KUDOOR J. ( 1 ) THE accused has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1981 for on offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for life as per his judgment dt. 19-11-1981. ( 2 ) THE accused was charged for the offence of murder of his wife janaki for having caused her death by stabbing with a knife at about midnight on 24-6-1981 in her house at a locality called 'puchardottu' in Thannirpantha village of Belthangadi taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. ( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case stated in brief are these. The deceased Janaki is the wife of the accused Annu Pujary, P. W. 1 narayana Pujary and P. W 2 Yamuna are their children. All of them, along with other children of the accused were living in a house at Puchardottu locality. One of their sons by name Baby was serving under p. W. 10 Laxmana Gowda in his shop at Belthangadi. It is stated by the prosecution that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and because of this, the relations between them were far from being cordial. There used to be frequent quarrels and on some occasions, the accused also used to beat her. There was one such quarrel between the accused and the deceased about a week prior to the date of occurrence and in that quarrel, the accused bad beat her and left the house. ( 4 ) ON 24-6-1981, the deceased, her son P. W. 1 Narayana Pujary. daughter p. W. 2 Yamuna and two other small children Vasu @ Vachanna and janardhan ate their meal at about 8-30 p. m. and went to bed as usual at about 10 p. m. Their house was a small one, measuring 7i' x 18i' consisting of only one room. It had one door and a small hole like ventilator. The deceased slept on a mat in the centre of the room with P. W. 2 on one side and her youngest son Janardhana on the other. Her other two sons Vasu @ Vachanna and P. W. 1 slept by the side of the wall on one side of the room. At about midnight, p. Ws. The deceased slept on a mat in the centre of the room with P. W. 2 on one side and her youngest son Janardhana on the other. Her other two sons Vasu @ Vachanna and P. W. 1 slept by the side of the wall on one side of the room. At about midnight, p. Ws. 1 and 2 were wakened by the cries of the deceased "keriyer" (Inam being killed ). On hearing the cries, both P. Ws. land 2 got up hurriedly and among them Yamuna lit a lamp. when they saw the accused standing near the feet of the deceased, a little leaning towards her. holding a knife. Immediately the accused in a quick move stabbed the deceased a little below her left breast. P. W. 1 made an attempt to catch hold of the accused. But the accused suddenly left the house and ran away. The deceased on receipt of the blow tried to run out of the house with a view to escape from the accused, went up to the pial of her house and sat there and within a moment she fell down on the pial when PWs-1 and 2 lifted and brought her inside the house and made her to lie on a mat where she breathed her last even before any first aid could be rendered to her. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER P,w. 1 went to the house of one Jenkyaru Janaki daughter of the elder sister of the accused and informed her that the accused had stabbed the deceased and ran away. The said Jenkyaru Janaki sent her sons Umesh (P. W. 6) and dayanand along with P. W. 1 to his house. P. W. 1 asked P. W. 6 and dayanand to remain in the house and he went to the house of one ardottu Lingappa and informed him about the occurrence. The said lingappa, it is stated, could not do anything in the matter as he was laid up with fever. P. W. 1 asked P. W. 6 and dayanand to remain in the house and he went to the house of one ardottu Lingappa and informed him about the occurrence. The said lingappa, it is stated, could not do anything in the matter as he was laid up with fever. Thereupon P. W. 1, on the next day morning went to the house of Thungamma (P. W. 5)who is the sister of the deceased residing at Ujre which is beyond belthangady and brought her to his house by about 2 p. m. Having left p. W. 5 in his house, P. W. 1 again left for Belthangady to inform about the occurrence to P. W. 10 Laxmanagowda and also his (P. W's) brother babu. P. W. 10 told P. W. 1 to report the matter to the police, when P. W. 1 informed him about the occurrence. Thereupon P. W. 10 wrote a complaint on the information given by p. W. 1 as per Ex. p. 1 and asked p. W. 1 to go to the police station and give the complaint. Thereafter, p. W. 1 went to Uppinangadi Police station within whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence was situate and presented the complaint ex. P. 1 to P. W. 11 Raghava, Head constable, who was then in-charge of the police station. P. W. 11, on receipt of the complaint Ex. P. 1, registered a case in Crime No. 64/ 1981 under S. 302 IPC and issued the FIR Ex. P. 6 and sent it to the court of the JMFC at Belthangady. ( 6 ) P. W. 14 P. K. Harischandra who was the Sub-Inspector of police of Uppinangadi police station, received the copy of the FIR at 8 p. m on 25-6-1981 while he was at Gundya and on receiving the same, he went to the police station and then proceeded to the place of occurrence along with his staff. On the morning of 26-6-1981, he held the inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 8 a. m. and 11 a. m. and recorded the statement of P. Ws. 1 and 2 during the inquest. He also seized the saree of the deceased and some blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. On the same day he questioned p. Ws. 5, 6, 10 and several others. He gave a requisition to p. W. 3 Dr. 1 and 2 during the inquest. He also seized the saree of the deceased and some blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. On the same day he questioned p. Ws. 5, 6, 10 and several others. He gave a requisition to p. W. 3 Dr. P. J. Bhat, Medical Officer primary Health Centre, Belthangady to go to the spot and conduct the post, mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 3 conducted the post-mortem between 4 and 5 p. m. on the same day. On 27-6-1981, in the morning, further investigation of the case was taken over by the circle Inspector P. W. 15 P. C. Abdulla. ( 7 ) P. W. 15, having taken over further investigation of the case, continued the investigation. On 28-6-1981 while he was in Uppinangadi police station, P. W. 8. Janardhan pujary and one Chandrasekhar produced the accused before him at about 12 noon and also a knife which was marked as MO 3, PW. 15 arrested the accused and seized the knife produced by PW. 8 under the panchanama Ex. P. 4, He also questioned and recorded the statement of PW. 8. Janardhan Poojari pw. 15 gave a requisition to PWD authorities and as per the requisition, pw. 4 Abdul Huq Junior Engineer prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex P. 3. The blood-stained articles were sent to the chemical Examiner for examination. Ex. P. 7 is the Chemical Examiner's report,. P. W. 15, after completing the investigation placed a charge sheet against the accused on 3-9-1981. ( 8 ) THE prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses and also got marked certain documents and material objects in the course of the trial. The accused did not examine any witness. ( 9 ) THE defence of the accused before the trial Court was one of total denial. It was also suggested that deceased Janaki died of an accidental death due to fall over a pickaxe kept on the pial of her house when she went out of the house during the night to ease herself. It was also contended by the accused that prosecution evidence was false. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, on an assessment of the evidence adduced in the case, found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. It was also contended by the accused that prosecution evidence was false. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, on an assessment of the evidence adduced in the case, found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. ( 11 ) JANAKI, the wife of the accused died a homicidal death admits of little doubt. Apart from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, who have stated in their evidence that Janaki died almost instantaneously from the injury sustained by her on the night of 24-6-1981, there is the evidence of p. W. 3, the post-mortem doctor who has deposed to the nature of the injury found on the body of the deceased and also the cause of the death. He has described the external injury sustained by Janaki thus :"an incised wound 2" x 11/2" and deep into peritonial cavity, situated over the left hypo-chondriac region on the mid-clavicular line, down over the upper part of the abdomen, just below the rib-margin with omentum protruding out. Cut edges of the wound were covered with blood cloths. "on dissection of the body, he found the following internal injury. "about 100 CC of dark blood collected at the region of the pierced wound at the abdominal wall into the peritonial cavity. Stomach showed semi-digested food contents-Jujunum was torn apart 1"in size and round worms scattered into the peritonial cavity. " he has stated that the injury was an anti-mortem injury and the death of the deceased was due to severe shock. He has also stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He issued the post-mortem report as per ex. P. 2. ( 12 ) THE medical evidence taken along with the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 establish beyond doubt that Janaki died a homicidal death. The conclusion reached by the learned Sessions judge on this point, is therefore just, based on correct appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case. ( 13 ) NOW the most important question for consideration is whether the accused the death of Janaki by stabbing her with a knife as alleged. The prosecution sought to prove this part of its case by the evidence of the eye-witnesses coupled with the motive evidence and -extra-judicial confession. ( 13 ) NOW the most important question for consideration is whether the accused the death of Janaki by stabbing her with a knife as alleged. The prosecution sought to prove this part of its case by the evidence of the eye-witnesses coupled with the motive evidence and -extra-judicial confession. ( 14 ) THE witnesses who speak to the motive part of the prosecution case are PWs. 1 and 2, the son and daughter of the deceased and the accused. Both of them have stated in their evidence that the relations between the deceased and the accused were not cordial because the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. There used to be frequent quarrels between them. There was one such quarrel between the deceased and the accused about a week before the date of the occurrence at which the accused had beat the deceased and left the house. It appears from their evidence that since then the accused did not come home. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 on this aspect has not been shaken in their cross-examination. Their evidence in this regard appears to be true and hence acceptable. However, their evidence would not throw sufficient light to come to a definite conclusion that the deceased was of a loose character even though the accused was entertaining such a belief. Probably a belief of that nature entertained by the accused must have been the cause for the frequent quarrels between them. ( 15 ) MOTIVE in a criminal case is a relevant circumstance to show the reason for perpetrating a crime. If motive is alleged and proved by satisfactory evidence in a case, it will be a circumstance in favour of the prosecution to advance its case. However, failure to establish the motive alleged, by itself, will not affect the prosecution case, if the prosecution is able to establish the crime [by other satisfactory and reliable evidence. It is well-known that motive is a double-edged weapon. It may help the case of the prosecution ordinarily; but in a given case it may also help the accused to adduce his defence that he had been falsely implicated by ill-will. For the moment we take it in this case that the prosecution has proved through the evidence of PWs. It is well-known that motive is a double-edged weapon. It may help the case of the prosecution ordinarily; but in a given case it may also help the accused to adduce his defence that he had been falsely implicated by ill-will. For the moment we take it in this case that the prosecution has proved through the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that there used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused on account of the suspicion entertained by the accused about the fidelity of the deceased. We will however, refer to the motive part of the prosecution case at a later stage when we deal with the evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence. ( 16 ) NOW coming to the direct evidence in this case, there is the only evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. They are the son and the daughter of the deceased. Certainly they are relative witnesses being related to the deceased but cannot be called as interested witnesses in the sense they were interested in seeing the accused some how punished. True both of them gave evidence in support of the prosecution and against the accused. The fact that they were related to the deceased by itself would not be a ground to suspect their veracity and reject their testimony. They are equally related to the accused also. Relatives and interested people like wife, children and parents of the deceased may be natural witnesses, depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are the natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a place inhabited by the friends castemen and well-wishers of the deceased, then the friends, castemen and the well-wishers of the deceased are the natural witnesses and so on and so forth. However, their evidence will have to be subjected to close scrutiny with great care and caution, and it must pass the test of reliability and truthfulness. The Supreme court has had the occasion to consider the evidence of the wife of the deceased in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, air. 1981 SC. 1390. In the aforesaid decision, the High Court has declined to rely upon the evidence of pw. 1 who was the wife of the deceased on the grounds viz. The Supreme court has had the occasion to consider the evidence of the wife of the deceased in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, air. 1981 SC. 1390. In the aforesaid decision, the High Court has declined to rely upon the evidence of pw. 1 who was the wife of the deceased on the grounds viz. , that she was a highly interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased and there were discrepancies in her evidence. Dealing with the former ground, the Supreme Court has observed thus:" For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness ; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. Thus it, is, she is the wife of the deceased, but she cannot be called an interested witness. She is related to the deceased. 'related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of the litigation in the decree in a Civil Case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and only possible eye-witnesses in the circumstances of a case cannot be said interested. "if we consider the position of P. Ws. 1 and 2 upon the facts of this case, then PWs 1 and 2 would be the most natural witnesses to the occurrence as they happened to be the intimates of the house where the deceased janaki had received the fatal injury on the night of 24-6-1981. The occurence in question took place at about mid-night and it is fairly established that at the time of occurrence besides the deceased Janaki, it was PWs. 1 and 2 and two other young children of the deceased were the only inmates of the house present. However, the mere fact that PWs. 1 and 2 were the only elderly persons who were present in the house at the time of the occurrence, whatever they say in their evidence regarding the occurrence, cannot be accepted straight away on its face value without careful scrutiny of their testimony. The question still remains to be considered is whether what PWs. 1 and 2 speak in their evidence is true as to the person who perpetrated the crime. The question still remains to be considered is whether what PWs. 1 and 2 speak in their evidence is true as to the person who perpetrated the crime. This depends upon the various circumstances appearing in the prosecution case. ( 17 ) AS we pointed out earlier the house where this occurrence took place was a very small house measuring 7. 5' x 18. 5' as appear from the evidence of PW-1. It was an one-room tenement with one door and no windows. There was one whole type ventilator provided for the house. The occurrence in question according to the prosecution, took place at about mid-night besides, it is also in evidence that it was raining heavily at the time of the occurrence. ( 18 ) IN this back-ground, we have to consider the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 as to the actual occurrence and their ability to identify the accused as the assailant of the deceased. Both PWs. 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that og the night of 24-6-1981 after eating their night meal at about 8 pm. , they went to bed as usual at about 10 p. m. . At about mid-night both of them woke up on hearing the cries of their mother Janaki " 0 3o, *0ofco'" (She was killed, she was killed ). They immediately got up and P. W, 2 lighted a lamp, when they saw the accused standing near the feet of the deceased janaki holding a knife in his hand and suddenly stabbing just below her left breast and leaving the place running away. The attempt made by p. W. 1 to catch hold of the accused did not materialise. Janaki had sustained a bleeding injury. . Thus, it appears from their evidence that they were able to see the accused standing near the deceased and stabbing her only with the help of lamp-light, which was lighted by P. W. 2 after she woke up being attracted by the cries of the deceased. Their evidence further indicate that before lighting the lamp, the room was dark. It must necessarily be so because the room had one door and no windows. There was only a hole like ventilator. Besides it was heavily raining out-side. In that situation; certainly p,ws. 1 and 2 could not have identified the assailant but for the lamp-light. Their evidence further indicate that before lighting the lamp, the room was dark. It must necessarily be so because the room had one door and no windows. There was only a hole like ventilator. Besides it was heavily raining out-side. In that situation; certainly p,ws. 1 and 2 could not have identified the assailant but for the lamp-light. ( 19 ) THE evidence of P. WS. 1 and 2 that they woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased and lighted a lamp and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with the help of the lamp-light appears to us highly improbable and unnatural. There was only one injury on the person of the deceased. It is the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 that that injury was caused on the body of the deceased only after the lamp was lit. The evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 does not give any indication as to what made the deceased to raise a cry that she was killed even before the accused dealt the blow on her with the knife. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2, deceased janaki slept on a mat in the middle of the room and on her either side p. W. 2 Yamuna and their younger brother Janardhan were also sleeping. Besides P. . W. 1 and his other brother were also sleeping in the same room by the side of a wall. Undoubtedly, there was no light inside the room. It is understandable in this situation as to how the accused could approach the deceased and spot her out or that the deceased could see him holding a knife and raise a cry that she was killed, even before she was actually attacked. There is nothing in the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 to say that the accused was either having a torch light or any other kind of light with him to recognise the people sleeping in the room when he entered the house. The only act attributed to the accused by P. Ws 1 and 2 was that he gave a single blow with a knife and that was some time after P. Ws. 1 and 2 woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased. The only act attributed to the accused by P. Ws 1 and 2 was that he gave a single blow with a knife and that was some time after P. Ws. 1 and 2 woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased. In the Chief Examination both P. Ws, 1 and 2 have stated that they saw the accused standing near the deceased only after the lamp was lighted. However, it was brought out in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 that on hearing the cries of the deceased that she was killed, he opened his eyes and saw his father standing, holding a knife in his hand and stabbing the deceased when he was looking at her. This answer given by P. W. 1 in his cross-examination would suggest that even before he and P. W. 2 got up on hearing the cries and P. W. 2 lighted the lamp, he opened his eyed on hearing the cries and saw the accused holding a knife in his hand and standing near the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as to the circumstances under which they saw the accused stabbing the deceased seems to us little artificial and unnatural. We may also point out other circumstances appear in the case which would throw considerable doubt as to the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses. ( 20 ) IT is the evidence of P. W. 1 that soon after the occurrence he went to the house of one Jankyaru janaki, daughter of the elder sister of the accused and informed her that the accused had stabbed the deceased and ran away. The said jankyaru Janaki has not been examined in the case. She was not even cited as a witness. However, P. W. 1 proceeded to say that Jankyaru Janaki, on being informed that the accused had stabbed his mother and ran away. , sent her sons P. W. 6 umesh and Dayanand along with p. W. 1 to his house. P. W. 6 has stated in his evidence that at about midnight on the date of the occurrence which was a Wednesday P. W. 1 came to his house and informed about the death of his mother Janaki. , sent her sons P. W. 6 umesh and Dayanand along with p. W. 1 to his house. P. W. 6 has stated in his evidence that at about midnight on the date of the occurrence which was a Wednesday P. W. 1 came to his house and informed about the death of his mother Janaki. On hearing the same, his brother Dayanand and he went to the house of p. W. 1 along with him and when reached the house of P. W. 1, he found janaki lying dead with one injury on the left side of her chest. He does not say that P. W. 1 came to his house and informed that the accused had stabbed the deceased and ran away. His evidence suggests that P. W. 1 informed only about the death of his mother without any more details as to the alleged assailant If really p. W. I had informed P. W. 6 and the inmates of his house that it was the accused who had stabbed the deceased certainly P. W. 6 would have stated so in his evidence. Non-examination of janaki mother of P. W. 6 to whom p. W. 1 is said to have disclosed the details of the occurrence at the earliest and the fact that P. W. 6 has not stated in his evidence that P. W. 1 informed him and the inmates of his house that it was the accused who had stabbed his mother and ran away, would render the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that they identified the accused as the assailant, stabbing the deceased and running away, highly doubtful. ( 21 ) WE see further in the evidence of P. W. 1 that after leaving p. W. 6 and his brother Dayanand in his house, he went to the house of one ardottu Lingappa and informed him about the occurrence. But the said ardottu Lingappa could not do anything in the matter as he was down with fever. Ardottu Lingappa was questioned by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation and he was cited as a charge sheet witness. However, he was given up as being unnecessary. We fail to see why the prosecution has not examined Ardottu Lingappa to whom P W. 1 is said to have disclosed the incident soon after the occurrence. Ardottu Lingappa was questioned by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation and he was cited as a charge sheet witness. However, he was given up as being unnecessary. We fail to see why the prosecution has not examined Ardottu Lingappa to whom P W. 1 is said to have disclosed the incident soon after the occurrence. If really P. W. 1 had informed the incident to Ardottu Lingappa, certainly ardottu Lingappa would have been in a position to give the details of the incident as disclosed to him by p. W. 1. His evidence would have been helpful to the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1 as to the actual occurrence. ( 22 ) THE further evidence of P. W. 1 is that on the morning of 25-6-1981, he went to Ujre brought P. W. 5 Thungamma, his mother's sister to his house at about 2 p. m. If P. W. 1 had known as to who was the assailant of his mother by then, it is quite reasonable and natural for P-W. 1 to have disclosed that fact to P. W. 5. What we find from the evidence of p. W. 5 is that P. W. 1 having gone to her house at Ujre. , informed her about the death of his mother and she went to the house of the deceased along with P. W. 1. Her evidence also would suggest that all that p. W. 1 had told her was about the death of his mother which is an undisputed fact and that was known, not only to P. W. 1 but also to several other people by that time. The very fact that P. W. 5 is totally silent as regard the as sailant of the deceased in her deposition. , would lead to the reasonable inference that P. W. 1 did not inform her as to who the assailant was, as most probably he himself was not sure of the assailant of the deceased even by that time. ( 23 ) P. W. 1 would say that having brought P. W, 5 from Ujre to his house at about 2 p. m. , he again left for Belthangady to inform about the incident to P. W. 10 Laxmanagowda and also to his brother Baby who was working under P. W. 10. ( 23 ) P. W. 1 would say that having brought P. W, 5 from Ujre to his house at about 2 p. m. , he again left for Belthangady to inform about the incident to P. W. 10 Laxmanagowda and also to his brother Baby who was working under P. W. 10. The conduct of P. W. 1 again going to Belthangady, to inform about the incident to P. W. 10 and his younger brother, after leaving P. W. 5 in his house looks rather strange. According to him he had gone to Ujre in the morning and brought P. W. 5 to his house at about 2 p. m. It is in his evidence that one has to pass through Belthargady to go to Ujre and that being so he must have passed through Belthangady twice - once while going to Ujre before 2 p. m. on that day to bring P. W. 5 and again while returning home with P. W. 5. If really he wanted to inform about the incident to PW 10 and his brother baby, certainly he would have informed them either while going to Ujre in the morning or at least while returning from Ujre along with pw. 5 to his house. However, he states that he again left for Belthangady to inform about the incident to pw. 10 and his brother Baby who was working under PW. 10 and told pw. 10 that the accused had stabbed and killed his mother Janaki when pw. 10 asked him to report the matter to the Police. PWs. 1 and 10 both say that PW. 10 wrote the complaint ex. P. 1 on information given by pw. 1 and it was at about 3 p. m. on 25-6-1981. This material on record would show that PW. 1 had disclosed for the first time at about 3 p. m. On 25-6-1981 that it was the accused who had caused the death of his mother janaki, when he narrated the incident before PW. 10. , after he is alleged to have seen the accused stabbing his, mother at about mid-night on 24-6-1981. The prosecution failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that PW. 1 had disclosed the name of the accused as the assailant of the deceased soon after the incident, although he claims to have informed some of the neighbours. 10. , after he is alleged to have seen the accused stabbing his, mother at about mid-night on 24-6-1981. The prosecution failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that PW. 1 had disclosed the name of the accused as the assailant of the deceased soon after the incident, although he claims to have informed some of the neighbours. ( 24 ) IT is seen from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 10 that the first information ex. P. 1 came to be drawn up at about 3 p. m. , on 25-6-1981 long after the occurrence which was at mid-night on 24-6-1981. The investigation as commenced on the basis of Ex. P. 1 which reached the Police station at Uppinangadi at 5-30 p. m. on 25-6-1981. The importance of a first information report in a criminal case cannot be over-looked. Time and again this has been emphasised by judicial pronouncements. In Thullia kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR. 1973 SC. 501, the Supreme Court dealing with the importance of the first information report in a criminal case, observed thus:" First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of Commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witness present, at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creatures of afterthought. On-account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. "in the case on hand, as we could see from the evidence placed by the prosecution that the first information report reached the police station at Uppinangadi about 17 1/2 hours after the time of the occurrence. According to the prosecution, both p. Ws. "in the case on hand, as we could see from the evidence placed by the prosecution that the first information report reached the police station at Uppinangadi about 17 1/2 hours after the time of the occurrence. According to the prosecution, both p. Ws. 1 and 2 identified the accused as the assailant of the deceased at the time of the commission of the offence which was at mid night on 24-6-1981. As we stated supra, for the first time, p. w. 1 disclosed this fact to p,w. 10 at 3 p. m. at Belthangady on 25-6-1981. This is evidenced by his complaint Ex. P. . 1. No doubt p. w. 1 has stated in his evidence that soon after the occurrence he had disclosed the incident to several other persons including P. WS. 5 and 6. It is also in his evidence that he specifically disclosed to Jankyaru Janaki, mother of p. w. 6 and also p. w. 6 that it was the accused who had caused the death of his mother. Some of the witnesses to whom p. w. 1 alleged to have disclosed that the accused was the assailant, have not been examined and some of those examined have not deposed in their evidence that they have been told so by p. w. 1. However, the fact remains that for the first time, p. w. 1 appeared to have disclosed that it was the accused who had caused the death of his mother, only to p,w. 10 at 3 pm. when the complaint Ex. P 1 was got written through p. w. 10 by p. w. 1 before presenting it to the police station at Uppinangadi. The only probable explanation the prosecution could adduce for the delay in lodging the first information report as could be ascertained from the nature of the evidence produced in the case, is that p. w. 1, in the meanwhile, had gone to fetch P. W. 5 his mother's sister from ujre and again he went to Belthangady to inform about the incident to p. w. 10 and his younger brother Baby and so there was delay in lodging the complaint at the police station. These circumstances may not sound reasonable for the delay in lodging of the complaint. It is not as if P. w. 1 did not know the importance of informing the police about the occurrence at the earliest. These circumstances may not sound reasonable for the delay in lodging of the complaint. It is not as if P. w. 1 did not know the importance of informing the police about the occurrence at the earliest. He has stated in his evidence that he had an idea of informing the police immediately after the death of his mother. He says the police station at Uppinangadi is about ten miles. No doubt according to him, one has to walk the distance; no conveyances available. Still he could have walked the distance and lodged the complaint at the earliest. , if really he had known the assailant. He did not do so. On the other hand, what he did was, that he practically wasted the time, if it was true, in going to Ujre to bring P. W. 5 and once again going to Belthangady to inform the incident to pw. 10 and his younger brother Baby. He could have sent either PW. 6 or his brother dayananda, two of his relatives whom he brought to his house immediately after the incident to fetch PW. 5 and to inform P. w. 10 and his brother at Belthangady. He has not assigned any particular reason for his going personally either to fetch P. W. 5 from her house in Ujre or again going to belthangady to inform PW. 10 and his younger brother without going to the police station to lodge the complaint. It is not his case that he went to Belthangady to get a complaint drafted through P. W. 10. His evidence is that when he informed pw. 10 about the incident, PW. 10 asked him to report the matter to the police, so he got the complaint written through pw. 10. It looks quite probable from the circumstances of the case that P. W. 1 appeared to have gained so much time to lodge the complaint with the police as he was not sure about the assailant of his mother. ( 25 ) IN this context, the motive put forward by the prosecution assumes importance. 10. It looks quite probable from the circumstances of the case that P. W. 1 appeared to have gained so much time to lodge the complaint with the police as he was not sure about the assailant of his mother. ( 25 ) IN this context, the motive put forward by the prosecution assumes importance. According to the prosecution, the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife and as such there used to be quarrels between them and on the last occasion during one such quarrel which was about a week earlier to the date of occurrence, the accused is said to have beaten the deceased and went away from the house. If P. Ws. 1 and 2 had seen the accused committing the crime, there was no reason why a prompt complaint was not lodged with the police, especially when PW 1 had entertained an idea of informing the police immediately after the occurrence. The only probable inference that can be drawn from the circumstances of the case for the delay in lodging the complaint, in our opinion is, that both PWs. 1 and 2 did not know who the assailant of their mother was, as the crime must have been committed either while they were asleep and they noticed the death of their mother only in the morning or that they could not identify the assailant, because the assault on the deceased was in the dead of night and the assailant must have left the place in darkness after dealing a single blow and that was why it took so much time for PW 1 and others who were interested in the deceased to bring out a complaint after due deliberation and consultation ultimately fixing up the accused as the assailant because of the strained relations between him and the deceased. Thus, in our considered opinion, the delay in lodging the complaint in the instant case is fatal to the prosecution and it throws considerable doubt as to the veracity of the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 respecting the occurrence and the genuineness of the case put up against the accused. ( 26 ) THIS takes us to the evidence let in by the prosecution relating to the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW 7 Annu Pujary and PW 3 janardhana Poojary. 1 and 2 respecting the occurrence and the genuineness of the case put up against the accused. ( 26 ) THIS takes us to the evidence let in by the prosecution relating to the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW 7 Annu Pujary and PW 3 janardhana Poojary. PW 7 claims to be the brother-in-law of the accused. According to him, Janaki was his mother's younger sister's daughter. His evidence is that the accused went to his house at Naitharpu on a sunday about four months before he gave evidence in the trial court, and asked for some money saying that he intended to go up the Ghats. He said he had no money but the accused pressed him to give some money. Ultimately he took the accused to PW 8 Janardhana Poojary to secure money from him who was found taking coffee in a hotel at a place called Gerukatte. PW 7 requested pw 8 to lend some money to the accused when pw 8 asked pw 7 where the accused was. P. W 7 told him that the accused was waiting outside. Then pw 8 and p. w 7 both went to the place where the accused was waiting. P. W 8 asked the accused as to why he wanted money when the accused told pw 8 that he had committed a blunder and when pw 8 further questioned him as to what blunder he had committed, the accused told p. w 8 that in a drunken state he had stabbed his wife on the previous night, pw 7 further says that when p. w 8 asked the accused where the knife was, the accused removed the knife from his waist and produced it before p. w 8. ( 27 ) P. W 8 says in his evidence that on 28-6-1981, at about 10 a. m. when he was in the hotel of one narayana Shetty along with one Chandrashekar, pw 7 approached him for a loan and told him that he was in need of money because he had to pay cash to his brother-in-law who desired to go up the ghats, pw 8 then asked pw 7 where his brother-in-law was, when PW 7 told him that he was waiting just outside the hotel, pw 8 further proceeds to say in his evidence that then he and Chandrashekhara along with P. w 7 went out and saw the accused whom he knew earlier and asked the accused as to what the matter was. The accused told him that he had committed a blunder, that he had stabbed his wife with a knife on one night and so he wanted to go up the ghats, pw 8 then asked the accused, with what weapon he stabbed his wife. Then the accused took out a knife from his waist and told him showing the knife that with that knife he had stabbed his wife. ( 28 ) THE evidence of PW. 7 would disclose that what the accused told pw 8 when questioned in his (PW. 7's)presence by pw'8 was that he had stabbed his wife on the previous night in a drunken state; whereas the version of PW. 8 would go to show that the accused had made a clean confession before him that had stabbed his wife on one night with the knife he produced before him. There is considerable variance in the version of pws. 7 and 8 as to the actual statement made by the accused. Now coming to the circumstances under which the accused is said to have divulged the offence, it is the evidence of pw. 7 that the accused approached him for some money and since PW. 7 had no money with him, he took the accused to PW. 8 to arrange for a loan to the accused from pw. 8; whereas it is the say of PW. 8 that PW. 7 approached him for a loan as PW. 7 was in need of money because he had to pay cash to the accused who desired lo go up the ghats. If PW. 7 had approached PW. 8 to arrange for a loan to the accused from pw. 8; whereas it is the say of PW. 8 that PW. 7 approached him for a loan as PW. 7 was in need of money because he had to pay cash to the accused who desired lo go up the ghats. If PW. 7 had approached PW. 8 for a loan for himself as he was in need of money, what was the need for pw. 8 to enquire about the accused and but for his enquiry about the accused and finding the accused outside the hotel, there was no opportunity for the accused to make confession before PW- 8 in the presence of PW- 7. Besides there was no need for the accused to divulge the commission of the offence or produce the the knife before PW. 8. ( 29 ) PW. 7 is the brother-in-law of the accused. He does not claim to have made any enquiry with the accused when the accused went to his house and told him that he intended to go up the ghats so he wanted some money. On the other hand, he simply took the accused to PW 8 for securing a loan from him for the accused as he had no money with him. Both PWS. 7 and 8 made it appear that when PW. 8 asked the accused why he wanted the money the accused told him that he had committed a blunder and when PW. 8 further questioned him as to what blunder he had committed, the accused straightaway disclosed that he had killed his wife and also produced the knife used for the commission of the offence by taking it out from his waist. The prosecution wanted to impress upon the court through the evidence of these two witnesses that not only the accused confessed the guilt before them but also carried the weapon of offence all along and produced it before P. W. 8 without any reasonable or probable cause. The narration of the events by PWS. 7 and 8 as to the circumstances under which the accused made the extra-judicial confession before them and the artificial and improbable nature of it would make us to suspect the veracity and truthfulness of the evidence of PWS. 7 and 8. The narration of the events by PWS. 7 and 8 as to the circumstances under which the accused made the extra-judicial confession before them and the artificial and improbable nature of it would make us to suspect the veracity and truthfulness of the evidence of PWS. 7 and 8. A close scrutiny of their evidence in the surrounding circumstances of the case does not persuade us to place implicit faith in their version. Thus the. circumstance of extra-judicial confession also fails. ( 30 ) ON a careful consideration of the entire evidence and also for the reasons stated supra, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled aginst the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The assessment of the evidence and the conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge do not appear to us to be correct. The final result being the accused is entitled for acquittal. ( 31 ) BEFORE we part with this case, we would like to say a few words about the legal aid to be provided to the accused in a trial before a court of sessions where the accused has no sufficient means to engage a pleader, at the state expense for his defence. ( 32 ) SECTION 304 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'code') provides that wherein a trial before the Court of Session the accused is not represented by a pleader and where it appears to the court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. It is also provided therein that the high Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules inter alia providing for the mode of selecting the pleaders for the defence of the accused in such cases. ( 33 ) IN the Criminal Rules of practice, 1968 which was made in exercise of the powers conferred by article 227 of the Constitution, the high Court of Karnataka made provisions under Chapter VIII to provide for legal assistance at the State expense to an accused who is tried for an offence punishable with Death and where it appears to the Session Judge that the accused is not possessed of sufficient means to engage a pleader for his defence. Rule 3 (a) under Chapter viii provides that the Sessions judges shall select and appoint a suitable legal practitioner as Standing counsel for a period not exceeding one year. Sub-rule (b) provides that in any case in which an accused is tried for an offence punishable with death and it appears to the sessions Judge that the accused is not possessed of sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Sessions Judge shall make an order in writing appointing a Standing Counsel to defend such accused. Rule 5 provides for payment of the fee to the Standing counsel engaged for defending an accused under Rule 3. These Rules were framed before Section 304 of the Code was enacted and placed on the statute. The ambit of providing legal aid to an accused at fhe State expense has been enlarged by the provisions of Section 304 of the Code wherein it is stipulated that in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader the Court shall asssign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. So Section 304 embraces not only a case which fhe accused is tried for an offence punishable with death but also all other kinds of cases which are to be tried before a Court of Session. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 304 empowers the High Court to make rules with previous approval of the State Government providing for the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under sub-section (1), the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the courts and the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government etc. The rules framed by the High Court contained in Chapter VIII providing for the legal assistance at the State expense to an undefended accused in a case triable for an offence punishable with death is not comprehensive to meet the requirements of S. 304 which came on the statute after the aforesaid rules were framed. Thus there is a need to amend the existing rules providing for legal aid to an undefended accused in a Court of session at the State expense to meet the requirements S. of 304. Thus there is a need to amend the existing rules providing for legal aid to an undefended accused in a Court of session at the State expense to meet the requirements S. of 304. ( 34 ) THE importance of selecting and appointing a suitable legal practitioner as a Standing Counsel to provide his services to an accused who is facing a trial before the Court of Session and who is not possessed of sufficient means to engage a pleader for his defence cannot be overlooked. The object of providing legal aid to an accused facing trial before the Court of Session where the accused is not possessed of sufficient means to engage a pleader and arrange for his own defence, is to provide him assistance of a suitable legal practitioner for his defence, keeping in view the serious and grave nature of the offence for which he stands charged. A duty is cast upon the Sessions Judge while selecting and appointing legal practitioners as standing Counsel, to appoint legal practitioners of real and marked ability and of sufficient experience from young men to defend an accused in a trial before the Court of Session. Providing legal aid at the expense of the State to an accused who is not possessed of sufficient means to engage a pleader of his choice for his defence at such trial is not a mere formality for the sake of complying with the provisions of S. 304 of the Code but one of real substance and genuine assistance for an accused who is not in a position to defend himself by engaging a suitable lawyer of his choice in serious offences triable before the Court of session. When a pleader is appointed at the State expense to defend the accused, it should not be a matter of patronage. Care should be taken not to appoint raw and inexperienced juniors to defend the accused in the Court of Session. However in some of the case that came up before us in appeals, where the accused were defended in the Court of Session by the Standing Counsel, the assistance of the Standing Counsel given to them for their defence appeared to be more a formality than providing proper assistance, as their defence was not properly conducted probably due to wrong selection and appointment of the Standing Counsel by the Sessions Judges. 34. 34. In this case the first information report was lodged before the police about 171/2 hours after the occurrence. PW. 1, said to be the witness to the occurrence, was the first informant. On the evidence produced in the case, it had transpired that pw. 1 got the complaint written through PW. 10 at about 3 p. m. on 25-6-1981 whereas the commission of the offence was at about midnight on 24-6-1981. It also transpired from the evidence that PW, 1 for the first time disclosed the name of the accused as the assailant to PW. 10 when the complaint was written by him at Belthangady. In the circumstances of the case. PW. 10 appeared to be a material witness inasmuch as it was to this witness PW. 1 had disclosed that it was the accused who had caused the death of his mother, at the time he got the complaint written through him. In the normal course, this witness should have been cross-examined, especially in view of the fact that the two witnesses examined earlier by the prosecution viz. , PWs. 5 and 6 had not stated in their evidence that PW. 1 had disclosed to them that it was the accused who had caused the death of his mother. It is revealed from the records that the accused was unable to arrange for his own defence and he was defended at the trial by the Standing Counsel. On going through the evidence, it appears to us that the case of the accused was not properly conducted and his defence was not effectively focussed. We say so because PW. 10 who is an important witness so far as the prosecution is concerned, was not cross-examined and further in the course of the cross-examination of PW. 2, a very damaging suggestion was made to PW. 2 reads : "it is not correct to say that when I saw my father for the first time after lighting the lamp, he was holding the knife which was in his leather-sheath". The above suggestion was totally inconsistent with the defence of the accused, his defence being one of total denial. 2 reads : "it is not correct to say that when I saw my father for the first time after lighting the lamp, he was holding the knife which was in his leather-sheath". The above suggestion was totally inconsistent with the defence of the accused, his defence being one of total denial. We hope that the Sessions judges would bestow greater care and foresight while making selection and appointment of the legal practitioner as Standing Counsel to defend the accused in serious cases triable by the Court of Session so as to provide proper legal assistance to the accused who is unable to defend himself by engaging a counsel of his choice. We feel it appropriate to suggest that the High Court may issue proper instructions to the Sessions Judges in the mode of selecting and appointing suitable legal practitioners as standing Counsel. ( 35 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore in Sessions Case No. 4/1981 is set aside and the accused-appellant (Annu Poojary) is acquitted of the offence charged. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.