JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 31-8-1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur whereby the appellant Gulab has been convicted for the offence u/s 302 for having committed the murder of his elder brother, Vala, on the night intervening March 9 and 10, 1977, and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Vala, alongwith his wife and children, was living separately from his father Harji (PW l). The appellant was also living with the deceased for the past one year.Some dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased near about the time of Diwali festival, as a result of which the appellant started living with his uncle Somji (PW 10) but after sometime the appellant again started living with the deceased. On the night intervening March 9 and 10, 1977, which happened to be the third day after the Holi festival, the appellant, the deceased and his wife Smt. Daludi (PW 13) were sleeping in the 'Barsal' of the house of the deceased. Kumari Shanti (PW 7) daughter of the deceased was sleeping alongwith the deceased. At about midnight Dauldi woke up and found the appellant inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased with a sword. Smt. Daludi went to inform Nathu (PW 4) and told him that the appellant and the deceased were fighting. Nathu came with Smt. Daludi to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying on the ground and the appellant was missing. Thereafter Nathu went to inform Harji (PW 1), the father of the appellant and the deceased. Harji alongwith, Nathu, Bhimji (PW 5) and Shambhu (PW 6) went to the house of the deceased and found that neither Daludi nor the appellant was there and the deceased was lying on the ground and was dead at that time. Bhimji (PW5) and Dhanna (PW 9) proceeded to police out post and to inform the police about the incident. There they met Dhaneshwar (PW 8) who was constable posted at police outpost Kuan. Dhaneshwar came alongwith Dhanna and Bhimji and two other constables to the place of occurrence and after seeing the scene he stated that the report about the incident should be lodged at police station Galiyakot. There they met Dhaneshwar (PW 8) who was constable posted at police outpost Kuan. Dhaneshwar came alongwith Dhanna and Bhimji and two other constables to the place of occurrence and after seeing the scene he stated that the report about the incident should be lodged at police station Galiyakot. Thereupon Harji alongwith Dhanna, Nathu and Dhaneshwar went to police station Galiakot & lodged an oral report (ExPl) at police station Galiakot on 10th March 1977 at 12' O'clock in the noon. On the basis of the said report a case u/s 302 I.P,C. was registered and the in vestigation was commenced. Daulatsingh (PW 21) was the S.H.O. of police station Galiakot at that time and after the report had been lodged he procceed to the scene of the occurrence. After reaching there, he prepared the memo of site inspection (Ex. P.2) site plan (Ex. P.3) and the Panchayatnama (Ex. P. 5). He also seized the blood stained clothes and earth from the scene of the occurrence vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 2). The post mortem examination of the dead body of Vala was conducted by Dr. Mohammad Shamsujuha (PW 22), Medical Officer, Galiakot on 11th March, 1977 at 10 a.m. and according to the post mortem report (Ex. P. 16) there were seven incised wounds on the person of the deceased. According to the opinion of the medical Officer, the death was caused due to coma and syncope as a result of shock and haemorrhage following fatal wounds,and that the wounds were homicidal and all were ante-mortem. Smt. Daludi was also medically examined by Dr. Shamsujuha on March 11, 1977 at 5 p.m.and one incised wound was found on her person vide injury report (Ex. P. 17). The appellant was produced at police station Galiakot on 12th March, 1977 and at the time of his arrest the sword and a bundle containing clothes viz., a 'dhoti' and a bushirt were recovered vide memo (Ex. P.8). The sword as well as clothes which were recovered from the possession of the appellant were sent for chemical and serological examination and the reports (Ex. P.12) and (Ex.P14) showed that the sword as well as the clothes were stained with human blood. P.8). The sword as well as clothes which were recovered from the possession of the appellant were sent for chemical and serological examination and the reports (Ex. P.12) and (Ex.P14) showed that the sword as well as the clothes were stained with human blood. After completing the investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sagwada who committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. Thereupon a charge u/s 302 I.P.C. was read over to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In support of its case the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Harji (PW 1) is the father of the deceased as well as the appellant who had lodged the report (Ex. P.1). Jagji (PW 2) and Dola (PW 3) are the attesting witnesses of the memos (Ex. P.2) relating to the site inspection, site plan (Ex. P. 3) and seizure memo (Ex.P.4) relating to seizure of clothes etc. Nathu (PW 4), Bhimji (PW 5) and Shambhu (PW 6) are the persons who had accompanied Hatji to the house of the deceased after Harji was informed by Nathi that the appellant and the deceased were fighting. Kum. Shanti (PW7) is the daughter of the deceased who was sleeping on the cot of the deceased at the time of the incident. Dhaneshwar (PW 8) is the constable attached to police out post Kuan who visited the scene of the occurrence after the incident and he alongwith Harji went to P.S. Galiakot for the purpose of lodging the report. Dhanna (PW 9) had gone to the police outpost Kuan for the purpose of informing the police about the incident and he returned to the scene of the occurrence alongwith Dhaneshwar. Soma (PW 10) is the uncle of the deceased and the appellant. Bhoora (PW 11) had visited the house of the deceased on the evening prior to the incident and had met the appellant there. Punja (PW 12) has deposed about the quarrel which had taken place between the appellant and the deceased shortly before Diwali festival and that thereafter the appellant has started living with his uncle and after some time he again came back to the house of the deceased. Smt. Daludi (PW 13) is the wife of the deceased who was present at the time of the incident. Smt. Daludi (PW 13) is the wife of the deceased who was present at the time of the incident. Jeeva (PW 14) is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the deceased and the appellant and has deposed with regard to the sword and has identified the sword which was produced by the appellant as belonging to him. Kantilal (PW 15), Pratap (PW 16). Rama (PW 17) and Dhanji (PW 18) have been examined to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. Dhoola (PW 19) is the grandfather of Smt. Daludi and has deposed about the statement made to him by Daludi after she had come to his house after the incident. Parmanand (PW 20) is the attesting witness of memo (Ex.P. 8) regarding the arrest of the appellant and the production of the sword and the clothes at police station Galiakot. Daulatsingh (PW 21) is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in the case. Dr. Mohammad Shamsujuha (PW 22) was the medical officer who has proved the post mortem report (Ex. P. 16), and the injury report (Ex P 17). 4. The appellant during the course of his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied that he was in the house of the deceased on the night of the incident and that any quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased. He has also denied that he had brought a sword from the house of Jeeva. He has denied that he had produced any sword or clothes before the police. He has stated that he was working as a labourer outside and he was not taking the witnesses with him and since he was earning money the witnesses have deposed against him. He also stated that on the date of the occurrence he had gone outside in connection with the work and it is wrong to say that he had killed the deceased. 5. He also stated that on the date of the occurrence he had gone outside in connection with the work and it is wrong to say that he had killed the deceased. 5. The Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellant was staying alongwith the deceased and that quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased at the time of the Diwali festival but thereafter the appellant again started living with the deceased and on the night of the incident he was staying in the house of the deceased and that he had inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased with the sword as a result of which he died. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion the Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of Kum. Shanti (PW 7) and Smt. Daludi (PW 13), the two eye-witnesses of the occurrence as well as on the evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant and the fact that the appellant surrendered and produced the sword and clothes which were found stained with human blood. In view of the findings aforesaid the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the offence u/s 302 1PC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Shri Hasti Mal Parakh, who has addressed the court as Amicus Curiae, and Shri Niyajuddin Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. In order to establish the guilt of the appellant the prosecution has mainly relied on the testimony of the eye-witnesses namely Kum. Shanti (PW 7) and Smt. Daludi (PW 13), the daughter and the wife of the deceased respectively and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant as well as the fact that the appellant surrendered himself in the police station Galiakot and at the time of his surrender he produced the sword as well as clothes which were found to be stained with human blood. 8. We may first take up the evidence of the two eye witnesses produced by the prosecution. Smt. Daludi (PW I3) is the wife of the deceased who has stated that the appellant was living in the house of her husband alongwith him and that on the night of the incident she as well as her husband and the appellant were all sleeping in the 'Parsaal' of the house. Smt. Daludi (PW I3) is the wife of the deceased who has stated that the appellant was living in the house of her husband alongwith him and that on the night of the incident she as well as her husband and the appellant were all sleeping in the 'Parsaal' of the house. All of them were sleeping on separate cots and Kum. Shanti, her daughter was sleeping with the deceased. She also stated that in the night the appellant got up and killed her husband with a sword. According to her the appellant gave 4-5 blows and thereafter he ran away. She also stated that about two months prior to the incident a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased and after the said quarrel the appellant had gone away and started living at the house of his uncle Soma. She also stated that on the date of the incident her husband had gone for harvesting rice and he had told her that she should not give meals to the appellant and if she give meals to the appellant he should kill her and, therefore, she did not give meals to the appellant when he returned. She also stated that after the appellant had run away after assaulting the deceased she first went to the house of Gautama and from there she went to the house of Nathia and brought Nathia to her house and Nathia, after seeing the body of her husband, had felt that he was dead and thereafter she went to her father in law's house. She also stated that the appellant also gave blows with the sword to her and that her injuries were medically examined. She expressed her inability to give any reason as to why the appellant and the deceased used to fight. Although in her statement on examination-in-chief she has definitely asserted that the appellant was the person who had inflicted injuries on the person of her husband with a sword but during the course of cross-examination she stated that she did not see as to which place the appellant gave blows with the sword on the person of her husband. Although in her statement on examination-in-chief she has definitely asserted that the appellant was the person who had inflicted injuries on the person of her husband with a sword but during the course of cross-examination she stated that she did not see as to which place the appellant gave blows with the sword on the person of her husband. She has also stated that at the time when the injuries were inflicted on the person of her husband it was dark and on account of darkness she could not see as to who had inflicted injuries on the person of her husband. She also stated that she could not say as to whether the appellant had left the house after she had gone to sleep and that she was saying that the appellant had killed her husband on the basis of suspicion. She further stated that she could not say if any other person came and killed her husband. In view of the replies that have been given by Smt. Daludi during the course of cross examination Shri Parakh has submitted that Smt. Daludi cannot be regarded as an eye witness of the incident in so far as the complicity of the appellant in the crime is concerned and that on the basis of the statement of Smt. Daludi it cannot be held that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. We find considerable force in the aforesaid contention of Shri Parakh. We find considerable force in the aforesaid contention of Shri Parakh. During the examination-in-chief Smt. Daludi has no doubt definitely asserted that it was the appellant who had inflicted 4-5 blows with a sword on the person of her husband as a result of which he died and this version given by Smt. Daludi also finds support from the testimony of her grandfather, Dhoola (PW 19), who has stated that Smt. Daludi had come to his house in village Ubli on the day after the incident and had told him that the appellant had given a blow on her hand with a sword and when he asked her as to why the appellant had given the blow she said that he had also killed her husband and during the course of cross examination he denied that Daludi had told him that on account of darkness she was not able to say as to who had killed her husband. We, however, find that during the course of cross examination Smt. Daludi has gone back on the aforesaid statement made by her during examination-in-chief and has stated that since it was dark at the time when the incident took place she could not say as to who had inflicted the injuries on the person of her husband and that it was quite possible that somebody else may have come and inflicted injuries on her husband and that when she said that the appellant had killed her husband it was only on the basis of suspicion. This would show that during the course of cross-examination Smt. Daludi has made statements which go contrary to her statement made during examination in-chief about the appellant being the person who had inflicted the. injuries on the person of the deceased on the night of the occurrence. In view of the aforesaid inconsistencies between the statement of Smt. Daludi during examination-in-chief and during cross-examination, we are of the view that it would not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of Smt. Daludi for the purpose of holding that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries with a sword on the person of the deceased on the night of the occurrence. We are, however, of the opinion that reliance can be placed on the testimony of Smt. Daludi to this extent that on the night of the occurrence the appellant as well as the deceased and Smt. Daludi were sleeping in the 'Saar of the house of the deceased and that Kum. Shanti was sleeping alongwith the deceased on the same cot. 9. Kum. Shanti (PW 7) is the daughter of the deceased and was aged about 7 years at the time of the incident. She has deposed that her father had been killed and that the appellant had killed her father with a sword. She has also stated that after killing her father the appellant had run away and that thereafter she had gone alone to the house of Gautma. She also stated that at the time when her father had been killed it was night. During the course of cross examination she stated that she was herself aware that her father had been killed and that her grandfather had not told her about it. She also stated tint she was sleeping with her father and that she woke up at the time when the appellant was inflicting blows on her father and that thereafter he ran away. She expressed her inability to say as to why her father and uncle (appellant) were fighting. She has denied that her mother had woken her up and has stated that she woke up herself. She has admitted that she is living with her grandfather but she has denied that her grandfather had told her that the appellant had killed her father and has stated that she had herself seen him killing her father. 10. Shri Parakh has submitted that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Km. Shanti who is a child witness. In this regard the sub-mission of Shri Parakh was that before recording the statements of Km. Shanti the Sessions Judge ought to have put certain preliminary questions in order to satisfy himself that she understood the difference between truth and was a competent witness. On a perusal of her statement we find that the aforesaid submission of Shri Parakh is without substance. It is true that at the commencement of the statement of Km. Shanti there is no record of any preliminary questions being put by the Sessions Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that Km. On a perusal of her statement we find that the aforesaid submission of Shri Parakh is without substance. It is true that at the commencement of the statement of Km. Shanti there is no record of any preliminary questions being put by the Sessions Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that Km. Shanti was competent to depose before the court. But at the end of the statement the Sessions Judge has appended a note wherein it is mentioned that after the necessary questions had been put the court was satisfied that the girl can assist the court by giving answers to the questions connected with the case and therefore her statement was recorded. This would show that the statement of Km. Shanti was recorded by the Sessions Judge after he was satisfied that she was in a position to answer the questions connected with the case. 11. Shri Parakh has pointed out that Km. Shanti, during the course of her statement in examination-in-chief, has stated that a chimney was burning at the time of the incident and there was light of the chimney. According to Shri Parakh the aforesaid statement of Km. Shanti is false inasmuch as from the evidence of Nathu (P.W. 4) it appears that when to the house of the deceased he struck a match and in the light of the match he saw the deceased lying dead. Shri Parakh has also referred to the statement of Harji (P.W. 1) that after they had reached at the house of the deceased, Nathia had stuck a match by which a piece of wood was set on fire and in the light of fire they saw the deceased lying dead. Shri Parakh has submitted that from the evidence of Nathia (P.W. 4) and (P.W. 1) it is clear that it was completely dark in the 'Saal' where the deceased was sleeping and that Km. Shanti was not right in saying that a chimney was burning at that time and that Km. Shanti could not have seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased. From the evidence of Nathu (P.W. 4) and Harji (P.W. 1) it no doubt appears that it was dark inside the 'saal' where the dead body of Vala was lying at the time when they reached there. Shanti could not have seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased. From the evidence of Nathu (P.W. 4) and Harji (P.W. 1) it no doubt appears that it was dark inside the 'saal' where the dead body of Vala was lying at the time when they reached there. But the memo of site inspection (Ex.P. 2) shows that a chimney was found near one of the cots and that the 'saal' has an open door. In view of the presence of the chimney, the possibility cannot be ruled out that chimney was burning at the time when the incident took place and it might have been extinguished on account of wind after the incident and before Nathu and Harji arrived there because the saal in which the incident had taken place has an open door. Moreover, even if the evidence of Km. Shanti about the existence of the light of the chimney is discarded, it has to be borne in mind that the incident had taken place an third day after the holi festival. Since Holi falls on Poornima, and the incident took place at about mid night on the third day after the holi festival, the moon would have arisen by that time. Shri Daulatsingh (PW 21), the Investigation Officer, has stated that moon had arisen at the time the incident took place. Moon fight could have entered in the 'saal where the incident took place through open door and in the light of the moon light it could have been possible for Km. Shanti to have seen the assailant of her father, especially when he happened to be her own uncle who had been sleeping in the same 'saal'. 12. Another criticism that has been made by Shri Parakh with regard to the testimony of Km. Shanti was that she did not mention about this fact that the appellant had killed her father either to Gautma or to her paternal aunt Jhabudi, who was present at the house of her grandfather when she reached there. In our opinion the aforesaid failure on the part of Km. Shanti to mention that she had seen the appellant killing her father either to Gautma or to her aunt Jhabudi at the house of her grand,father is not of material significance inasmuch as Km. In our opinion the aforesaid failure on the part of Km. Shanti to mention that she had seen the appellant killing her father either to Gautma or to her aunt Jhabudi at the house of her grand,father is not of material significance inasmuch as Km. Shanti was a young girl of seven years and at that time i.e. soon after the incident, she must be under a great shock and, therefore, she may not have told anything to these person. It is, however, not disputed her statement was recorded by the police on the next day i.e. 11th March 1977 and in that statement she had narrated the entire incident. 13. Another submission urged by Shri Parakh with regard to the testimony of Km. Shanti was that she has departed from her previous statement made to the police. During the course of cross examination she was confronted with two portions marked A.B. and C.D. in her police statement Ex. D. 2. In the portion marked A-B in her police statement Ex.. D. 2 Km. Shanti had stated that her mother had taken her to the house of Gautma whereas in the court she stated that she had gone alone to the house of Gautma. In the portion marked C-D in her police statement Km. Shanti had stated that she went to sleep in the night and her mother had woken her. In her statement before the trial court Km, Shanti has denied having made the aforesaid statement at the time of her examination by the police. In our opinion the aforesaid contractions which have been brought out between Ex. D. 2, the statement of Km. Shanti recorded by the police and in her statement before the trial court are not of any material significance and the aforesaid contradictions do not affect her testimony. 14. Another submission made by Shri Parakh with regard to the testimony of Km. Shanti was that during the course of examination she has stated she saw her uncle (the appellant) and her mother joint.y assaulting her father, and that her mother was not having a sword in her hand but she was pressing the deceased on the ground and not on the cot. It has been submitted by Shri Parakh that Km. Shanti was that during the course of examination she has stated she saw her uncle (the appellant) and her mother joint.y assaulting her father, and that her mother was not having a sword in her hand but she was pressing the deceased on the ground and not on the cot. It has been submitted by Shri Parakh that Km. Shanti has falsely implicated her mother in the crime and this fact shows that she has been tutored by her grandfather and, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of Shanti. Shri Parakh has also invited our attention to the various decisions relating to the appreciation of the testimony of child witnesses and has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the Present case reliance should not be placed on the testimony of Km. Shanti. 15. In so far as the testimony of a child witness is concerned the law is well settled that on account of tenderness of his age, a child is under the influence of the elders and, therefore, his evidence must be scrutinised with care and caution. The law in India, however, differs from the English law in the sense that while in English it is a matter of law, necessary that the testimony of the child witness should be corroborated by other evidence it is not so necessary in India, though the courts may look for corroboration for the testimony of the child witnesses as a matter of prudence. If, after a careful scrutiny of the testimony of the child witness, the court feels that the witness had given a natural account of the incident, the court can place reliance on the testimony of the child witness even though it may not have been corroborated by other evidence. 16. In the present case we have carefully considered the testimony of Km. Shanti and we find that she has given straight forward answers to the questions that have been put to her during the course of examination-in-chief as well as during the course of cross-examination. She has clearly and categorically stated that her father was killed by a sword and the appellant was the person who had killed him and that she had herself set the appellant assaulting her father. She has clearly and categorically stated that her father was killed by a sword and the appellant was the person who had killed him and that she had herself set the appellant assaulting her father. She has denied the suggestions that were made to her during the course of cross examination that she had been asked by her grandfather to say that it was the appellant who had killed her father. It is true that Km. Shanti had been staying with her grandfather, Harji after the incident. But in so far as Harji was concerned, the appellant as well as the deceased were his sons and we are unable to find any reason as to why Harji should have tutored Shanti in a way as to falsely implicate the appellant, who is his own son. After considering the testimony of Km. Shanti we are of the opinion that the version given by her appears to be true and natural and that reliance can be placed on her testimony in so far as she says that it was the appellant who had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with a sword which resulted in the death of the deceased on the night of the occurrence. 17. It may be observed that the testimony of Km. Shanti on two material aspects is corroborated by other evidence. Her statement that the appellant, the deceased, Smt. Daludi and she were sleeping in the 'saal' of the house of the deceased on the night of the occurrence and that she (Km. Shanti) was sleeping on the same cot with the deceased is corroborrted by Smt. Daludi (P.W. 13) and the site plan (Ex. P. 3) and the memo of site inspection (Ex. P. 2) which were prepared by the investigating officer Shri Daulatsingh (P.W. 21) on the next day, i.e. 10th March 1977, and which show the presence of three cots in the 'saal' of the house of the deceased. Bhoora (P.W. 11) has also deposed about the presence of the appellant in the house of the deceased on the evening prior to the incident. The testimony of Km. Bhoora (P.W. 11) has also deposed about the presence of the appellant in the house of the deceased on the evening prior to the incident. The testimony of Km. Shanti that soon after the incident the appellant ran away is corroborated by the testimony of Nathu (P.W. 4) who had come to the house of the deceased shortly after the incident and he found that deceased lying there but the appellant was not there. 18. We may now take up the evidence by the prosecution to prove the extra judicial confession. In this regard the prosecution has examined Kantilal (P.W. 15) Pratap (P.W. 16), Rama (P.W. 17) and Dhanji (P.W. 18). Kantilal (P.W. 15) happens to be cousin brother of the appellant and he has stated that two or three days after the incident the appellant came to his house in the evening at about 9-9.30 p.m. and called him and when he (Kantilal) asked as to who was there, the appellant disclosed his identity and thereupon Kantilal opened the door. After the appellant had entered the house Kantilal asked the appellant as to what is this that he had done and thereupon the appellant replied that whatever had to happen has happened and that he should be taken to such police station either at Gollakot or Dungarpur where he may not be subjected to beating. Kantilal has also stated that he asked the appellant as to where he was for so many days and that the appellant told him that he was at Dungarpur and as he did not hear anything there, he had come here. According to Kantilal the appellant was having with him a bag containing his clothes and a sword in his hand. Kantilal has stated that he asked the appellant as to whether he should call anybody and thereupon the appellant asked him to Kali Punja, Dhanji and Ramji. Kantilal went to the house of Punja but he was not found and thereupon he brought Dhanji, Ramji and Pratap with him and all of them, alongwith the appellant, went to police station Galiakot where they handed over the appellant there. Pratap (P.W. 16) supported the aforesaid version given by Kantilal (P.W. 15). Kantilal went to the house of Punja but he was not found and thereupon he brought Dhanji, Ramji and Pratap with him and all of them, alongwith the appellant, went to police station Galiakot where they handed over the appellant there. Pratap (P.W. 16) supported the aforesaid version given by Kantilal (P.W. 15). In his statement on examination-in-chief Pratap has stated that after he and other persons had arrived at the house of Kantilal they had asked the appellant that what is this that he had done and thereupon the appellant had replied that whatever had to happen has happened and that he should be handed over at the police station. According to this witness the appellant also stated that both the brothers were fighting and in anger he had killed the deceased. According to this witness the appellant had a sword and a bag with him and that thereafter they went to Galiakot police station alongwith the appellant. During the course of cross examination Pratap has however, stated that he did not have any talk with the appellant and that the talk which the appellant had was with Kantilal and that whatever he has stated on examination-in-chief was told to him by Kantilal. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Pratap during the course of cross-examination it cannot be said that the appellant had made any extra-judicial confession in his presence. Thus Pratap (P.W. 16) only seeks to corroborate the statement of Kantilal (P.W. 15) about the talk which had taken place between the appellant and Kantilal before the arrival of Pratap. To the same effect are the statements of Rama (P.W. 17) and Dhanji (P.W. 18), who have also referred to the talk between the appellant and Kantilal before their arrival. It can, therefore, be said that the evidence of Kantilal (P.W. 15) is the only direct evidence with regard to the extra judicial confession made by the appellant and Pratap (P.W. 16), Rama (P.W. 17) and Dhanji (P.W. 18) seeks to corroborate the testimony of Kantilal to this extent that soon after they arrived at the house of Kantilal, Kantilal had told them about the talk which he had with the appellant. 19. 19. Shri Parakh has submitted that on the basis of the evidence of Kantilal (PW 15) with regard to the talk which he had with the appellant it cannot be definitely said that the appellant had confessed to his having committed the murder of deceased. The submission of Shri Parakh was that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and that unless the language used by the accused in the extra judicial confession is clear and unambiguous reliance should not be placed on the same. 20. The relevant portion of the testimony of Kantilal wherein he refers to the extra judicial confession may be reproduced as under:- " rqeus ;g D;k dj fn;kA bl ij mlus tokc fn;k fd tks gksuk Fkk lks gks x;k] vc eq>s xfy;kdksV ;k MwWaxjiqj ,sls Fkkus esa ys tkvks tgkWa ekjihV u gksA " During the course of his statement on re-examination, Kantilal was asked by the Public Prosecutor as to what he understood by the words" " tks gksuk Fkk lks gks x;kA " Kantilal replied that according to him these words he meant that Vala has been killed and that he could not do anything now. On further cross examination by the counsel for the appellant Kantilal stated that what he has stated is the thought that occurred to him. 21. A perusal of the statement of Kantilal with regard to the extra judicial confession can be divided into the following parts: (1) After the appellant entered the house of Kantilal, Kantilal asked him the questions " rqeus ;g D;k dj fn;kA " meaning as to what was this that he (appellant) had done, (ii) The appellant in reply to this question stated " tks gksuk Fkk lks gks x;kA " meaning that whatever had to happen has happened. The appellant further added " vc eq>s xfy;kdksV ;k MwWaxjiqj ,sls Fkkus esa tkvks tgkWa ekjihV u gksA " indicating that the appellant wanted to surrender at a police station at Galiakot or Dungarpur where he would not be subjected to beating. (iii) Thereupon Kantilal asked the appellant a second question " rw brus fnu dgkWa jgkA " meaning as to where the appellant was for all these days. (iii) Thereupon Kantilal asked the appellant a second question " rw brus fnu dgkWa jgkA " meaning as to where the appellant was for all these days. (iv) In reply to the aforesaid question the appellant stated " esa MqWaxjiqj Fkk vkSj eq>s ogkWa dqN irk ugha yxk blfy, ;gkWa vk x;kA " meaning that he was at Dungarpur and since he did not receive any information there he had come here. If the aforesaid questions that were put by Kantilal to the appellant and the answers that were given by the appellant are considered in their proper context the only inference that can be drawn is that the first question that was put by Kantiial to the appellant related to the incident relating to the murder of Vala and the appellant instead of disowning any connection with the said incident stated that what ever had to happen had happened and that he was willing to surrender to the police. The only condition that the appellant had placed with regard to surrender to the police was that he should be taken to a police station at Galiakot or Dungarpur where he was not subjected to beating. The aforesaid statement of Kantilal with regard to the extra-judicial confession can,not be said to be vague or ambiguous. In our opinion the aforesaid statement of Kantilal clearly indicates that the appellant had admitted that he was responsible for the incident relating to the murder of Vala and that he was willing to surrender himself to the police. The subsequent conduct of the appellant in accompanying Kantilal, Pratap, Rama and Dhanji to police station Galiakot alongwith the clothes and the sword which were stained with human blood and surrendering himself there also lends support to the inference that when the appellant was saying that whatever had to happen has happened and that he may be taken to the police station he was confessing to the crime which had been committed by him in the village, viz. the murder of Vala. the murder of Vala. On the basis of the evidence of Kantilal (PW 15) viz., finds support from the testimony of Pratap (PW 16), Rama (PW 17) and Dhanji (PW 18) it can be concluded that 2-3 days after the incident the appellant had a feeling of remorse and on account of the said feeling of remorse he came to the house of Kantilal, who was none else than his cousin, and on being asked by Kantilal he confessed to his having committed the murder of his brother and asked Kantilal to take him to a police station where he would not be subjected to beating. 22. In addition to the aforesaid extra-judicial confession of the appellant the prosecution has also relied upon the conduct of the appellant in surrendering himself at police station Galiakot on 12th March, 1977 and producing a bag containing his clothes and a sword stained with blood. In so far as the production of the appellant alongwith the clothes and sword is concerned there is the evidence of Kantilal (PW 15), Pratap (PW 16), Rama (PW 17) and Dhaniji (PW 18) who had all accompanied the appellant to police station Galiakot and whose presence the appellant surrendered himself and also produced the clothes and sword stained with human blood. Ex. P. 8 is the memo which was prepared at police station Galiakot after personal search of the appellant and for the arrest of the appellant and for the seizure of the sword and the clothes which were having stains which appeared to be of blood. The sword and the clothes, viz., bushirt and 'dhoti' which were seized from the possession of the appellant were sent for chemical and serological examination. According to the report, Ex. P. 13, of the State Forensic Laboratory the sword as well as bushshirt and dhoti were found with blood stains. The report of the Serologist (Ex. P. 14) was that sword, the dhoti and bushirt were stained with human blood. The memo (Ex. P. 8) has been proved by Parmanand (PW 20) who is the attesting witness of the said memo and the investigating officer, Shri, Daulat Singh (PW 21). The report of the Serologist (Ex. P. 14) was that sword, the dhoti and bushirt were stained with human blood. The memo (Ex. P. 8) has been proved by Parmanand (PW 20) who is the attesting witness of the said memo and the investigating officer, Shri, Daulat Singh (PW 21). From the aforesaid evidence it is established that the appellant surrendered himself at police station Galiakot on 12-3-1977 and at the time of his surrender to the police he produced a sword and a bushshirt and a dhoti which were all found stained with human blood. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant in surrendering himself before the police station and producing the blood stained sword and dhoti and bushshirt is also a circumstances which connects the appellant with the crime. In this regard it may also be observed that the sword which has been produced by the appellant has been proved by Jeeva (PW 14) as belonging to him. Jeeva is the hrother-in-law (sister's husband) of the appellant and he has stated that a few days before the Holi festival there was a function at his house and that the appellant had attended the said function and that the appellant had come with a sword which he had placed on a peg. Jeeva has stated that his own sword was also hanging on the same peg and the appellant while leaving, took the sword of Jeeva and left his own sword there. Jeeva has identified the sword which was produced by the appellant at police station Galiakot on 12-3-77 as that belonging to him. From the aforesaid evidence of Jeeva it is established that the appellant was in possession of the sword which he produced at the police station from before the Holi festival and that he could have used the said sword in the commission of the crime. 23. On a perusal of the evidence as whole we are satisfied that on the basis of the ocular evidence of Km. 23. On a perusal of the evidence as whole we are satisfied that on the basis of the ocular evidence of Km. Shanti (PW 7), as well as the extra judicial confession made by the appellant to Kantilal (PW 15) and the fact that on the night of the incident the appellant was sleeping along with the deceased in the 'saail' of the house of the deceased and was not found in the said house after the incident and the further fact that the appellant surrendered at P.S. Galiakot on 12-3-1977 and while so surrendering produced a sword and a bushshirt and dhoti which were stained with human blood, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was the appellant who had inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased with a sword on the night intervening March 9 and 10, 1977 and that the said injuries resulted in the death of Vala on the spot. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and no ground is made out for interference with the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Judge for the said offence under section 302 IPC. 24. In the result we find no merit in the appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******