JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by accused Bhinya Ram is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur district, Jaipur, dated June 1, 1972, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of which to suffer one months further rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 25 (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to six months, rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of which to further suffer 15 days rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial, in brief is that the accused-appellant and his sister, DW, 2 Mst. Rukma, were in the employment cf His Highness of Kishangarh, Shri Sumer Singh (since deceased). At the relevant time the accused was a student and was interested in Communist literature. He had seen a picture, named SAMAJ KO BADAL DALO which had a great impact on his head. Thereafter he used to tell his friends that rich persons were committing outrageous atrocities on poor and that he would change the society by genociding the rich and distributing their riches amongst the poor. He revealed to PW 36 Srikishan that he would start his mission by assassinating His Highness of Kishangarh. The prosecution case further is that the accused suspected some illicit intimacy between the deceased Shri Sumer Singh and his sister Mst. Rukma, which he considered as a part of barbarity administered by the rich to the poor. 3. On the date of the incident the accused Bhinyaram tried to contact the deceased. Ultimately he met him at the Gali of Aditya Mills Kishangarh in the morning of the date of incident. On the same evening at about 5 p. m. the deceased left his place in his Fiat Car for his Farasia farm. Soon before he left his palace PW 12 Raghunath Singh placed revolver Art 1, which was covered by a canvas cover Art. 3 in his car. Nearly at 5.30 p. m. the deceased met Jagjeet Singh and asked him to be ready for attending some marriage ceremony at the 3 residence of Sugan Chand Mehta, to be performed that day at 8.30 p. m. Thereafter he went to Phool Mahal, where Rajmata resided. Nearly at 5.30 p. m. the deceased met Jagjeet Singh and asked him to be ready for attending some marriage ceremony at the 3 residence of Sugan Chand Mehta, to be performed that day at 8.30 p. m. Thereafter he went to Phool Mahal, where Rajmata resided. He left Phool Mahal atabout 7.30 p. m. and asked PW 11 Shiv Pratap Singh to look after the marriage arrangements at the house of Sugan Chand Mehta and inform him that His Highness would be visiting that place at nearly 8 p. m. PW 43 Vishnu Dutt, a taxi driver of RJL 24, saw the deceased in fiat car near the Farasia farm. The prosecution case further is the that somewhere near Farasia farm the accused sat on the back seat of fiat car driven by His Highness Kishangarh. When the car reached the railway station Pipasia, the accused shot dead His Highness Kishangarh with a country made pistol. Thereafter he removed pistol (Art. 1) belonging to the deceased with its cover. While removing the pistol blood stain chance prints were left on the car and the accused decamped with his pistol. As a result of the shot His Highness Kishangarh. Shri Sumer Singh, met instantaneous death. The car left the main road swerving towards the left in kutcha and then it stopped. Just after that Dr. Roop Raj Purohit, Deputy Director of Medical and Health Service (P.W.8) happened to pass that side. He noticed a fiat car, at a little distance from the main road with light on. He also came to know from the passenger of a bus standing nearby that there was dead body in the car. He then went to the Police Station, Gegal. The S.H.O. Gegal Ramchander Calla P.W. 53 with constables accompanying him arrived at the scene of the incident. As the place of occurrence did not face with in the territorial jurisdiction of Gegal Police Station, the S. H. O. instructed some of the constables to guard the site and he left for Police Station, Kishangarh with Dr. Roop Raj. He informed PW 54 Ratanlal of what he had seen vide report Ex. P. 13. Dr. As the place of occurrence did not face with in the territorial jurisdiction of Gegal Police Station, the S. H. O. instructed some of the constables to guard the site and he left for Police Station, Kishangarh with Dr. Roop Raj. He informed PW 54 Ratanlal of what he had seen vide report Ex. P. 13. Dr. Purohit, Ram Chander Calla and Ratan Lal (S H. O. Kishangarh) came to the scene of the incident, inspected the side and in the torch light they recognised the dead body was that of His Highness of Kishangarh Shri Sumer Singh. The S.H.O. Ratan Lal also noticed blood stained finger prints on the outer side of the car gate and also saw stains of blood on it as also marks of smoke inside the car on the roof. Some blood was also detected in the car. He then went to Aditya Mills, Kishangarh of what he had seen. Their relalions rushed to the spot and removed the dead body to the hospital with the help of the police. A case was registered at the Police Station, Kishangarh, on 16th February, 1971, at 10.30 p. m. vide Ex. P. 115. P. W. 54 Ratanlal prepared a seizure memo Ex. P. 9 of the car the same day. On 17th February, 1971, P. W. 64 R. S. Joshi, Director, Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan. Jaipur, accompanied by the Inspector Habibur Rehman and Photographer Suraj Narain PW 52, reached the scene of the occurrence. Soraj Narain took various photographs of the car. As the information about the side said incident had been sent to the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, a senior investigating officer Shri Kashi Prasad then took charge of the investigation. The autopsy of the dead body of Shri Sumer Singh was conducted by Dr. B. P. Gupta PW 34, who found the following external injuries on the dead body:- 1. Bruise 3/4" x 1/2" on lower lip near the left angle. 2. Bruise over lower half of the nose. 3. Bruise 3/4" x 1/2" on right cheek one inch away from the angle of the mouth. 4. There was bleeding from the nose and the right ear. 5. There was gun shot wound of entrance which was roughly oval in shape 3/4" x ⅜" brain deep. 2. Bruise over lower half of the nose. 3. Bruise 3/4" x 1/2" on right cheek one inch away from the angle of the mouth. 4. There was bleeding from the nose and the right ear. 5. There was gun shot wound of entrance which was roughly oval in shape 3/4" x ⅜" brain deep. Margins were inverse and lacerated situated in front upper part of right ear, two inches behind the outer canthus of the right eye on the line joining the upper part of the year pinna and outer canthus. There was charring all round the wound in an area of 4"' x 4" with tatoing in the same area. There was singing of the bars. The wound was directed medially and horizontally. There was no wound of esit. 6. The rigor mortis was present. 7. On opening the scalp a hole 1" x 1/2" oval shaped was present in right temporal bone about 1/2" above and anterior to upper margin of external auditory meatus. On removal of the brain fracture of the patrous portion of the temporal bone was seen. 3 gun shot metallic pieces were found lying loose in cerebrum of both sides. Lacerating it and one piece was lying in the transverse sinus in left occipital bone. Few fractures pieces were found inside the brain. Extra dural and subdural and intra cerebral were present. 8. There was two ounce of semi digested food was present in the stomach. Otherwise visceras were healthy. Pieces Ex. A 6 to Ex. A 9, which were found in the body were placed in a bottle Ex. 1 Art. 33. 4. According to the doctor the cause of death was shock produced by gun hot injury to the brain. It was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report is marked Ex. 53. 5. In the course of investigation the police arrested accused Bhinyaram on 19th February, 1971. After his arrest the accused expressed his desire to get the revolver Ex. A1 and the cover Ex. A3 recovered from the place of its concealment. The information memo is Ex. P. 118. In consequence of that information revolver Ex. A and the cover Ex. A3 were recovered. The seizure memo is E. P 57. As the stains of blood were noticed on the cover, the revolver and the cover were sealed and seized. A3 recovered from the place of its concealment. The information memo is Ex. P. 118. In consequence of that information revolver Ex. A and the cover Ex. A3 were recovered. The seizure memo is E. P 57. As the stains of blood were noticed on the cover, the revolver and the cover were sealed and seized. A country made pistol Ex. A/32 was also recovered from the house of the accused at his instance inconsequence with the information Ex. P1 16 given by him. The seizure memo is Ex. P 54. Blood stained clothes were also recovered at the instance of the accused from his house on 24th February, 1971. They were sealed and seized. The seizure memo is Ex. P 112. On 19th February, 1971 and the Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. Delhi, took charge of the investigation. He went to the scene of crime, with S. H. O. Kishangarh, Ratan Lal, Dr. Nayer and Photographer and he inspected the site and the vehicle Kishangarh 11. He could not find any mark on the basis of which it could be said that the Shot WBB fired from a place outside the car. He found two pieces of percussion cap (Articles 34 and 35) and a piece of lead (Art. 41) in the car a number of other articles and therein burnt pieces of paper(Art. 37). Besides, a number of other articles mentioned in Ex. P/17 were also recovered. The inspection memo of the site, showing the marks through which the I car swerved was also prepared on the spot and the same is marked as Ex. P 112. In the course of investigation the house of the accused was searched. Gun powder, percussion cap and other metallic prices were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P1 10. A confessional statement of the accused was recorded by learned Additional Munsif and Magistrate First Class, Jaipur City, on 10.3.1971. It has been marked as Ex. P 124. The police, after investigation, submitted a challan against the accused in the court of Special Magistrate for Rajasthan, Jaipur. Learned Magistrate after taking proceeding under section 207 Cr. P. C. 1898 committed the accused to the court of, Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 164 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. Learned Magistrate after taking proceeding under section 207 Cr. P. C. 1898 committed the accused to the court of, Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 164 witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime. He disowned the entire prosecution case and stated that witnesses made deliberate lies against him due to enmity. As regards the Magistrate during investigation under section 164 Cr. P. C. 1898, he stated that he did make such a statement but it was given by him due to inducement and threat exercised by police. In spite of police atrocities he first refused to the threat of the police he was forced to make a statement, Ex.P124. The statement made by him was neither voluntary not true. In support of his plea the accused examined DVV Bhawani Singh and DW 2 Mst. Rukma and appeared in the witness-box as DW 3 under section 342-A Cr. P. C. 1898. 7. Learned Sessions Judge Jaipur placed reliance on the following circumstances appearing against the accused : 1. The accused had the intention to do away with the rich and set up a classless society. He had hatred towards the rich and specially towards the deceased, who was suspected to have had illicit connection with his sister Mst. Rukma DW. 2. 2. The accused had procured a country made pistol and percussion caps prior to the occurrence. 3. The accused approached the deceased to the day of the occurrence and took him to his farm on some pretext. 4. The chance finger print found on the gate of the car tallied with the finger print of tire accused. 5. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused in presence of Sri Kishan PW 36. 6. Admission of incriminating facts mentioned in Ex. P/124 made by the accused before PW. 63 Shiv Dayal Gupta. 7. Discovery of Ex. A/1 and Ex. A/3 in consequence of the information given by him. 8. Recovery of country made pistol Ex. A 32 at the instance of the accused. 9. Recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused. 10. Subsequent conduct of the accused in getting himself shaved after the commission of the crime, making anxious enquiries as to whether the deceased uttered any word prior to his death or not. 11. Recovery of country made pistol Ex. A 32 at the instance of the accused. 9. Recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused. 10. Subsequent conduct of the accused in getting himself shaved after the commission of the crime, making anxious enquiries as to whether the deceased uttered any word prior to his death or not. 11. Denial of proved facts by the accused in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. and plea of false alibi. Consequently the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 8. It cannot be disputed that a shot was fired at Shri Sumer Singh on the date and at the time, alleged by the prosecution, as a result of which he met instantaneous death. From the statement of Dr. B. P. Gupta PW 34, who performed postmortem examination of the dead body of Shri Sumer Singh (since deceased) it stands fully proved that the gun shot injury, described as injury No. 5 (supra), with its internal effect, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The weapon of the offence was a crude fire-arm and not a modern or sophisticated weapon. The pellets fired could be fired from the country made pistol Ex. A 32 and the distance between the firearm and the victim must have been within the range of 6". 9. Mr. Bheem Raj urged that there are certain outstanding features of this case, which, according to him, sufficient to throw doubt on the entire prosecution case, lit has been urged that the prosecution witnesses have concealed the true version of the occurrence. The deceased may have been shot dead by an unidentified assailant somewhere near the road and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the occurrence. The evidence regarding chance finger print of the accused alleged to have been found on the car could be manipulated. The statement of P. S. Nayer does not inspire confidence. The evidence of motive is highly unsatisfactory. Recovery Ex. A32 (country made pistol), Ex. A1 and Ex.A3 (pistol of the deceased with cover) as well as blood stained clothes was fake. The evidence regarding making of extra judicial confession by the accused is altogether concocted and unreliable. The possibility of Shri Sumer Singhs committing suicide cannot be ruled out. The evidence of motive is highly unsatisfactory. Recovery Ex. A32 (country made pistol), Ex. A1 and Ex.A3 (pistol of the deceased with cover) as well as blood stained clothes was fake. The evidence regarding making of extra judicial confession by the accused is altogether concocted and unreliable. The possibility of Shri Sumer Singhs committing suicide cannot be ruled out. It was further urged that even if the entire evidence, excluding the extra-judicial confession, is believed, the circumstances proved in the case are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charge punishable under section 302, I. P. C. They could be explained on the hypothesis that the accused might have committed theft soon after the murder of Shri Sumer Singh by some one else and as the accused was not charged under section 379, I. P. C. he could not be convicted under that section also. Learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The first circumstance relied upon by the trial Court relates to the agitated mind of the accused then to with determination to set up a classless society and to murder the rich and distribute their wealth amongst the poor. His first target was His Highness of Kishangarh as he was having affairs with his sister. In support of its finding the trial Court has placed reliance on the statement of PW. Prahlad, PW,33 Kailash PW 42 Om Prakash, PW 48 Atmaf Ram, PW 23 Suraj Karan, PW 25 Chhoga and PW 45 Bhawani Singh. Besides, that there is the evidence of PW 51 B. M. Joseph who stated that money was advanced to him by the accused for obtaining an unlicensed revolver. Much stress has been laid by the trial Court and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the point that the accused-appellant is a person having dogmatic faith in Communism. Being a young boy and a person of immature mind, the picture SAMAJ KO BADAL DALO had a great effect upon him. He suspected a liaison between his sister and the deceased and considered the same a part of the atrocities committed by the rich on the poor. We have persued the relevant portion of the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties on this point. He suspected a liaison between his sister and the deceased and considered the same a part of the atrocities committed by the rich on the poor. We have persued the relevant portion of the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties on this point. What moved the accused Bhinyaram to commit this dastardly deed is not clear. The evidence regarding the liaison between the deceased and DW 2 Mst. Rukma is very meagre. She has categorically stated that she had had no intimacy of whatsoever with the deceased. Mere recovery of Russian literature from the house of the accused is not sufficient to hold that the accused-appellant was a Marxist Communist, believing in classless society. The statement of PW36 Srikishan is to the effect that the accuse used to tell him that he would kill the rich and distribute their wealth amongst the poor and this mission he would start with the assassinations of Kishangarh His Highness does not inspire confidence. The witness failed to make such an important statement before the police. The explanation of the witness that he did not narrate this fact to the police as he was not asked about it, does not satisfactorily explain this material omission. If the accused told him prior to the date of the occurrence that he would commit the murder of Kishangarh His Highness, he would not have kept and would not have also remained silent before the investigating officer at this time of recording his statement. Again this witness has been contradicted on other points as well, which will be shortly dealt with by us. The statement of P.W. 45 Bhawanisingh that the accused, in the company of his father and sister Mst. Rukma, came to his well and asked him as to what made him to say that Rukma was kept wife of the deceased. This version does not improve the case of the prosecution because the witness in the same breath denied to have made such an allegation. Losing of temper by Bhinyram before the witness only indicates that he was prepared to deal firmly with those who would make such a false allegation against his sister, that shows that the statement of Bhawani Singh does not provide a motive against the accused for committing the murder of the deceased. 11. Losing of temper by Bhinyram before the witness only indicates that he was prepared to deal firmly with those who would make such a false allegation against his sister, that shows that the statement of Bhawani Singh does not provide a motive against the accused for committing the murder of the deceased. 11. The evidence of re-action in the mind of Bhinyaram after seeing of picture SAMAJ KO BADAL DALO also does not provide adequate motive for the accused to commit the murder of Shri Sumer Singh. 12. Thus, the prosecution could not firmly establish the factum of case regarding the motive for the commission of the crime. However under the law, there is no duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the motive of the accused. Absence of the motive or the inadequacy of it is immaterial where there is clear and convincing evidence of the crime : Nand Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1963 (2) Cr. L. J. 702. Absence of motive is also not sufficient to show that witnesses are telling lies. The reason is that the motive of human action is inscrutable and is primarily knowm to the accused himself. It has been observed by his Lordships Hidayatullah C. J. in A. I. R. 1971 SC 1666, N. N. Naik v. State of Maharashtra that : "We need not consider that question of motive in this case if we are satisfied that the evidence that Narayan Nathu Naik was the assailant of Rattan, is acceptable. 13. Keeping the above principles, we now proceed to evaluate the other evidence on the record. 14. On the point making extra-judicial confession by the accused, the prosecution has examined PW 36 Shrikishan and PW 32 Prahlad. PW 36 Srikrishan admitted in his statement before the Court that he did not narrate the fact of the accused making an extrajudicial confession before him to the police when he was first summoned. The examination of PW 60 Shri Kashi Prasad, investigating officer of the case is that he called PW 36 Srikishan only to verify the movements of the accused and as such the witness did not tell him regarding the making of extra-judicial confession by the accused. This explanation is not convincing. His subsequent evidence before the investigating officer of C. B. I. regarding making of extra-judicial confession by the accused appears to be an improvement. This explanation is not convincing. His subsequent evidence before the investigating officer of C. B. I. regarding making of extra-judicial confession by the accused appears to be an improvement. This witness wants us to believe that the accused prior to the commission of the offence told him that he would start his revolutionary activities of changing the society by committing the murder of His Highness Kishangarh on 16th and if he failed to commit the same on the scheduled date, he would give up his activities. Such a statement is inherently incredible, this witness also stated before the court that he was examined by the Rajasthan Police prior to his examination by C. B. I. people. In spite of the request made by the accused copy of such a statement was not given to the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor stated at the Bar that such a statement was not recorded by the Rajasthan Police, the above noted portion of the statement suggests that the witness was not telling the whole truth. The statement of the other witness PW 32 Prahlad also does not improve the case of the prosecution, because this witness also failed to state to the Rajasthan Police that Srikishan had told him that Bhinyaram accused made extra-judicial confession before him regarding the murder of His Highness of Kishangarh. He was examined by C. B. I. after about 2 months of the occurrence. The explanation given by the witness that he did not narrate this story to the police because Bhinya Ram was arrested prior to his interrogation by the Rajasthan Police does not satisfactorily explain this material omission. This witness in his statement in the trial court stated that Bhinyaram used to tell him that he would kill the rich and distribute their wealth among the poor. He was confronted with his police statement Ex. D/10. In spite of opportunity being given to him the witness failed to explain the contradiction. The trial Court has committed an error in placing reliance on the statements of both these witnesses. We hold that the fact that the accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW 36 Srikishan stands disproved. 15. The trial court has rightly discarded the evidence of the recovery of gun powder and pellets from the house of the accused. The trial Court has committed an error in placing reliance on the statements of both these witnesses. We hold that the fact that the accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW 36 Srikishan stands disproved. 15. The trial court has rightly discarded the evidence of the recovery of gun powder and pellets from the house of the accused. Admittedly his father and other members of the family used to reside along with the accused in that house and there is nothing to hold that these articles were in exclusive possession of the accused. The explanation given by his sister that they were lying in the house because her father had placed them there as in his early days he was interested in hunting. 16. Now proceed to examine the remaining evidence. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is whether Shri Sumer Singh was shot dead by an inmate of the car or whether the fatal shot was fired from outside the car. PW. 34 Dr. B. P. Gupta stated that the gun shot wound of entrance which was roughly oval in shape was 3/4"x⅜"x brain deep. There was charring all around the wound in an area 4"x4" with tatooing in the same area. There was singeing of the hairs. He further opined that the weapon was a crude & fire arm and not a modern or sofisticated one. Pelets fired from Ex. A/32 could cause the injury to the skull of the deceased. The range from which the weapon like Art. 32 should have been fired at the victim must be within 6" and the weapon should be almost at a right angle to the wound of entry. Dr. O. P. Chug PW.17 Assistant Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation cum Assistant Chemical Examiner Government of India, New Delhi, stated that he conducted experiments with a view to find the range of scorching, blackening tatooing and lethality. In his opinion the distance of the muzzle of the weapon at the time of firing was likely to be not more than 5" from the head of the deceased. For arriving at that conclusion he performed similar tests with Article 32. The witness goes on to state that on 19-2-1971 he went to the place of the incident that, the request of the police and saw Fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 on the Kishangarh, Ajmer Road. For arriving at that conclusion he performed similar tests with Article 32. The witness goes on to state that on 19-2-1971 he went to the place of the incident that, the request of the police and saw Fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 on the Kishangarh, Ajmer Road. From the Ballistic point of view he examined inside of the vehicle and found a white patch on the frame of the rear right door near the front top at a distance of 6 centimetre from the frontage of the frame. In his opinion the white patch appeared to have been caused by strike play of the flame. The patch was oval in shape and was surrounded by blackening which was extending on the glass and the rubber lining about. The blackening was also extending beyond a the rubber lining upwards. The unburnt powder dot marks were also seen radially outward extending upto 22 centimeter. Blackening was seen on the ceiling of the vehicle over the back of the front seat and in the middle of the ceiling. The continuity of the white patch and the blackening indicated that white patch was caused on the surface when the glass pane was up. The witness further states that when the pistol like Art. 32 is fired it causes a flame the effect of which can be similar as the one found in the vehicle. The maximum distance of the muzzle of the pistol and the glass should be approximately 6". In his view the victim would have had his face over the back of the front seat of the car, while the deceased was facing towards the right and presenting his right sine towards the firer and the firing took place when the position of the muzzle of the pistol was near the top front edge of the glass pane of the right rear door. The distance of the muzzle of the weapon at the time of firing was likely to be not more than 5" from the head of the deceased. He did not find any dent inside the vehicle or outside the door. In his opinion the possibility of the shot having been fired from outside of the car was completely excluded. His statement finds corroboration from the inspection report of the scene of occurrence made on 19.2.1971. vide Ex. P. 122 PW. He did not find any dent inside the vehicle or outside the door. In his opinion the possibility of the shot having been fired from outside of the car was completely excluded. His statement finds corroboration from the inspection report of the scene of occurrence made on 19.2.1971. vide Ex. P. 122 PW. 6 Rajendra Singh stated that on inspection he found two places of percussion caps (Art. 34 and 35) and metallic piece Art. 36 inside the car No. Kishangarh 11. He also recovered burnt pieces of paper Art. 37. His statement stands corroborated by Ex. 17. 17. A close reading of the above noted evidence goes to prove that His Highness of Kishangarh, Shri Sumer Singh, was shot dead by an inmate of the car and not from any other person firing from outside the car. 18. Criticism made by learned counsel for the appellant of the basis on the basis of the admission made by Dr. B. P. Gupta PW 34 in cross-examination that he did not detect any traces of gun powder inside the wound beneath the skull even by the help of magnifying glass, does not create any doubt in the prosecution evidence on the point that the vital shot was fired at Shri Sumer Singh by a person who must be inside the car. On the basis of recovery of an empty from the scene of the occurrence, lying cut side the car, and the statement of PW 56 Himmat Singh learned counsel vehemently urged that the scene of occurrence was allowed to be tempered as such the conclusions arrived at by the ballistic expert PW 17 Dr. O. P. Chug cannot be relied upon, is without any substance. The witnesses had only seen fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 on the scene of occurrence. He noticed the marks of blackening. He has categorically stated that he did not touch the car. He only stated on the basis of his long lying experience of using the firearms that the weapon used by the assailant must have been a country made pistol. He noticed the marks of blackening. He has categorically stated that he did not touch the car. He only stated on the basis of his long lying experience of using the firearms that the weapon used by the assailant must have been a country made pistol. Simply because he fired a smokeless cartridge against a piece of paper and showed the distinction between the marks of smoke found inside the car and on the paper, it cannot be said that the scene of the occurrence was tempered with or the fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 was allowed to be tempered with by any other person prior to the making of inspection by the Rajasthan Police as well as by the Investigating Officer of the C. B. I. 19. One of the important circumstance appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence is the existence of a blood stained finger print of the accused on the outer portion of the front door of the car. This print was observed by PW 54 S. H. O. Kishangarh Ratanlal, who happened to go on the scene of the occurrence just after the commission of the crime. His statement stands corroborated by Ex. P/9, which was prepared on the date of the incident within a short time of the occurrence. The relevant portion reads as under " eqvk;uk dkj fd;k x;k rks dkj ds nkfgus igys QkVd ij gSafMy ds uhps o njokts ds dkWap ds ikl mij dh rjQ [kwu ls luh maxfy;ksa ds fu'kkuA vnaj vxyh lhV ij [kwu Qsyk gqvk gSA " Ratanlal seized the vehicle. In the morning of 17-2-1971 PW 64 Shri R. S. Joshi, Director of Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur accompanied by the Inspector Habibur Rehman and photographer Suraj Narain PW 52 reached the spot and Suraj Narain took various photographs of the car. The photograph of the finger print marked Q 1 was thus taken much prior to the arrest of the accused and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finger print of the accused was planted on the car does not have legs to stand. PW 46 Shri P. S. Nayer, Senior Scientific Officer Incharge Finger Print Section, Central Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi, categorically states that there cannot be any forgery of a finger print which cannot be detected by people and competent expert who knows his job. PW 46 Shri P. S. Nayer, Senior Scientific Officer Incharge Finger Print Section, Central Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi, categorically states that there cannot be any forgery of a finger print which cannot be detected by people and competent expert who knows his job. He further states that it was not possible to transplant the finger prints smeared with blood. The witness was definite on the point that even with the co-operation of the subject the impression translated cannot be made to appear like a chance print which the Q 1 is. Nothing has appeared in the cross-examination of PW 54 Ratanlal, PW 60 Kashi Prasad as well as in the statements of PW 64 Ram Swaroop Joshi and PW 46 P. S. Nayer to hold that the chance print Q1 found on the car was transplanted later on. The trial Court was correct for good and sufficient reason in holding that chance print Q 1 is not a planted one. He has rightly held that the expert did not find any trace of forgery or planting the print and that Q 1 is not a planted print of the accused and there is no question of the print being a forged one. 20. The next question which needs to be determined is whether the print Q1 tallies with the specimen of the accused. Placing reliance on Mahmood v. State of U. P., AIR 1976 S. C. 69 , learned counsel appearing for the accused urged that the specimen finger print of the accused were not taken in the presence of the Magistrate in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It was incumbent on the police to obtain the specimen thumb impression of the appellant before a Magistrate and since this was not done, the opinion rendered by the Finger Print Experts PW 64 Ram Swaroop Joshi and PW 46 P. S. Nayer by using those illegally obtained specimen finger prints must be ruled out of evidence. A similar argument as advanced before us had been made before their Lordships of the Supreme Court by Mr. Gambhir, learned counsel appearing for the accused in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 S. C. 1248 . A similar argument as advanced before us had been made before their Lordships of the Supreme Court by Mr. Gambhir, learned counsel appearing for the accused in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 S. C. 1248 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while repelling the argument, observed as under: "The contention appears to be misconceived because in the State of Rajasthan, the Police were competent under S. 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, to take the specimen finger prints of the accused, and this they did, in the instant case, before the Superintendent of Police, Shri K. P. Srivastava. It was not necessary for them to obtain an order from the Magistrate for obtaining such specimen finger-prints". 21. The next point urged in this connection is that the characteristics and points of similarity found by the experts are not enough to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the fact that both the prints are definitely of the accused. It was urged that if so dixit (a dogmatic pronouncement) of an expert should not be accepted lightly. Learned counsel urged that PW 64 Ram Swaroop Joshi admitted that in the questioned impression in Ex. P. 64 it was not possible to determine the intervening ridges from the point of core to point No. 1. It was also not possible to count the intervening ridges straight way from point 1 to point 9. In the disputed print Ex. D/4 the core area was not clear and as the expert had not taken into consideration the point of core and delta for the purposes of comparison, the identification of chance print was not possible. He further urged that according to Ram Swaroop the ridges in the disputed print in the core area inclined towards the right, whereas in the specimen print they are vertical and as such both the prints could not be said to have been proved to be that of the accused. We do not feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, because the same witness in the same statement stated that the number of intervening ridges between the two similar points would be the same in sequence. If they were identical. Sometime on account of difference in impression the number of intervening ridges between the two distant point was not taken in sequence. They might vary even in identical prints. If they were identical. Sometime on account of difference in impression the number of intervening ridges between the two distant point was not taken in sequence. They might vary even in identical prints. The witness further states that he did not proceed with the point of core, because the same was not clear in the disputed print. The reason given by the witness for not taking into consideration the Paint of core and delta for the purpose of comparison was that in Ex. D 4 in the disputed print the core area was not clear and no deltas were recorded in the width. The witness has categorically stated that not a single natural dissimilarity was found in the two prints compared by him. PW 46 P. S. Nayer, after detailed examination of the photograph of the chance print and the specimen, came to the conclusion that Q 1 was identical with the specimen of the right little finger impression on Ex. P. 49 and all the impressions on Ex. P. 65. The absence of two deltas in Q 1 was explained by the witness on the ground that the impression mark Q 1 was only a chance impression and the impression R M. S. 6 taken for comparison was a fully rolled impression. The witness further stated that the core in Q 1 is a short ridged inside the circle and in the specimen also it a short ridge inside the circle. As regards the innermost circle in Q 1 being slightly slanted towards the right, and the innermost circle in the specimen being nearly vertical, the witness explained that it was because of the flash present on the finger and because of the difference in the pressure used at the time of taking the specimen and the one put at the time of placing of the hand by the person on the car. The witness further added that the relative position of the intervening ranges did not change, but the direction of the rages could change. In the opinion of the witness there were enough characteristics other than the core to examine and compare the finger print to establish the identity. Both these witnesses marked the points of identity. As regards the differences Mr. Nayer stated that the difference pointed out were superficial and were always possible in different impressions of the same finger. In the opinion of the witness there were enough characteristics other than the core to examine and compare the finger print to establish the identity. Both these witnesses marked the points of identity. As regards the differences Mr. Nayer stated that the difference pointed out were superficial and were always possible in different impressions of the same finger. Both these experts were faced with certain authoritative books. PW 46 P.S. Nayer in his statement gave 12 points of similarity and PW 64 R. S. Joshi gave 9 points of similarity between the chance print and the specimen. These points are common and in total there are 15 points of similarity. The trial court had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witness in the witness box. It has placed reliance on the statements of both the witnesses and we find no reason to hold otherwise. We uphold the view of the trial Court that the blood stained finger print marks found on the car just after the occurrence by Ratan Lal and others were those of the accused Bhinyaram. Presence of blood stained finger print of the accused of fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 just after the occurrence is a very vital link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused. 22. Then we have the recovery of Ex. A 32 a country made pistol from the place of its concealment by the accused from the thatched roof. From the statement of PW 60 Kashi Prasad it appears that the accused appellant expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence recovered from Chappar of his house, wherein he had concealed it. This information was reduced into writing and the same has been marked Ex. P1 16. In consequence of this information a pistol was recovered. The recovery memo is Ex. P. 54. The recovery has been proved by the statement of the investigating officer as well as Badrilal PW 62. So far as the admission of the accused to the effect that he had concealed the pistol and would get it recovered in concerned the trial Court thought that the fact discovered was very relevant and we think that it has rightly done, so, having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Kattaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 P.C. 57 . The evidence of the Ballistic expert is that the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased could be fired by Ex. A 32. He has also stated that the pieces of the percussion cap (Articles 34 and 35) recovered from the fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 could be used in pistol Ex. A 32. 23. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused from the statement of PW 37 Ramdeo it appears that on 24-2-1971 accused informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police C. B. I. that he was ready to produce the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the crime. They were lying in his green colour trunk. The information memo is Ex. P. 111. In consequence of the information the accused produced one open shirt having stains of blood on the sleeves and front side. He also produced one pent. The seizure memo is Ex. P. 112. The clothes were sealed and seized in the presence of motbirs. These clothes were sent along with other articles to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist for detection of blood. Their reports are Ex. P. 14 and Ex. P. 15 respectively. The Serologist on analysis found the stains to be of a human origin and of B Group. No doubt the accused in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr. P. C. denied to have given any information and started that clothes belonged to his brother but his bare statement is not sufficient to discard the statement of the motbir and the police officer specially when his brother did not appear into the witness-box as a defence witness to support the plea raised by the accused. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342-A, Cr. P. C. simply stated that he did not give any information for recovery of the clothes and stated that his signatures of the Panchnama were obtained by force. Despite all opportunity he failed to state that the blood stained clothes belonged to his brother. As such the plea raised by him in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. does not find support from his statement recorded under section 342A Cr. Despite all opportunity he failed to state that the blood stained clothes belonged to his brother. As such the plea raised by him in his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. does not find support from his statement recorded under section 342A Cr. P. C. and we find no reason to differ from the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court that these clothes were recovered from the possession of the accused at his instance. The presence of human blood of B group which was the blood group of the deceased as well on the clothes of the accused goes a long way in lending support to the other evidence against the appellant. It is undoubtedly an important link in the circumstantial evidence . 24. The other circumstances relied upon by the trial court is that the accused made anxious inquiries in the hospital whether the deceased had spoken before his death or not. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. has admitted his going to the hospital. PW 10 Jagjeet Singh stated that the accused inquired whether the deceased a had spoken before his death or not. There is no reason why PW 13 Jagjeet Singh should have made a false statement on this point. The anxiety of the accused and anxious inquiries made by him from Jagjeet Singh is another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The accused wanted to be sure whether the deceased prior to his death had given the name of his assailant or not. 25. Then we have got the evidence of the recovery of pistol Ex. 41 and its cover Ex. A3 at the instance of the accused-appellant from the place of its concealment. As already narrated in the resume of the case from the statement of PW 12 Raghunath Singh it stands proved beyond any manner of doubt that the revolver and the cover Ex. A 3 were placed in the car fiat No. Kishangarh 11 at the time when Shri Sumer Singh had left the place on the fateful day at 5 p.m. for his Farasia farm.The evidence in respect of the recovery of these articles consists of the testimony PW 62 Badrilal and P W 60 Kashi Prasad, investigating officer of the case. A 3 were placed in the car fiat No. Kishangarh 11 at the time when Shri Sumer Singh had left the place on the fateful day at 5 p.m. for his Farasia farm.The evidence in respect of the recovery of these articles consists of the testimony PW 62 Badrilal and P W 60 Kashi Prasad, investigating officer of the case. P W 70 Kashi Prasad had stated that the accused on interrogation said that he had concealed the revolver Ex. A1 on the Ajmer Road near the way to Ghoda Ganeshji and was ready to produce the same. The information memo was reduced into writing and the same has been marked Ex. P. 118. Thereafter the accused took the police party to the place indicated above. He dug the earth, brought out the revolver Ex, A1 covered in a cover Ex. A3. Besides the revolver there were two packets of bullets and the cover had the marks of blood. The articles were sealed and seized in the presence of motbirs. The recovery memo is Ex. P57. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342. Cr. P. C., failed to explain as to how he happened to have the possession of the revolver and its cover Ex. A1 and Ex A3 respectively. The Chemical Examiner and the Serologist on analysis found the stains of blood to be of human origin of B group. For raising a presumption of guilt against the accused the matter of consequence is the possession of the blood stained cover and the revolver which belonged to the deceased. We have no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW 62 Badrilal (motbir) and PW 60 Kashi prasad (investigating officer) regarding the statement (Ex.P118) made by the accused-appellant before them. In spite of searching cross-examination nothing has appeared in the statements of these witnesses which would justify us in holding that they were not speaking the truth. 26. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the person, who committed such a murder was not normally likely to become garrulous after the commission of the offence and got recovered articles alleged to have been connected with the crime one after the other, is devoid of merit. After interrogation the accused must have come to the conclusion that the game was over. He might, therefore, must have given information to the police officer while in custody. After interrogation the accused must have come to the conclusion that the game was over. He might, therefore, must have given information to the police officer while in custody. This is no wonder. It may be due to the cry of his conscience to satisfy which he might have wanted to make a clean breast of it may be due to frustration or to mitigate the gravity of the crime in his own wisdom. The law has trusted a police officer to record the information given to him under section 27 of the Evidence Act by an accused in custody, because the truth of the information ultimately finds guarantee from the discovery of the fact. Thus from the statements of the above named witnesses it stands proved that revolver Article 1 with the its cover Article 3 were in the fiat car No. Kishangarh 11, when Shri Sumer Singh had left his place for Farasia farm. It further stands proved that these articles disappeared from the car of the deceased and were recovered at the instance of the accused from a place wherein he had concealed them. It has also been proved that the stains ofbiood found on the cover of the revolver were of human origin and were of B group which was the blood group of Shri Sumer Singh (since deceased). The presence of the human blood of group of this article show that the theft of the revolver was committed after the murder of Shri Sumer Singh. The recovery of the revolver and cover was made on 19.2.1971 i.e. within a short time of the murder. 27. The question then arises as to how far the recent possession of the revolver of the deceased, Shri Sumer Singh, may indicate that its possessor was guilty of the more aggravated crime i.e. murder. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused, has placed reliance on certain decisions on the basis of which he has urged that the recovery of the article only proved that the accused might have committed the theft after some one else had committed the murder. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. As already mentioned above in the resume of the case there appears to be no time gap in the commission of the murder and the theft in the case on hand. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. As already mentioned above in the resume of the case there appears to be no time gap in the commission of the murder and the theft in the case on hand. It is well settled that in a case where murder and robbery form integral part of a transaction recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property would be presumptive evidence on a charge of theft or robbery with murder. 28. Here in support of what we have said above we may cite a recent case of the Supreme Court Baiju v. State of M. P., AIR 1978 SC 522 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that "Recent and unexplained possession of stolen articles can be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charges of murder as well." Similar view have been expressed by the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh AIR 1978 SC 1183 . 29. In case of Queen Empress v. Sami Lal, ILR 13 Mad. 426 the learned Judges of the High Court observed : "Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation, the presumption arises that any one who took part in the robbery also took part in the murder. In the cases in which murder and robbery have been shown to form parts of one transaction, it has been held that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge of murder. All the facts which tell against the appellant, especially his conduct indicating a consciousness of guilt point equally to the conclusion that he was guilty as well of the murder as of the robbery." 30. It was observed Emperor v. Chitamany : "the possession of stolen goods recently after the loss of them may be indicative not merely of the offence of larcny or of receiving with guilty knowledge but of any other more aggravated crime which has been connected with the theft: this particular fact of presumption forms also a material element of evidence in the case of murder." 31. Both these cases were approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400 . 32. Both these cases were approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400 . 32. In wills on circumstantial evidence, 7th Edn. P. 104, it is given - "The possession of stolen goods recently after the loss of them may be indicative not merely of the offence of larceny or of receiving with guilty knowledge, but of any other more aggravated crime which has been connected with theft. This particular fact of presumption commonly forms also a material element of evidence in case of murder which special application of it has often been emphatically recognised." Likewise in Taylor on Evidence Vol. I, 12th Edn, P.P. 135 it is given : "The presumption under discussion is not confined to cases of theft but applies to all crimes, even the most penal A like inference has been raised in the case of murder accompanied by robbery." 33. In Tulsiram v. State, AIR 1954 S.C. 1 his Lordship Kanja C. J. speaking for the court laid down : "The presumption permitted to be drawn under section 114, Illustration (a) Evidence Act, has to be read along with the important time factor. If ornaments or things of the deceased are found in the possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilty may be permitted." 34. We would like to point out, even if we have to repeat ourselves, that the accused-appellant perfectly knew the place from where Ex. A/1 and Ex. A/3 were recovered, the accused got discovered these articles, which undoubtedly belonged to I Shri Sumer Singh (deceased). It has also been proved by unimpeachable evidence that Shri Sumer Singh was seen possessing these articles just prior to his murder These articles were found missing in the fiat car No. Kishangarh 11 and the same were recovered at the instance of the accused, from the place of their concealment. These facts, in our opinion, are sufficient in law and fact to lead us to the conclusion that accused was not only guilty of theft or having received the stolen property but of murder as well. 35. These facts, in our opinion, are sufficient in law and fact to lead us to the conclusion that accused was not only guilty of theft or having received the stolen property but of murder as well. 35. In regard to the question of the effect and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, it is now well settled that before conviction based solely on such evidence can be sustained, it must be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and must be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must meet any and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, however, extravagant and fenciful it may be. Before an accused can contend that a particular hypothesis pointing towards his innocence has remained unexplained by the facts proved against him, the Court must be satisfied that the suggested hypothesis is reasonable and not far-fetched. Further, it is not necessary that every one of the proved facts must in itself be decisive of the complicity of the accused. It may be that a particular fact relied upon by the prosecution may not be decisive in itself, yet if that fact, alongwith other facts which have been proved, tends to strengthen the conclusion of his guilt, it is relevant and has to be considered. In other words, when deciding the question of sufficiency, what the Court has to consider is the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts such of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt, and if the combined effect of all those facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that anyone or more of those facts by itself be not decisive. 36. The circumstances established on the evidence, in the case on hand, give rise to only one inference and one consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and divorced from the context of over all picture emerging from a consideration of the diverted circumstances another conjoint effect may be themselves appear innocuous. 36. The circumstances established on the evidence, in the case on hand, give rise to only one inference and one consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and divorced from the context of over all picture emerging from a consideration of the diverted circumstances another conjoint effect may be themselves appear innocuous. Each of the circumstance proved in this case when considered individually can be explained by citing a variety of acceptable answer but such circumstances cannot be considered in watertight compartments. In this case the totality of the circumstances, proved in the case art sufficient to hold that the accused appellant Bhinyaram was not only a thief ora i receiver of the stolen property of the deceased but he was also the murderer. In that view of the matter it is not possible to hold that the learned Sessions Judge committed and error in convicting the accused appellant Bhinyaram of the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. 37. One of the most important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution in the trial Court in the Statement of the accused made by him under section 164 Cr. P. C. Ex. P1 24 recorded by Shiv Dayal Gupta, in which the accused admits his presence in the vehicle of the deceased when the deceased was shot at. The sum and substance of Ex P. 124 is that after travelling for 5 or 6 furlongs the car was stopped by Shri Sumer Singh. At that juncture an ambassador car crossed and then arrived a Jeep. Some one from the jeep fired a shot. He did not know whether the fire hit any person or not, but the accused got perplexed and one man after getting down from the jeep dragged the accused out and forcibly took him towards the jeep and made him to sit on the rear seat of the jeep. He was made to smell something as a result of which he became unconscious. When he regained his consciousness. He found himself in a different car in the company of three persons. The statement further reads that the occupants of that car took him towards Kishangarh. One of the occupants was named as Harchand. He was made to smell something as a result of which he became unconscious. When he regained his consciousness. He found himself in a different car in the company of three persons. The statement further reads that the occupants of that car took him towards Kishangarh. One of the occupants was named as Harchand. One of the point of pistol they took him further and threatened him not to narrate the incident to any body least the whole of his family would be ruined. They also dug a hole and berried the pistol in the jungle and thereafter he was left on the road. At the time of leaving the car he noticed its number to be GTY 677. The accused found his clothes stained with blood,He went to his house and found all the members sleeping. He went to his house and found all the members sleeping. He washed his clothes and thereafter came to Madanganj to find out as to what had happened. There he came to know that Shri Sumer Singh had been shot dead. Fear over-powered him and he "came back to his house. The police arrested him on 18th February, 1971, and asked him to state in the manner it wanted. He was tutored, The accused goes on to state that he pointed out the place where the pistol was burred. He was made to sign the recovery memo regarding pistol under police pressure, threat and beating. This statement is in fact not a confession of the guilt. It no doubt contains admission of highly incriminating character. But the same has been retracted when the accused was examined at the trial under section 342, Cr. P.C. 38. It is well settled that confession if voluntary and truthfully made is an efficacious proof of guilt. Therefore, when prosecution demands a conviction of the accused on the basis of his confession, recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. The court must apply a double test whether the confession was perfectly voluntary. If so whether it is true and trustworthy. Satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears to the court to have been caused by an inducement, threat or promise, such as has been mentioned in section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected. If so whether it is true and trustworthy. Satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears to the court to have been caused by an inducement, threat or promise, such as has been mentioned in section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected. In such a case the question of proceeding further to apply the second test does not arise. If first test is satisfied, the court before acting upon the confession reach the finding that what is stated therein is true land reliable. No doubt a part of the confession can be relied upon by the court. Inculpatory portions can be accepted if the exculpatory portion is found to be inherently improbable and the court can act and accept the inculpatory part and piecing the same with the other evidence can come to the conclusion that the appellant was the person responsible for the crime. The trial Court has placed reliance on this statement. No doubt the confessional statement Ex. P1 24 was not retracted by the accused at the first opportunity and he was retracted if after a long time in the trial Court, but there is intrinsic evidence of police pressure in the confession itself. In & answer to question No. 3 put by the learned Magistrate before recording the statement under section, 164 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that the police had administered beating to him. Further, in answer to question No. 5, the accused stated that beating had been administered to him to compel him to make a confession. In the confession itself the accused stated that on 12-2-1971 he was arrested and the police authorities threatened him to state as per its direction. He further stated that the police authorities also told him that his family members would be put to trouble. The accused in this case was no doubt, sent to judicial lock up on 6-3-1971 and he was (produced for making a confessional statement on 10-3-1971 before the learned magistrate, but the Magistrate made him to sit in his chamber for sometime for considering the advisability of making a statement and recorded his statement on (the same day. The accused in this case was no doubt, sent to judicial lock up on 6-3-1971 and he was (produced for making a confessional statement on 10-3-1971 before the learned magistrate, but the Magistrate made him to sit in his chamber for sometime for considering the advisability of making a statement and recorded his statement on (the same day. The learned Magistrate was cross-examined on the point that the accused was produced by C. B. I. police for making a confessional statement, the learned Magistrate failed to refute that suggestion and stated that he did not remember it as to who produced the accused before him. In Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 637 . Hon'ble the Supreme Court emphasised that before recording a confession the Magistrate should see that the mind of the accused person was completely free from any possible influence of police. In that context it was observed that : "The effective way of securing such free from fear to the accused person is to send him to jail custody and give him adequate time to consider whether he should make a confession at all." In this connection it was also observed that : "It would be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make a confession." 39. No doubt no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much time for reflection should be given to an accused for recording his confessional statement. It is a question which depends on the circumstances of each case. In Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1248 , it has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court " that the interval need not be of minimum 24 hours." The accused was admittedly kept in solitary confinement in jail. The learned magistrate after preliminary question allowed sometime to the accused to reflect, but the statement by the accused itself reveals that he was not completely free from the possible influence of the police. The last portion of his statement shows that he was made to make a particular statement. Keeping in view the above infinitives in the statement Ex. P1 24, we are constrained to hold that no reliance can be placed on this part of the prosecution evidence. The last portion of his statement shows that he was made to make a particular statement. Keeping in view the above infinitives in the statement Ex. P1 24, we are constrained to hold that no reliance can be placed on this part of the prosecution evidence. That, however, will not affect the merits of the case in the face credible, cogent and convincing circumstantial evidence. 40. For all the foregoing reasons, dismiss this appeal, affirm the judgment of the Sessions Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur, and maintain the convictions and sentences as awarded to the accused by the trial Court.Appeal dismissed. *******