Judgment R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 5. 8. 1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1991, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant Maniya Manisingh of the offence under s. 302 I. P. C. and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 1. 11. 1989, the first informant Wali Mohd. (P. W. 9) was standing in front of Neel Kamal Hotel and was talking with P. W. 6 Ayub Mimy other people were also standing there. In the meantime, they saw deceased Bakshu Khan alongwith his youngest son Karim Khan coming on the road with fodder of goat towards bus stand. When both of them reached near the place earmarked for celebration of Holi Festival near the electric pole, where there are Babool trees, the appellant came running from behind the babool trees armed with a Danda which appeared to be fitted with Dhariya. He started beating Bakshu Khan on his head and face etc. Bakshu Khan fell down and his son started crying. The first in formant P. W. 9 and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan also made hue and cry and exhorted people there to help but no one came to intervene or rescue Bakshukhan from the assault. After assaulting Bakshu Khan, the appellant ran away towards the lane of Thakardas. The first informant P. W. 9 and P. W. 6, Ayub Khan chased the appellant to some distance but no one came behind them. Therefore, they returned due to fear. In the meantime, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came on the spot. According to the first informant, the legally wedded wife of appellant was living with deceased Bakshu Khan as his wife for the last 10 to 12 years due to which there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased. Due to the aforesaid enmity, the appellant has committed the murder of deceased Bakshu Khan. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid written report Ex. Due to the aforesaid enmity, the appellant has committed the murder of deceased Bakshu Khan. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid written report Ex. P. 9 was given by first informant to P. W. IS S. H. O. , Police Station, Mandar at the bus stand from where the S. H. O. sent the said report after obtaining the signature of Wali Mohd. through Nanu Ram to Police Station, on the basis of which, a formal F. I. R. Ex. P. 21 was drawn and investigation commenced. ( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant in the court of the learned Chief Judicial. Magistrate, Sirohi, who committed the case to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi for trial. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused-appellant for the offence under s. 302 LP. C. The accused-appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case and produced 21 documents Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 21. The statement of the accused-appellant Maniya was recorded, wherein he has disclosed that he had caused injuries on the body of deceased Bakshu Khan with Dhariya other than the one shown to have been recovered on his information and at his instance i. e. Art. 2 produced before the Court. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, he was living at Siori in Gujarat and he came to Mandar due to death of his Uncle. He came to the Bus stand with a purpose to go to his sisters house. Bakshu Khan came to him and abused him and said that he is impotent and why he has come to Mandar from Gujarat. He told the accused that he is keeping his wife as his own after having a Nikaah ceremony with her. He further teased him by saying that he converted his (appellant) son Kani Singh to Islamik faith and renamed him as Karim Khan, Bakshu Khan also threatened to kill him. The accused-appellant has also stated in his statement under s. 313 Cr. He further teased him by saying that he converted his (appellant) son Kani Singh to Islamik faith and renamed him as Karim Khan, Bakshu Khan also threatened to kill him. The accused-appellant has also stated in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. that about 10 years before from the date of incident, he and his wile were working as labourers at the house of Bakshu Khan, who betrayed him and after taking undue advantage of his position, he developed illicit relations with his wife. Since he has no source of sustenance, therefore, he was not able to initiate any action against him. Upon his aforesaid threat to kill the appellant, he recollected all the incidents which had happened in the past with him. He was so much infuriated that he lost his self control and assaulted Bakshu Khan at the spur of the moment under that sudden and grave provocation provided by the deceased. When the appellant assaulted Bakshu Khan, there was no one. When Bakshu Khan provoked him, then also there was none present except the appellant and the deceased. According to the statement of the appellant, Bakshu Khan had already snatched his wife and son but when he abused him on the day of the incident, he lost his self control and assaulted him. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court to defend the appellant, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence under s. 302 I. P. C. and as such convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and hence this appeal. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court to defend the appellant i. e. Shri Suresh Kumbhat and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court to defend the appellant i. e. Shri Suresh Kumbhat and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. ( 9 ) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilty of the appellant under s. 302 I. P. C. and the offence made out on the basis of material available on record does not travel beyond the scope of s. 304 Part II, I. P. C. The finding of guilty recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under s. 302 I. P. C. against the appellant is not borne out from the evidence on record. ( 10 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the aforesaid contention and supported the finding of guilty recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is eminently just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. ( 11 ) AS a matter of fact, in the instant case, the appellant himself had stated that at the time and place mentioned in the F. I. R. , he had assaulted deceased Bakshu Khan with Dharia other than Dharia Article-2 alleged to have been recovered at his instance vide recovery memo Ex. P. 8. ( 12 ) P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit who had conducted postmortem of deceased Bakshu Khan and had prepared a report Ex. P. 16 had deposed before the learned Sessions Judge that the deceased died due to injuries caused to him. P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit further opined that the deceased died due to head injuries and in traperitoneal haemorrhage leading to shock. ( 13 ) THUS, the questions to the decided in this instant appeal are, firstly as to whether the occurrence has happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution in the presence of eye witnesses examined at the trial and if not, to what effect. ( 13 ) THUS, the questions to the decided in this instant appeal are, firstly as to whether the occurrence has happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution in the presence of eye witnesses examined at the trial and if not, to what effect. Secondly, whether grave and sudden provocation was caused to the accused-appellant by deceased Bakshu Khan on the day of the occurrence because as alleged by the accused, the deceased abused him and called him impotent and in addition to enticing his wife and son and converting them to Islamic faith, he threatened him not to come to Mandar and further told him that if he does so, he will kill him, which caused grave and sudden provocation to him and he lost his self control as a result of which he assaulted the deceased and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of exception Ito s. 300 I. P. C. Thirdly, whether investigation in the present case can be said to be fair? If not, its effect on the merits of the case. ( 14 ) IT would be expedient to deal with the aforesaid points involved in the instant appeal ad- seriatim. In order to prove the first point involved in the present case, the prosecution has examined four eye witnesses alleged to have seen the actual occurrence. The first version of the prosecution story is disclosed in the written report Ex. P. 9 given by P. W. 9 Wali Mohd. , on the basis of which, formal F. I. R. Ex. P. 21 was drawn at Police Station, Mandar. In both those documents; it is clearly mentioned that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan reached on the spot after occurrence had happened. It is clearly stated in the F. I. R. that the first informant P. W. 9 Wali Mohd and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan after the incident chased the appellant to some distance. Since other persons standing there did not come behind them to chase the accused, therefore, they returned and after their return, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan met them on the scene of occurrence. P. W. 9 Wali Mohd. had deposed even in his examination-in-chief before the learned Sessions Judge that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 4 Babu Khan reached on the spot later on. P. W. 9 Wali Mohd. had deposed even in his examination-in-chief before the learned Sessions Judge that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 4 Babu Khan reached on the spot later on. According to his deposition, when P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 4 Babu Khan reached on the scene of occurrence, the appellant had already ran away from the place of the occurrence. P. W. 9 Wali Mohd. had further stated that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan reached on the spot when he was dictating F. I. R. to a student. ( 15 ) P. W. 9 Wali Mohd. has further stated that after chasing accused Maniya to some distance, when they came back to the scene of occurrence, they went to leave Karim Khan to his house and, thereafter, when the written report Ex. P. 9 was being dictated by him to a school child then P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came there. Thus, as per him, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan reached at the scene of occurrence after about 10 to 15 minutes of the running of accused Maniya from the place of the occurrence. P. W. 2 Ismail Khan states that he asked P. W. 9 Wali Khan and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan not to chase the accused Maniya because he may caused them harm but P. W. 6 Ayub Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan both of them have categorically stated that nobody asked them not to chased accused Maniya P. W. 2 Ismail Khan states that he was at the bus-stand waiting for his truck whereas P. W. 9 Walia Khan has stated that when he was dictating the F. I. R. to a school child, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came there in his truck loaded with stones and when he saw them, he stopped his truck, P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh has stated that after the F. I. R. Ex. P. 9 was submitted to him by P. W. 9 Wali Khan, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came there after five minutes thereafter. Thus, the claim of P. W. 2 Ismail Khan that he has seen the occurrence does not stand scrutiny and, therefore, his evidence has to be discarded totally. P. 9 was submitted to him by P. W. 9 Wali Khan, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came there after five minutes thereafter. Thus, the claim of P. W. 2 Ismail Khan that he has seen the occurrence does not stand scrutiny and, therefore, his evidence has to be discarded totally. ( 16 ) NOW we will have to examine the evidence of remaining three eye witnesses of the occurrence i. e. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan, P. W. 8 Karim Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan to find out whether they have also seen the actual occurrence and whether any reliance can be placed on their testimony, so far as the actual happening of the occurrence is concerned. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan has stated that the accused, after he came out of the bushes, first struck a blow from wooden handle on the back side of the legs of the deceased and by that, he fell down. His attention was first attracted towards the occurrence only when Karim Khan cried. P. W. 9 Wali Khan also states that his attention was drawn towards the occurrence only when Karim Khan cried but when he saw towards the occurrence, Bakshu Khan has not fallen down. All the injuries on his legs were inflicted when he was seeing the occurrence. According to him also, a severe blow was inflicted on the back side of the legs of Bakshu Khan by the accused with the handle of the Dhariya and Karim Khan cries when the accused came out of the bushes. P. W. 8 Karim Khan has stated that when accused Maniya came out of the Babool tree, he struck a blow with the Dharjya on the legs of his father Bakshu Khan with its wooden handle, by which his father fell down and thereafter, he inflicted injuries with the Dhariya on his chest, stomach, face, forehead, etc, He nowhere says that he ever cried. He also does not say that he informed P. W. 6 Ayub Khan that it was accused Maniya who has inflicted injuries on the legs of his father. This entire testimony is totally belied by the testimony of P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit, who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Bakshu Khan, which has been marked as Ex. p. 16. This entire testimony is totally belied by the testimony of P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit, who has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Bakshu Khan, which has been marked as Ex. p. 16. Although he found 15 injuries on his body but none of the injuries were situated on his legs. He has categorically stated that if a blow is struck on the legs with such a force that the victim falls down, it is bound to cause injuries and the injuries must have been noticed by him. P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh has also stated that no visible injury was found on the legs of deceased Bakshu Khan and this is what he has written in the Panchnama Lash. It is, therefore, clear that the testimony of these three witnesses who have stated that the occurrence started in the manner as disclosed by them is not supported by the medical testimony as also by P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this part of the testimony of these eye witnesses. ( 17 ) IN this statement before the Court, P. W. 6 Ayub Khan has stated that when Bakshu Khan and his son Karim Khan were going from the side of brick kiln towards the Bus stand, Karim Khan was carrying the fodder for the goat in his hands and that was a fodder of Gundi tree and that fodder remained at the place of the occurrence. P. W. 8 Karim Khan has stated that goat fodder was being carried not by him but by his father. According to him, that fodder was not tied in bundles but it was scattered and that remained at the place of the occurrence. P. W. 2 Ismail Khan also states that Bakshu Khan was bringing fodder with him and it was tied in bundles, which scattered at the place of the occurrence on account of beating. P. W. 3 Kishnabai has stated that when she asked Karimkhan his son as to where the fodder was and why he has not brought it whereupon he told her that as the occurrence has taken place with his father, the fodder has remained at the place of the occurrence. P. W. 3 Kishnabai has stated that when she asked Karimkhan his son as to where the fodder was and why he has not brought it whereupon he told her that as the occurrence has taken place with his father, the fodder has remained at the place of the occurrence. The police reached the place of the occurrence in the presence of the witnesses just within 15 to 20 minutes of the occurrence and it has been categorically stated by P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh that no fodder was found at the place of the occurrence. If actually, Bakshu Khan or for that matter, Karim Khan were coming from brick kiln side and they were carrying fodder then the fodder should have been found at the place of the occurrence and must have noticed by the S. H. O. , who inspected the site in the presence of P. W. 9 Wali Khan himself. Although, P. W. 9 Wali Khan has stated nothing about the fodder being carried either by Bakshu Khan or his son Karim Khan but all other witnesses are categorical about the fact that the fodder was being carried by them. In the written report Ex. p. 9, which has been proved by P. W. 9 Wali Khan, he got it recorded that Bakshu Khan while he was coming with his son Karim Khan was carrying goat fodder with him. Thus, it has come in the evidence of all the three eye witnesses that either Bakshu Khan or Karim Khan were carrying fodder but no fodder was found at the place of the occurrence. The photos of the incident have also been produced and they have been marked as Ex. p. 18 to Ex. p. 20 but in none of them any scattered fodder is visible. These photographs have been proved by P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh. ( 18 ) ALTHOUGH, all the three eye witnesses viz. , P. W. 6 Ayub Khan, P. W. 8 Karim Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan have stated that the accused Maniya inflicted Dhariya blows on the body of Bakshu Khan but this fact can be stated by them even if they have not seen the occurrence because the dead body was lying there in an injured condition. , P. W. 6 Ayub Khan, P. W. 8 Karim Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan have stated that the accused Maniya inflicted Dhariya blows on the body of Bakshu Khan but this fact can be stated by them even if they have not seen the occurrence because the dead body was lying there in an injured condition. As the injuries were sharp weapon injuries, anybody can tell that these injuries have been inflicted with a Dhariya, which is a sharp weapon. It is true that the evidence of the eye witnesses have to be tested on the basis of the checks available on record and, therefore, the testimony of the eye witnesses is being tested on those check available on record. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan have stated that after the occurrence was over, they chased accused Maniya to some distance but when nobody else joined them, they came back and then they took Karim Khan to his fatherts house. P. W. 2 Ismail Khan has stated that he asked them not to chase and therefore, they did not chase whereas P. W. 6 Ayub Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan have stated that Ismail Khan came at the scene of the occurrence at the time when the written report Ex. p. 9 was being dictated. P. W. 8 Karim Khan has stated that it was P. W. 2 Ismail Khan who first chased the accused and thereafter, P. W. 6 Ayub Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan chased the accused whereas P. W. 2 Ismail Khan says that neither he chased the accused nor he allowed others to chase him. Such material contradictions are not possible in the evidence of the eye witnesses. ( 19 ) BE that as it may, P. W. 6 Ayub Khan and P. W. 9 Wali Khan both have stated that after chasing Maniya, they came back and then they took with them Karimkhan to Bakshu Khants house. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan has further stated that thereafter, P. W. 3 Mst. Kishna Bai, the wife of the deceased accompanied to the place of the occurrence. P. W. 9 Wali Khan only says that he and Ayub Khan alone returned from the house of Bakshu Khan unaccompanied by P. W. 3 Kishni Bai. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan has further stated that thereafter, P. W. 3 Mst. Kishna Bai, the wife of the deceased accompanied to the place of the occurrence. P. W. 9 Wali Khan only says that he and Ayub Khan alone returned from the house of Bakshu Khan unaccompanied by P. W. 3 Kishni Bai. As regards this, P. W. 8 Karim Khan has stated that he went to his house alone and nobody accompanied him to leave him to his house. This is what has been stated by P. W. 3 Mst. Kishni Bai also that his son came to her house alone. P. W. 8 Karim Khan has stated that after the entire incident was related to her mother, she went to the place of the occurrence. She has categorically stated that she did not go to the place of the occurrence because she was frightened. P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh has stated that P. W. 3 Mst. Kishna Bai and P. W. 8 Karim Khan visited the place of the occurrence only after he arrived at the place of the occurrence meaning thereby, that P. W. 8 Karim Khan has not seen the occurrence. He only came to the place of the occurrence after the occurrence was over. In this view of the matter, we are firmly of the opinion that P. W. 8 Karim Khan, P. W. 9 Wali Khan and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan have not seen the occurrence and had they seen the occurrence, such material contradictions could not be found in their evidence. There are other grounds, which will also impel us to discard the testimony of these three alleged eye witnesses. P. W. 9 Wali Khan has stated that after leaving Karim Khan to his house, when they came to the place of the occurrence, he started dictating written report to a school child and at that point of time, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan arrived at the place of the occurrence. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan was already there when he was dictating the F. I. R. and he has put his signatures on the written report Ex. p. 9 in the presence of these two witnesses. P. W 2 Ismail Khan states that when the police came, he left the place of the occurrence. He did not get the F. I. R. written. p. 9 in the presence of these two witnesses. P. W 2 Ismail Khan states that when the police came, he left the place of the occurrence. He did not get the F. I. R. written. It might have been got written by P. W. 9 Wali Khan who was present at the place of the occurrence. Thus, as per Ismail Khan, the written report was not written till the police came on the spot and as soon as the police came on the sport, he left the place of the occurrence. To the same effect is the statement of P. W. 6 Ayub Khan, who has stated that as soon as the police arrived at the bus-stand, he left the place of the occurrence with his vehicle after: it was filled by passengers and this was after about 20 minutes of the actual happening and, therefore, he does not know who got the F. I. R. scribed and who actually scribed it. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan that till the police came on the spot, no report was written at all and it was not written in their presence. P. W. 2 Ismail Khan on the basis of conjectures states that it must have been got written by P. W. 9 Wali Khan. P. W. 6 Ayub Khan does not know who got it written and it was written by whom? P. W. 9 Wali Khan has stated that the report was got scribed and thereafter, it was signed before the police came on the spot. Thus, P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan not only belie the testimony of P. W. 9 Wali Khan but from the evidence of P. W. 2 Ismail Khan and P. W. 6 Ayub Khan, the F. I. R. Ex. p. 9 appears to be a post investigation document, which has come into existence after the police has started investigation on receiving a complaint that Bakshu Khan has been killed at the bus-stand. P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh has categorically stated that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came to the place of the occurrence after five minutes of the handing over the F. I. R. to him by P. W. 9 Wali Khan whereas in the F. I. R. Ex. P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh has categorically stated that P. W. 2 Ismail Khan came to the place of the occurrence after five minutes of the handing over the F. I. R. to him by P. W. 9 Wali Khan whereas in the F. I. R. Ex. p. 9, the name of Ismail Khan (P. W. 2) has been mentioned as the person who has arrived at the spot prior to the arrival of the police. Thus, from this evidence, it appears that the F. I. R. was written after the investigation was started and, therefore, it is a post investigation document and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on such a material because it must have been written somewhere after P. W. 2 Ismail Khan has arrived at-the place of the occurrence i. e. five minutes after the arrival of the police at the place of the occurrence. ( 20 ) IN his statement before the Court, P. W. 4 Babu Khan has stated that on the date of the occurrence at about 5 P. M. , he saw accused Maniya, when he was coming on a tractor from his well alongwith Mafa Koli, near Sega Bhakari. Accused Maniya was identified by Mafa Koli Mafa Koli has not been examined and therefore, much does not turn upon the evidence of P. W. 4 Babu Khan. ( 21 ) THE evidence of P. W. 12 Nadir Khan about the extra judicial confession and about the surrender of accused Maniya before him at S. P. Office, Palanpur appears to be totally false, suspicious and after thought. When the accused has committed the crime on 1. 11. 1989 and was absconding for one month and 18 days, there was no reason for him to go to the S. P. Office Palanpur to surrender himself before P. W. 12 Nadir Khan and to make an extra judicial confession before him because he was not at all the concerned Police Officer, who may help him. It has been stated by P. W. 12 Nadir Khan that he got him in his custody and informed the S. H. O. , Police Station, Mandar on 19. 12. 1989 and the S. H. O. Police Station, Mandar arrested him on 20. 12. 1989, although the police came to Palanpur on 19. 12. It has been stated by P. W. 12 Nadir Khan that he got him in his custody and informed the S. H. O. , Police Station, Mandar on 19. 12. 1989 and the S. H. O. Police Station, Mandar arrested him on 20. 12. 1989, although the police came to Palanpur on 19. 12. 1989, as stated, by P. W. 15 Jagdish Singh, S. H. O. There is no reference in the arrest memo of accused Maniya that he was handed over to the Police by P. W. 12 Nadir Khan. The arrest memo of accused Muniya is dated 20. 12. 1989 this arrest memo is not signed by P. W. 12 Nadir Khan. The arrest memo Ex. P. 10 is signed by accused and S. H. O. Jagdish Singh and two Motbirs viz. , Hukamsingh and Pahadsingh. Moreover, P. W. l2nadir Khan was examined by the Police on 26. 12. 1989. When Nadir Khan was available with the Police on 19. 12. 1989 then why he has been examined on 26. 12. 1989. No explanation whatsoever has been offered. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 12 Nadir Khan and P. W. 15 S. H. O. Jagdish Singh about the arrest of accused Maniya from the custody of Nadir Khan and accused Maniya having made an extra judicial confession that he has killed Bakshu Khan appears to be a concoction and an after-thought story, which cannot be believed. 21. P. W. 2 Ismail Khan has stated that there are number of shops at the bus-stand and more than 50 persons were present at the bus stand, when the occurrence took place. He has further stated that none of those persons have any shop at the bus stand. Still, persons of the same community to which the deceased belonged have been produced and examined in support of the case of the prosecution. Neither any independent witness has been examined nor any shopkeeper or Hotelwala has been examined in support of the case of the prosecution. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, it is very difficult to place reliance on the testimony of these alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence to prove the fact that they have actually seen the occurrence. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, it is very difficult to place reliance on the testimony of these alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence to prove the fact that they have actually seen the occurrence. ( 22 ) HAVING discarded the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, now we will have to examine whether the accused-appellant Maniya can be held guilty of the offence of murder of Bakshu Khan on the basis of his own confessional statement recorded under s. 113 Cr. P. C. or not? In his statement under s. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused-appellant Maniya has stated that he has killed Bakshu Khan by inflicting I injuries to him with his Dhariya. He has further stated that this was not the very Dhariya which has been produced by the police, alleging that it has been recovered from his possession on his information and at his instance. Actually, he has killed accused Maniya with some other Dhariya. He has further stated that initially, he and his wife started working as labourers at the house of Bakshu Khan. Taking advantage of his poor status, Bakshu Khan developed illicit relations with his wife and he kept her as his wife and later, he took her as his legally wedded wife by converting her to Islamic faith and performing NIKAH as per Muslim customs. So much so that he converted his son Kaniya also to Islamic faith and renamed him as Karim Khan. It is alleged by him that he came to the bus stand to go to the house of his sister on the date of the occurrence and it was because of this, that he was at the bus-stand. Seeing him at the Bus-stand, Bakshu Khan came near him and abused him as a person who sleeps with his sister. He also called him impotent and asked him as to why he has come here. His wife has already been kept by him. Not only this, his wife and his son both have been converted to Islamic faith. He further told him that if he again comes to Mandar, he will kill him. He also called him impotent and asked him as to why he has come here. His wife has already been kept by him. Not only this, his wife and his son both have been converted to Islamic faith. He further told him that if he again comes to Mandar, he will kill him. When such a misbehaviour was done by Bakshu Khan with him, the entire incident which had happened with him earlier came to his mind that he is the man who has enticed his wife and has deprived him with the pleasure of his wife. He also deprived him of his son and still, he is abusing him and is threatening him. He could not do anything against him because he had no means to take any action against him and, therefore, he lost his self control. He was carrying a Dhariya with him. Nobody else was there with him at that time. He inflicted injuries to him with his Dhariya and after killing him, he ran away from the place of the occurrence. This statement gets corroboration from the testimony of P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit that he found 5 sharp weapon and 10 blunt weapon injuries on the person of deceased Bakshu Khan. All these injuries were situated on the trunk of his body, head and face. None of them was situated on his legs. There was comminuted fracture on his right temporal bone. His left maxilla bona was also fractured. His membranes of the brain were reputed and the blood collected there. Even the liver was also lacerated. According to the Doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Thus, to this extent, the statement given by accused under 313 Cr. P. C. is fully supported by the testimony of P. W. 13 Dr. Vijay Kumar Purohit. ( 23 ) NOW, we will have to examine whether this statement is sufficient to record conviction against the accused-appellant. In this respect, our attention was first drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Hatesingh v. State of Madhya Bharat, wherein it has been observed as under: The statements of an accused person recorded under ss. 208, 209 and 342 are among the most important matters to be considered at a trial. In this respect, our attention was first drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Hatesingh v. State of Madhya Bharat, wherein it has been observed as under: The statements of an accused person recorded under ss. 208, 209 and 342 are among the most important matters to be considered at a trial. It has to be remembered that in this country, an accused person is not allowed to enter the box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the prosecution of the accused in some cases but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statements of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box. They have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and he duly considered at the trial. This means that they must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness and matters in favour of the accused must be viewed with as much deference and given as much weight as matters which tell against him. No more. Because of the presumption of innocence in his favour even when he is not in a position to prove the truth of his story, his version should be accepted if it is reasonable and accords with probabilities unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is false. T Our attention was next drawn to a decision of this Court in State of Raj. v. Labhsingh, wherein it has been held that the statement of accused under s. 313 Cr. P. C. is also relevant and if in such a statement, the accused confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him, then the Court may rely upon that confession and proceed to convict him but his statement as a whole should be taken into consideration. In Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that even a retracted confession made by the accused can be acted upon and utilised against him. In Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that even a retracted confession made by the accused can be acted upon and utilised against him. ( 24 ) FROM these authorities, it is amply clear that the statement of the accused deserves as much importance as any other piece of evidence and if he confesses his guilty then it can be acted upon. The only word of caution that has been put forth by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Raj. v. Labhsinghts case (supra) is that the statement has to be read as a whole, before it is acted upon and if that is done, then it has to be held that the accused-appellant, while inflicting injuries to deceased Bakshukhan was in grave and sudden provocation. Firstly, he was deprived of his wife and son and secondly, when the accused was going to meet his sister, he was abused and rebuked and was threatened with his life and ugly abuses were hurled at him. In such circumstances, it appears that he has lost his self control and has acted in the manner stated by him and, therefore, his case is covered by Exception 1 to s. 300 I. P. C. and hence, the offence committed by accused Maniya does not travel beyond s. 304 Part II, I. P. C. In this view of the matter, we hold that the accused-appellant is guilty of the offence under s. 304 Part II, I. P. C. only. ( 25 ) IN the result, we partly accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Maniya for the offence under s. 302 I. P. C. and instead, we convict the accused appellant Maniya for the offence under s, 304 Part II, I. P. C. and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith and the result of this appeal be conveyed for compliance to the Jail authorities. Appeal partly allowed.