P.D. KUDAL, J.—Accused-appellant Dharma has filed this appeal from Jail against the judgment dated 31st July, 1971 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, The accused-appellant has been convicted under sec. 302, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused-appellant was also convicted under sec 323, IPC, and sentenced to one yesrs rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story is that the accused-appellant Dharma was married to Mst. Nenu daughter of Chaitan. Chaitan died and was survived by his widow Mst. Sua. The marriage of Mst. Nenu with Dharma was performed on the "Akha Teej" of Smt. 2023. Ganesh, the younger brother of Mst. Nenu, was married to the daughter of Boda, who is closely related to Dharma. After residing for some time, with Dharma Mst. Nenu came back to her mother, and later on, did not go with Dharma. Mst. Nenus mother insisted that the wife of Ganesh be sent first, and then Mst. Nenu be taken away. Mst, Sua has also one daughter Anchi who married to Rawta. Rawta was trying to ease the relationship between Dharma and Mst. Sua, Dharma came to Mst. Sua for taking away Mst. Nenu once or twice, but on one pretext or the other Mst. Nenu was not sent. On the last attempt, Mst. Sua told Dharma that as Diwali festival was very near, he may take Mst. Nenu the day following the Diwali. At that time, Rawta was also there. Rawta went away with his wife Mst. Anchi, but Dharma stayed there, Mst. Sua and Mst. Nenu were sleeping in the bera of Raga, while Dharma used to sleep in the house of Mst. Sua. Early in the morning Mst. Nenu came for milching the cattle when the accused-appellant old her that she is evading to go back with him on one count or the other, and that today he shall murder her. The accused-appellant Dharma then attacked Mst. Nenu with a "kassi" as a result of which she fell down on the ground, and then Dharma caused her death by throttling. Mst Sua also received some injuries while trying to save Mst. Nenu. The accused-appellant Dharma then attacked Mst. Nenu with a "kassi" as a result of which she fell down on the ground, and then Dharma caused her death by throttling. Mst Sua also received some injuries while trying to save Mst. Nenu. A report containing these allegations was lodged by Nar Chanda at 8.30 P.M. on 24-10-1970, at the Police Station, Gida. 3. Another report was lodged by the accused-appellant himself at 8.15 P.M. on 24-10-70 at the Police Station, Barmer. In this First Information Report, the accused-appellant stated that he was married to Mst. Nenu on Akha Teej of Smt. 2023, and and that he had paid Rs. 1000/- to Mst. Sua on account of this marriage. Later on, he had heard that Mst Nenu and Mst. Sua were of loose character, and that they were selling their flesh for monetary gains. In these circumstances, the accused-app-llant was not inclined to send his wife to her fathers place. Mst. Nenu was not sent to Mst. Sua for three years. But on the persuation of Ganesh and Rawta she was sent. On 24-10 1970 at about II AM Dharma insisted that his wife should be sent, on which Mst. Sua said that he should return, otherwise, he would be beaten by shoes Mst. Nenu had a "kodal" in her hands. When Mst. Sua and Mst. Nenu started for the fields despite Dharmas persuation he snatched the "kodal" from the hands of Mst. Nenu, and struck her on her head with force three or four times, as a result of which Dharma believed, Mst. Nenu had died. The police started investigation, and chal-laned the accused under sec. 302, IPC. In the committing Court the accused-appellant stated that Bhoorsingh had killed Mst. Nenu. The accused pleaded not guilty before the committing Court, and thereafter he was committed to the Court of Sessions. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 16 exhibits, Ex. P/l to Ex P/16, and the statement of Mst. Sua in the committing Court was produced as Ex. D./l. 4. On behalf of the accused-appellant, Mr. Rajendra Lodha appeared as Amicus Curies. It was contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the accused has not committed any offence, as he attacked Mst. Nenu with a kassi under a sudden and grave provocation, as Mst. Sua was not sending his wife Mst. D./l. 4. On behalf of the accused-appellant, Mr. Rajendra Lodha appeared as Amicus Curies. It was contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the accused has not committed any offence, as he attacked Mst. Nenu with a kassi under a sudden and grave provocation, as Mst. Sua was not sending his wife Mst. Nenu on one pretext or the other, and that despite repeated attempts Mst Nenu was not sent. It was also contended that the accused-appellant further harboured an impression that Mst. Nenu is having illicit connections with one Bhoorsingh, and that the mother and the daughter, that is, Mst. Sua and Mst. Nenu were selling their flesh for monetary gains, despite repeated requests and staying at the house of Mst. Sua as his wife Mst. Nenu was not, sent, the accused-appellant got a sudden and serious provocation under which he attacked Mst. Nenu resulting in her death. It was also contended that the confessional statement made by the accused-appellant before the police is not hit by the provisions of sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, or by the provisions of sec. 162, Cr. P.C. (old), and as such can be used in favour of the accused. If these statements are used, then the accused is entitled to the exception of acting under grave and sudden provocation. 5. On behalf of the State, it was contended that there is overwhelming evidence that the accused-appellant Dharma murdered Mst. Nenu by giving her "kassi" belows. It was further contended that the accused-appellant has himself admitted so in the F.I.R. lodged by him at the Police Station, Balotra It was also contended that there was no occasion for grave and sudden provocation, and that the accused-appellant Dharma was not entitled to strike Mst. Nenu with "kassi" resulting in her death. It was further contended that even if Mst. Nenu was not sent by Mst. Sua or that Mst. Nenu was not herself going with him an one pretext or the other, then too; there was no occasion for the accused-appellant Dharma to have assaulted Mst. Nenu with a "kassi" resulting in her death 6. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have seen the record of the case carefully. It appears that the trouble arose when the wife of Ganesh was not sent. Nenu with a "kassi" resulting in her death 6. We have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have seen the record of the case carefully. It appears that the trouble arose when the wife of Ganesh was not sent. Dharma and Ganesh were married in a "Atta Satta Marriages, which is commonly prevalent in the villages. Mst. Sua insisted that the wife of Ganesh should be sent first before Mst. Nenu is sent. The accused-appellant in his statement before the committing Court has said that the mur-der of Mst. Nenu was committed by Bhoor Singh. There is no evidence on record on this aspect of the matter- The accused-appellant has also stated that Mst. Sua was having illicit connections with Bheekhnngh, the elder brother of Bhoorsingh, and that Bhoorsingh was having illicit connections with Mst. Nenu. He has further stated that only the betrothal of Ganesh has taken place, and no marriage has been performed, and that under such circumstances, the question of sending Ganeshs wife to Mst. Suas place does not arise. 7. PW/7, Dr. Madan Lal Kalla, who performed the post-mortem examination, has stated that the following injuries were found on the body of Mst. Nenu:— (1) Cut wound on the scalp 6" distant from the base of the nose. It was 2" x 2" x skin deep. (2) Cut wound on the scalp 3" distant from the base of the nose 3" v 2" skin deep sagittally on the vertex. (3) Cut wound on the right palm in between the Index and middle finger. It was 2" x 1/4" skin deep. (4) On the mudial side of the right elbow there was a bruise 3" x 1" with acchy-mosia black in colour and broken on bangles which she was wearing. Nail markings on the neck ever treached with reddish blue acchymosis present. Bleeding external clotted. Eyes protruding out. Pight pupil dilated and left eye eaten by maggets. On the right side chest there is a redish blue occhymosis present wound on the scalp present. Skull not broken, vertibrae healthy. Corresponding the two wounds on the scalp there were bluish redish two sagitally bleeding making on the meninges. Brain had undergone putrefection. 8. In the opinion of this witness, the cause of death was due to the injuries sustained on the scalp causing bleeding, shock and strangulation of the neck causing asphynia. Skull not broken, vertibrae healthy. Corresponding the two wounds on the scalp there were bluish redish two sagitally bleeding making on the meninges. Brain had undergone putrefection. 8. In the opinion of this witness, the cause of death was due to the injuries sustained on the scalp causing bleeding, shock and strangulation of the neck causing asphynia. 9. PW/2 Mst. Sua stated that the accused-appellant had caused these injuries to Mst. Nenu by striking "kassi" blows. She has denied that she used to send Mst. Nenu to the house of Bhoorsingh. She is an eye-witness to the assault which was made by accused-appellant Dharma over Mst. Nenu and has narrated that Ganesh was married to the niece of Dharma, and that as the wife of Ganesh was not coming, she was not sending Mst. Nenu. She has further stated that in the morning Mst. Nenu had gone for milching the cattle. The accused Dharma told her that as she was loitering here and there, and as she was avoiding to go with him, he would murder her. PW/5 Bhoorsingh has been examined as a "motbir". He has stated that he had no illegal connections with Mst. Nenu, and as Dharma used to beat her, he had advised Mst. Sua not to send Mst Nenu. PW/12 Prem Singh was the SHO, Police Station, Gidi on 24-10 1970. He conducted the investigation, and at the information given by the accused, the "kassi" was recovered. 10. The fact, that Mst. Nenu was hit by "kassi" by the accused-appellant Dharma, has been proved by the overwhelming evidence. Even the accused-appellant had lodged the confessional first information report at the Police Station, Barmer at 8.15 P.M. on 24-10-1970. Under these circumstances, in view of the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution, we are satisfied that it was the accused-appellant Dharma who assaulted Mst. Nenu with a "kassi" resulting in her death. 11. The basic point for consideration is, whether, in the facts and circum-stances, the accused-appellant Dharma got such a sudden and grave provocation in which he assaulted Mst. Nenu resulting in her death. Further whether the first information report lodged by the accused-appellant Dharma at 8 15 PM on 24-10-1970 can be used in favour of the accused-appellant according to the provisions of sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and sec. 162, Cr. P.C. (old). Nenu resulting in her death. Further whether the first information report lodged by the accused-appellant Dharma at 8 15 PM on 24-10-1970 can be used in favour of the accused-appellant according to the provisions of sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and sec. 162, Cr. P.C. (old). Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act reads asunder:— "25. No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of Section 162, Cr. P.C. (old) reads as under:— "162. Statements to police not to be signed: use of such statements in evidence , (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it ; nor shall any such statement such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any enquiry, or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made ; Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such enquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforeany; offence." said, any part of his statement, if duly proved may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). and when any part of is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the reexamination of such witness, but for the purpose of only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of sec. 32, cl. (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of sec. 27 of that Act." 12. A careful perusal of these sections would reveal that any statement made to a police officer during investigation shall not be used against the accused. Investigation starts after the first information report has been lodged. If there is any con-fession of the accused in the first information report, it cannot be said that such a confession is during the course of investigation. Investigation starts after the first information report has been lodged. If there is any con-fession of the accused in the first information report, it cannot be said that such a confession is during the course of investigation. The matter came up for considera-tion in In re Mottai Thevar(l), wherein it has been held that where the accused imme-diately after the crime goes to the police-station and confesses, such statement forms the first information report of the offence, and that statement can be used in favour of the accused, though, the statement cannot be used as against the accused under sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Lal Khan vs. Emperor(2), it was held that where an accused person himself makes a statement which is taken down as a first information report, the statement is inadmissible against the accused as it amounts to a confession to a police officer. But there is no bar to using such a confession in favour of the accused. In the present case, the confession made by the accused appellant to the police in the first information report lodged at 815 PM at the Police Station, Barmer can, therefore, be used in favour of the accused appellant though, such a statement cannot be used against him. Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. There is nothing in the most unsatisfactory state of law as regards confessions to police officers to stop the user of such a confession in favour of accused person. The resultant impases created by secs. 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act and sec. 162, Cr. P.G. (old) is to shut out as legally inadmissible not merely any confession made to police officer but anything said to a police officer by an accused person in the course of an investigation. These provisions of law were felt necessary as held by the Privy Council in Kottayya vs. Emperor(3) wherein it was observed that a practice which had become a tradition with investigating police officers of working into confessions such incriminating adjectival clauses relating to all sorts of discoveries deserves to be discontinued. Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no confession made to the police officer shall be proved as against the accused-person accused of an offence. Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no confession made to the police officer shall be proved as against the accused-person accused of an offence. The confession, therefore, does not prohibit the use of it in favour of the accused. To us, it therefore appears that the proposition of law is well settled to the effect that the confession made by an accused to the police officer before the investigation has been started, can be used in his favour. In the first information report lodged by the accused-appellant at the Police Station, Barmer, he had stated that his wife was not being sent on one per text or the other, and that he had heard rumours that his wife and his mother-in-law were selling their flesh for monetary gains, and that despite repeated efforts his wife was not sent. These circumstances are definitely mitigating circumstances. But, in our considered opinion, these circumstances cannot constitute such sudden and grave provocation so as to justify a murderous assault on Mst. Nenu by the accused-appellant. 13. We, however, feel that the assault made by the accused appellant on his wife Mst. Nenu, and under extraordinary circumstances as he had made every attempts to take back his wife, and her return was avoided on one pretext or the other, and that he harboured an honest impression that his wife was being sent to Bhoorsingh for monetary gains. In view of these circumstances, we feel inclined to recommend to the State Government to consider the case of remitting the sentence of the accused-appellant. A sentence of seven years, rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, in the circumstances of the case. 14. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal, which is here by rejected. The sentence and conviction of the accused-appellant are hereby sustained, but it is recommended to the State Government to remit the sentence of the accused-appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment only. The Registrar of High Court shall send a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the accused-appellant at Police Station, Barmertothe State Government for consideration.