JUDGMENT 1. - Kesra Ram son of Labhu Ram Jat of village Rohidawali, Tehsil Ganganagar has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar on October 5, 1976 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for murdering his wife Mst. Heera and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Appellant Kesra Ram along with his wife Mst. Heera deceased and his children were living in their house in village Rohidawali. Tehsil Ganganagar. His mother and father lived separate from him in a 'kotha' in the same compound. It is alleged that during the night intervening 21st and 22nd March, 1975, at about 9. p.m., the appellant murdered his wife Mst. Heera by inflicting injuries on her by 'kassi' Article 1. It is further the case of the prosecution that in front of the house of the appellant, the houses are of Het Ram (PW 8) and his uncle Mukh Ram (PW 4) in the same Guwadi. At about 9. p.m. on March 22, 1975, the appellant came out of his house with a 'kassi' in his hand and told Mukh Ram (PW 4), who was standing in front of his house along with Het Ram (PW 8), that he had murdered his wife and would now kill Mukh Ram. The appellant inflicted blows with the 'kassi' on various parts of the body of Mukh Ram. His nephew Het Ram tried to rescue Mukh Ram whereupon the appellant also inflicted injury on the hand of Het Ram. Then the appellant himself went to the Police Station, Hindu-mal Kot, and lodged a report Ex. P 13 at 10 a.m. Panna Lal (PW 1) was Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rohidawali. When he came to know that Mst. Heera had been murdered he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of Mst. Heera lying inside the 'kotha' of the appellant in between 2 cots lying there. At that time, the appellant was not at his house but his parents and children were there. Panna Lal, thereupon sent a report Ex. P 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hindmual Kot, Ramswaroop (PW 5) was the Station House Officer at Police Station, Hindumal Kot. After recording the report Ex. P 13 lodged by the appellant, Ramswaroop immediately arrested the appellant. Panna Lal, thereupon sent a report Ex. P 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hindmual Kot, Ramswaroop (PW 5) was the Station House Officer at Police Station, Hindumal Kot. After recording the report Ex. P 13 lodged by the appellant, Ramswaroop immediately arrested the appellant. After necessary investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar who committed the appellant to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, after trial convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. There was no eye witness to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of following circumstantial evidence, which he found to have been fully established, held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code: (i) presence of the appellant on the day of occurrence at his house; (ii) extra judicial confession made by the appellant to Mukh Ram (PW 4) in presence of Het Ram (PW 8); (iii) recovery of blood stained 'kassi' on the information given by the appellant and at his instance from a 'chhappar' in the field of the appellant; and (iv) recovery of dead body of Mst. Heera from the residential 'kotha' of the appellant. 4. As already stated, the appellant had himself gone to the Police Station, Hindumal Kot, on March 22, 1975 and lodged there a report Ex. P 13. In this report, the appellant narrated the incident and confessed that he had murdered his wife Mst. Heera by 'kassi'. He also stated in that when he was coming to the Police Station to make this report, had some quarrel with Mukh Ram and Het Ram in front of his house. It is well settled that if the first Information Report is given by the accused himself, fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant. But a confessional First Information Report cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant. But a confessional First Information Report cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. If the First Information Report is given by the accused to a Police Officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confession including not only the admissions of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section is lifted by Section 27. The test of severability is misleading and the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and save & except as provided by Section 27 and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nageshia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 119 . 5. The autopsy of the dead body of Mst. Heera deceased was conducted by Dr. Ram Lal (PW 6) who was Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre Shivpur on March 22, 1975 at 1 p.m. He found following external injuries on the dead body of Mst. Heera: (1) Lacerated wound of verticle direction 11/4" X 3/4 X skin deep on the right forehead; (2) Incised wound transverse in direction 6" X 1/2" X bone deep on the right chin and extending to the neck region; (3) Incised wound 21/2" X 1" X skin deep on the inferior aspect of chin; (4) Incised wound 1" X 1/2" X 1/2" on the right side of neck; (5) Incised wound 11/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" on the right back of chest; (6) Incised wound 11/4" X 1/2 X 1/4" on the right medial aspect of scapula; (7) Lacerated wound 31/2" X 1/2" X bone deep on the external accipi-tal protubance; (8) Lacerated wound 1" X 1/4" X bone deep on 1" above the injury No. 7. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem and were caused to Mst. According to him all the injuries were ante mortem and were caused to Mst. Heera just before her death. While injuries Nos. 1, 7 and 8 were caused by some blunt weapon; injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are incised wounds, were caused by sharp weapon. According to him all the above injuries-blunt as well as sharp could be caused by 'kassi' Article 1. There was fracture of right side of mandible bone and first curvicle vertebrae which was transversely fractured at its body. 6. From the evidence of Dr. Ramlal (PW 6), it is clear that Mst. Heera deceased died of cut injury to neck region which had caused acute shock due to excessive bleeding. This injury was individually sufficient to cause death of Mst. Heera in the ordinary course of nature. He has also stated that all the injuries could be caused by 'Kassi'(Phawara) Article 1. No question was asked from the doctor in cross-examination whether the injuries on the body of the deceased could be self inflicted. It is thus clear that Mst. Heera died as a result of murderous assault made on her. 7. Smt. Chunibai (PW 3) is the real mother of the appellant. She has stated that two previous wives of the appellant had already expired and Mst. Heera deceased was third wife of the appellant. She has also stated that the appellant and herself used to live in the same 'kotha' separately. She has clearly deposed that on the night during which Mst. Heera was murdered, the appellant had slept in the 'kotha' of the deceased along with his children. It is pertinent to note that this is the statement of appellant's own mother and there is no reason to doubt that on the night of the incident, the appellant was in his 'kotha' along with the deceased and his children. In the face of the statement of Chunibai (PW 3), version of the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr. PC cannot be accepted that on the night of the incident he was living on his field and had not slept with his wife in the 'kotha' of his house in the village. It has thus rightly been held by the learned Sessions Judge that the presence of the accused on the day of the occurrence at his house in his 'kotha' along with deceased Mst. It has thus rightly been held by the learned Sessions Judge that the presence of the accused on the day of the occurrence at his house in his 'kotha' along with deceased Mst. Heera and his children is free from any doubt. The deceased was found lying dead in the 'kotha' in which she was living with her husband The dead body of the deceased was found by the police in that very 'khota'. 8. The other set of evidence against the appellant is about the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by him before Mukhram (PW 4) and Het Ram (PW 8). Mukh Ram (PW 4) is brother of Sahi Ram and Het Ram (PW 8) is son of Sahi Ram. It is established from the evidence of Panna Lal (PW 1) Mukh Ram (PW 4) and Het Ram (PW 8) that the houses of the aforesaid two witnesses are located in front of the house in which the appellant lived. Both Mukh Ram (PW 4) and Het Ram (PW 8) have stated that at about 9 p.m. the appellant came out from his house with a 'kassi' in his hand and told these witnesses that he had already murdered his wife and he will now murder them. He inflicted 'kassi' blow on Mukh Ram (PW 4) and when Het Ram intervened he was also given 'kassi' blow on his hand. A separate First Information was lodged by Brijlal brother of Het Ram (PW 8) in this respect at Police Station, Hindumal Kot upon which Crime No. 26 of 1975 was registered by the Station House Officer P.S. Hindu Mai Kot. Ram Swaroop SHO Hindumal Kot has stated in his cross-examination that he had also made investigation on the First Information Report on the basis of which Crime No. 26 of 1975 was registered at the Police Station. This statement of Ramswaroop also finds support from the statement of Shankar Surolia (PW 9) who was Circle Officer, Ganganagar and who had also taken part in the investigation of this case. Shanker Surolia has stated that on the basis of FIR No. 26, a case Under Section 324 and 325 Indian Penal Code had been registered at the Police Station. Shanker Surolia has stated that on the basis of FIR No. 26, a case Under Section 324 and 325 Indian Penal Code had been registered at the Police Station. In view of the fact that a separate FIR had been got lodged to Brijlal with regard to the incident which took place out side the house of the appellant regarding inflicting of injury by the appellant to Mukh Ram (PW 4) and Het Rain PW 8 soon after the murder of Mst. Heera. There is no reason to doubt the presence of Mukh Ram PW 4 and Het Ram PW 8 out side their house when the appellant came from inside house. The appellant told to both these witnesses that he had already murdered his wife and he will now murder them and thereafter inflicted injury on them with 'kassi'. Nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination which could shake their testimony. A suggestion was made on behalf of the appellant to Het Ram PW 8 in cross-examination that the appellant was chasing some other person and that the appellant was obstructed by Het Ram and his father. The suggestion has no legs to stand. From the testimony of Mukh Ram and Het Ram it is established that the appellant had made extrajudicial confession before these witnesses in the manner already stated and thereafter also inflicted injuries on them in respect of which another case was registered at the Police Station Hindumal Kot. When the extra judicial confession has been found to be true and reliable, conviction can very well be based upon it. 9. The other important circumstance is that had some one also except the appellant would have murdered his wife Mst. Heera, the appellant was bound to make a report himself at the Police Station regarding the murder of his wife by a third person. It is pertinent to note that despite that the appellant was at his house in the 'Kotha' where his wife was living and his wife was murdered he did not lodge a First Information Report that a named third person or stranger had murdered his wife. This unusual conduct on the part of the appellant is a very strong circumstance as against the appellant. There is the conduct of the appellant that he had gone to the Police Station Hindumal Kot himself and lodged a report. This unusual conduct on the part of the appellant is a very strong circumstance as against the appellant. There is the conduct of the appellant that he had gone to the Police Station Hindumal Kot himself and lodged a report. In that report he did not mention that his wife had been murdered by some one else. This circumstance is conclusively established in this case and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. 10. Then there is the evidence of Panna Lal PW 1 who was the Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rohidawali, that the appellant got recovered at his instance the Phawara Article 1 from his 'kotha' situated on his field There is no dispute that the appellant has got a field because the appellant has himself stated in his examination under Section 313 Cr. PC that on the night of the incident, he was living at his field. Shanker Surolia has proved that the appellant while in custody gave information Ex. P 17 to him that he could get recovered the 'Phawara' having stains of blood from a 'kotha' in a 'Chhaper' on his field. In pursuance of this information given by the appellant, Shanker Surolia recovered 'kassi' Article 1 from the place pointed out by the appellant in presence of the 'motbir' Pannalal PW 1. This 'kassi' Phawara) was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examining whether it was stained with human blood. The Chemical Examiner gave his report Ex. P 21 that the 'kassi' (Phawara) was stained with human blood. Thus recovery of the 'kassi' Article 1 stained with human blood from the 'kotha' of the appellant on his own field also connects the appellant with the crime. 11. The shirt and 'chadar' while the appellant was wearing were also seized and sent for Chemical Examiner but the Director State Forensic Science Laboratory did not forward the shirt and the chadar' to the Serologist for serological examination because the quantity of blood was considered by him too small. The absence of chemical examination of the stains on the shirt and the chadar' of the appellant will not affect the case of the prosecution which is so very well established by the set of circumstantial evidence mentioned above. 12. The absence of chemical examination of the stains on the shirt and the chadar' of the appellant will not affect the case of the prosecution which is so very well established by the set of circumstantial evidence mentioned above. 12. In Tufail v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969 (3) SCC 128) , the circumstantial evidence against the accused was that the accused was well acquainted with the deceased, that the deceased had gone to the enclosure of the appellant and was seen with him there that at a later time the accused had come to the house of the deceased and told the tenants that the deceased had gone to some other village and she had sent him to sleep at the house to guard the premises and that gold and silver ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the locked box in the house of the accused. These circumstances were held to be clinching circumstances proving the complicity of the accused in the murder of Kalawati. In the present case following circumstances, which we hold to be established in the case, establish the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt: (i) Mst Heera had died as a result of murderous assault and it was not suicide by her; (ii) the appellant was at his house in the 'kotha' along with his wife and children when the murder of his wife was committed; (iii) the appellant made extra judicial confession of his guilt before Mukh Ram (PW 4) and Het Ram PW 8); (iv) despite the fact that the appellant himself was present at the time of the murder of his wife, he did not lodge a first information some known or unknown person had murdered her although he had gone to the Police Station to lodge a report and had in fact lodged some report, the contents of which are not admissible on account of being a confessional statement; and (v) the blood stained 'kassi' was recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from the 'kotha' of the appellant situated at his field and the 'kassi' was found to have on it human blood. 13. In our view these circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant & connect him with the murder of Mst. Heera. 14. 13. In our view these circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant & connect him with the murder of Mst. Heera. 14. Before parting with our judgment we may refer to the guidance given by Pollock C.B. in Regin v. All and Ors. (1986 (176) E.R. 850-853 in following words: (i) the appellant was-- "It has been said that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a chain and each piece of evidence has a link in the chain, but that is not so, for than if any one link broke the chain would fall. It is more like the case of a rope composed of several cords. One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three strands together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence--there may be combination of circumstances, on one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is as much certainly human affairs can require or admit of. Consider, therefore, all the circumstances clearly proved." 15. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. The Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, will immediately take steps to take the appellant in custody and commit to jail for under going the sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******