GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) ABDUL Aziz (P. W. 1) owns a cycle repairing shop at Kamarpara, P. S. Raninagar, District Murshidabad. On 19. 1. 1976 at about 8 a. m. Bablu Sk. , his son-in-law came to his cycle repairing shop at Kamarpara, tightened his bicycle with a wrencht and went straight to the house of Abdul Aziz. About an hour thereafter Abdul Aziz's son Abdul Khaleque (P. W. 71 came to his shop and reported that Bablu Sk. had fled away after stabbing his sister Minu Sibi wife of Bablu Sk. Abdul Aziz came to know further that Bablu Sk. pressed Minu Bibi for going back to her husbands home at Nandirvita Bansgara, that Minu had refused to go there and that in course of altercation Bablu struck Minu with a knife. At that time there were only female members in the house and no male member was present. ( 2 ) THE above is an account of the prosecution case which is adumbrated in the F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). As soon as Abdul Aziz went to his house he found his daughter Minu lying on the verandah with a pool of blood. He tried to take her to the nearest hospital but in vain. Minu Bibi succumbed to her injuries before she could be taken to the hospital. Two hours thereafter Abdul Aziz rusted to the police station where he lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). On the basis of the F. I. R. , P. R. Biswas (P. W. 13) S. I. of Police started Raninagar P. S. Case No. 5 dated 19. 1. 1976 under section 302 Indian Penal Code against Bablu Sk. As the C. C. of the P. S. was absent this S. I. took up the investigation of the case himself, went to Kamarpara at about 1 p. m. , held inquest on the dead body of Minu, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to Lalbagh Morgue through constable No. 72 Manindralal Mohori. The S. I. then prepared a sketch map of the P. O. , seized some blood stained earth and controlled earth from the verandah of the house of Abdul Aziz, also seized the blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased and also seized the knife with which Minu was struck by Bablu Sk. On the next day i. e. 20. 1. On the next day i. e. 20. 1. 1976 he recorded the statement of the witnesses. In due course a charge-sheet was submitted under section 302 Indian Penal Code against Bablu Sk. Thereafter Bablu Sk. was committed to the Court of Sessions at Murshidabad to face his trial there for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad the accused took the plea that he had been to the house of Abdul Aziz on the morning of 19. 1. 1976 for the purpose of bringing back his wife and that while he was so dragging his wife for that purpose Abdul Khaleque brother of the deceased brought out a knife in order to stab the accused Bablu Sk. , that Minu Bibi stood on his way and while she tried to save her husband the knife of Abdul Khaleque which was aimed at Bablu Sk. accidentally hit Minu Bibi and she died as a result thereof. Before the learned Sessions Judge as many as 15 P. Ws. including the police officers and doctor were examined. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence version of the case, relied upon the testimony of the 14 P. Ws. and convicted Bablu Sk. of the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Being aggrieved thereby Bablu Sk. has preferred this appeal on the grounds inter alia that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted him of the offence with which he was charged. ( 3 ) MR. Safiullah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that the defence version of the case which appears to be quite probable ought to have been relied and acted upon by the learned Sessions Judge. We have seen that according to the accused time and place of the alleged occurrence were all true. According to the accused appellant Minu Bibi was struck by the self-same knife not by him but by her brother Abdul Khaleque accidentally. ( 4 ) WE have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Safiullah. We are however unable to accept the aforesaid contention for the reasons set forth below: ( 5 ) THE defence version of the case appears to be inconsistent with the medical evidence on the record. ( 4 ) WE have given our best consideration to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Safiullah. We are however unable to accept the aforesaid contention for the reasons set forth below: ( 5 ) THE defence version of the case appears to be inconsistent with the medical evidence on the record. In his judgment the learned Sessions Judge considered the nature, extent and depth of the injuries found upon the dead body of Minu Bibi and came to the conclusion that the injuries were so deep and penetrating that it rules out the possibility of any accidental stabbing. We accept these findings of the learned Sessions Judge. More-over the medical evidence on the record shows that the death of Minu Bibi was homicidal in naturet and therefore not accidental. ( 6 ) SECONDLY as the learned Sessions Judge rightly observed, If it was a case of stabbing by Abdul Khaleque it was also very much natural for him to go to the thana to report about the incident. Bablu Sk. not only left the house of his father-in-law immediately after the incident but that he altogether left the village and he could be only arrested from another village known as Paranpur subsequently by B. S. F. Sub-Inspector Bhupal Singh (P. W. 9) and his associate Kamaluddin Sarkar (P. W. 10 ). This part of his arrest from Paranpur was admitted by Bablu Sk. in course of his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 7 ) THIRDLY the defence version of the case is contradicted by the direct evidence adduced by the inmates of the house of Abdul Aziz. These inmates are Moslema Khatun (P. W. 2) step-mother of the deceased, Jharna Khatun (P. W. 3) the younger sister of the deceased and Hamejan Bewa (P. W. 4) sister of Abdul Aziz. All of them gave a very graphic description of the incident. Thus according to Moslema Khatun, Bablu Sk. came to the house of Abdul Aziz at about 8 a. m. , Tafter having one or two talks with Minu, Bablu stabbed Minu on the left side of the chest below the armpit. As soon as I rushed there and caught hold of Bablu, Bablu threatened me and then my son Khaleque rushed there and on seeing Khaleque, Bablu fled awaytt. As soon as I rushed there and caught hold of Bablu, Bablu threatened me and then my son Khaleque rushed there and on seeing Khaleque, Bablu fled awaytt. It is significant to know that unless Bablu was the culprit he would not have threatened Moslema Khatun at all. More significant is the fact that Moslema Khatun was never cross-examined on this point namely that she was so threatened by Bablu. P. W. 3 Jharna Khatun happens to the youngest daughter of P. W. 1. She is aged only 12 years. She flatly denied the defence case and gave out Minu Bibi was then catching hold of bamboo portion of the roof of the verandah, Bablu Sk. then brought out a dagger and stabbed on the left chest of Minu Bibi below the armpit. It is difficult to believe that this youngest daughter of the house-hold would perjure over the whole incident covering the death of her near and dear elder sister. Similar was also the version of the sister of Abdul Aziz. While describing the facts and circumstances of the case at the very out-set we have seen that on the fateful day Bablu Sk. had been to the shop of his father-in-law for that purpose. The purpose was to see that his father-in-law was engaged outside his house. Bablu therefore went straight to his father-in-laws house to teach a lesson to his wife. That is why, perhaps he was carrying a knife with him. From the evidence of the father of the deceased (P. W. 1) we get that the relationship in between Bablu and Minu was somewhat strained, that there occurred frequent quarrels between them and that after marriage my daughter Minu used to come to my house sometimes. It is interesting to note once more that on this point of relationship in between the husband and wife, there was no cross- examination. It appears from the materials on the record that Minu Bibi and her husband accused Bablu Sk. were young couple. It was quite natural for her husband to try to persuade her to go back to her husbands home. The unanimous evidence on the record as adduced by the in mates of the house of Abdul Aziz is that Minu would not listen to her husband. The husband therefore got furious and he struck his wife with a knife which he carried with him. The unanimous evidence on the record as adduced by the in mates of the house of Abdul Aziz is that Minu would not listen to her husband. The husband therefore got furious and he struck his wife with a knife which he carried with him. It was also very natural and probable for him to flee away from the spot altogether. Abdul Khaleque (P. W. 7) the brother of the deceased found Bablu fleeing away from the spot immediately after striking his wife. While so fleeing away Bablu Sk. threw away his knife (Ext. II) in a nearby brinjal field. The 1. 0. subsequently seized this knife from the brinjal field in presence of local witnesses. In his cross- examination it was suggested to this witness (P. W. 7) that he had himself thrown the knife in the brinjal field. He denied the suggestion. Indeed in the over all facts and circumstances of the case we do not think that the brother could himself stab his sister by mistake in the way as alleged by the prosecution. Not only the inmates of the house but also some independent neighbours supported the prosecution version of the case. Thus the evidence of Yaar Au (P. W. 8 ). a contiguous neighbour of Abdul Aziz is that as soon as he heard shouts coming from the house of Abdul Aziz that morning he found Bablu Sk. running away from the spot with a dagger in his hand which he threw away in the brinjal field. The evidence of the B. S. F. policeman is also important. The evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 is that on getting scent of murder they had to run after Bablu Sk. and that Bablu Sk. could be arrested from a contiguous village known as Paranpur. (If Babin Sk. would have been really innocent he would have never left the house of his father-in-law in that fashion. Instead he would have called for a doctor and would have given his best effort to save his wife. He did not perform these things, nor did he go to the thana to report about the matter. Instead he fled away only to be subsequently arrested by the police officers. The learned Sessions Judge it appears, relied upon some confessional statements of Bablu Sk. alleged to have been made in presence of the said B. S. F. men. He did not perform these things, nor did he go to the thana to report about the matter. Instead he fled away only to be subsequently arrested by the police officers. The learned Sessions Judge it appears, relied upon some confessional statements of Bablu Sk. alleged to have been made in presence of the said B. S. F. men. We do not think however that these confessional statements could be legally relied and acted upon by the learned Sessions Judge, the matter being entirely hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. We may note in the connection that 2 B. S. F. men (P Ws. 8 and 9) were in police uniform at the time when the confession was alleged to have been made in their presence (vide P. W. 9 cross-examination ). We are however relieved to find that the learned Sessions Judge did not very much rely upon the alleged confession of Bablu Sk. To quote his own words, Even if the said confession before Bhupal Singh and Kamaluddin Sarkar be excluded from the evidence, there were sufficient evidence before this court to hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home to the satisfaction of the court that it was Bablu Sk. who caused the fatal injuries in the morning in the house of Abdul Aziz on 19. 1. 76 resulting in almost instantaneous death of Minu, his own wife. We have already discussed the evidence adduced by the P. Ws. and have seen that the facts and circumstances of the case elicited in the evidence were all pointer to the mens rea, of Bablu Sk. Indeed, the prosecution case in our opinion cannot be a false and fabricated story. As a matter of fact there was hardly any time lag for such fabrication. As soon as the striking was made by Bablu Sk. forcibly upon the chest of his wife, the latter fell down sustaining bleeding injuries from the vital portion of her body. This gave rise to a hue and cry amongst the female-folk of that house. Surrounding neighbours also assembled at the spot and they all saw the culprit running away from the house. There is thus no room for doubt that the heinous offence was committed by Bablu Sk. and by none-else. The facts and circumstances of the case were rightly read, understood and appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. Surrounding neighbours also assembled at the spot and they all saw the culprit running away from the house. There is thus no room for doubt that the heinous offence was committed by Bablu Sk. and by none-else. The facts and circumstances of the case were rightly read, understood and appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. He rightly convicted the accused Bablu Sk. for the offence with which he was charged. There is thus no substance in this appeal. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. The conviction of the accused appellant under section 302 I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge upon Bablu Sk. stand affirmed. Appeal dismissed