JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Harnek Singh has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, vide his judgment dated 10-4-1974. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Santa Singh had 20 bighas of land which he bequeathed in favour of his son Lilu Singh (P.W. 1) on 16-2-1973 and got the will Ex. P.16 registered. The accused Harnek Singh, who is the son of the deceased, was very much annoyed on account of the will executed by the deceased and he used to demand his share from his father and had threatened his father with dire consequences. On 11-5-1973, as per the prosecution case, the accused went to the land situated in Kaminpura and at about 2.30 p.m., Santa Singh also came to his field. The accused is said to have demanded his share in the land from him and after extending threat the accused inflicted sword blows on Santa Singh, as a result of which he died. The accused returned from the field and on way Mst. Prakash Kaur saw him armed with a naked sword smeared with blood and she also found that the clothes of the accused were soiled with blood. The accused is said to have inquired about Lilu Singh, his brother, from Mst. Prakash Kaur. Thereafter, the accused came to the bus stand, boarded the bus for Kesharisinghpura and got down at Keshrisinghpura and proceeded towards railway station. On way he stopped at the tea stall of Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 2) and asked him for water and on being enquired, he confessed that he had killed his father. The accused further asked Kanhaiya Lal about the location of the Police Station Thereupon, Kanhaiyalal pointed out the direction of the Police Station. The accused then went away towards the Police Station. At the Police Station, Kesharisinghpura at about 5:45 p.m , the accused himself volunteered the information The accused was followed by Kanhaiyalal. When the version given by the accused, was being recorded, Kanhaiyalal had appeared at the Police Station. After completing the version given by the accused, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Kesharisinghpura recorded the first information report, as stated by Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 2). When the version given by the accused, was being recorded, Kanhaiyalal had appeared at the Police Station. After completing the version given by the accused, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Kesharisinghpura recorded the first information report, as stated by Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 2). On the information given by Kanhaiyalal a case u/s. 302 I.P.C., was registered Information of the Commission of the offence, was given to the Dy. S.P Manphoolsingh telephonically. Spot investigation was conducted. At the police station the accused was arrested. His blood-stained clothes and shoes, as well as the blood-stained sword were seized The blood-stained articles were sent for chemical examination. Blood was detected on sword, shirt and one of shoes of the accused. For serogical examination sword, shirt and pair of shoes of the accused do not appear to have been sent, as blood was considered too small for the purpose. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was presented against the accused. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. He, however, not pleaded guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Lilusingh (P W. 1), Kanhaiyalal (P.W 2). Prakasho (P W 3), Ramchander (P.W. 4). Gurdayalsingh (P.W. 5), H.C. Prithviraj (P.W. 6), Prabhatiram (P.W. 7), S.H.O. Swaroopsingh (P.W 8), Dr. J.C Sethi (P.W 9) and Dy. S.P. Manphoolsingh (P W. 10) The statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 342. Cr P.C. in which he denied the prosecution case and stated that his father used to say that he would also give land to him. It was Lilusingh, who was annoyed with his father He had no grudge against his father. He further stated that when he visited his Dhani he saw two persons including blows on his father, one with lathi and the other with sword He raised hue and cry. Thereupon, both of them ran away leaving the sword with its sheath at the spot. The person armed withlathi, carried away the lathi with him and he proceeded to the police station and produced the sword. No evidence was led in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Dis-satisfied with his conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. No evidence was led in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Dis-satisfied with his conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri D. C. Sharma learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant, and Shri N.M. Lodha, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty of the offence on the basis of the evidence relating to motive, the circumstantial evidence of Mst. Prakasho (P W 3), extra judicial confession made by the accused to Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 2) and Ramchander (P.W. 4) and reliance has further been placed by the learned trial judge on the conduct of the accused that he produced himself before the police station with bloodstained sword and blood stained clothes. It is to be seen as to whether the evidence placed on record, connects the accused with the commission of the offence. The most material evidence in the case is of Kanhaiyalal (P W 2) and Ramchander (P.W 4). Both these witnesses have deposed that the accused confessed that he had murdered his father. Kanhaiyalal. of course, in his statement before the Court, did not state that the accused con fessed that he had murdered his father. He had simply confessed that he had commuted murder, although in the information report Kanhaiyalal stated that the accused confessed before him that he had murdered his father. Omission of the person, who has been murdered, in the statement of Kanhaiyalal, is no doubt material. How far this omission will affect the merit of this case, is to be seen. Ramchander (P.W. 4) has clearly stated the confession made by the accused. The confession was to the effect that he had crime after killing his father. It has come in the statement of these two witnesses that the accused came armed with naked sword and smeared with blood and his clothes were also blood-stared and the accused demanded water from Kanhaiyalal. Thereupon, water was supplied to him. On being asked as to what he has done Thereupon the accused stared that he had come after killing his father. It may also be stated here that there is circumstantial evidence of Mst. Thereupon, water was supplied to him. On being asked as to what he has done Thereupon the accused stared that he had come after killing his father. It may also be stated here that there is circumstantial evidence of Mst. Prakasho (P.W. 3), who had seen the accused coining from towards his field at the relevant time, that is, at about 3-4 p.m The accused was passing from the bank of the canal towards the bridge and he had a naked sword in his hand smeared with blood and his clothes were also soiled with blood. He enquired from her about Lilusingh. It is not in dispute that the accused appeared at the police station with blood smeared sword and blood-stained clothes. Looking to the conduct of the accused that he himself visited the police station and surrendered himself with blood smeared sword, it does not appear unnatural that he could have confessed the guilt before Kanhaiyalal and Ramchander. Kanhaiyalal and Ramchander appear to be independent witnesses. There was no question of confiding in them. It so appears that the accused did not want to conceal anything and in that state of mind, he divulged what he did. In the set up-circumstances, in the present case, the omission of father having been killed by the accused loses all its significance, more particularly, if viewed in the light of the statement of the other witness Ramchander (P.W. 4), who has given out what was actually confessed by the accused. Thus, the evidence of extra judicial confession, consisting of the statements of two witnesses, can be acted upon in the present case. The statements of both these witnesses appear to be trustworthy and credible and inspire confidence and reliance has been rightly placed by the learned trial judge on their testimony. In the present case not only there is an evidence of extra judicial confession alone, but there is other circumstantial evidence, which further corroborates the evidence of extra judicial confession and besides that, there is sufficient evidence of motive, as well. The deceased had bequeathed his land in favour of his son Lilusingh. That was the cause of grievance and grudge with the accused, as he was deprived of his share in the land, which he would have otherwise got in inheritance. The deceased had bequeathed his land in favour of his son Lilusingh. That was the cause of grievance and grudge with the accused, as he was deprived of his share in the land, which he would have otherwise got in inheritance. There is the statement of Lilusingh, which also appears to be credible that the accused had demanded half share of the land from his father and had extended threat to him in case the same is not given to him There can hardly be any motive with Lilusingh, as suggested It cannot be conceived that Lilusingh wanted to do away with his father else will might be changed. In our opinion, the circumstance of execution of the will, coupled with the statement of Lilu Siugh, establishes clear motive on the part of the appellant. The version given by the accused, has been considered by the court below, and, in our opinion, has been rightly rejected, after assigning cogent reason. The version given by the accused appears to be palpably untrue, if that version would have been true, the accused should have come with that version before the police and before the other persons, whom he had met, and, would have raised an alarm, which would have attracted the persons nearby. Thus, the version given by the accused has to be totally ignored and that does not deserve any consideration. If the prosecution evidence is considered in its entirety, in our opinion, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is the accused, who is responsible for the murder of his father. The offence under Section 302 I.PC., has been amply brought home to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, so he has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. Thus, there is no force in this appeal, so the appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******