JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1986, dated 30-11-1987 whereby accused Dinesh Kumar has been convicted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased Miss Sangeeta Jaswal was studying in Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola, during the year 1985-86. She was living in rented premises in the upper storey of the house belonging to Shri Pran Nath at Paprola. The accused was also studying in the same College and had been visiting the deceased quite often since the deceased used to treat him her god brother. Their relations were quite intimate and it was accused who had taught her cooking meals. 3. The accused sought the assistance of Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, Palampur, and appeared in the Court of Shri P. C. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, and stated that he had murdered Sangeeta Jaswal the previous night and wanted to confess his guilt. He was apprised of the consequences of this kind of statement not only by Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, but also by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur. However, the accused insisted for making the statement. Accordingly, his statement was recorded and he was thereafter handed over to the police at Palampur. On his personal search, the key, pertaining to the house of the deceased, and some other articles were recovered. The accused took the police to the room of the deceased and opened the lock with key (Ex. P-3). The dead-body of the deceased was found on the cot. It had multiple injuries and was covered under the quilt. At the instance of the accused, knife (Ex. PJ) was recovered from underneath the cot. Thereafter, he took the police to his quarter in Paprola town where his blood stained clothes were recovered. The dead-body was subjected to post-mortem examination and it was found that the deceased had died of the injuries sustained by her. After collecting the evidence and completing the investigation, the accused was tried for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The dead-body was subjected to post-mortem examination and it was found that the deceased had died of the injuries sustained by her. After collecting the evidence and completing the investigation, the accused was tried for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has denied the prosecution evidence against him. According to him, the crime was committed by Shri Rahul (PW 15), who had been engaged with the deceased and the motive for the crime was that Shri Rahul was not happy with the conduct of the deceased since she was moving freely with-her College mates. In defence, he has also produced Shri Arvind Sood, the handwriting expert, to prove writing marked Z in the hand of said Shri Rahul. It is also his case that the confessional statement given to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, was not voluntary. He had been compelled by the police to do so when he had gone to the police in the morning of 15-1-1986. He was tortured by the Station House Officer who asked him to go to Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, Palampur, and confess the guilt of the murder, otherwise they would finish him. Thereafter, two police officials took him to Palampur and left him near the chair of Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, and themselves stood at some distance. As soon as Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, came, he told him the version that was given to him by the Station House, Officer, Baijnath, and he was taken before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, where the same version was given. 5. He also says that Shri Rahul (PW 15) had met him in the bazar at Paprola in the evening of H-l-1986 but did not come to his quarter although he had told him to come. He got the information through Shri Pran Nath (PW 5) that Miss Sangeeta had been murdered on 15-1-1986 at about 7 a. m. He was also told by Shri Pran Nath and Shri Rahul had already left Sangeeta. He was taken to police station, Baijnath, by Shri Pran Nath, who left the place after talking something to the police officer. The police was biased against him since he had filed a writ petition in the High Court during College strike in which certain police officials were suspended. 6. He was taken to police station, Baijnath, by Shri Pran Nath, who left the place after talking something to the police officer. The police was biased against him since he had filed a writ petition in the High Court during College strike in which certain police officials were suspended. 6. The trial ended in the aforesaid conviction and punishment of the accused, hence this appeal. 7. Shri J. K. Verma, learned Counsel for the accused, contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of the accused with the deceased. The evidence of Shri Pran Nath (PW 5) and Shri Ashwani Kumar (PW 6) is of doubtful nature. There is-no substance in this submission. It has not been disputed that the accused had been visiting the deceased at her house quite often. Shri Pran Nath (PW 5) is the owner of the house where the deceased had been residing. Naturally, he is the best person who could notice the movements of the accused and the deceased. Fie has clearly stated that the accused visited the house of the deceased in the evening of 14-1-1986. He has also said that the key of the house was with the accused and it was he who had opened the lock The other witness who has supported this version is Shri Ashwani Kumar (PW 6) who lived in the nearby house. In the absence of any evidence pointing out that Sangeeta was visited by anyone else after the evening of 14-1-1986, it can be safely concluded that it was the accused who was with the deceased from the evening of 14-1-1986 till the morning of 15-1-1986. There is no evidence to sustain the plea that Shri Rahul (PW 15) had visited Miss Sangeeta on 14-1-1986. The accused did not put this defence to Shri Rahul when he appeared as a witness in the case None of the prosecution witnesses have supported this defence of the accused. In the morning of 15-1-1986, the accused went to Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, Palampur, and got his confessional statement recorded before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur. 8. Now, let us test the second submission of Shri J. K. Verma that the statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, was not voluntary since the same was at the instance of the police, police station, Baijnath. 9. 8. Now, let us test the second submission of Shri J. K. Verma that the statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, was not voluntary since the same was at the instance of the police, police station, Baijnath. 9. Shri Vinod Prohit (PW 2) was an Advocate at Palampur at the relevant time. He has stated that the accused came to him on 15-1-1986 at about 10.15 or 10.30 a. m. in the court compound and revealed to him that he had committed murder and he should be got arrested immediately. On his inquiry, the accused told him that he had murdered one girl of Uttar Pradesh studying in Ayurvedic College, Paprola. No reasons were given for the murder. He apprised the accused of the consequences and told him that in such a case the accused could be sentenced to death and the minimum sentence was life imprisonment and in case he preferred to con test the murder case, he could even be acquitted However, the accused replied that he did not want acquittal but he should be got arrested immediately and the remaining details of the murder in question would be revealed to him lateron Shri Vinod Prohit advised the accused to sit on a chair near his own chair in the court premises and told him that he would let the accused know after inquiring from the Magistrate. He went to the Judicial Magistrate and revealed to him the facts of the case whereupon he was told by the Magistrate that the consequences of the admission/ confession be made known to the accused. He apprised the accused accordingly but he reiterated his earlier stand. Accordingly, he was taken to the court where he made the statement before the Judicial Magistrate which was reduced in writing. The accused had come alone but he could not say if he had left certain persons behind. He did not see any police officials of Baijnath police station on that day with the accused He knew all the officials of police station, Baijnath, since they had been coming to attend the court and had been walking in the bazar as he himself belonged to Baijnath. He had stated facts to the police also and these facts included the facts relating to the stand of the accused to make the confession as to the commission of offence by him. He had stated facts to the police also and these facts included the facts relating to the stand of the accused to make the confession as to the commission of offence by him. He remained present in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, throughout the recording of the statement of the accused by the Magistrate. It was after the recording of the statement of the accused by the Magistrate that the local police was informed He denied the suggestion that the accused was sent to him by Baijnath police since it was very well acquainted with him. 10. Shri P. C. Sharma (PW 21) is the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur. He recorded the confession of the accused. He states that the accused appeared in his court on 15- 1-1986 and expressed his desire to confess his guilt about the murder of the deceased. He warned him of the consequences of his confession. He gave him 2/3 hour time to reconsider his confession and thereafter when the accused appeared again, he was again apprised of the consequences of his confession. He was satisfied about the voluntary nature of the confession by the accused and thereafter recorded it. This confession (Ex. PX) is in his hand and bears his signatures. It also bears the signatures of the accused (Ex PX/1). Endorsement (Ex. PX/2) is also in his hand. The confession was recorded in the court room and except him, none was there. After recording the confession, he sent Ruka Ex PQ to Station House Officer, Baijnath, regarding the confession of offence by the accused. The accused was handed over to the police after recording the confession. On inquiry, Shri Vinod Prohit, Advocate, told that the accused had come to him voluntarily. The accused was produced before him by Shri Vinod Prohit after 10 a.m. but before 11 a. m. Perusal of the statements of these two witnesses demonstrates that the accused had gone to Shri Vinod Prohit and Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, voluntarily and not at the instance of the police. He recorded his statement willingly and without any compulsion. There is no justification to disbelieve the version of Shri Vinod Prohit (PW 2) and Shri P. C. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, (PW 21). They bad no interest adverse to the accused. Rather he was made aware of the consequences also. He recorded his statement willingly and without any compulsion. There is no justification to disbelieve the version of Shri Vinod Prohit (PW 2) and Shri P. C. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, (PW 21). They bad no interest adverse to the accused. Rather he was made aware of the consequences also. However, the accused insisted and wanted that his statement should be recorded Similarly, there is no substance in his allegation that the police compelled him to go to Shri Vinod Prohit for recording the confessional statement. Evidence, as a matter of fact, discloses that the police had not come to know about the occurrence from the accused, as stated by him. Therefore, there is no question of the police compelling him to go to Palampur and nuke the confessional statement. The allegation of bias has no substance The objection now being raised by the accused against recording of his confessional statement is, as a matter of fact, an after thought. The plea raised by the learned Counsel for the accused is, therefore, repelled. 11. Shri J. K. Verma next contended that the recoveries made in this case are of doubtful nature and, therefore, should not be accepted in evidence As already noticed, the police came in possession of the accused on receiving information from the Sub-Divisional" Magistrate, Palampur. On his personal search, in the presence of Joginder Singh (PW 3) and Kuldeep Chand (PW 9), one handkerchief, two keys, one photograph of Nisha Sharma and other of Sangeeta Jaswal, one bus ticket from Paprola to Palampur and purse containing Rs 502 was recovered and taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PC. The key relating to his own house (Ex P-2) and key (Ex. P-3) relating to the house of the deceased were also recovered. The accused has signed them and the recovery witnesses have proved these documents. The house of the deceased was opened by use of key (Ex. P-3) where the dead-body of the deceased was lying on the cot underneath the guilt. The knife (Ex. P18) was also recovered from underneath the cot at the instance of the accused. Thereafter his own house was opened with key (Ex. P-2) wherefrom blood stained sweater (Ex. P-28) and shirt (Ex. P-6) were recovered vide recovery memo. Ex. P-3) where the dead-body of the deceased was lying on the cot underneath the guilt. The knife (Ex. P18) was also recovered from underneath the cot at the instance of the accused. Thereafter his own house was opened with key (Ex. P-2) wherefrom blood stained sweater (Ex. P-28) and shirt (Ex. P-6) were recovered vide recovery memo. Ex. PM and these were sent to the Serologist who found human blood on these clothes as stated by him in his report (Ex. PY). These recoveries also bear the signatures of the accused and the witnesses. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused has contended that the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased were such which could be caused by more than one person and by use of three kinds of weapons. In order to sustain this submission, a reference was made to the statement of Dr. R. K. Bajaj (PW 7), where the witness has said : "the possibility that the injuries on the person of deceased Sangeeta were caused by three different weapons, not ruled out". This submission does not improve the case of the accused. As noticed above, recoveries of the blood stained clothes were made from his quarter at his instance. Weapon of offence was found in the room of the deceased underneath the cot, even if we accept the argument that the police was aware of the weapon of offence even before the recording of the disclosure statement. The accused has admitted the use of knife in his confessional statement. Let it be reproduced below since it is necessary to appreciate not only this point but also the points already discussed above : "I am a student of pre-final year of Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola. Yesterday I have murdered Sangita Jaswal in her room. She lives in the house of Harbans Lal—Pran Nath, tobacco merchants, Paprola. Sangita Jaswal is also a student of Ayurvedic College, Paprola. I have killed her with a knife. Her dead-body is lying in the room. I cannot tell as to why I have killed her. The knife is also lying in the room. I have just came from Paprola. I have my residence in the Paprola Bazar. I am making this statement being in my full senses." RO and AC 15-1-1986. 13. Her dead-body is lying in the room. I cannot tell as to why I have killed her. The knife is also lying in the room. I have just came from Paprola. I have my residence in the Paprola Bazar. I am making this statement being in my full senses." RO and AC 15-1-1986. 13. It can, therefore, be said that all the recoveries in this case are genuine and acceptable in evidence. 14. Shri J. K. Verma then contended that there is complete absence of motive in this case and the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate the cause for commission of offence by the accused. It was also contended that Shri Rahul had motive to kill the deceased since he did not like her free movements with her College mates. We see no substance in this sub mission of the learned Counsel for the accused. To prove motive in all the criminal cases is difficult since even devil knowth not what is in the mind of a man. The prosecution is not bound to prove motive for a crime. However, in case motive comes forth, it can be examined in association with other evidence on record to establish the crime. Shri Rahul (PW 15) could not have committed the offence. He was engaged with the deceased. He had association with the family members of the deceased. The submission that he had developed disaffection towards the deceased is not borne out from the evidence. Even after the incident, he visited the family of the deceased. His presence in Paprola has not been proved on 14-1-1986, as contended by the learned Counsel for the accused. Moreover, no suggestion has been put to Shri Rahul when he appeared as a prosecution witness in this case. As a matter of fact, it has rightly been noticed by the trial Court that the accused has set up a false defence by involving Shri Rahul (PW 15) in this case and taking shelter on document marked Z, which does not in any way connect Rahul with the commission of the offence. 15. Shri J. K. Verma made a feeble attempt to assert that confession of the accused has not been recorded in accordance with section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have examined this aspect also. 15. Shri J. K. Verma made a feeble attempt to assert that confession of the accused has not been recorded in accordance with section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have examined this aspect also. As a matter of fact, it has not been recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sine; no case had been registered against the accused at that time. However, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate recorded it by observing certain basic precautions which are taken while recording confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The confessional statement recorded in this case falls under section 21 of the Evidence Act and is therefore, admissible. (See : 1977 ILR HP 403, State o/H. P. v. Kashmir Singh). 16. Dr. R. K. Bajaj (PW 7) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 16-1-1986 and noticed as many as 20 injuries on her person. In his opinion, death of the deceased was due to injuries Nos. 8 and 20, being on the vital organs, namely, lungs and profused bleeding leading to shock and death. They were anti-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. The probable time between injuries and death was about half an hour and between death and post-mortem was 24 to 48 hours These injuries were caused with sharp- edged weapon and injuries Nos. 8 and 20 were grievous while the remaining were simple caused by a similar weapon. 17. The plea that the doctor has not ruled out the possibility of the injuries on the deceased by three different weapons is of no consequence in view of one weapon of offence (Ex. P-18), used in the commission of the crime, found in the same room and purchased from Akbar Khan (PW 11) 18. Evidence of other witnesses has also been examined by us. Learned Counsel for the accused sought to draw some assistance from the statement of Smt. Archana (PW 14) in favour of his client. However, we feel that no such assistance can, in fact, be taken out of her statement. 19. The Investigating Officer has proved the various steps taken in the investigation of this case in his statement. 20. The result of our careful consideration of the matter is that there is no substance in this appeal which we accordingly dismiss. Appeal dismissed.