Nobasingh. v. State of Rajasthan — 1975 DIGILAW 86 (RAJ)

LODHA, J.—The appellant Nobasingh has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar under sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. He has also been convicted under sec. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the sentences were made to run concurrently. His son Sahibsingh was also tried along with him under sec. 201 I.P.C. for causing disappearance of evidence of offence namely murder of the deceased Gomasingh, but he was acquitted and there is no appeal by the State from his acquittal. 2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased and the accused-appellant (who will, hereinafter, be referred to as the accused) were brother-in-laws to each other, inasmuch as their wives ware sisters. Gomansingh used to live in village Kikarwali, whereas the accused is a residence of village Bashir, which is at a distance of about 10 miles from Kikarwali. The accused owed a debt of Rs.50/- to the deceased and, therefore, the deceased left for Bashir in the morning of 11th July, 1969 to recover the said debt from the accused. When the deceased did not return, even though four or five days had passed, his son Khushalsingh PW/1 naturally became anxious and went to Bashir to enquire from the accused regarding the where abouts of his father. Nobasingh informed him that he had paid the amount to the deceased, who had, thereafter, left Bashir the very day he came there. PW/1 Khushalsingh searched for his father, the deceased Gomasingh, at several places where his relations resided, but Gomasingh was not found. Khushalsingh went to Bhimsen, Sarpanch of Lellawali PW-10 and told him about the disappearance of his father. Bhimsen reduced the information given by Khushalsingh to writing and asked Khushalsingh to present the same at the Police Station, Sangaria. This report is Ex. P.l. Khushalsingh continued his efforts to trace out his father, but without success. Ultimately he went to village Dhaban where his maternal uncle Bhagwansingh PW/4 resided and informed him about the disappearance of his father. Bhagwansingh both again went to Bashir to make further enquiries from Nobasingh and this time Nobasingh admitted before them that he had done Gomasingh to death and the matter may not be reported to the Police, as they were relations. Bhagwansingh both again went to Bashir to make further enquiries from Nobasingh and this time Nobasingh admitted before them that he had done Gomasingh to death and the matter may not be reported to the Police, as they were relations. Both these persons, then, went to the Bus Stand in village Bashir where they happened to meet Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Sangaria Suraj Prakash PW/8, to whom Khushalsingh narrated the whole matter and Suraj Prakash took down the statement of Khushalsingh then and there. This statement has been marked Ex. P/2 and has been treated as a First Information Report of the occurrence. Suraj Prakash sent it to Police Station, Sangaria with constable Danasingh for registering a case. On its basis a case under sec 302 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Sangaria by the Head Constable PW/5 Trilokchand. This was on 22nd July, 1969. Suraj Prakash further interrogated Khushalsingh and Bhagwansingh and after recording their statements proceeded to the house of Nobasingh at about 4.15 p. m. along with Khushal Singh and Bhagwansingh. Nobasingh however did not furnish any clue about the deceased Gomasingh. The A. S. I. arrested the accused (vide arrest memo Ex. P. 13) and took his personal search, whereupon he noticed blood-stains on the Kachha which the accused was wearing. The seizure memo of the Kachha is Ex. P. 27 and the Kachha has been marked as article No. 13. Thereafter, he went with the accused to the house of Devilal, Sarpanch of Bashir, PW/11 and interrogated the accused further and here the accused disclosed that he and his son Sahibsingh had buried the dead body of Gomasingh in a Tiba situated in Killa No. 2 Kohi 10 F. T. P. square No. 57. The information given by the accused was reduced to writing by the A.S.I. and the same is marked Ex. P.28. The accused expressed a desire to point out the dead body and led the AS.I. to the spot. The party consisted of Bhagwansingh, Khushal Singh and Devilal, besides the A.S.I. and other constables and the accused. It is said that the accused dug earth to the extent of 3 or 3-1/2 and took out the dead body wrapped in a gunny-bag and tied with a rope. The party consisted of Bhagwansingh, Khushal Singh and Devilal, besides the A.S.I. and other constables and the accused. It is said that the accused dug earth to the extent of 3 or 3-1/2 and took out the dead body wrapped in a gunny-bag and tied with a rope. An iron chain was found tied round the neck of the dead body, which was seized by the A.S.I. Seizure memo of the dead body is Ex. P;4. There were multiple injuries on the dead body. Various articles on the dead body viz. a gunny-bag, a rope, a Khas, a chaddar, a pagari, an under-wear and an iron-chain were also taken possession of by the A.S.I. The seizure memo of these articles is Ex. P.3 The accused further gave information that he had concealed the shoes and the shirt of the deceased. The information re-garding the shoes is Ex. P.30 and the information regarding the shirt is Ex P. 31. The accused got the shoes recovered from a dry tank nearby. The recovery memo of the shoes is Ex. P/6 and the shoes have been marked Art. 8. The shirt, too, was recovered at the pointing by the accused under a heap of bricks lying in the same vicinity. The recovery memo of the shirt is Ex. P/7 and the shirt is Art. A.9. The Investigating Officer also prepared two site plans at the spot, which sue marked Ex. P.5 & Ex. P.29. He also sent for PW/3 Dr. Roopsingh, Medical Officer,Sangaria. Who reached the spot and conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body at about 6 p.m. The dead body was identified by Khushalsingh as that of his father Gomasingh. The following injuries were noticed on the dead body on post-mortem examination— "(1) One incised wound 6-1/2" x2"x through and through passing through the right ramus of mandible just below the mandibular joint, to the upper jaw cutting it to the other side just below the nose. The upper jaw is completely severed. There were sharp cuts on the body edges. Left sycomatic bone was also cut. This was due to one incised wound. (2) There was a lacerted wound completely cutting the right arm from the trunk. Dimension 6" x 3" x through and through with a sharp cut on the right scapula V shaped dimension 3" x 1" on the upper end. Spine of the scapula was also cut. Left sycomatic bone was also cut. This was due to one incised wound. (2) There was a lacerted wound completely cutting the right arm from the trunk. Dimension 6" x 3" x through and through with a sharp cut on the right scapula V shaped dimension 3" x 1" on the upper end. Spine of the scapula was also cut. (3) One incised looking wound 5" x 3-1/2" x 4" on the left shoulder outer aspect near the upper end. The head of the humerus was cut completely from the shaft in the region of the wound. (4) Right fore-arm was missing from the wrist together with a wrist bones. (5) One incised wound 6" x 2" x through and through the left score illise joint. Depth of the wound was 5". There were sharp cuts on the borne edges. (6) The neck was completely severed approximately only some muscle tissues and skin tag remained. This was at a junction of first servical vertribri and the shull. The articulars ends of the skull had sharp cut on it." The party then returned to village Bashir and stayed at the house of Devilal. 3. On the next day i.e. 23rd July, 1969 the accused gave further information to the A.S.I, that he had buried the right-hand palm of the deceased Gomasingh in a pit near the place where the dead body was buried. The information was reduced to writing and is marked Ex. P.32. In accordance with the information, Nobasingh led the party and got the palm recovered. The recovery memo of the palm is Ex. P/6. Nobasingh further informed the A.S.I, that he had washed blood on a cot lying outside his Kotha and he also pointed out the blood-stained earth as well as the Kassi, the weapon of offence. This information memo is Ex. P.33. The A. S. I. then recovered all the three articles viz. the Kassi from the Kotha, the cot from outside the Kotha and the blood-stained earth from Killa No. 7. The recovery memo of the cot is Ex. P.l1. The recovery memo of the blood-stained earth is Ex. P. 9 and the recovery memo of the Kassi is Ex. P. 10. The articles suspected to be stained with blood were sent for chemical examination. The human palm recovered at the instance of the accused was also sent for medical examination to Dr. P.l1. The recovery memo of the blood-stained earth is Ex. P. 9 and the recovery memo of the Kassi is Ex. P. 10. The articles suspected to be stained with blood were sent for chemical examination. The human palm recovered at the instance of the accused was also sent for medical examination to Dr. Roopsingh, on 23rd July, 1969, and the doctors statement is that the palm was a part of the dead body. 4. As regards the presence of the blood on the various articles recovered at the instance of the accused, we may mention that it was found by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist that the the Kachha of the accused (Article 13) was stained with human blood and so also cuttings from the shirt and the clod of earth recovered at the instance of the accused. Thus, after having carried out the aforesaid investigation, the Police challaned the accused as well as Sahibsingh in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who committed them for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. 5. The accused denied his complicity in the crime, but examined no evidence in defence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. 6. We have carefully gone through the record and have also heard Mr. K.C. Gaur Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused and Mr. D.S. Shisodiya, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. On an analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we may conveniently divide it under three heads — (1) That the deceased left his home in the morning of 11-7-1969 saying that he would go to the accused to recover the debt and was thereafter never seen alive ; (2) Extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW/1 Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh ; and (3) Recovery of the dead body and the various articles alleged to be connected with the crime on the information supplied by and at the instance of the accuse. The case against the accused undoubtedly rests on the extra-judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence. But before we embark upon the consideration of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused, we wish to dispose of the question of identity of the dead body. 7. P.W/3 Dr. Roopsingh, who performed the post-mortem examination, has stated that the dead body was identifiable. But before we embark upon the consideration of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused, we wish to dispose of the question of identity of the dead body. 7. P.W/3 Dr. Roopsingh, who performed the post-mortem examination, has stated that the dead body was identifiable. PW/1 Khushalsingh, son of the deceased, has stated that the dead body was identifiable and that he had identified the same as that of his father. He has also stated that he had identified the white Chaddar, the Pagri and the Kachha, articles 4 to 6, found on the dead body as belonging to his father. He also identified the shirt Ex. 9 and has stated that it belonged to his fat her. PW/4 Bhagwansingh who is the deceaseds wifes brother has also stated that he had identified the dead body by its general appearance namely, the built and structure and that it was that of his brother-in-law—deceased Gomasingh. In face of the aforesaid evidence we are of opinion that the identity of the dead body cannot be seriously disputed and though the learned counsel for the accused raised this point at one stage, but he did not press it seriously and, in our opinion, rightly. That the deceased Gomasingh died of the various injuries found on his person also cannot be disputed. The only question is, who is the perpetrator of the crime ? 8. We shall now proceed to consider the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused. PW/1 Khushalsingh has stated that while leaving for village Bashir, his father had told him that he would return in the evening after realising the debt of Rs. 50/-from the accused. Then, we have the statement of PW/2 Jaimal-Singh of village Mallarkhera that the deceased Gomasingh had come to Mallarkhera and resumed onward journey after telling the witness that he was going to Bashir to meet Nobasingh and thereafter Gomasingh was never seen alive. He has also stated that the village Bashir is two miles away from his village. We see no reason and none has been pointed out to us as to why PW/1 Khushalsingh and PW/2 Jaimalsingh should not be believed on this point. We have it from the evidence of PW/3 Dr. Roopsingh that death must have taken place about 10 days before the date of postmortem examination. We see no reason and none has been pointed out to us as to why PW/1 Khushalsingh and PW/2 Jaimalsingh should not be believed on this point. We have it from the evidence of PW/3 Dr. Roopsingh that death must have taken place about 10 days before the date of postmortem examination. It may be recalled that the post-mortem examination took place on 22nd July, 1969 and according to this medical evidence, the approximate date of death of Gomasingh comes to 11th July, 1969, the day on which he is said to have left his village Kikarwali for Bashir to recover the debt from the accused. The evidence of PW/1 Khushalsingh is that when he went to Nobasingh for the first time to find out the where abouts of his father, Nobasingh told him that Gomasingh had come to him and he had paid Rs. 55/- to Gomasingh, who had, thereafter, gone away the same day. This admission of the accused would show that Gomasingh had gone to Nobasingh and was not seen alive thereafter. This statement of the accused before the witness would be relevant as an admission under section 21 of the Evidence Act. 9. A statement made by the deceased that he was proceeding to a particular place where his dead body was found or that he was going to meet a particular person for a particular purpose would be a circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death and such a statement would fall under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. We may in this connection refer to the following observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor (1) — "The statement may be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction : general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to occasion of the death will not be admissible. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction : general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to occasion of the death will not be admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. "Circumstances of the transaction" is a phrase no-doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogousluse in circumstantial evidence" which includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower than "resgestae". Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence, though, as for instance, in a case of prolonged poisoning they may be related to dates at a considerable distance from the date of the actual fatal does. It will be observed that "the circumstances" are of the transaction which relucted in the death of the declarant. It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that "the cause of (the declarant s) death comes into question". In the present case, the cause of deceaseds death comes into question. The transaction is one in which the deceased was murdered on 21st March or 22nd March and his body was found in a trunk proved to be bought on behalf of the accused. The statement made by the deceased on 20th or 21st March that he was setting out to the place where the accused lived, ana to meet a person, the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused house, appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted In his death. The statement made by the deceased on 20th or 21st March that he was setting out to the place where the accused lived, ana to meet a person, the wife of the accused, who lived in the accused house, appears clearly to be a statement as to some of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted In his death. The statement was rightly admitted " The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in proving that the deceased Gomasingh left his house for village Bashir to meet Nobasingh and actually met him on or about the day when he was done to death. It is further clear that thereafter he was never seen alive, but only his dead body was recovered after about ten days. 10. We may now come to the extra-judicial confession. PW/l Khushalsingh has stated that when he went to the accused second time in company with his maternal uncle PW/4 Bhagwansingh, the accused ?old them that he and his son Sahibsingh had killed Gomasingh and that they had hidden the dead body of Gomasingh and further that since they were relations, the matter may not be reported to the Police. PW/4 Bhagwansingh has, however, stated that Nobasingh told them that he had murdered Gomasingh and that since they were relations, the matter may be compromised, to which the witness replied, that the matter had to be reported to the Police. Learned counsel for the accused has urged that extra judicial confession by its very nature is a very weak type of evidence and should not be relied upon unless it is corroborated by other reliable evidence, which is otherwise unimpeachable. In this connection, he has pointed out the discrepancy between the statements of PW/l Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh, inasmuch as Khushalsingh has stated that the accused stated that he and his son Sahibsingh had both killed Gomasingh and disposed of the dead body by burying it, whereas PW/4 Bhagwansingh has stated that Nobasingh told them that he (alone) had murdered Gomasingh. According to PW/4 Bhagwansngh, Noba-singh had not implicated Sahibsingh at all. The argument is undoubtedly altractive But on a closer examination of the statement of PW/l Khushalsingh, we find that during the trial of the case he has tried to improve his statement by implicating Sahibsingh also. According to PW/4 Bhagwansngh, Noba-singh had not implicated Sahibsingh at all. The argument is undoubtedly altractive But on a closer examination of the statement of PW/l Khushalsingh, we find that during the trial of the case he has tried to improve his statement by implicating Sahibsingh also. He was confronted with his statement before the police wherein he had stated that Nobasingh had told them that on the night of 11lth July, 1969 he had killed Gomasingh and had concealed the dead body with the help of his son Sahib Singh. The only explanation given by the witness for this discrepancy is that the Police might not have correctly recorded his statement. He was also confronted with his statement Ex, P/2 (which is the first information report in this case). In Ex. P/2 also he had stated that Nobasingh had told him that he (alone) had killed his father, and had disposed of the dead body with the help of his son. When he was confronted with this statement in the First Information Report and called upon to explain it, he tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the statement might not have been recorded correctly. It appears to us that Khushalsingh has, at a later stage of the case, tried to pass the guilt of murder to Sahibsingh as well, though he has adhered to that part of his statement wherein he has stated that Nobasingh admitted before him and Bhagwansingh that he had killed Goma Singh The improvement on the part of Khushalsingh in implicating Sahib Singh also cannot, howerver, stand in our way in accepting the consistent version given by both PW/l Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh that Nobasingh had admitted to them that he had committed the murder of Gomasingh. We have been persuaded to adopt this view on account of the fact that Bhagwansingh is a very close relation of the accused as well as the deceased. One sister of his was married to the deceased and another to the accused. Nothing has been shown as to for what earthly reason he would falsely implicate another brother-in law of his in a charge of murder. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the accused made a confession before PW/l Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh that he had committed the murder of the deceased Gomasingh. 11. Nothing has been shown as to for what earthly reason he would falsely implicate another brother-in law of his in a charge of murder. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the accused made a confession before PW/l Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh that he had committed the murder of the deceased Gomasingh. 11. There is nothing on the record to show that the confession was extracted by the witnesses from the accused by any threat, inducement, or promise and that it was not voluntary. On the other band, we have a forthright statement of PW/4 Bhagwansingh that after some talk the. accused admitted to them that he had committed the murder of the deceased Gomasingh. The reason for making such a confession is obvious. The accused probably thought that Bhagwansingh being a close relation of his as well as the deceased would hush up the matter. In this connection, we are tempted to reproduce the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hagharsingh vs. State of Punjab (2) — "The evidence furnished by the extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone as was done in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhaya Pradesh ( 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 S.C. 322 ) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court rested the conviction the accused on the extra-judicial confession made by him before two independent witnesses, namely, Gadkari and Perulakar." 12. However, we shall follow the well established rule of caution that an extra judicial confession must find corroboration and would examine the other incriminating circumstances against the accused. It is proved by overwhelming evidence that the dead body was recovered from the field of the accused. PW/14 Bhagwan singh has stated that the field from where the dead body was discovered had been in cultivatory possession of the accused for the last three or four years. PW/9 Sewanand has also deposed that he had a garden in one square at Bashir. PW/14 Bhagwan singh has stated that the field from where the dead body was discovered had been in cultivatory possession of the accused for the last three or four years. PW/9 Sewanand has also deposed that he had a garden in one square at Bashir. In the beginning of year 1969 he gave this garden on lease to Jestsingh son of Nobasingh for one year. He has also proved the document granting lease Ex. P39, which bears his signature. PW/11 Devilal has also deposed that the field in which the accused unearthed the dead body was in his cultivatory possession- To the same effect is the statement of PW/1 Khushalsingh who has deposed that the accused took the police party to the field belonging to a Jat which was being cultivated by the accused. It is thus clear that the dead body was recovered from the field of the accused. 13. We have given a detailed narration of the various other recoveries made on the information supplied by the accused and at his instance. These recoveries have been proved by the Investigating Officer PW/8 Suraj Prakash and the attesting witnesses PW/1 Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh, and we have no reason to doubt their testimony. PW/11 Devilal is also an attesting witness to the memos pertaining to these recoveries, but he was declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. Since he has been declared hostile, we do not find it safe to rely on his evidence, more particularly in view of the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagirsingh vs. The State (Delhi Administration) (3) wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that— "It is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution the result of that course being adopted is to discredit that witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony." But even after excluding the testimony of Devilal PW/11, there is abundant evidence in support of the recovery of the dead body and various other articles connected with it on the information supplied by and at the instance of the accused. The existence of the dead body and other articles in the field of the accused and recovery of the fame on information by and at the instance of the accused, coupled with the circumstance that the deceased had visited the accused at or about the time when he may have been done to death furnish strong corroboration. It was held in Dharma vs. The State (4) that the discovery of the dead body in the well at the instance of the accused was reasonably consistent with the only hypothesis that he was the murderer and no other. Thus, there is a chain of circumstances reasonable connecting the accused with the crime. The extra judicial confession, in our opinion, is amply corroborated by the circumstantial evidence referred to above and the court below was right in coming to the conclusion that the accused bad committed the murder of Gomasingh. 14. Learned counsel for the accused has urged that the prosecution has failed to prove motive for the crime. That is true. But that by itself is no ground for disbelieving the prosecution case when it has been proved to the hilt by extrajudicial confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel has also urged that investigation in this case has not been honest and the First Information Report has been prepared after collecting the evidence. To fortify his submission, he has referred to the statement of PW/4 Bhagwansingh, who has deposed that the A.S.I. along with two constables left village Bashir at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. after the recovery of the dead body, whereas PW/8 Suraj Prakash A.S.I, has stated that the police party arrived at the house of Nobasingh at about 4.15 p.m. After staying there for about 15 minutes, he enquired from Nobasing regarding the place where the dead body was lying, but the accused did not give any clue. Suraj Prakash has further stated that Nobasingh took out the dead body at 5 00 p.m. It appears to us that there has been some slip in the statement of PW/4 Bhagwansingh when he says that the A.S.I. had left the spot at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. after the recovery of the dead body. We have an unequivocal statement of the A.S.I, as well as Dr. We have an unequivocal statement of the A.S.I, as well as Dr. Roopsingh that he (doctor) left the place after performing the post-mortem examination at 6.30 p.m. PW/4 Bhagwansingh has deposed that the A.S.I, was at the spot when the doctor came and performed the postmortem examination. Consequently, that part of the deposition of Bhagwansingh that the A.S.I, left the village after recovery of the dead body at 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. cannot be correct and it must be due to slip. 15. We may, now, deal with certain observations made by the learned trial court against the prosecution, even though it has recorded its main finding in its favour. The first point held against the prosecution by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the doctor may have been summoned much earlier and not at 5 p.m. as stated by the Investigating Officer. In our opinion, nothing turns upon this point and the finding of the learned Judge is based on pure conjectures. One should not loss sight of the fact that the timings were not being recorded minute to minute. Then, the learned Judge has observed that a possibility cannot be ruled out that the A.S.I, did not send any constable to Sangaria for recording the First Information Report. This finding is against the record. We have positive statements of the A.S.I. as well as PW/5 Trilokchand that the First Information Report was recorded at the Police Station at 3.30 p.m. Another point made out by the learned Judge against the prosecution is that there is contradiction between the statements of the A.S.I, on the one hand and Bhagwansingh, Khushalsingh and Devilal on the other as to the place where the A.S.I, stayed at (night. The A.S.I has stated that he stayed at the house of Devilal whereas other witnesses have deposed that they passed the night at the Police Station, Sangaria. In our opinion, the contradiction is not at all material and of no consequence. Then, the lower court has observed that a copy of the First Information Report was submitted in the court rather late It ought to have been submitted on 23rd but, in fact, it was submitted on 24th July, 1969. None of the witnesses has been cross-examined on this point. At any rate, delay in receipt of the First Information Report by itself does not make the investigation tainted. None of the witnesses has been cross-examined on this point. At any rate, delay in receipt of the First Information Report by itself does not make the investigation tainted. If any authority is needed on the point, reference may be made to Gudar Dusadh vs. State of Bihar(5). The learned Judge has also observed that it is doubtful whether the First Information Report Ex. P/2 was taken down at the Bus Stand and at any rate it was not sent to the police station, Sangaria before the recovery of the dead body. In our opinion, there is no warrant for such a conclusion and the finding is based on pure conjectures in utter disregard of the positive evidence of the A.S.l. PW/8 and PW/5 Trilokchand. There is nothing in the statements of PW/1 Khushalsingh and PW/4 Bhagwansingh from which such a conclusion may be drawn. Again the learned Judge has held that the First Information Report was not taken down by the A.S.I, before the recovery of the dead body and the various recovery memos and the information memos were not prepared at the time and in the manner deposed to by the A.S.I. Suraj Prakash. However, the learned Judge goes on to observe that it is a fact that at the Bus stand, Khushalsingh informed A S.I. Suraj Prakash that Nobasingh had confessed the murder, otherwise the investigation would not begin in the manner it was commenced. He has also held that the manner in which the informations were taken down one after the other is unusual and consequently he came to the conclusion that the various recoveries made in the case were not the result of the information given by Nobasingh as deposed by Suraj Prakash, A.S.I. Having made these observations, curiously enough, in the next paragraph, the learned judge says that "he could find no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses (Devilal, Khushalsingh and Bhagwansingh) on the point that these Articles A.l to A. 12 and the hand of the dead body were recovered at the instance of Nobasingh from the aforesaid place". We must confess that we have not been able to follow the reasoning of the learned Judge and, in our opinion, his conclusions are self contradictory, and do not follow from the premises on which they are based. We must confess that we have not been able to follow the reasoning of the learned Judge and, in our opinion, his conclusions are self contradictory, and do not follow from the premises on which they are based. Lastly, the learned Judge has refused to believe the statement of Khushalsingh on the point of identity of shirt, shoes, Kachha, Pagari etc. of the deceased on the ground that Khushalsingh had not given the description of these articles earlier. The description of these articles is given in Ex. P. 2 and also in the statement recorded by the police before the recovery of the dead body. In our opinion, the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to discredit the recoveries is not at all sound and we are wholly unable to subscribe to it. However, we may state that the learned Judge has believed the presence of blood stain on the Kachha worn by the accused at the time of his arrest so as to connect him with the crime. 16. Having bestowed our careful consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17. The result is that we do not see force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for certifying the case to be a lit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The prayer is refused.