K. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Ram Jeet has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the judgment and order dated 30. 9. 1983 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge/special Judge, Azamgarh in S. T. No. 313 of 1982. ( 2 ) ONE Shanker was murdered in the morning of 1. 7. 1982 at about 6 a. m. in village Bilari Ajgara, P. S. Atraulia, District Azamgarh. A first information report in respect of the murder of Shanker was lodged by one Rajman the brother of Shanker conveying that Shanker had some illicit relation with his daughter-in-law, Smt. Basmatia, the wife of Ram Jeet accused. Ram Jeet accused is the son of Shanker, the deceased. The F. I. R. also communicated that on account of these illicit relations, the wife of Shanker usually lived with her parents while Ram Jeet himself mostly lived in his Nanihal. On the date of occurrence, the contention was that, at about 6 in the morning, Shanker said to Ram Jeet who had come a few days back that he was taking unearned bread and was not working for the welfare of the agriculture. He also directed Ram Jeet to collect the manure lying under the ox and throw it into the field. This irritated Ram Jeet, who began to collect the dung with the help of spade and at the same time heated exchange of words also began between them. After some talk, Ram Jeet went to the cot of Shanker and assaulted him with his spade. Shanker also attempted to save himself by raising hands. Shanker was injured and Rajman and others also reached there but Ram Jeet made his good escape. Shanker died after some 3 or 4 hours of the injuries. ( 3 ) THE report of the incident was lodged at the police station at about 4 p. m. on 1. 7. 1982, the distance of the police station being 7 miles. Though it was mentioned that there was some delay in the F. I. R. as Rajman had also other brothers who were living in village Saidapur District Faizabad. If we take into account that Shanker had not died till about 11, it cannot be said to be much of a delay. Though it was mentioned that there was some delay in the F. I. R. as Rajman had also other brothers who were living in village Saidapur District Faizabad. If we take into account that Shanker had not died till about 11, it cannot be said to be much of a delay. However, at the same time, the very idea of hammering in the mind of informant that there was delay in, the F. I. R. is a factor not to be lost sight of. ( 4 ) THE investigation followed and the blood stained bed of the deceased was taken in the police custody by the Investigating Officer. The body was also sent for the post mortem examination which seems to have been conducted at 4. 30 p. m. on 2. 7. 1982 by one Dr. Kalika Singh. Dr. Kalika Singh, however, seems to have expired and this post mortem report was proved as a document only by (P. W. 2) K. S. Misra. The other witnesses examined were (P. W. 3) H. C. Yadunandan Singh who had prepared the chik report on the basis of the written report (P. W. 4) Sheel Dau Rai who had accompanied the dead body and identified the same before the medical officer, (P. W. 5) Ram Autar Rai who conducted the so-called investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the accused as an absconder after taking the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. (P. W. 6) Ram Nath Rai was another Sub Inspector of police who has stated to have executed some orders of the court under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. in August. 1982. (P. W. 7) Daya Ram was another Sub-Inspector of police who had taken in possession the blood soiled bed and earth etc. from the spot. ( 5 ) THE evidence of occurrence was only in the statement of Rajman and the total evidence against the accused was his statement and the evidence of conduct of accused in absconding after the crime. ( 6 ) WE will take up the second first. The evidence of absconding, needless to say is only a weak type of evidence and it need hardly be said that the weaker is a type of evidence it needs more weight in the proof of itself. ( 6 ) WE will take up the second first. The evidence of absconding, needless to say is only a weak type of evidence and it need hardly be said that the weaker is a type of evidence it needs more weight in the proof of itself. The evidence of absconding is not only in the statement of police or the members of the home that the person concerned was keeping himself away and was a fugitive from law. What is required is the evidence to the effect that he had known that he was wanted and was avoiding the arrest. One of the methods to prove the situation is a proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. but in that event there has to be definite evidence that the attachment was in fact affected after a proclamation really had been proclaimed. The value of evidence is not in merely obtaining the order from a court but is in the fact that the proclamation directed by the court was really proclaimed at the place of usual living of the person concerned and thereafter, his belongings were attached. The evidence of (P. W. 6) Ram Nath Rai S. 1. was nowhere near this requirement of law. It is absolutely silent about the proclamation and so far as attachment part is concerned, even if it could be said to have been affected, it would remain doubtful in view of the fact that according to the prosecution story itself the accused was not living their where in fact the attachment was made, is not clear from his statement. ( 7 ) THE sole evidence of Rajman also does not inspire any confidence, apart from, in certain respects being inadmissible. The first statement of this witness was about the motive in a form that Rajman had a doubt about the relationship between his father and wife. This could be a statement about mental condition of somebody else. It could be proved not by a person who could not read the minds of others but by proof of certain facts which could establish the case of this mental condition or some behaviour of Ram Jeet from which such an inference could be drawn. There was not a single word about those facts and it appears that Rajman had taken the burden of behaving in a manner that he could know thoughts of others. There was not a single word about those facts and it appears that Rajman had taken the burden of behaving in a manner that he could know thoughts of others. ( 8 ) IT is true that the state of mind or bodily feeling of the accused was relevant here but nobody can state about it and it has only to be inferred. It is for this purpose that the facts showing the existence of any state of mind such as ill will towards any particular person or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling have been made relevant under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act. The actual state of mind is a fact in issue and it could be proved by proof of the relevant facts and not by an opinion of the brother or uncle. It would be an inference from relevant facts, which could be drawn or negatived only by the court when proper relevant facts were placed before it. In any event this statement, therefore, remains inadmissible in evidence and simply shows the prejudice, to use the least word, harboured by this witness against Ram Jeet. ( 9 ) IT was also stated by him that Rajpat and Hansraj had also arrived when Shanker was being assaulted. These persons were not examined. It may be that they would not be of any help to the prosecution, inasmuch as it would not be add to the evidenciary value of the statement of (P. W. 1) Rajman in any way. On the contrary, in view of the facts that Rajman, Shanker, Bharat and Bhagirathi were 4 brothers, the former two were living in this village and the latter two were living in Saidapur, District Faizabad, the former two were cultivating the land in the village and the latter two being benefited by the land acquired by the father in village Saidapur in the District Faizabad, makes a situation where (P. W. 1) Rajman is not only a brother or neighbour of the deceased but also a beneficiary by his death and that benefit is further enlarged if the son of the deceased is sent behind the bars. Precisely speaking it was too well shown in the cross-examination of Rajman that Shanker had only two sons, namely, the accused and another fellow aged about 15 years. Precisely speaking it was too well shown in the cross-examination of Rajman that Shanker had only two sons, namely, the accused and another fellow aged about 15 years. If Shanker somehow or the other died, his elder son is sent behind the bars and his younger son is ineffective, Rajman gets at least the hold of the entire agricultural land and it would be a good motive for giving false evidence. It was also shown in the cross-examination that the F. I. R. was got signed by him after having been prepared by the Sub Inspector and scribed by Ram Das Yadav at his own house, after he had returned from the police station. It is clear that the above said impression of delay in the F. I. R. plays its role here. ( 10 ) THE last thought not in any way less important is in the nature of injuries. Unfortunately the medical officer who had conducted the post mortem examination, is no more available for evidence. However, the fact is that the injury No. 3 was on the dorsum of the left palm and this would not be an injury which a person would receive while making effort to ward off an assault. It would indicate in all probability an injury while a person was still asleep. Considering the totality of evidence, we find ourselves unable to uphold the conviction arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor. This appeal, therefore, should succeed. ( 11 ) THE appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, are hereby set aside. The accused appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Appeal allowed. .