Santhosh, J.-The appellant has been convicted of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar in Sessions Case No. 82 of 1971. In this appeal, he challenged the legality and correctness of the said conviction and sentence passed on him. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: P.W.2 Pyarijamrud, is the daughter of P.W.25 Sheik Honnur. They were residing in Kirloskar Labour Colony at Harihar. P.W.3 Ramaprasad was also employed in Kirloskar Factory and was living in the same colony. Deceased Satyanarayan was the son of P.W.3. P.W.2 Pyarijamrud had appeared for S.S.L.C. examination and failed in some subjects. Satyanarayan had appeared for his B.A. examination and had also failed in some subjects. Satyanarayan was giving tuition, and P.W.25 asked him to give tuition to his daughter P.W.2 her younger brother and younger sister. Satyanarayan was accordingly giving tuition to the children of P.W.25. The prosecution case is that acquaintance between P.W.2 and Satyanarayan developed into intimacy. On 8th April, 4971, P.W.2 and Satyanaravan 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 12th April, 1971 by a train with the idea of proceeding to Bombay. After they got down at Hubli, they stayed in Modern Lodge. A relation of P.W.2 Rijuvan saw Satyanarayan at Hubli. Thereafter as they scented some trouble, they vacated Modern Lodge and went to Woodlands 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 P.W.2, and two others Sayyad Makbul and Mohammed Khasim. The accused caught hold of the hand of P.W. 2 and asked her to return Lome but she refused. Satyanarayan stated that P.W.2 got married to him at Bangalore and caught hold of the hand of P.W.2 and pulled her. Seeing the quarrel going on in the railway station, P.W.11 Railway P. C. Nimbalkar came there and after making enquiries, took all of them and produced them before P.W.26 Railway P.S.I., Kottagi. Satyanarayan stated that P.W.2 got married to him at Bangalore and caught hold of the hand of P.W.2 and pulled her. Seeing the quarrel going on in the railway station, P.W.11 Railway P. C. Nimbalkar came there and after making enquiries, took all of them and produced them before P.W.26 Railway P.S.I., Kottagi. The P.S.I, 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 P.W.2 should sleep in his office along with a lady Constable and Satyanarayan was made to sleep in the hall outside the office. P.W.26 handed over the charge of the Police Station at 0-30 hours on 14th April, 1971 to P.W.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 P.W.25 Sheik 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 P.W.3 Ramaprasad, father of Satyanarayan. P.W.25 Sheik Honnur and his party stated to Hubli the same night by Deccar Express and reached Hubli at about 3-45 a.m. on the 14th morning. As P.W.3 Ramaprasad, father of Satyanarayan was indisposed he seat P.W.8 Durgaprasad 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 Deccan Express reached Hubli at about 3-45 a.m. and after P.W.25 Sheik Honnur and his party had come to Hubli Railway Station and met the accused Satyanarayan, shortly thereafter requested P.W.15 to take him to latrine to answer the calls of nature. P.W.15 directed P.W.16 Constable Rangannavar to take Satyanarayan to latrine. P.W.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 fell down near the steps of the latrine. Seeing this P.W.16 got frightened and ran to the Station House Officer P.W.15 and infromed him what had happened. Within 5 minutes, Satyanarayan came out of the latrine with bleeding injuries and fell down near the steps of the latrine. Seeing this P.W.16 got frightened and ran to the Station House Officer P.W.15 and infromed him what had happened. P.W.15 came to the scene and saw Satyanarayan lying with bleeding injuries. He called a rickshaw and seat Satyanarayan to K.M.C. Hospital with P.W.16 Constable Rangannavar. Thereafter P.W.15 sent for P.S.I. P.W.26 and held spot panchanam as per Exhibit D-2. P.W.26 came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter took a complaint from P.W.15, registered a case, in Crime No. 32 of 1971, for an offence punishable under section 309, Indian Penal Code, against Satyanarayan and took up investigation. He then went to K.M.C. Hospital and learnt there that Satyanarayan had succumbed to the injuries. He came back to the Police Station and gave iustruction not to clean the lavattory till photos were taken. He then went to K.M.C. 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 P.W.2 Pyarijamrud. 4. The prosecution case is that P.W.8 Darga Prasad, brother-in-law of P.W.3, who had come over to Hubli at 5-25 a.m, learnt about the death of Satyanarayan and went to K.M.C. Hospital. He contacted P.W.26 P.S.I, and offered to give his statement as he suspected foul play. But P.W.26 P.S.I, 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, P.W.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. P.W.12 Dr. Prabhakar Rao, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Satyanarayan on the evening of 14th April, 1971 and sent the postmortem report Exhibit P-3 on 16th April, 1971 to the Police. As according to P.W.26 P.S.I. the post-mortem report did not clearly indicate whether the death was due to suicide or homicide, he wrote a letter, dated 16th of April, 1971 to the Medical Officer to furnish his opinion on this matter. As according to P.W.26 P.S.I. the post-mortem report did not clearly indicate whether the death was due to suicide or homicide, he wrote a letter, dated 16th of April, 1971 to the Medical Officer to furnish his opinion on this matter. But this letter of P.S.I, was sent to the Doctor and received by him only on 23rd April, 1971 as shown by Exhibit P-2-(A). The doctor, on the same day, i.e., on 23rd April, 1971 wrote to the P.S.I, 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 P.W.27 Railway Police Inspector Hiremath on 25th April, 1971. He registered a case for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 3 6 of 1971 on the basis of his complaint Exhibit P-30 which mentioned 3 persons as suspects. The persons suspected were the accused, Sayyad Makbul and Mohammed Kashim. It may be mentioned that all the above mentioned three persons were found on the platform on the night in question. On 10th May, 1971 P.W.27 was directed to hand over further investigation of the case to P.W.28, Subbanna Alva, Inspector C.I.D. P.W.28 continued investigation of the case till 3rd June, 1971. He recorded the statement of certain witnesses and also the two suspects. On 3rd June, 1971 P.W.29 Narasimhareddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. took over further investigation. It may be mentioned that P.W.27, P.W.28 ana P.W.29 made efforts to trace the absconding accused and they directed their subordinates P.W.21, P.W.22 and P.W.23 to trace the accused, but they were not successful. On 5th June, 1971, at about 8 a.m. the accused surrendered before P.W.29 when he was at the Police Club at Dharwar. The accused was accompanied by his brother Mohammed Sabjan and his brother-in-law Sheik Honnur, P.W.25 when he surrendered before the Police. P.W.29 arrested the accused. He procduced 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 P.W.29 produced the accused before theJ.M.,F.G. at Hubli on 8th June, 1971 and got him remanded to judicial custody. He then filed an application before the Taluk Magistrate, P.W.20, Nemichand, to record his confessional statement. Thereafter, when he interrogated the accused the accused expressed his desire to make a confession. Then P.W.29 produced the accused before theJ.M.,F.G. at Hubli on 8th June, 1971 and got him remanded to judicial custody. He then filed an application before the Taluk Magistrate, P.W.20, Nemichand, to record his confessional statement. The Taluk Magistrate, P.W.20 secured the presence of the accused on 9th June, 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 11th June, 1971. The Magistrate on that day recorded the confessional statement of the accused as per Exhibit P-14. After completing the investigation P.W.29 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code in the Court of The J. M., F. C, First Court, Hubli. 6. The defence of the accused was one of denial. The accused when examined under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that he was the uncle of P.W.2 Pyarijamrud and had gone in search of her after P.W.2 disappeared from the house on 8th April, 1971. The accused also admitted that he had gone to the Hubli railway station on the night of 13th April, 1971 and had met Satyanarayan and P.W.2 in the railway station and tried to persuade P.W.2 to return to home. He also admitted that thereafter he sent a phone message to P.W.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 before P.W.29 in Police Club at Dharwar. The case of the accused was that he was arrested on 26th April, 1971 by the Railway Police from the factory where he was working. Thereafter the Police detained him in custody. He has stated that similarly Sabjan and Sheik Honnur were also detained by the Railway Police. The case of the accused was that he was arrested on 26th April, 1971 by the Railway Police from the factory where he was working. Thereafter the Police detained him in custody. He has stated that similarly Sabjan and Sheik 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 the members of his family Were threatened that unless the accused was induced to confess they will be put into trouble. Similarly P.W.15 Head Constable and Railway Constable P.W.16 Rangannavar were also detained. Thereafter by coercion and threat Police induced him to make the confession. He was taken before the Magistrate on 11th June, 1971. The Magisirate was 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 Exhibit P-14 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 Exhibit P-6 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 latrine. It is argued that there is no reason whotsoever for the Police to send a false report slating that Satyanarayana 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, on 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. 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. P.W. 12 Dr. Prabhakara Rao has conducted the postmortem examination over the body of Satyanarayan from 4-30 p.m. to 6-45 p.m. on 14th April, 1971. In Exhibit P-3 the doctor has noted the injuries fround on the body. Injury No. 1 was an incised wound situated in the upper part of the neck just above the thyroid cartilage. The wound was on the anterior part of the neck and it extends to both anterior triangular of the neck. Upper margin of the wound was 2 1/2“below the mentum; Upper margin of the wound was 5 1/2” long lower margin was 5“long; width at the centre of the wound was 3/4; width at the left side of the wound at the commencement was 1/2” depth of the wound at the centre was 1 1/2“; the wound had involved the whole thickness of pharynx hyoid bone was intact and not involved. This injury was fatal. The doctor also found very superficial incised wounds on the right index finger. He also found incised wounds on right middle finger and on the right thumb. He has stated that injury No. 1 could not be caused by a safety razor blade. The doctor has definitely stated that in his opinion death was not suicidal but it was homicidal. The doctor has stated that a knife could cause an injury like No. 1. In cross-examination, the doctor has given the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the injuries were not self-inflicted and they are as follows: 1. It was a single deep cut; 2. Absence of hesitation cuts; and 3. It was continuous and was present in front of the neck. The doctor has also stated that it was not possible for any person however strongly determined to inflict on himself an injury of the type of injury No. 1 with the help of a safety razor blade. Absence of hesitation cuts; and 3. It was continuous and was present in front of the neck. The doctor has also stated that it was not possible for any person however strongly determined to inflict on himself an injury of the type of injury No. 1 with the help of a safety razor blade. The doctor has also stated that it was not true to say-that in the case of homicidal death, the injuries found on the finger could not be caused. He has also stated that it was not true to say that injury Nos. 1 to 6 mentioned in the post-mortem report were all self-inflicted. The doctor has also opined that the injuries found on the fingers could be accidental. The doctor has further stated that if a man came from behind and with force used a knife of about 6” blade, holding the sharp edge against the front of the neck, injury No. 1 could be caused. The doctor has further stated that even if a person wanted to commit suicide by cutting his throat by a knife, such an injury as injury No. 1 could not be the result as the person who wants to commit suicide cannot cause such single and continuous injury. In such a case, there would be several wounds caused. 10. It is clear from the evidence of the doctor that injury No. 1 could not be self-inflicted either by a razor blade or even by a knife. After going through the evidence, we agree with the doctor that injury No. 1 found on the body of Satyanarayan was not self-inflicted. We are also of opinion that the superficial incised injuries found on the fingers of right hand of Satyanarayan could have been caused possibly when Satyanarayan put up his hand to protect his neck when he was cut with a knife from a person from behind. 11. We may point out that the panchas examined in this case-P.W.6 Kallappa and P.W.7 Fakrusab, have not supported the vers on put forward by the Police Officers-P.W.15 and P.W.26, that a blood-stained blade was found in the latrine. P.W.6 has stated that on the morning of 14th April, 1971 a police man called him and took him to a latrine and showed him a blade. Then he was asked to sign a panchanama and he did not know the contents of panchanama. P.W.6 has stated that on the morning of 14th April, 1971 a police man called him and took him to a latrine and showed him a blade. Then he was asked to sign a panchanama and he did not know the contents of panchanama. V.W. 7 Fakrusab has also stated that he was asked to sign a panchanama and he signed the same without knowing its contents. At one stage in cross-examination, he has stated that it was true that a blood-stained razor blade was lying in the latrine. But later on he has also stated that he did not himself see in the middle compartment but the Havldar told him that there was a blade. It is clear from what has been stated above, that apart from the version of P.W.15 and P.W.16 who have been treated as hostile there is no other reliable evidence to show that a blood-stained blade was found in the latrine on the morning in question. We will deal with the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16 later on when we will consider the bona fides of the investigation made by them. 12. The broad probabilities of the case also do not suggest that Satyanarayan committed suicide on the morning in question. It is clear from the evidence that when Satyanarayan was seen by the accused in the company of P.W.2 on the night of 11th April, 1971 at Hubli Railway Station, the accused questioned Satyanarayan and Satyanarayan asserted that he had married P.W.2 and refused to send her with the accused. The evidence discloses that when the accused caught hold of the hand of P.W.2 and asked her to return home, Satyanarayan caught hold of the other hand of P.W.2 and asked her to come away with him. It is also clear from the evidence that P.W.2 has refused to go with the accused and insisted on going with Satyanarayan as she was his wife. When such was the attitude of Satyanarayan, it is difficult to believe that suddenly he decided to commit suicide in the early morning, leaving the girl in the lurch all alone. It may also be pointed out that if Satyanarayan had the intention of committing suicide, it would have been easy for him to do so inside the hall where he was sleeping, instead of going into the lavatory and doing so. It may also be pointed out that if Satyanarayan had the intention of committing suicide, it would have been easy for him to do so inside the hall where he was sleeping, instead of going into the lavatory and doing so. The evidence also discloses that even after entering the latrine for more than 5 minutes, he did not do anything. The medical evidence also discloses that Satyanarayan answered calls of nature and his bladder was empty. If really the intention, of Satyanarayan was to commit suicide, one would have expected him to do so immediately, after going into the latrine and not after waiting for 5 minutes. 13. We will now examine the correctness of the early reports sent by the Police Officers, reporting that it was a case of suicide. We have already pointed out that the medical evidence is definitely opposed to this theory and the doctor has opined that it was impossible for Satyanarayan to have committed suicide and it was a clear case of homicide. We have also pointed out that the panch witnesses have not supported the theory that a blood-stained razor blade was found in the lavatory. In this connection, we May refer to the unseemly haste shown by P.W.15, Station House Officer, Krishnaji in preparing Exhibit D-2 the panchanama of the scene of offence. Exhibit D-2 states that the panchanama was commenced at 3-30 a.m. Exhibit D-2 specifically states that on examining the person of Satyanarayan, there were injuries caused by a blade on the right hand fingers. It is clear from the evidence that Satyanarayan was not in a condition to speak. It is also clear from the evidence that P.W.16 who as escorted him to the latrine did not also bow how Satyanarayan got the injuries on his person. How P.W.15 at 3-30 a.m. came to the conclusion that the injuries found on the fingers were due to razor blade, is difficult to understand. It may be pointed that the panchanama of scene clearly states that when it was prepared, Satyanarayan was rolling on the ground with blood coming out from his neck and mouth. We may also point out that Exhibit D-2 refers to a watch and a blood-stained blade being recovered at the time of panchanama. It may be pointed that the panchanama of scene clearly states that when it was prepared, Satyanarayan was rolling on the ground with blood coming out from his neck and mouth. We may also point out that Exhibit D-2 refers to a watch and a blood-stained blade being recovered at the time of panchanama. We may also mention that the panchanama Exhibit D-2 shows that it was prepared only by P.W.15 and P.W.26, P.S.I, has not taken part in preparing that panchanama, as we do not find either his initial or signature on Exhibit D-2. The evidence discloses that P.W.26’s house was only 2 furlongs away from the Railway Station and why P.W.15 should have been in such a great haste to prepare the panchanama of the scene of offence, even when the injured person was rolling with the blood-stained injuries is difficult to understand. It is also clear from the evidence that the incident in question took place after the Deccan Express had arrived at Hubli Railway Station. There is clear evidence that the Deccan Express reached Hubli only at 3-45 a.m. on 14th April, 1971. The Inspector of Police P.W.27 Mahantayya, has stated that he received a report from the Assistant Station Master, Hubli that Karnataka Express train from Bangalore arrived at Hubli at 3-45 a.m. on 14th April, 1971. The evidence of P.W.11, Railway Constable, Nimbalkar, clearly shows that the incident in question took place after Deccan Express had arrived at Hubli platform. P.W.11 has stated that at 3-45 a.m. on 14th April, 1971 Deccan Express had arrived on platform and after checking, he came to the cycle stand at about 4 a.m. and then found Satyanarayan rolling with bleeding injuries. If really the incident took place at 4 a.m. how the Head Constable could have prepared the panchanama at 3-30 a.m. is difficult to understand. The evidence of P.W.17 Railway Police Constable, Fakirappa clearly shows that the incident happened after the Deccan Express had come to Hubli Station. P.W.17 has stated that he came to Hubli on 14th April, 1971 by Deccan Express train which arrived at Hubli at 3-45 a.m. He has also stated that after the injured was removed to the hospital, he found a watch M.O. 17 lying there and he produced the same before P.W.15. P.W.17 has stated that he came to Hubli on 14th April, 1971 by Deccan Express train which arrived at Hubli at 3-45 a.m. He has also stated that after the injured was removed to the hospital, he found a watch M.O. 17 lying there and he produced the same before P.W.15. We may also point out that there is conflict between Exhibit D-2 and the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.26. We have already pointed out that Exhibit D-2 indicates that panchanama was prepared when Satyanarayan was lying with bleeding injuries. But the evidence of P.W.15 indicates that he prepared the panchanama after he has sent the injured Satyanarayan to the hospital in a rickshaw. P.W.15, in his evidence has stated that after coming to the place, he sent the injured to the hospital. He has further stated that immediately thereafter, he sent for P.S.I. After P.S.I, came there, he and P.S.I. inspected the spot and then the panchanama was held. In the spot, he found a razor blade and the panchanama Exhibit D-2 was prepared. But the evidence of P.W.26, is different. P.W.26 has stated that he came to the place only at 4-20 a.m. when he came to the police station, he saw the panchanama of the scene Exhibit D-2 drawn by the Head Constable and he verified the same. We may also mention that the evidence discloses that the watch M.O. 17 found at the spot had stopped at 4-10 a.m. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, we are of opinion that the learned Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the panchanama of the scene of offence was not prepared at 3-30 a.m. as the panchanama indicates, but was really prepared very much later on the: morning of 14th April, 1971. 14. In this connection we may also refer to the inquest Exhibit D-3 held over the dead body of Satyanarayan by P.W.26 in the hospital. The inquest report Exhibit D-3 indicates that the Police Officer did not record the statement of any witness during the course of the inquest proceedings. How without recording any statement of witnesses, P.W.26, came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide, is difficult for us to understand ? It may also be pointed out that admittedly at the inquest, no blood relations of the deceased Satyanarayan were examined. How without recording any statement of witnesses, P.W.26, came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide, is difficult for us to understand ? It may also be pointed out that admittedly at the inquest, no blood relations of the deceased Satyanarayan were examined. In column No. 9 of the report it has been specifically stated that “No heirs were present”. The evidence of P.W.8 Durga Prasad, maternal uncle of Satyanarayan shows that he along with the 2 brothers of Satyanarayan, had left Harihar at 2 a.m. and reached Hubli at 5-45 a.m. After coming to know that Satyanarayan was dead, they went to the hospital, saw the dead body and identified the body as that of Satyanarayan. P.W.8 has also stated that after seeing the injuries, he suspected that Satyanarayan must have been murdered and he had approached the P.S.I, and stated to him that he wanted to make a statement before him. But the P.S.I. did not record his statement. Again he met the P.S.I, at 11-30 a.m. and requested him to record his statement. But the P.S.I. told him that after the post-mortem report is received, he would come to Harihar and if necessary, his statement would be recorded. It is clear from what has been stated above, that no attempt was made by P.W.26 to record the statement of the relations of the deceased and without examining any witness at inquest, and declining to record the statements of the relations, the P.S.I, came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide and not homicide. 15. In this connection we may also refer to the evidence of P.W.13 Ramachandra, Head Constable. P.W.13 has stated that when he, P.W.11 Nimbalkar and Head Constable Gour were going at about 1-30 a.m. on 14th April, 1971 to take tea at Vasanth Bhavan, they saw the accused and another person sitting in front of the Police Station. When they went to the hotel, the accused and other person followed them and the accused came and sat by their side. After they had taken coffee, the accused volunteered to pay the bill and paid their bill also. He has further stated that thereafter Head Constable Gour and the accused went together to the Police Station. When they went to the hotel, the accused and other person followed them and the accused came and sat by their side. After they had taken coffee, the accused volunteered to pay the bill and paid their bill also. He has further stated that thereafter Head Constable Gour and the accused went together to the Police Station. From this evidence it is clear that even at 1-30 a.m. the accused was in touch with the Police Officers and he volunteered to pay the bill and paid the bill and went along with Head Constable Gour to the Police Station. It may also be mentioned that the evidence discloses that Head Constable Gour was also one of the Police Officers suspended during the investigation. 16. We have already referred to the fact that P.W.26 received the post-mortem report on 16th April, 1971. P.W. 26 has stated that on the very same day he wrote a letter to the doctor asking his opinion whether the death of Satyanarayan was due to homicide or suicide. He has admitted that this letter has been sent by him to the doctor only on 23rd April, 1971. The doctor in his evidence has stated that he received a letter only on 23rd April, 1971 and Exhibit P-2 (A), the letter of the doctor corroborates his version. Why P.W.26 delayed in getting the opinion of the doctor from 16th April, 1971 to 23rd April, 1971 is also significant. The explanation given by P.W. 26 is that during this period, he was busy with the investigation of an offence under section 304-A., Indian Penal Code. If P.W.26 was really keen on finding out the opinion of the doctor, he could have even contacted him personally as the doctor was living in the same place at Hubli. It is clear Pom what has been stated that P.W.26 deliberately delayed in getting the opinion of the doctor as he wanted to make out a case of suicide and not homicide and gain as much time as possible. 17. The learned Sessions Judge, after reviewing the evidence on this point at para. It is clear Pom what has been stated that P.W.26 deliberately delayed in getting the opinion of the doctor as he wanted to make out a case of suicide and not homicide and gain as much time as possible. 17. The learned Sessions Judge, after reviewing the evidence on this point at para. 33 has held as follows: “Thus, the version of the Railway Police Officers in the beginning that there was an attempt on the part of Satyanarayan to commit suicide is one which is concocted by them for reasons best known to them, either to screen the real offender or to save their own skin, as the person who was actually in the police custody in the Hubli Railway Police Station met with his death during detention which no doubt reflects on the conduct and efficiency of the Railway Police.” 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 clear that the early investigation of the case carried on by P.W.15 and P.W.26 is; suspect. In Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, their Lordships have laid down that the record made by a police investigating officer has to be 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 las not as great a value as it otherwise would have in weighing all the material on the record as against each individual accused. Fori the reasons mentioned earlier, we do not propose to attach any importance to the record of the investigation made by P.W.15 and P.W.26. 18. 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: (1) Confessional statement Exhibit P-14 made by the accused to the Magistrate P.W.20; (2) Evidence of motive; and (3) Abscondance of the accused. 18. 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: (1) Confessional statement Exhibit P-14 made by the accused to the Magistrate P.W.20; (2) Evidence of motive; and (3) Abscondance of the accused. 18-A. So far as the confession Exhibit P-14 is concerned, the prosecution has to establish (1) the confession is voluntary; (2) confession is true and (3) the confession is corroborated in material particulars. 19. It has been contended by Sri Linganna that the Magistrate was not authorised to record the confession, and as such, the confessional statement Exhibit P-14 cannot be acted upon. It is also argued that when the accused was brought before the Magistrate the second time on 11th June, 1971, the record do not disclose that the Magistrate put the necessary questions 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 In re, Madegowda1in support of the said contention. It is also argued that the certificate appended to Exhibit P-14 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 26th April, 1971, and thereafter he was detained in Police custody and ill-treated. Reliance is placed on the evidence of P.W.15, P.W.16 and P.W.25 in support of this contention. The evidence also discloses that P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.15, P.W.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. 20. There is no force in the contention that P.W.20 Taluk Magistrate had not been duly authorised to record confessional statements under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.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 P.W.20 is not correct. P.W.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 P.W.20 is not correct. The learned State Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the notification of the Government, dated 31st July, 1969 which authorised all Taluk Magistrates to record the statements under section 164 of the Code. The notification reads as follows: “Government of Mysore. Mysore Government Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, 31st July, 1969. No. HD. 14 PCR 69 Notification. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Central Act V of 1898) as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1965 (My sore Act XIII of 1965) the Government of Mysore hereby invests the Taluk Magistrates with the power under section 164 of the Code being the power specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the said Code. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore. (Sd.) N. K. Srinivasamurthy, Under Secretary to Government. Home Department.” Under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court shall take judicial notice of any notification though not produced in Court. 21. We are similarly of the opinion that there is no force in the second contention urged on behalf of the accused, that because the records do not disclose that P.W.20 had specifically put questions to the accused on 11th June, 1971 the confessional statement is vitiated. It is no doubt true that Exhibit P-13 produced on behalf of the prosecution does not show that specific questions had been put to the accused by P.W.20 when the accused was produced before him on 11th June, 1971. But Exhibit P-15 roznama maintained by the Magistrate shows that on 11th June, 1971 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 the accused admitted the same to be correct, signed the same. 28. 28. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out that section 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 section 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 Magistrate and the answers given on 11th June, 197l. 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. 23. In the instant case, the Magistrate, P.W.20, in the evidence given by him has stated that when the accused was produced before him on 11th June, 1971 at 1 p.m. , he followed the same procedure as he did on 9th June, 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 Exhibit P-14. The Magistrate had earlier referred to the preliminary questions put by him and the answers given by the accused when he was produced on 9th June, 1971 before him, as per Exhibit P-13. After satisfying himself that the accused would make a voluntary confession. The Magistrate recorded the same as per Exhibit P-14. The Magistrate had earlier referred to the preliminary questions put by him and the answers given by the accused when he was produced on 9th June, 1971 before him, as per Exhibit P-13. On 9th June, 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 were no police officers near about and that he was not a Police Officer. He also told him that he was not bound to make any 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 the police or others 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 of June, 1971. In Exhibit P-13 the specific questions put to the accused and the answers given by him have beer recorded by the Magistrate. Exhibit P-13 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 5th June, 1971 and that thereafter he was taken to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hubli the same evening and was sent to Hubli Sub-Jail on 9th June, 1971. The Magistrate has a so 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 a so 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. It is clear from what has been stated above that the Magistrate has conformed to the requirement of law when recording the confession of the accused in the instant case. 24. 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 P.W.29 Narasimhareddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, 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 9th June, 1971. Hence the decision In re Madegowda1, relied upon by the learned Counsel, has no application to the facts of the instant case. 25. There is also no force in the contention that the certificate appended by P.W.20 in Exhibit P-14 is legally defective as the words “the confession has been recorded by me” are not there. The certificate given by P.W.20 which has been marked as Exhibit P-14 (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 P.W.20 himself. 26. 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 5th June, 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. It is no doubt true that P.Ws. It is no doubt true that P.Ws. 15, 16 and 25 have stated that the accused was kept in custody and he was ill-treated. They have also stated that they themselves were taken into custody and ill-treated. We have already referred to their evidence. It may be pointed out that all the three witnesses have been treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. We haw already pointed out how the investigation made by the Police Officers was dishonest and they deliberately tried to make out that it was a case of suicide. There is no doubt that these witnesses have given these answers with the object of helping the accused. For the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that they are not speaking the truth and we have no hesitation in rejecting their evidence. If really the accused and his relations such as P.W.25 and others, had been detained by the Police for such long periods, one would naturally expect them either to complain to the higher authorities or approach the Court for redress when they had been wrongfully confined. We may point out that P.Ws. 27, 28 and 29, who are responsible Police Officers have denied that the accused had been arrested on 26th April, 1971 and thereafter throughout detained in custody. The contention of the accused was he was arrested from his factory on 26th April, 1971. The evidence of P.W.1 the manager of the factory, indicates that the accused never attended the factory on 26th April, 1971. The last date that the accused attended the factory was on Saturday 24th April, 1971, and thereafter as the accused did not attend the factory issuing due notices to him, the authorities of the factory discharged him from the factory. It may also be pointed out that when the Magistrate P.W.20 questioned him, as disclosed by Exhibit P-13, as to when he was arrested, the accused stated that he had himself voluntarily surrendered, before the Police on 5th June, 1971. For the reasons mentioned above, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the confessional statement made by the accused is not voluntary. 27. The next question for consideration is whether the confession is true. In his confessional statement Exhibit P-14, the accused has narrated in detail how he went out in search of Satyanarayan and P.W.2 to various places such as Hubli and Dharwar. 27. The next question for consideration is whether the confession is true. In his confessional statement Exhibit P-14, the accused has narrated in detail how he went out in search of Satyanarayan and P.W.2 to various places such as Hubli and Dharwar. He has also referred to his going to the house of P.W.5 Gouradevi the sister of the deceased. P.W.5 has stated that the accused had come to her house and questioned her whether Satyanarayan and P.W.2 had come to her house. This version mentioned in the confession, is shown to be true. Then the confession also states how the accused along with two others came to Hubli Railway Station and met Satyanarayan and P.W.2 and questioned them, and how the accused caught hold of the hand of P.W.2 and Satyanarayana caught hold of the other hand. There is ample evidence on record to show that this version stated in the confession is also true. In the confessional statement, the accused has stated that after the girl and Satyanarayan had been made to sleep in the Police Station, he and the two others were sitting outside. The evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 13 shows that this statement made by the accused in the confession statement is true. In the confessional statement the accused has stated that after Satyanarayan came out of the latrine with bleeding injuries. P.W.16 constable got frightened and ran away. The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that this also is true. The accused has also stated that after the offence, he made himself scarce until he surrendered before the Police on 5th June, 1971. The evidence adduced in the case shows that this statement made by the accused is true. We have therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the confessional statement made by the accused is true. 28. The next important question for consideration is whether the confession of the accused has been corroborated in material particulars. We have already referred to the statement made by the accused that after P.W.2 and Satyanarayan went away from the house on 8th April, 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. We have already referred to the statement made by the accused that after P.W.2 and Satyanarayan went away from the house on 8th April, 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. P.W.5 Gouradevi, sister of the deceased, has stated that on 9th April, 1971, the accused and another person had come to her house in Dharwar and questioned her about the whereabouts of Satyanarayan and P.W.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 it 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 P.W.2. The evidence produced in the case amply corroborates the version in the confession of the accused meeting the girl, catching hold of her land 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 the accused was found sitting outside on the bench finds corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 13. That the accused put a trunk-call to P.W.25 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11. The version of the accused that he went into the bath room and from behind caught hold of the mouth of Satyanarayan and stabbed him with a knife finds corroboration in the medical evidence of P.W.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, P. W. 16 got frightened and ran away, finds corroboration in the evidence. The abscondence of the accused an i also his surrender on 5th June, 1971, find corroboration in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the confessional statement of the accused has been corroborated in material particulars connecting him with the crime by the evidence adduced in the case. 29. The abscondence of the accused an i also his surrender on 5th June, 1971, find corroboration in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the confessional statement of the accused has been corroborated in material particulars connecting him with the crime by the evidence adduced in the case. 29. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence that the accused had motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It has not been disputed that the accused is the maternal uncle of P. W. 2. Because Satyanarayan eloped with P. W. 2, who is his niece the accused naturally got enraged against the deceased, as this brought dishonour to the family. The accused in his statement under section, 342 Criminal Procedure Code has admitted that after the elopement, ho went in search of Satyanarayan and P. W. 2 to various places. We have already referred to the evidence of P. W. 5 which indicates that the accused went to her and held out a threat. It is also in evidence that the accused quarrelled with Satyanarayan at Hubli Railway Station and caught hold of the girl and asked her to come away. This quarrel between the accused and Satyanarayan has been deposed to by P.W.11, Railway Police constable, Shankar, as this quarrel on the platform attracted his attention. Exhibit P-2 the report given by P.W.11, states that are he found the accused and Satyanarayan quarrelling, he went there, took them and produced them before the Sub-Inspector of Police. Exhibit P-14 the confessional statement of the accused, also bears out how the accused went in search of Satyanarayan and P. W. 2 from place to place and how he traced them at Hubli Railway Station and the quarrel that ensued. From what has been stated above, there cannot be any doubt that the accused had a motive to commit the offence in question. The motive that the accused had connects him with the crime. 30. The prosecution has also relied on the abscondence of the accused. P. W. 27, Inspector Mahantayya Hiremath, P.W.28, Inspector Alva and P.W.29, D.S.P. Narasimha Reddi have all deposed that inspite of their best efforts, they were not able to trace the absconding accused. P. W. 22 has stated that he searched for the accused from 25th April, 1971 to 1st May, 1971, and Exhibit P-19 is his report. P. W. 27, Inspector Mahantayya Hiremath, P.W.28, Inspector Alva and P.W.29, D.S.P. Narasimha Reddi have all deposed that inspite of their best efforts, they were not able to trace the absconding accused. P. W. 22 has stated that he searched for the accused from 25th April, 1971 to 1st May, 1971, and Exhibit P-19 is his report. P.W.23 searched for the accused from 3rd May, 1971 till 9th May, 1971 and Exhibit P-20 is his report. P. W. 21 searched for the accused from 4th May, 1971 to 6th May, 1971 and his reports are Exhibits P-16 to P-18. The evidence of P. Ws. 27, 28 and 29, who are responsible Police Officers, clearly shows that inspite of their best efforts they could not trace the absconding accused. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that the accused attended the factory from 19th April, 1971 to 24th April, 1971 and thereafter the accused stopped away. After trying to serve notices on the accused, the company discharged the accused on 29th May, 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 discloses that a case against the accused was registered only on 25th April, 1971 and the evidence of P. W. 1 discloses that the accused absented himself from the factory from 26th April, 1971, 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 to the prosecution case that it was the accused who committed the offence. 31. 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 section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused by reliable and satisfactory evidence. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the accused and dismiss this appeal. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.