a perusal of Ext. O in the light of all the attendant circumstances, we see no reason to differ from the lower court's conclusion that the accused was making a voluntary confession. At the foot of the confession the Magistrate has certified that the confession has been recorded by him after he was fully satisfied that it was a voluntary confession. There is no inherent defect in Ext. O as it stands. However the lower court has rejected Ext. O for the simple reason that the fact that the necessary warning was given to the accused is not recorded in the body of the confession. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that the failure to record that fact in the body of the confession is a fatal defect rendering the confession at illegal and inadmissible. This view of the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and it is not supported by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The directions to be followed in recording a confession are contained in S. 162 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to S. 164 of the Indian Code). Cl. 3 of the section directs that the Magistrate shall before recording the confession explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him and that no Magistrate shall record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it was made voluntarily. It is significant to note that this clause only insists that the Magistrate should explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. This explanation of warning is not part of the confession. Cl. It is significant to note that this clause only insists that the Magistrate should explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. This explanation of warning is not part of the confession. Cl. 2 of the section lays down that the confessional statement shall be recorded and signed in the manner provided for in S. 301 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to S. 364 of the Indian Code. S. 301 insists that the statement given by the accused shall be recorded in full, including every question put to him and every answer given by him, in the language in which he is examined and that it shall be got signed by him after the same has been read or heard and understood by him and admitted to be correct. It is clear that this direction applies only to the statement proper given by the accused. If the warning given to the accused by the Magistrate before proceeding to record the confessional statement is also given by putting the necessary questions to him and elicting the answers to such questions, then such questions and answers also should be recorded in the statement because it would then form part of the statement given by the accused. But the warning could also be given by simply explaining to the accused that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. In such a case the warning will not form part of the statement of the accused and as such it cannot be said that it should form part of the confessional statement itself. It is also significant to note that there is no express direction in the section as to the form in which the warning is to be given or that it should form part of the confessional statement itself. It is also significant to note that there is no express direction in the section as to the form in which the warning is to be given or that it should form part of the confessional statement itself. On the other hand from the form of the certificate to be added at the foot of the confession, it is clear that it will be sufficient compliance with the provisions of the section that if the confession has been recorded after the warning has been given to the accused in the first instance and after the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused is giving confession voluntarily in spite of the warning given to him. Such a certificate is made at the foot of the confessional statement Ext. O. There is no warrant for supposing that the statement contained in Ext. O that the Magistrate has given the necessary warning to the accused is not true and the certificate is a mere reproduction of the form given in the section itself. When the confession contains a certificate of a memorandum at its foot as required by S. 162 (S. 164, Indian Code) a presumption arises under S. 90 of the Evidence Act that all the necessary formalities have been duly complied with and that the statements contained in the memorandum are true and correct. Such a presumption arising in the case of Ext. O has not been rebutted. On the other hand, the direct evidence given by the Magistrate as Pw. 23 has only gone to confirm the presumption. In the course of his examination he has stated that before proceeding to record the confession, he made the accused understand that he was a Magistrate, that the accused was not bound to make a confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him. The Magistrate has further stated that only after giving such a warning and after satisfying himself that the confession was being made voluntarily that he proceeded to record the same. Thus it is clear that so far as Ext. O is concerned it is not defective in any manner and as such it could be relied on and accepted. A similar question arose for consideration in Thukaram v. Emperor A.I.R.1932 Bom. Thus it is clear that so far as Ext. O is concerned it is not defective in any manner and as such it could be relied on and accepted. A similar question arose for consideration in Thukaram v. Emperor A.I.R.1932 Bom. 146 and there it was ruled by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court that all that is required by S. 164(3) is that before recording the confession, the Magistrate should explain it to the accused that he is not bound to make a confession and that it is not necessary that such warning should appear in the body of the confession or should appear in writing at the commencement of the recording of the confession. It is sufficient if the warning was given as a matter of fact and that fact is mentioned in the memorandum added at the foot of the confession. Since all the formalities required by S. 164 have been complied with so far as Ext. O is concerned, it can be accepted and acted upon and we hold accordingly. 9. On the basis of the confession Ext. O the accused can be found to have caused the death of Ulahannan Ouseph. But the fact remains that the accused had retracted the confession. When the confession has thus been retracted, it is only prudent and proper to see if all the material facts stated in the confession are corroborated by other independent evidence. The several items of evidence already referred to and discussion afford such corroboration. The only point on which corroboration is lacking is about the exact nature of the fight that took place between the accused and the deceased. Corroboration on that point could not naturally be expected in a case where there is no direct evidence at all. All the same the accused is entitled to get the benefit of all the circumstances which are in his favour. The lower court has construed all those circumstances in favour of the accused. From the version put forward by the accused himself in Ext. O confession it is clear that in the tussle between the accused and the deceased he was able to easily overpower the deceased. It is also seen from the inquest report Ext. The lower court has construed all those circumstances in favour of the accused. From the version put forward by the accused himself in Ext. O confession it is clear that in the tussle between the accused and the deceased he was able to easily overpower the deceased. It is also seen from the inquest report Ext. B that the small pen-knife which the deceased had with him was safely enclosed in a packet along with a few currency notes and that the packet was found enclosed in the folds of the cloth worn by the deceased. The witnesses who met the deceased on the evening of 2.5.1124 did not also find any weapon in the hands of the deceased. Under such circumstances it is clear that the accused could not reasonably apprehend death or even grievous hurt, at the hands of the deceased, so as to justify his using the knife for inflicting a deep-cut wound on the neck of the deceased. Both of them were drunk and the wordy quarrel that commenced between them in that drunken mood appears to have developed into a hand to hand fight and to a tussle. It was on a consideration of all these circumstances that the lower court found that accused not guilty of the offence of murder but only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under S. 304 Part I, I.P.C. The conviction is right and it is accordingly upheld. On the question of sentence also we are not prepared to say that the 7 years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the lower court is excessive, in the circumstances of the case. 10. The result is that the conviction entered against the appellant accused and the sentence awarded to him by the lower court are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. 11. The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and he is committed to custody. Dismissed.