SANTHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted of an offence under S. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, dharwar, in SC. No. 82 of 1971. In this appeal, he challenges the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows : pw. 2 Pyarijamrud, is the daughter of PW. 25 Shaik Hennur. They wera residing in Kirloskar Labour Colony at Harihar. PW. 3 Ramprasad was also employel in Kirloskar Factory and was living in the same Colony. Deceased Satyanarayan was the son of PW. 3 PW. 2 Pyarijamrud had appeared for SSLC Examination and failed in some subjects. Satyar narayan had appeared for his BA Examination and had also failed in some subjects. Satyanarayan was giving tuition, and PW. 25 asked him to give tultion to his daughter PW. 2, her younger brother and younger sister. Satyanarayan was accordingly giving tuition to the children of PW. 25. The prosecution case is that acquaintance between PW. 2 and Satyanarayan, developed into intimacy. On 8-4-1971, PW. 2 and Satyanarayan decided to go away from their houses and they accordingly left Harihar for Bangalore at 1 p. m. After staying for some days in Bangalore, the young couple returned to Hubli on 12-4-71 by a train with the idea of proceeding to bombay. After they got down at Hubll, they stayed in Modern Lodge. A relation, of PW. 2 Rijuvan saw Satyanarayan at Hubli. Tereafter as they scented some trouble, they vacated Modern Lodge and went to Woodlanda lodge and stayed there on the 12th night. On the 13th, they decided to go over to Poona by the night train and came to the Hubli Railway Station at about 10 p. m. At the railway station, to their surprise, they found the accused Abdul Rahaman the maternal uncle of PW. 2, and two others, sayyad Makbul and Mohammed Khasim. The accused caught hold of the hand of PW. 2 and asked her to return home, but she refused. Satyanarayan, stated that PW. 2 got married to him at Bangalore and caught hold of hand of PW. 2 and pulled her. Seeing the quarrel going on in the railway station, pw. 2, and two others, sayyad Makbul and Mohammed Khasim. The accused caught hold of the hand of PW. 2 and asked her to return home, but she refused. Satyanarayan, stated that PW. 2 got married to him at Bangalore and caught hold of hand of PW. 2 and pulled her. Seeing the quarrel going on in the railway station, pw. 11 Railway P. C. Nimbalkar came there and after making enquiries, took all of them and produced them before PW. 26, Railway PSI Kottagi. The PSI questioned them and directed the accused to send a message to the parents of the girl and get them by 8 a. m. , the next morning. He also directed that PW. 2 should sleep in his office along with a lady Constable and Satyanarayan was made to sleep in the hall outside the office. P. W28 handed-over the charge of the Police Station at 0-30 hourg on 14-4-1971 to PW. 15, Head Constable Krishnaji, and went to his house. The prosecution case is that the accused and two others sat on the benches outside the police Station. The accused thereafter went to the Post Office and sent a phone message to PW. 25 Shaik Honnur, father of the girl, to come over to Hubli. When this phone message was received at Harihar, it was overheard by the Duty Jamadar of the Factory and. he conveyed this message to PW. 3 Ramaprasad, father of Satyanarayan. PW. 25 Shaik Honnur and his party smarted to Hubli the same night by Deccan Express and reached hubli at about 3-45 a. m. on the 14th morning. As PW. S Ramaprasad father of Satyanarayan wa,s indisposed, he sent PW. 8 Burgaprasad, his brother-in-law, along with his two sons, to Hubli Station and they reached the Hubli Station at about 5-25 a. m. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case is that after the Decean Express reached hubli at about 3-45 a. m. , and after PW. 25 Shaik Honnur and his party had come to Hubli Railway Station and met the accused, Satyanarayan. shortly thereafter, requested PW. 15 to take him to the latrine to answer calls of nature. PW. 15 directed PW. 16 Constable Rangannavar to take Satyanarayan to latrine. PW. 25 Shaik Honnur and his party had come to Hubli Railway Station and met the accused, Satyanarayan. shortly thereafter, requested PW. 15 to take him to the latrine to answer calls of nature. PW. 15 directed PW. 16 Constable Rangannavar to take Satyanarayan to latrine. PW. 16 took Satyanarayan to the latrine which was near the railway station and made him sit in one of the compartments in the latrine to answer calls of nature. Within 5 minutes, satyanarayan, came out of the latrine with bleeding injuries and fall down near the steps of the latrine. Seeing this, PW. 16 got frightened and ran to the station House Officer PW. 15 and informed him what had happened. PW. 15 came to the scene and saw Satyanarayan lying with bleeding injuries. He called a rikshaw and sent Satyanarayan to KMC Hospital with pw. 16 Constable Rangannavar. Thereafter, PW. 15 sent for PSI PW. 28, and held spot panchanama as per Ext. D2. PW. 26 came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter took a complaint from PW. 15, registered a case, in Crime No. 32/1973, for an offence punishable under S. 309 IPC against satyanarayan and took up investigation. He then went to KMC Hospital and learnt there that Satyanarayan had succumbed to the injuries. He came back to the Police Station and gave instruction not to clean the lavatory till photos were taken. He then went to KMC Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of Satyanarayan and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He returned to the Police Station and seized the suit case and other articles which belonged to Satyanarayan, which was produced by PW. 2 Pyarijamrud. ( 4 ) THE prosecution case is that PW. 8 Durga Prasad, brother-in-law of PW 3, who had come over to Hubli at 5-25 a. m. , learnt about the death of Satyanarayan and went to KMC Hospital. He contacted PW. 26 PSI and offered to give his statement as he suspected foul-play. But PW. 26 PSI refused to record his statement. As the Police had registered a case only for suicide and no action for some days had been taken by the police, PW. 3 ramaprasad, father of Satyanarayan, sent messages to the Governor and the Inspector General of Police and others requesting them to intervene and look into the matter. ( 5 ) PW. 12 Dr. As the Police had registered a case only for suicide and no action for some days had been taken by the police, PW. 3 ramaprasad, father of Satyanarayan, sent messages to the Governor and the Inspector General of Police and others requesting them to intervene and look into the matter. ( 5 ) PW. 12 Dr. Prabhakar Rao, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Satyanarayan on the evening of 14-4-1971 and sent the post-mortem report Ext. P3 an 16-4-1971 to the Police. As according 10 PW. 26 PSI the post-mortem report did not clearly indicate whether the death was due to suicide or homicide, he wrote a letter, dt. 16th of April 1971 to the Medical Officer to furnish his opinion on this matter. But this letter of the PSI was sent to the Doctor and received by him only on 23-4-71 as shown by Ext. P2a. The Doctor on the same day, i. e. on 23-4-1971, wrote to the PSI informing him that the wounds mentioned in the postmortem report found on the deceased Satyanarayan were not self-inflicted thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW. 27 Railway Police inspector Hiremath on 25-4-1971. He registered a case for an offence under s. 302 IPC in Crime No. 36/1971, on the basis of his complaint Ext. P30, which mentioned 3 persons as suspects. The persons suspected were the accused, Sayyad Makbul and Mahammad Kashim. It may be mentioned that all the above-mentioned three persons were found on the platform on the night in question. On 10-5-1971 PW. 27 was directed to hand over further investigation of the case to PW. 28 Subbanna Alva, Inspector CID. PW. 2c continued investigation of the case till 3-6-1971. He recorded the statement of certain witnesses and also of the two suspects. On 3-6-1971, pw. 29 Narasimha Reddy, Dy. S. P. CID took over further investigation. It may be mentioned that PWs. 27. , 28 and 29, made efforts to trace the absconding accused and they directed their subordinates PWs. 21, 22 and 23 to trace the accused, but they were not successful. On 5-6-1971, at about 8 a. m. the accused surrendered before PW. 29, when he was at the Police club at Dharwar. The accused was accompanied by his brother Mahamad sabjan and his brother-in-law Shaik Honnur PW. 25 when he surrendered before the Police. PW. 29 arrested the accused. On 5-6-1971, at about 8 a. m. the accused surrendered before PW. 29, when he was at the Police club at Dharwar. The accused was accompanied by his brother Mahamad sabjan and his brother-in-law Shaik Honnur PW. 25 when he surrendered before the Police. PW. 29 arrested the accused. He, produced the accused before the Magistrate and got Police custody for 4 days till the 9th. Thereafter when he interrogated the accused, the accused expressed his desire to make a confession. Then PW. 29 produced the accused before the JMFC at Hubli on 8-6-1971 and got him remanded to judicial custody. He then, filed an application before the Taluk Magistrate, PW. 20 Nemichand, to record his confessional statement. The Taluk Magistrate PW. 20, secured the presence of the accused on 9-6-1971 and after putting him all the necessary questions, as per the Criminal Rules of Practice, he gave the accused two days' time for reflection and directed that the accused should be produced before him on 11-6-1971. The Magistrate on that day recorded the confessional statement of the accused as per Ext. P14. After completing the investigation, PW. 29 filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under S. 302 IPC in the Court of the JMFC. , First Court, Hubli. ( 6 ) THE defence cf the accused was one of denial The accused when examined under S. 342 Crpc admitted that he was the uncle of PW. 2 pyrilamrud and had gone in search of her after PW. 2 disappeared from the house on 8-4-1971. The accused also admitted that he had gone to the Hubli railway Station on the night of 13-4-1971 and had met Satyanarayan and pw. 2 in the railway itation and tried to persuade PW. 2 to return home. He also admitted that thereafte he sent s phone message to PW,25 asking him to go over to Hubli. The accused has also admitted that the girl and the boy were kept in custody by the Railway Police and that he was sitting outside on the bench on that night. The accused denied knowledge of satyanarayan being taken to the latrine. He has stated that he was sleeping and when he woke up, he learnt that Satyanarayan had been injured, and thereafter Satyanarayan was sent to the Hospital. The accused denied that he had absconded. He denied that he had surrendered bfore PW. The accused denied knowledge of satyanarayan being taken to the latrine. He has stated that he was sleeping and when he woke up, he learnt that Satyanarayan had been injured, and thereafter Satyanarayan was sent to the Hospital. The accused denied that he had absconded. He denied that he had surrendered bfore PW. 29 in Police Club at Dharwar. The case, of the accused was that he was arrested on 26-4-1971 by the Railway Police from the factory where he was working. Thereafter the Police detained him hi custody. He has stated that similarly Sabj an and Shaik Honnur were also detained by the Railway police. They were all beaten and ill-treated by the Police. The Police then took them to various places such as Hubli, Bangalore etc. , and that members of his family were threatened that unless the accused was induced to confess, they will be put into trouble. Similarly PW. 15 Head Constable and Railway Constable PW. 16 Rangannavar were also detained. Thereafter by coercion and threat, police induced him to make the confession. He was taken before the Magistrate on, 11-6-1971. The Magistrate waa given a draft and after copying the draft, the Magistrate asked the accused to sign the same and he did so. The accused's case was that he never made any confession statement Ext. P14 before the Taluk Magistrate. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that Satyanarayan met with his death as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The first important question for our consideration in this case is whether Satyanarayan met with his death due to suicide or homicide. ( 8 ) MR. M. K. Linganna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, has contended that according to the investigation made by the police at the earliest point of time, the police came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide and not homicide. The very first report Ext. P6, sent by the police clearly indicates that it was a case of suicide. The learned Counsel stressed that at the earliest point of time reference is made in the panchanama of the scene, that a blood-stained blade M. O. 28 was found in the latxine. It is argued that there is no reason whatsoever for the police to send a false report stating that Satyanarayan had committed suicide. The learned Counsel stressed that at the earliest point of time reference is made in the panchanama of the scene, that a blood-stained blade M. O. 28 was found in the latxine. It is argued that there is no reason whatsoever for the police to send a false report stating that Satyanarayan had committed suicide. The learned Counsel has argued that a number of witnesses examined by the prosecution have been treated as hostile and there is no satisfactory evidence before the Court, 01. which, the Court, could rely, and base a conviction on the appellant. As the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution is conflicting the benefit of doubt should go to the, accused. It is contended that the evidence of the Doctor that it was a case of homicide is not conclusive and the reasons given by the Doctor are not convincing. ( 9 ) WE will first deal with the medical evidence in the case, after going through the evidence, we have no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, from what has been stated above, it is dear that the early investigation of the case carried on by PWs. 15 and 26 is suspect. In Baladin v. State of U. P. , AIR. 1956 SC. 1811. their Lordships have laid down that the record made by a police investigating officer has to be con- considered by the Court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in Court. If the police record becomes suspect or unreliable on the ground that it was deliberately perfunctory or dishonest, it loses much of its value and the Court in judging the case of a particular accused has to weigh the evidence given against him in Court keeping in view the fact that the earlier statements of witnesses as recorded by the police is tainted record and has not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused. For the reasons mentioned earlier, we do not propose to attach any importance to the record of the investigation made by PW. 15 and PW. 26. ( 10 ) THE next question for our consideration is whether the accused caused the homicidal injuries on Satyanarayan which resulted in his death. For the reasons mentioned earlier, we do not propose to attach any importance to the record of the investigation made by PW. 15 and PW. 26. ( 10 ) THE next question for our consideration is whether the accused caused the homicidal injuries on Satyanarayan which resulted in his death. The prosecution evidence against the accused can be classified as follows : (i) Confessional statement Ext. P14 made by the accused to the magistrate PW. 20; (ii) Evidence of motive; and (iii) Abscondence of the accused. So far as the confession Ext. P14 is concerned, the prosecution has to establish (1) the confession is voluntary; (2) confession is true; and (3) the concession is corroborated in material particulars, ( 11 ) IT has been contended by Sri Linganna that the Magistrate was not authorised to record the confession, and as such, the confessional statement Ext. P14 cannot be acted upon. It is also argued that when the accused was brought before the Magistrate the second time on 11-6-1971, the records do not disclose that the Mag, put the necessary questons to the accused before he recorded the confessional statement. It is also contended that as the police already knew the contents of the confession, the confessional statement has no value. Reliance was placed on Re. Madegowda, AIR 1957 MYS 50 in support of the said contention, It is also argued that the certificate appended to Ext. P14 by the Magistrate is defective as the words recorded by him are absent, It is also strenuously contended that the confession is not voluntary and has been induced by pressure and duress. It is argued that the evidence disclosed that the accused was arrested by the police on 26-4-1871, and thereafter he was detained in police custody and ill-treated, reliance Is placed on the evidence of PWs. 15, 16 and 25 in support of this contention. The evidence also discloses that PWs. 2, 5, 15, 16 and others had also been detained. It is because of the threat and beating and inducements held out by the police, the confessional statement has been made and therefore, no value can be attached to the same and the Court cannot act upon it and convict the appellant. ( 12 ) THERE is no force in the contention that PW. 20 Taluk Magistrate had not been duly authorised to record confessional statements under section 164, Crlpc. PW. ( 12 ) THERE is no force in the contention that PW. 20 Taluk Magistrate had not been duly authorised to record confessional statements under section 164, Crlpc. PW. 20 has sworn that he has been specifically empowered to record confessional statement from December 1969. There is no material before the Court to show that this statement made by PW. 20 ia not correct. The learned State Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the notification of the Government dt. 31st July 1969 which authorised all Taluk magistrates to record, statements under S, 164 of the Code. The notification reads as follows :" Government of Mysore. No. HD 14 PC 69. Mysore Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, bangalore, dt. 31st July, 1969 notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 37 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Central Act 5 of 1888), as amended by toe Code of Criminal Procedure (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1965 (Mysore Act 13 of 1965), the Government of Mysore nereoy invests the taluk Magistrates with the power under S. 164 of the Code, being the power specmed in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the said Code. By order and in the name of Governor of Mysore, sd/. Under Secretary to Government, Home Dept. ' under S. 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court shall take judicial notice of any notification, though not produced in Court. ( 13 ) WE are similarly of the opinion that there is no force in the accond contention urged on behalf of the accused, that because the records do not disclose that PW. 2g had specffically put questions to the accused on 11-6-1971, the confessional statement is vitiated. It is no doubt true that ext. P13 produced on behalf of the prosecution does not show that specific questions had been put to the accused by PW. 20 when the accused was produced before him on 11-6-1971. But Ext. P15 roznama maintained by the Magistrate shows that on 11-0-1271 when the accused was produced before him, he questioned the accused in detail, and after satisfying himself that the accused was prepared to make a voluntary confession, he recorded the confession of the accused in his own words and read it over to the accused and after accused admitted the same to be correct, signed the same. ( 14 ) IN State of U. P, V. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 359 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out that S. 533 permits oral evidence to prove that the procedure had actually been followed in certain cases where the record which ought to show this, does not on the face of it show it; that what the above section does is to permit the oral evidence to be given to prove that the procedure laid down in S. 164 had in fact been followed when the Court finds that the record produced before it does not show that that was so; and that if the oral evidence establishes that the procedure had been followed, then the record can be admitted. It is clear from this decision that though the record may not indicate the questions put by the Magisrate and the answers given on 11-6-1971, it is open to the Magistrate to give oral evidence on this, and if there is oral evidence of the Magistrate that necessary questions had been put, the confession will not be vitiated. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, the Magistrate PW. 20, in the evidence given by him has stated that when the accused was produced before him on 11-6-1971 at 1 p. m. , he followed the same procedure as he did on 9-6-1971. He took care to see that the police officers were not present near the office or within the vicinity of the accused. He also posted revenue peon at the door after closing the door. He verified from the accused that no pressure, inducement or threat was brought on him to make a confession either by the police or by anybody else. He also explained to the accused that he was not bound to. make a confession and that if he made one, it would be used against him. The Magistrate also stated that he was satisfied that no marks of injury or injuries were found on the body of the accused. After satisfying himself that the accused would make a voluntary confession, the Magistrate recorded the same as per Ext. P14. The Magistrate had earlier referred to the preliminary questions put by him and the answers given by the accused when he was produced on 0-6-1971 before him as per ext. P13. After satisfying himself that the accused would make a voluntary confession, the Magistrate recorded the same as per Ext. P14. The Magistrate had earlier referred to the preliminary questions put by him and the answers given by the accused when he was produced on 0-6-1971 before him as per ext. P13. On 0-6-1971 when the accused was produced before, him, the magistrate has stated that he asked the sentry police to leave his office and put the accused in charge of the revenue peon. He also told the accused that he was a Taluk Magistrate, that there wera mo police officers near about and that he was not a police officer. He also told him that he was not bound to make a confession and if he made one it would be used against him in the trial, He also put questions to satisfy himself that the accused was making a voluntary statement. He also asked specific questions as to whether ttie police or ethers forced him to make a statement , and the accused denied it. He thereafter gave the accused two days time for reflection, and recorded the statement only on the 11th June 1871. In Ext. P13 the specific questions put to the accused and the answers given by him have been recorded by the Magistrate. Ext. P13 indicates that the accused had been informed that he has been produced before a Magistrate and he need not have any fear. The Magistrate has also examined the body of the accused to find out whether there are any marks of injury. He has put questions with regard to the length of time and places of detention, and the accused himself has stated that he voluntarily appeared before the Dharwar Police on 5-6-1971 and that thereafter he was taken to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hubli, the same evening and was sent to Hubli sub-jail on 9-6-1971. The Magstrate has also specifically warned the accused that if he made a confessional statement, it would be used as evidence against him. The accused has also stated that the police had not coerced him to give any confessional statement and that nobody has induced him to make a confession. The Magistrate has also told him that if he made a confessional statement, he should not be under the impression that he would be released. The accused has also stated that the police had not coerced him to give any confessional statement and that nobody has induced him to make a confession. The Magistrate has also told him that if he made a confessional statement, he should not be under the impression that he would be released. It is clear from what has been stated above that the Magistrate has conformed to the requiresmants of law when recording the confession of the accused in ths instant CAse. ( 16 ) THERE is no material before the Court to show that the police knew the contents of the confessional statement that the accused was going to make. The evidence of PW. 29 Narasimhareddi, DSP, shows that when the accused expressed his desire to give a confessional statement before a magistrate, he immediately proceeded to Hubli with the accused and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate First. Class, First Court, Hubli, and got him remanded to judicial custody till 9-6-1971. Hence the decision in re: Madegowda (2) relied upon by the learned Counsel, has no applies tion to the facts of the instant case. ( 17 ) THERE is also no force in the contention that the certificate appended by PW. 20 in Ext. P14 is legally defective as the words "the confession has been recorded by me" are not there. The certificate given by PW. 20 whch has been marked as Ext. P14 (c) in the case states as follows :" It was taken by me and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. "this clearly indicates that the confession was taken by PW,20 himself ( 18 ) COMING next to the contention that the confession is not voluntary and that it has been induced by coercion, threat and ill-treatment, it may be pointed out that when the accused was produced before the Magistrate for obtaining remand on 5-6-1971, the record indicates that the Magistrate specifically asked him the question whether he has been ill-treated, and the accused stated that he has not been ill-treated. For the reasons mentioned above, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the confessional statement made by the accused is not voluntary. ( 19 ) THE next question for consideration is whether the confession is true. For the reasons mentioned above, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the confessional statement made by the accused is not voluntary. ( 19 ) THE next question for consideration is whether the confession is true. We have therefore no hesitation in coining to the conclusion that the confessional statement made by the accused is true. ( 20 ) THE next important question for consideration is whethef the confession of the accused has been corroborated in material particulars. We have already referred to the statement made by the accused that after pw. 2 and Satyanarayan went away from the house on 8-4-1971, the accused went in search of them to various places such as Hubli, Dharwar etc. The evidence adduced in the case corroborates this version of the confession. PW. 5 gouradevi, sister of the deceased, has stated that on 9-4-1971 the accused and another peison had come to her house in Dharwar and questioned her about the whereabouts of Satyanarayan and PW. 2. Again after some days the accused and two others came to her house. After questioning her, the accused got angry and told her "we would look to if and went away". We have already referred to the quarrel that took place in the Hubli Railway Station between the accused and the deceased Satyanarayan and PW. 2. The evidence produced in the case amply corroborates the version in the confesson of the accused meeting the girl, catching hold of her hand and trying to take her away and the deceased catching hold of the other hand of the girl and stating that she is married to him. The statement in the confession that Satyanarayan and the girl were detained by the police is also amply corroborated. The fact that tne accused was found ting outside on the bench finds corroboration in the evidence of pws. 11 and 13. That the accused put a trunk call to PW. 25 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW. 11. The version of the accused that he went into the bath room and from behind caught hold oi the mouth of satyanarayan and stabbed him with a knife finds corroboration in the medical evidence of PW. 12. As already stated, the weapon and the manner of attack on the deceased, find corroboration in the medical evidence. 11. The version of the accused that he went into the bath room and from behind caught hold oi the mouth of satyanarayan and stabbed him with a knife finds corroboration in the medical evidence of PW. 12. As already stated, the weapon and the manner of attack on the deceased, find corroboration in the medical evidence. We have also pointed out that the version put forward in the confessional statement that immediately after Satyanarayan came out of the latrine with injuries, PW. 18 got frightened and tan away, finds corroboration, in the evidence. The abscondence of the accused and also his surrender on 5-6-1971, find corroboration in the evidence adduced by the proseecution. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the confessional statement of the accused has been corroborated in material particulars conecting him with the crime by the evidence adduced in the case. ( 21 ) THE prosecution has also relied on the evidence that the accused had motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The motive that the accused had connects him with the crime. ( 22 ) THE prosecution has also relied on the abscondence of the accused. PW 27 Inspector Mahantayya Hiremath, PW. 28 Inspector Alva and PW. 29 dsp Narasimha Reddi have all deposed that in spite of their best efforts, they were not able to trace the absconding accused. PW. 22 has stated that he searched for the accused from 25-4-1971 to 1-5-1971, and Ext. P19 is his report. PW. 23 searched for the accused from 3-5-71 till 9-5-71 and Ext p 20 is his report. PW. 21 searched for the accused and his reports are Exts. P16 to P18. The evidence of PWs. 27, 28 and 29, who are responsible Police offcers, clearly shows that inspite of their best efforts they could not trace the absconding accused. The evidence of PW. 1 also shows that the accused attended the factory from 19-4-1. 971 to 24-4-1971 and thereafter the accused stopped away. After trying to serve notices on the accused, the Company discharged the accused on 29-5-1971. The contention urged on behalf of the accused that the Police Officers did not go to the factory to arrest the accused has no substance. The evidence clearly disclosed that a case against the accused was registered only on 25-4-1971 and the evidence of PW. After trying to serve notices on the accused, the Company discharged the accused on 29-5-1971. The contention urged on behalf of the accused that the Police Officers did not go to the factory to arrest the accused has no substance. The evidence clearly disclosed that a case against the accused was registered only on 25-4-1971 and the evidence of PW. l discloses that the accused absented himself from the factory from 26-4-71, and the last date the accused attended the factory was on Saturday the 24th From the above mentioned evidence, it is clear that from 26th onwards the accused had made himself scarce in order to avoid police securing him. The absence of the accused lends further assurance to the prosecution case that it was the accused who committed the offence. ( 23 ) AFTER re-assessing the entire evidence, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has established the charge under S. 302 of the IPC against the accused by reliable and "satisfactory evidence. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the accused and dismiss this appeal. --- *** --- .