K. C. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) NASEEM Ahmad son of Abdul Hamid resident of village Burbanpur, police station Sheohara, district Bijnor has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated December 18, 1976 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. A-123 of 1975, convicting him under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment. ( 2 ) ON June 27. 1974 at about 11. 40 P. M. , Jagannath (P. W. 3) was on duty at Railway Station Ramnagar of the North. Eastern Railway. At that time 127 Up arrived from Moradabad. For purposes of clearing the line of a goods train which was stationed at the Ramnagar station be passed through compartment No. 7782a of 127 Up [train.- He had a lantern in his hand. He saw a man lying on the floor of the said compartment of 127 Up train who was covered with chadar. He met Tika Ram waterman on the way and asked him to awake the said person who was in the aforesaid compartment and, in the mean-time, he went to give signal to the goods train. On return after clearing the line of the goods train Jagannath (P. W. 3) again met Tika Ram aforesaid. Tika Ram told him that there were blood marks in the compartment where the person pointed out by Jagannath (P. W. 3) earlier was lying. Jagannath (P. W. 3) sent Tika Ram to call Rafiq Ahmad (P. W. 4) the station master. He thereafter telephoned the local police and sent a memo (Ex. Ka 5) intimating that one man was lying on the floor of the aforesaid compartment. The police was asked to attend immediately. After receipt of the message constable Rajendra Prasad (P. W. 7) prepared a chick at about 12. 15 A. M. , vide Ex. Ka 5 at Police Station Ramnagar. He also entered a case in the General Diary vide Ex. Ka 6. The papers were thereafter received by Han Singh Tomar (P. W. 8) at about 8. 30 A. M. through constable Budgi Singh while he was on gasht duty. Along with the constable and other police personnel he went to the spot and saw the dead body lying on the floor of the compartment. Ka 6. The papers were thereafter received by Han Singh Tomar (P. W. 8) at about 8. 30 A. M. through constable Budgi Singh while he was on gasht duty. Along with the constable and other police personnel he went to the spot and saw the dead body lying on the floor of the compartment. He found that the deceased had received one firearm injury in his chest. He sealed the dead body and sent the same for postmortem to Kashipur Civil Hospital through constable Abdul Wahid (P. W. 5) and Jagdish Chandra. He took samples of blood stained plaster as well as plain plaster of the compartment and sealed them on the spot and prepared the memo (Ex. Ka 12 ). He also took into possession a second class ticket from the pocket of the trouser of the deceased. Since the murder had been detected within the jurisdiction of the G. R. P. therefore S. I. Tomar entrusted the investigation to Bhupal Singh, S. 0. G. R. P. Kathgodam who reached the spot on June 28, 1974 on receiving information from the station master. ( 3 ) THE dead body was taken in the sealed cover to the Kashipur Civil Hospital by the two constables Abdul Wahid (P. W. 5) and Jagdish Chandra. Dr. N. C. Panrle (P. W. 14) performed the postmortem of the dead body at about 9. A. M. At that time, Rais Ahmad real brother of the deceased, reached with Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) the hospital and identified the dead body to be that of his brother Kalua alias Mohd. Yaqub. On examination of the dead body, Dr. N. C. Pande (P. W. 14) found that the age of the deceased was about 22 and 25 years and about 37 hours had elapsed since his death. Rigor mortis had passed off. The antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased found were: 1. Multiple abrasion around right eye scattered in an area 10 cm x 10 cm. 2. Abrasion on left knee 3 cm x 3 cms. 3. Gunshot (firearm injury) on upper one third sternum 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x depth of thoracic cavity fracturing bone. Profused bleeding; corresponding hole in shirt and undershirt. Blackening and tatooing present which was suggestive of near range. ( 4 ) ON internal examination, Dr. Pande found hole and fracture in corresponding sternum of injury no. 3. Gunshot (firearm injury) on upper one third sternum 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x depth of thoracic cavity fracturing bone. Profused bleeding; corresponding hole in shirt and undershirt. Blackening and tatooing present which was suggestive of near range. ( 4 ) ON internal examination, Dr. Pande found hole and fracture in corresponding sternum of injury no. 3 and there was hole in lung corresponding to injury no 3 with massive haemorrhage 7 cm x 7 cm in area. The right lung had laceration passing to posterior wall fracturing fourth and fifth ribs. On dissecting posterior wall a shot was found which was sealed in a packet by Dr. Pande. In the stomach potato and Roti in semi-digested stage 3 ounce was found. J n the opinion of Dr. Pande, death was caused on account of firearm injury lacerating lung. ( 5 ) IN the opinion of Dr. N. C. Pande the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The dead body was thereafter handed over to Rais Ahmad, the real brother of the deceased, and his relation Abdul Hamid who took the same to their village for its burial. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as well as Basanta son of Lallu Singh and Budha son of Ghasita. Accused appellant Naseem Ahmad was charged for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code whereas the remaining two stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) AFTER examination of the oral and circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against Naseem Ahmad and convicted him under section 302 Indian Penal Code and awarded him life imprisonment. The other two accused Basanta and Budha were found not guilty and, therefore, acquitted. Being aggrieved, Nascem Ahmad bas come to this Court by way of this appeal. ( 7 ) THE entire evidence led by the prosecution can be divided into three parts. The first is the statement of Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15), Mohd. Ibrahim (P. W. 16), Hamid (P. W. 17) Sharif Abmad (P. W. 12) who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused appellant Naseem Abmad before the murder. ( 7 ) THE entire evidence led by the prosecution can be divided into three parts. The first is the statement of Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15), Mohd. Ibrahim (P. W. 16), Hamid (P. W. 17) Sharif Abmad (P. W. 12) who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused appellant Naseem Abmad before the murder. The second part of the evidence consisted of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Pir Bux (P. W. 18 ). The third part of the evidence led by the prosecution is the recovery of pistol at the instance of the accused appellant Naseem Ahmad. This recovery has been established by Kalimuddin (P. W. 22), Sharif Abmad (P. W. 12) and Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) S. O. Apart from the above, the prosecution also produced the report of the ballistic expert of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, dated December 18, 1974 (Ex, Ka 24) stating that the pallet (I. B. I) found in the body of the deceased had been fired at by the pistol marked 1/74 which had been recovered at the instance of the appellant Naseem Ahmad. ( 8 ) BEFORE us the recovery of the dead body from the compartment No. 7782a of 127 UP train had not been disputed. It appears to be of not much use to deal with the evidence leading to the recovery of the dead body from the compartment of the aforesaid train. We have already referred to the names of Jagannath (P. W. 3), Tika Ram waterman (PW. 2), Rafiq Ahmad (P. W. 4), constable Rajendra Prasad (P. W. 7) and S I. Han Singh Tomar (P. W. 8) which are relevant in this regard. Roles played by them have also been stated. ( 9 ) SHARIF Ahmad (P. W. 12) and Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15) stated that the accused Naseem Ahmad and Kalua went by bus from Burhanpur to Sheohara on June 25, 1974 at about 945 A. M. In that bus Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15) and Rashid also travelled upto Sheohara. From Sheohara Naseem Ahmad Kalua deceased went to Moradabad. The fact of their going to Moradabad by Sealdah train had been deposed to by Ibrahim (P. W. 16) and Hamid (P. W. 17 ). From Sheohara Naseem Ahmad Kalua deceased went to Moradabad. The fact of their going to Moradabad by Sealdah train had been deposed to by Ibrahim (P. W. 16) and Hamid (P. W. 17 ). These two persons had also travelled by the same train and 8s stated by them, they were sitting in the same compartment in which accused appellant Naseem Ahmad and Kalua had travelled. Mohd. Ibrahim (P. W. 16) stated that he got down at Kanth whereas Hamid (P. W. 17) deposed that be travelled upto Moradabad with Naseem, the accused appellant and Kalua deceased who also got down at Moradabad. The statements of these witnesses prove that Kalua deceased was in the company of Naseem Ahmad, the accused appellant, on June 27, 1974 upto Moradabad. Naseem Ahmad, the appellant, returned back to his village Burhanpur of which place the deceased Kalua was also a resident, all alone. Sharif Ahmad, who is also a brother of the deceased Kalua alias Mohd. Yaqub, seeing Naseem Ahmad all alone at about 11 A. M. on June 28, 1974, asked Naseem about the whereabouts of his brother Kalua. Naseem kept mum and did not reply to Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12 ). On further enquiry being made by Pir Bux (P. W. J 8) and Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) he confessed that he had shot dead Kalua with a revolver in a compartment of the train going to Ramnagar between Ramnagar and Piru Madar. Naseem was thereafter tied with a rope and taken to police station and handed over there on June 28, 1974 at about 3. 30 P. M. ( 10 ) AT the police station he was interrogated by Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20 ). Naseem the appellant, told him and others present that he could hand over the revolver which was used by him in killing Kalua, the deceased. Karanti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) who was S. O. , Police station Sheohara at that time alongwith constables Amir Husain and Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13), Pir Bux (P. W. 18) and Kalimuddin (P. W. 22) went to the shop of the accused-appellant where its door was -opened by the key in the possession of the appellant and the revolver was taken out and handed over to Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20 ). The statement made by the appellant Naseem Ahmad that he could give the revolver with which he had committed the murder of the deceased Katua is noted in the General Diary (Ex. Ka 17 ). On reaching the shop Naseem Ahmad, the accused appellant, took out the revolver (Ex. II) and handed over the same along with (he live pallet (Ex. III) and empty pallet (Ex. IV ). Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) took in his possession the lock (Ex. VI) and the key (Ex. VII ). He also prepared a memo on the spot vide Ext. Ka 22. It was signed by Kalimuddin (P. W. 22) and Amir Husain as well as the accused-appellant Naseem Ahmad. After these articles had been brought to police Station Sheohara, an entry was made in the General Diary (Ex. Ka 13) dated June 28, 1974 at 0. 30 P. M. ( 11 ) REVERTING to the statements of the witnesses who had seen Kalua in the company of Naseem Ahmad, the accused-appellant on June 27. 1974, the reference first be made to the statement of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), the real brother of Kalua and cousin of the accused-appellant Naseem Ahmad. He stated that a day before the incident he went to Sheohara with Rashid and in the same bus Kalua and Naseem Ahmad had also travelled with him. He stated that Naseem Ahmad and Kalua went to Moradabad by the train boarded at Sheohara. No material cross-examination on this point worthy of disbelieving his statement on the aforesaid point has been made. Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15) has corroborated Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12 ). He stated that he had gone to Sheohara in connection with his work with Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) by a bus and that the accused Naseem Ahmad had also gone upto Sheohara with them. ( 12 ) MOHD Ibrahim (P. W. 16) and Hamid (P. W. 17) also travelled by the same train by which the accused-appellant Naseem Ahmad alias Kalua had gone to Moradabad. Out of these two witnesses Mohd. Ibrahim (P. W. 16) got down at Kanth, whereas Hamid (P. W. 17) went upto Moradabad. Hamid got down at Moradabad with Naseem Ahmad alias Kalua. Out of these two witnesses Mohd. Ibrahim (P. W. 16) got down at Kanth, whereas Hamid (P. W. 17) went upto Moradabad. Hamid got down at Moradabad with Naseem Ahmad alias Kalua. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the accused appellant urged that as Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) had not given the date on which he travelled by bus upto Sheohara with Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15), his testimony that he travelled on June 27, 1974 was not useful and did not establish that Naseem accused-appellant was with Kalua on June 27, 1974. We do not find any merit in this submission. Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) stated that next day immediately after the accused-appellant had gone with Kalua deceased to Moradabad he met Naseem at about 11 A. M. in the morning and asked him about the whereabouts of his brother Kalua. His statement that he saw Naseem on the next day established that the day on which these persons travelled was earlier to June 27, 1974. The testimony of Mohd Ibrahim (P. W. 16) and Hamid (P. W. 17), if read together, would show that the deceased went to Moradabad with Naseem Ahmad on 27th June 1974. These statements, therefore, are not liable to be discarded on the ground-referred to above. ( 14 ) THE criticism next levelled against the reliance to be placed on the testimony of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) was that since he was the real brother of the deceased Kalua he was interested and probability was that he was not truthful. True it is that the deceased was the brother of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) but on that ground alone he could not be discarded. Apart from Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) the statement of Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 15) is on the same lines and to the same effect that he travelled by the same bus upto Sheohara by which Naseem and Kalua went there. Nothing improbable having been shown as against the acceptance of the statements of these persons we hold that Naseem accused-appellant had been seen with Kalua upto Moradabad. ( 15 ) THE next important piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant in the presence of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18 ). ( 15 ) THE next important piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant in the presence of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18 ). It is reasonable to accept that Sharif. Ahmad (P. W. 12) must have asked Naseem Ahmad on June 28, 1974 about Kahn when he saw Naseem Ahmad all alone. He had travelled on June 27, 1974 by bus from Burhanpur to Sheohara along with the two aforesaid persons on being asked by Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18) he admitted that he had killed Kalua. As Kalua was the first cousin of the accused- appellant he felt remorse about the death having been caused at his hands and he started weeping. The confession made by the accused-appellant has been deposed to clearly by Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 121. The confession attributed to the accused-appellant was in the following terms: Mujhse galti ho gai. Maine Kalua ko goli se mar diya Ramnagar aur Piru Madar ke beech. Ramnagar ko janewali railgadi ke dibbe me goli maardi. Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) also practically repeated (he same words which had been deposed to by Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12)- about the confession made by Naseem Ahmad. Peer Bux (P. W. 18) also stated that Naseem Ahmad, the appellant, admitted before him Yaqub (Kalua) ko pistal se mara hai jaan se.-There were differences in the narration of the exact words uttered by Naseem Ahmad while confessing his guilt before the aforesaid three witnesses, but substantially the confession is of the murder of his brother Kalua being committed by him. True it is that the extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but in the instant case it appears highly probable that the accused-appellant admitted his guilt before his brother Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Jamil Abmad (P. W. 15 ). There is no evidence in the instant case that the three witnesses who deposed about the extra-judicial confession are independent and bore no animus against the accused-appellant. ( 16 ) CONFESSIONS are divided into judicial and extra-judicial. The former are such as are made before a magistrate or court in due course of legal proceedings. There is no evidence in the instant case that the three witnesses who deposed about the extra-judicial confession are independent and bore no animus against the accused-appellant. ( 16 ) CONFESSIONS are divided into judicial and extra-judicial. The former are such as are made before a magistrate or court in due course of legal proceedings. They include confessions made in preliminary examinations before magistrates. The latter are such as are made by a party elsewhere than in court or before a magistrate. Section 25 of the Evidence Act excludes the statements made before the police obviously for the reason that police are suspect and often extort confessions by inducement, influence and torture. It is with a view to prevent abuse that Sections 25 and 26 have been enacted. So far as the extra-judicial confession made before a person other than one before an authority is concerned what has to be established is that it is voluntary and free. A voluntary confession is one which is made by a person accused of crime free from influence of any extraneous disturbing cause and, in particular, not influenced or extorted by violence or threat. In Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, it was observed: The evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be atainted evidence and, if corroboration is required, it is only by way of- abundant caution. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. ( 17 ) FOR the law stated above, the Supreme Court relied upon Rao Sheo Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pardcsh2. Here the Supreme Court rested the conviction of the accused on the extrajudicial confession made by him before two independent witnesses, namely, Gadkari and Perulkar. ( 18 ) IN the instant case, out of three witnesses before whom the confession was made, two of them were independent witnesses. This, therefore, forms a very important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. It is not possible for us to hold that the extra-judicial confession relied upon in this case by the prosecution was a tainted evidence. We have noticed above that the confession made by the accused appellant was that he had shot the deceased with the pistol. Dr. This, therefore, forms a very important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. It is not possible for us to hold that the extra-judicial confession relied upon in this case by the prosecution was a tainted evidence. We have noticed above that the confession made by the accused appellant was that he had shot the deceased with the pistol. Dr. N. C. Pandey (P. W. 14) stated that Kalua died on account of the firearm injury. This forms a very important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and connects Naseem Ahmad with the offence. From the statements of the three witnesses Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18), we find that the confession made by the accused appellant was not obtained by threat, promise or inducement. Hence it is not necessary for us in this appeal to go into the question as to whether a confession obtained by threat, coercion or inducement by a private person is inadmissible in law. It is significant to note that in the statement under Section 3! 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the, accused Naseem no-where stated that he. had given confession under threat, inducement or promise or that any suggestion was made in that regard by the witnesses. He simply denied having made any confession before the aforesaid witnesses. As there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses named above before whom confession was made the denial by the accused appears to us to be an afterthought. ( 19 ) IN support of his contention that in case of an extra-judicial confession made to a person in authority Section 24 of the Evidence Act applies and hence only in such a case the same is required to be voluntary, the learned State counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Thimma v. State of Mysore3 and Perey Rustomji Basta v. State of Maharashtra4. In the former case the confession relied upon was not to a person in authority. The Supreme Court observed that in the case in hand it is quite clear that P. W. 4 is not a person in authority. There can thus be no question of any inducement, threat or promise rendering the confession irrelevant. In the former case the confession relied upon was not to a person in authority. The Supreme Court observed that in the case in hand it is quite clear that P. W. 4 is not a person in authority. There can thus be no question of any inducement, threat or promise rendering the confession irrelevant. In the latter case, the confession had been made to a customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court held that what is necessary to constitute a threat under Section 24 of the Evidence Act is that it must emanate from a person in authority. As we have observed above in this case it is not necessary for us to express any concluded opinion on the aforesaid controversy. We have considered the confession of the accused appellant by applying the principle that it ought to have been voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat or promise. An unambiguous confession, says the Supreme Court, if admissible in evidence, and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evidence which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence. According to our view, in the instant case the confession was voluntary and not involuntary as was suggested by the appellants learned counsel. An involuntary confession is one induced by hope, promise, fear violence, torture or threat. To us it appears that on being asked by Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) the appellant was impelled by some inner urge to confess his guilt. Nothing bas been shown to us from the statements of Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18) that the confession had been extracted by exercising threat on the accused-appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to us the statement of Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and pointed out the portion where the said witness stated that the appellant was nervous. On that basis he urged that the nervousness must have been due to the threat that was extended to him by Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) and others. We are unable to accept this submission. Obviously because he had committed the murder of his cousin brother that the appellant might have been nervous on account of the fear of the conclusions. We are unable to accept this submission. Obviously because he had committed the murder of his cousin brother that the appellant might have been nervous on account of the fear of the conclusions. This fear alone, without threats, could not exclude the confession from being admissible under the law. Phipson in his book on Evidence 10th Edition, page 799 has observed: On the other hand, fear alone, without threats, will not exclude. ( 20 ) RELIANCE had also been placed on the statement of Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) where be stated that Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) was giving threat regarding the whereabouts of the dead body. It has clearly come in his statement that this was done after Naseem Ahmad, the accused-appellant, had blurted out the confession. This could not establish - that the confession had been obtained by any threat or pressure. At this place we may point out that in the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. accused appellant has no where stated that he had made confession under threat or inducement. ( 21 ) ANOTHER circumstances which may be noted in this connection is that Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) since did not have any intention to implicate the accused appellant falsely he would not have come out with a false theory of the accused-appellant having confessed his guilt before himself and others. The confession being true deserved to be acted upon. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the confession was inadmissible without corroboration. Hence according to his submission, there being no evidence of corroboration the court below acted illegally and wrongly in relying upon the statement made by the accused- appellant before Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W 18 ). If there is an ambiguous confession and the words used are clear and admit of no doubt of the accuseds guilt no corroboration as was said by the Supreme Court in Thimma v. State of Mysore (Supra) would be required. However, in the instant case there is ample evidence to corroborate the confession. On June 28, 1974 when the accused-appellant came back to the village and Sharif Ahmad found that his brother Kalua had not come back it was natural on his part to have enquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of his brother. However, in the instant case there is ample evidence to corroborate the confession. On June 28, 1974 when the accused-appellant came back to the village and Sharif Ahmad found that his brother Kalua had not come back it was natural on his part to have enquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of his brother. The appellant blurted out with the confession noted above on June 28, 1974 at about noon in his presence as well as the presence of Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18 ). The accused-appellant confessed that he had shot dead Kalua with a revolver in a compartment of a train going to Ramnagar and had left the dead body in the compartment itself in the night of June 27, 1974. Thereafter Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) with Abdul Rashid and Rafiq went in search of the dead body to Ram agar. They reached the mortuary in Kashipur at the time when Dr. N. C. Pandey (P. W. 14) was conducting the postmortem. They identified Kalua and obtained the dead body. Abdul Wahid (P. W. 5) to whom the dead body was given on June 27, 1974 stated that the dead body had been sealed by Han Singh Tomar (P. W. 8) and had been given to him for being carried to Kashipur for postmortem. Han Singh. Tomar (P. W. 8) said the same thing in his statement. Abdul Wahid (P. W. 5) stated that the seal was kept in tact and given in the same condition in which he had obtained it at Ramnagar on June 28, 1974 to Dr. N. C. Pandey for postmortem. Dr. N. C Pandey (P. W. 14) has also deposed about the safe arrival of the dead body. On postmortem he found a gunshot injury. The statement of the accused appellant that he had shot dead the deceased Kalua by firing at him is corroborated from the injury and bullet Ext. V found on postmortem examination by Dr. N. C. Pandey (P. W. 14 ). The confession that he had fired the shot in the compartment of the train going to Ramnagar is supported by the statements of Govind Singh (P. W. 1) who made the entry in the General Diary at G. R. P. Kathgodam, vide Ext. Ka 1. Tikaram (P. W. 2) who had taken the memo (Ext. The confession that he had fired the shot in the compartment of the train going to Ramnagar is supported by the statements of Govind Singh (P. W. 1) who made the entry in the General Diary at G. R. P. Kathgodam, vide Ext. Ka 1. Tikaram (P. W. 2) who had taken the memo (Ext. Ka 3) to Police Station Ramnagar and Jagannath A. S. M. (P. W. 3) stated that he sent a telephonic message to local police and the police arrived in his presence. Rafiq Ahmad (P. W. 4) stated that he had seen the dead body in the compartment. He was a witness of the Panchayatnama. P. W. 5 Abdul Wahid took the body for postmortem to Kashipur Hospital. This statement corroborates the confession of the accused which was to the effect that he had killed Kalua in the compartment. The recovery of the dead body corroborates the statement of the accused appellant. In our opinion, therefore, these circumstances and the facts stated above corroborate the confession of the appellant. In the absence of the confession it would not have been possible for Abdul Hamid (P. W. 13) and others to know that Kalua, had been killed in the compartment and he could not have gone to Kashipur for taking the dead body. It is through the confession made to him and Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12) and Peer Bux (P. W. 18) that the whereabouts of the dead body came to be learnt. The appellant did not suggest to the aforesaid prosecution witnesses that they learnt about the same through any other means or source. ( 23 ) THE next important evidence helpful in finding that the accused-appellant had committed the offence is the disclosure statement made about the pistol from which he admitted to have shot the deceased Kalua. After confession being made the accused-appellant was taken from village Burhanpur to Police Station Sheohara where on interrogation he admitted to the sub-inspector Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) that he could give the revolver which was kept by him in his shop and which had been used for killing the deceased Kalua. Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) proved the disclosure statement recorded in the General Diary No. 25 dated June 28, 1974 (Ext. Ka 17) of Police Station Sheohara. Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20) proved the disclosure statement recorded in the General Diary No. 25 dated June 28, 1974 (Ext. Ka 17) of Police Station Sheohara. This General Diary was written by the head constable, Mahendra Singh (P. W. (9) when the accused was brought to the police station and taken into custody. Kranti Vir Singh (P. W. 20), Sharif Ahmad (P. W. 12), Kalimuddin (P. W. 22) went along with the accused-appellant to the shop. The accused-appellant opened the lock of this shop with the key which he had in his possession and took out the pistol concealed in an almirah kept in the shop. The revolver given by the accused-appellant was marked as Ext. II and the live bullet Ext. III. The recovery memo prepared at the spot was Ext. Ka 22 and was signed by witnesses including Kalimuddin (P. W. 22 ). The. used bullet found from the chamber of the pistol was marked as Ext. IV. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which could shake their testimony. The presence of Kalimuddin (P. W. 22) was not disputed. From the General Diary no. 25 dated June 28, 1974 (Ext. Ka 17) it is established that the accused- appellant made the disclosure statement to the effect that he could produce the revolver used in the crime. This statement of the accused leading to the recovery of the pistol h admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovery of the pistol connects the accused-appellant with the authorship of concealment, namely, that the appellant, who gave information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. ( 24 ) DR. N. C. Pandey (P. W. 14) stated that he had taken out a bullet from the dead body of Kalua and handed over the same after sealing it to Abdul wahid (P. W. 5), This bullet was sent to the Director State Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. By his report dated December 18, 1974 the Director gave his opinion that the used bullet E. B. 1 found from the body of the deceased had been fired by the revolver marked 1/74. This bullet was identified by him when shown in the witness box. By his report dated December 18, 1974 the Director gave his opinion that the used bullet E. B. 1 found from the body of the deceased had been fired by the revolver marked 1/74. This bullet was identified by him when shown in the witness box. ( 25 ) IT was submitted before us that as the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow had not been produced for cross-examination his report was inadmissible and as such could not be looked into. Section 293 (1) and (4) (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been enacted in pursuance of the 41st report of the Law Commission reads as under: 293. Reports of certain Government Scientific experts. (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, Upon any matter Or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. (2) (3) (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely, (e) the Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory, ( 26 ) READING the provisions together, it appears to us that the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory became admissible automatically without the expert being brought into the witness box to prove it. The word forensict as given in Blacks Dictionary, used in clause (e) of subsection (4) of Section 293 means as belongs to courts of justice. This clause would, therefore, cover the case of a report given by the Director, Forensic Science; Laboratory in respect of the bullet sent to him for opinion as to whether it had been fired by a particular revolver or not. ( 27 ) FROM what we have said above, we find that the conviction and sentence of the appellant was justified in law and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We hereby do the same. ( 28 ) THE appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He shall surrender forthwith to serve .