JUDGMENI D. P. Sood, J.—Accused Roshan Lal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the commission of offence under section 302, I. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that accused Roshan Lal and deceased Jawahar Lal were real brothers and PW 12 Hira Lal was their uterine brother. Both the real brothers had contracted a joint marriage with a lady according to the custom of their area They had borrowed some money from one Shia Tanzan to meet the marriage expenses and in lieu thereof they had agreed to discharge the liability of grazing sheeps of the said creditor by rotation. Each of them was to graze the sheeps for 6 months in a year. Initially, deceased Jawahar Lal had gone to graze the sheeps of said Shia Tanzan. He had returned a day or two prior to the date of occurrence to his village Patena after completing his turn. Roshan Lal accused was asked to graze the sheeps for next 6 months but he was not prepared to go because by then he was extremely attached to the said lady (their common wife) and that he did not want the deceased to have any connection with her rather, he wanted the said lady to be his exclusive wife. 3. According to the prosecution, on the evening of May 24, 1987, a quarrel ensued between the two brothers in the verandah of their house. PW 12 Hira Lal attempted to disentangle them and in the process the accused jumped down from the verandah and ran away. Thereafter, the deceased, his mother and PW 12 Hira Lal went into one of the two rooms of the house, locking the other room from outside. The mother of the accused and the deceased cooked meals When they were taking their meals at about 9.00 p. m., they heard the sound of the breaking of the lock of the room which they had earlier locked. On hearing that sound deceased Jawahar Lal came out followed by his mother P W 12 Hira Lal, however, kept sitting in the room because he was taking his meals at that time. On hearing that sound deceased Jawahar Lal came out followed by his mother P W 12 Hira Lal, however, kept sitting in the room because he was taking his meals at that time. Both the accused and the deceased again had a quarrel. The accused then took out a dagger and inflicted several wounds (later, on autopsy found to be 9 in number) by giving repeated blows on the person of the deceased. The deceased raised alarm on receiving first wound which attracted PW Hira Lal. He is stated to have witnessed the occurrence. PW 3 Bhogi Devi, a cousin of the accused and the deceased who used to reside in the adjoining house also came out with a lantern and in its light she saw accused Roshan Lal running away with a dagger in his hand. Soon several other co-villagers gathered there. They asked PW Hira Lal to inform PW 1 Udham Singh, a member of the Gram Panchayat and to bring him to the spot. Accordingly, PW 1 Udham Singh was brought to the spot. The accused is stated to have came to the spot crying and wailing after about two hours and confessed before them that he happened to kill his brother with a dagger and begged to be excused for the sin. When PW 1 Udham Singh asked regarding the weapon of the offence, the accused went to one side and reappeared with a blood stained dagger. PW Udham Singh asked him to place the dagger near the dead body. On the following morning, PW Udham Singh proceeded to Police Station, Rampur along with the accused. PW 11 Bhola Singh Pradhan of the Panchayat met them at the bus stop in village Deothi. He had already been informed of the incident by one Kewal Ram. The accused is stated to have again confessed the guilt before PW Bhola Singh. The Pradhan asked his son to assist Udham Mngh (PW 1) in escorting the accused. On reaching the Police Station, PW 1 Udham Singh lodged the F. I R., (Ex P-A) at 9.00 a. m. on May 25, 1989 At the time the accused was wearing shirt P-l, waist P-2, Pyajama P-3 and coat P-4 which were stained with blood. The accused was got medically examined Exs P-l to P-4 were taken into custody and were sealed in a parcel. 4. The accused was got medically examined Exs P-l to P-4 were taken into custody and were sealed in a parcel. 4. After observing the codal formalities, the police party headed by A. S. I. Balwant Singh, Investigating Officer (PW 14), went to the spot. On reaching there, the Investigating Officer found the dead body of Jawahar Lal lying in the pool of blod in the verandah. After preparing the inquest, the dead body was sent to the Referral Hospital, Rampur for postmortem which .was conducted by PW 13 Dr. Nirmal Vaish. The postmortem examination showed that there were following nine ante-mortecn punctured wounds on the dead body: “1 Punctured (stab) wound on the left side of chest 4” below the left ventricle was 1” x 1/4" in size passing through the tissue and entering into the body cavity (thorax) crushing both the ventricles of the heart. This punctured wound was the wound of entry with inverted edges. 2. Punctured wound on the right side of the chest wall in the 11th inter-coastal space1/2 “ x ¼” in size passing through the tissue and entering into the abdominal cavity rupturing the right lobe of liver at its anterior surface and the inferior border. This wound was the wound of entry with inverted marginal. 3. Punctured wound on the epigastric region 1/2” X ¼” in size entering into the abdominal cavity rupturing the pyloric end of stomach. 4. Multiple abrasions on the epigestric region. 5. Multiple abrasions was present on the anterior chest wall extending from right anterior wall to the left anterior wall. 6. Punctured wound was present on the left thigh near the scrotum 1” X ¼” passing through the tissue and entering the thigh muscles with inverted margin. 7. Punctured wound on the left side of the back region ½” X ¼” passing through the body tissue and entering the body cavity. 8. Punctured wound on the right side of the back in lower region 1" x 1/2” in size entering into the body cavity. 9. Punctured wound above the left ear (temporal region) 2" x 1/4” in size entering into the scalp piercing the brain matter. 5. PW 13 Dr. Nirmal Vaish opined that the wounds had been caused with some sharp edged weapon and that some of the vital organs had also been injured and the injuries to the vital organs led to shock and death. 6. 5. PW 13 Dr. Nirmal Vaish opined that the wounds had been caused with some sharp edged weapon and that some of the vital organs had also been injured and the injuries to the vital organs led to shock and death. 6. During the investigation, the dagger was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD. The site plan was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Reports of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner Exs. PS and PT respectively were obtained. They opined that wearing apparels P-l to P-4 belonging to the accused were found stained with human blood and blood was also found on the dagger. After the completion of the investigation, the accused was prosecuted and, as stated earlier, was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 302, I. P. C. 7. The conviction of the appellant is based not only on direct evidence but also the circumstantial evidence coupled with that of the extra judicial confession of the accused. The direct evidence consists of PW 3 Bhogi Devi and PW 12 Hira Lal whereas extra-judicial confession is stated to have been made by the accused before PW 3 Bhogi Devi, PW 12 Hira Lal, PW 1 Udham Singh and PW 4 Ram Singh and later on before PW 11 Bhola Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat immediately after the occurrence. 8. The defence of the accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. is denial simpliciter. He does not dispute that he and the deceased contracted a joint marriage with the lady but denied that after the marriage his intention changed and he wanted to have the lady as his exclusive wife. He alleges that he was not in the house at the time his brother was killed. He has stated that he returned home very late from the pasture on the fateful night and it was on his return from the pasture that he came to know that someone had murdered his brother. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully perused the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a detailed reference to the evidence examined in the case We, however, feel that we are not concerned with the formal evidence. We are only making reference to the evidence which is material for the determination of this appeal. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a detailed reference to the evidence examined in the case We, however, feel that we are not concerned with the formal evidence. We are only making reference to the evidence which is material for the determination of this appeal. 10. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the F. I. R. is in fact, blind there being several omissions therein which, if read with other evidence, demolishes the prosecution version in its entirety. The said omissions as pointed out are that the F. I. R. is neither got recorded by eye-witness Hira Lal nor it contains the name of another eye-witness namely PW 3 Bhogi Devi, The same also does not detail the extra-judicial confession stated to have been made before PW 11 Bhola Singh. 11. This objection cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the F. I R. was recorded at the instance of PW 1 Udham Singh, admittedly an independent and a responsible person. In addition, the F I R., was recorded in the presence of the accused who whereafter was handed over to the police with his wearing apparels which were found to be stained with human blood. Similarly, omission of the name of PW 11 Bhola Singh is also of no consequence since he directed his son Kamla Singh to accompany PW 1 Udham Singh with the accused and this fact is corroborated by the seizure memo of blood stained clothes of the accused (Ex. PB) to which both PW 1 Udham Singh and said Kamala Singh are attesting witnesses. Furthermore, F I. R was lodged by Udham Singh, a member of Gram Panchayat who was not present when the occurrence took place and, therefore, he did not know who was the person who had seen the accused inflicting the blows with the dagger The name of PW 12 Hira Lal figures in the F I. R., because in the opening sentence of the F. I. R. PW 1 Udham Singh got recorded that on the previous night at about 10.00 p. m., PW 12 Hira Lal and Bahadur Singh visited his house and told him that Roshan Lal accused had killed his elder brother Jawahar Lal. Thus, the name of Hira Lal as an eye-witness does appear in the F. I. R* There is nothing on the record to suggest that when PW 1 lodged the report he was aware that PW 3 Bhogi Devi had also seen the accused fleeing away with the dagger in the light of the lantern. Therefore, this submission is of no significance. In this respect the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the observations made in Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1026, is of no help In the aforesaid case the father had lodged the F. I. R pertaining to the murder of his son. His wife and two daughters claimed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The incident had occurred at about 5 00 p m. on March 23, 1970 and the report was lodged at the Police Station, Ganj at 9.15 p. m. i. e. about 4 hours 15 minutes after the occurrence. All the aforesaid persons i. e. the informant as also the eye-witnesses belong to one family and were residing and messing together. In the aforesaid F. I. R. it was nowhere mentioned by the father that the appellant had stabbed his son at all. The names of the eye-witnesses did not appear in the F. I. R. The only eye-witness of the occurrence mentioned was one Joginder Singh who also proved the alleged dying declaration. The informant (father had also not mentioned in the F. I. R. that any dying declaration indicating that the appellant had also injured his son was made by the victim (son) In those circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that importance of such important fact affecting the probabilities of the case were very significant in judging the veracity of the version so deposed by the witnesses. In the peculiar circumstances of that case it was also observed that it seems inconceivable that by 9,15 p. m. it would not be known to the father that the appellant had inflicted one of the two stab wounds on the body of the , victim, his son and further the circumstances that if his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting the blow on their brother, they would definitely have pointed it out to their father and the latter would certainly have mentioned it in the F. I. R In those circumstances, it was pointed out that no doubt an F. I. R. is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it and omission of such important facts affecting the probabilities of the case, become significant in judging the veracity of the case. 12. In the instant case, Udham Singh, PW 1, is the informant and PW 12 Hira Lal, an eye-witness, had intimated him that accused Roshan Lal had killed his elder brother Jawahar Lal. There is nothing on record to show that PW 12 had either apprised the informant regarding another eye-witness, namely PW 3 Bhogi Devi or the accused having made extra- judicial confession to PW 11 Bhola Singh. Further, PW 1 has not satisfied himself about the factum of the murder and the manner in which the crime was committed. He being a responsible person having no axe to grind either against the accused or in favour of the deceased. Even there is no suggestion to the contrary. Thus, the aforesaid case is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Another objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the inherent infirmities in the prosecution evidence and that there is no legal evidence to support the findings. It was maintained that the testimony of PWs 3, 4 and 11 relating to the extra-judicial confession made in the first instance before the local residents is discrepeant and incredible and that the confession even if true was not voluntary. It is further contended that the trial Court had refused to give benefit of doubt to the accused despite the facts apparent on the face of record and the interference is called for. It is further contended that the trial Court had refused to give benefit of doubt to the accused despite the facts apparent on the face of record and the interference is called for. The extra-judicial confession being a very weak piece of evidence, could not have been accepted as true or voluntary in view of the divergent statements made by the prosecution witnesses. 14. As observed above, the F. I. R, was lodged by PW I Udham Singh at the Police Station where the accused was also present In the F. L R. itself PW 1 Udham Singh had narrated the story of the local pancbayat having collected there and Roshan Lal accused having returned crying and wailingly and having made the confession. It can be taken note of that in rural areas the people depend upon the tnernbers of the Gram Pancbayat who are suppose to wield some administrative authority in the village in that capacity. PW Udham Singh being the member of the Gram Panchayat had reached the place of occurrence when various other co-villagers including PW 4 Ram Singh had collected there. In that atmosphere, the accused had confessed the crime, In any case PW I Udham Singh is an independent and a responsible person. There is n o suggestion to the contrary that the said PW had been influenced by the relatives of Jawahar Lal or any other person. Even there is no suggestion in the cross-examination of the witnesses that local residents of village Patena had not collected immediately after the occurrence or that PW 1 had deliberated or consulted other persons present there. In the circum stances, it is difficult to hold that PW I Udham Singh, PW 3 Bhogi Devi, PW 4 Ram Singh and PW 12 Hira Lal had made a false statement before the Court merely to implicate the accused. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, we find no merit in this submission. The following observations made in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, JT (1990) 4 SC 524 lend support to our conclusion that the confession has been properly accepted and acted upon by the trial Court : "An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court alongwith other evidence in convicting the accused. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. It is true that the court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness to accept the evidence or not. When the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, conviction can be founded on such evidence..." 15. The same principles have been laid down in Buty and others v. State of Orissa, 1982 Cr LJ 938 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments. 16. There is no scope for doubt regarding the complicity of the appellant in the crime and further that the confession of the appellant was voluntary The statements of the aforesaid PWs being that of responsible persons cannot be doubted in the absence of any material so that they had been motivated to falsely implicate the appeal The very presence of the appellant throughout upto lodging of the complaint at the Police Station dispel any suspicion against the prosecution case. We, therefore, unable to find any infirmity in the confession on both the occasions by the appellant which had been rightly accepted and relied upon by the Court below. Yet, another objection raised by Mr. M. G. Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant is that sequence of events as emerged from the prosecution version is not natural ; that the conduct of the accused in going to the Policd Station indicates that he was innocent ; that F. I R Ex. PA which purports to have been recorded at 9.00 p m. on May 25, 1987 was, in fact, recorded after the medical examination of the accused and after the blood from his bleeding wounds had stained his clothes. We fi id this argument, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be absolutely fallacious and devoid of any force. PA which purports to have been recorded at 9.00 p m. on May 25, 1987 was, in fact, recorded after the medical examination of the accused and after the blood from his bleeding wounds had stained his clothes. We fi id this argument, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be absolutely fallacious and devoid of any force. The close perusal of the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses in the instant case shows that the sequence of events is natural inasmuch as the quarrel took place immediately before the occurrence in the presence of PW Hira Lal who had attempted to disentangle both the brothers. Thereafter lock of the other room which was locked by Jawahar Lal, his mother and PW Hira Lal was broken open by the accused. After hearing the sound, Jawahar Lal had appeared in the verandah where the incident occurred which was witnessed by PWs 3 and 12. The alaram raised by the deceased attracted the local residents and at their instance PW 1 Udham Singh was brought to the spot. The first confession made by the accused to PW Udham Singh before the local panchayat resulted in the lodging of the report by him id the presence of the accused who had also been taken to the Police Station. There appears to be no vagueness in the sequence so stated by the witnesses. The presence of PW 3 Bhogi Devi and PW 12 Hira Lal is also but natural PW 3 Bhogi Devi is the neighbour of the accused residing in the adjoining building to that of the accused and the deceased whereas PW 12 Hira Lal is the cousin of both the accused and the deceased. The mere fact that PW 3 simply saw the accused running with a dagger in his hand and PW 12 Hira La! witnessed the occurrence cannot be termed as chance witnesses. The presence of these 2 witnesses on the fateful night in village Patena is not disputed by the defence. No suggestion to the contrary has been made by them. As far as the conduct of the accused is concerned suffice it to say that he did not go to the Police Station voluntarily but was taken there by the members of the Gram Panchayat, as observed above. No suggestion to the contrary has been made by them. As far as the conduct of the accused is concerned suffice it to say that he did not go to the Police Station voluntarily but was taken there by the members of the Gram Panchayat, as observed above. The accused having produced blood stained dagger before the local Panchayat at the instance and askance of PW 1 Udbam Singh coupled with the blood stained clothes P-l to P-4 which were taken into possession by the police at the time he was handed over and arrested by the police, and further the accused having sustained bleeding wounds on his persons, lend support to the prosecution case These circumstances definitely go against the accused. The conduct of the accused rather corroborates the testimony of the witnesses under section 8 of the Evidence Act, With respect to the belated recording and of the F. I R. as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, they have produced OW 1 Amar Singh in support of their arguments. He has stated on oath that on May 25, 1987 there was do Judicial Magistrate at Rarapur and that it was for this reason that he recorded the time of the receipt of the F. I. R. in the Court at 3.50 p. m on May 25, Iv87 and he recorded the time in the endorsement Ex. PA/I correctly. It is pertinent to note that Police Station, Rampur is at a distance of about 43 kms. from Patena. In the circumstances, the F. I. R. was recorded at the earliest possible opportunity. 17. Lastly, the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant, that the accused returned from the pasture that night after the murder of his brother Jawahar Lal is also deviod of force in view of the above discussed evidence of the eye-witnesses. Another reason for discarding this argument is that various suggestions have been put to the prosecution witnesses regarding absence of the accused at the time of occurrence. But, they have stated that the accused was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. 18. From whatsoever angle the prosecution case is viewed, the circumstances proved are conclusive of the guilt of the appellant and incapable of being explained on any other reasonable hypothesis. The conviction is, therefore, to be maintained. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.