G. P. MATHUR, J. Chatur Singh has filed this appeal against the judgement and order dated 8-11-1979 of Sessions Judge Etowah in S. T. No. A-170 of 1979 convicting him under Section 302 I. P. C. on two counts and sentencing him to imprisonment for life under each count. 2. The case of the prosecution as set forth in the FIR is that the appellant Chatur Singh and the deceased Nawab Singh were real brothers. The other deceased Smt. Kalawati was the wife of Nawab Singh. Chatur Singh retired from Army about a year before the incident and he came back to his village Parole Gadhia, P. S. Season Nawab Singh had married about 13 years back after paying money. Chatur Singh also married after paying money about 8 months prior to the incident. Both the brother lived together but there used to be frequent fight between their wives. A few months before the incident, appellant Chatur Singh separated from his brother. There was a fight between ladies on 1-3-1979 in which complain ant Sarju Prasad, who was the Pradhan of the Village, mediated. The very next day i. e. 2-3-1979 two ladies fought again which aggravated and the brothers also started fighting. On receiving information Sarju Prasad went to their place. As soon as he reached he saw Chatur Singh assaulting Nawab Singh with a kulhari who fell down dead. Smt. Kalawati then reprimanded him but he gave a blow by kulhari to her as well. She also I dropped down dead. Hearing the alarm, some witnesses came on the spot, In the presence of these people, Chatur Singh admitted his guilt and volun tarily wrote a report addressed to the Station Officer of the Police Station. This incident took place at about 6. 15 p. m. Thereafter Sarju Prasad him self scribed a report of the incident and lodged the same at 10 miles distant P. S. Sehson at 10 p. m. on 2-3-1979. The report which was written by Chatur Singh was also taken by the complainant and was delivered there though Chatur Singh did not go to the Police Station. 3. At the time when the FIR of the incident was lodged PW 8 O. P. Dixit Station Officer was not present as he had gone in connection with investigation of a case. 3. At the time when the FIR of the incident was lodged PW 8 O. P. Dixit Station Officer was not present as he had gone in connection with investigation of a case. After he returned, he met Sarju Prasad aforesaid and shortly thereafter proceeded for the place of occurrence where he reach ed at 3. 15 a. m. on 3-3-1979 (night of 2/3-3-1979 ). He inspected the site, took in his possession plain and blood stained Kulhari (weapon of assault), a lathi and Kat Phawri (a wooden blade with handle, used for collecting cow dung ). He also held inquest on the body of the deceased and despatched the same for post mortem examination. The accused was arrested and the statement of some witnesses was also recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant Chatur Singh. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed two separate charges under Section 302, I. P. C. against the accused for having committed murder of Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined a witnesses and the accused examined one defence witness. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version of the incident and convicted and sentenced appellant Chatur Singh as stated earlier. 4. Before considering the ocular testimony, it will be convenient to first refer to the medical evidence on record. PW 4 Dr. D. K. Saxena, Medical Officer, T. B. Hospital, Etawah conducted post mortem examina tion on the body of Nawab Singh at 4. 45 p. m. on 5-3-1979 and the report of post mortem examination is Ex. ka-10 on the record. He found the following ante mortem injuries on his body. (1) Tringular incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on the back of head 14 cm. from right ear, direction vertical, tailing not defined, margin smoothly lacerated but clean cut. (2) Incised wound oblique 3 cm. X 1 cm X cartridge deep on the right side of face, pinna of right ear cut along with skin and underlying cartridge 14 cm. from injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 2 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. from right ear, direction vertical, tailing not defined, margin smoothly lacerated but clean cut. (2) Incised wound oblique 3 cm. X 1 cm X cartridge deep on the right side of face, pinna of right ear cut along with skin and underlying cartridge 14 cm. from injury No. 1. (3) Incised wound 2 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm. X muscle deep on the left forehead just above left eye brow, obliquely vertical with trau matic swelling on eye lids. Eye congested. (4) Punctured lacerated wound 1/2 X 1/2 cm. X muscle deep on left side of forehead, 3 cm. above injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound 2 cm. X 1/2 cm. X muscle deep vertical on the front palm base inner side left hand tailing present, signs of bleeding. The internal examination showed occipital bone fractured at suture. Membranes and brain congested clot present under meniges on back at the site of injury. In the opinion of Doctor death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as well as injury sustained. The Doctor further opined that all the injuries could have been caused by Kulhari (material Ex, 1) and death could have occurred at about 6. 45 p. m. on 2-3-J979, 5. The same Doctor performed to the post mortem examination on the body of Smt. Kalawati at 5. 10 p. m. on 5-3-1979 and copy of post mortem report is Ex. ka-9 on the record. The following ante mortem injuries were found on her body: (1) Lacerated wound 4 cm. X 2 cm. X bone deep on the top of the head 9 cm. above nasal bridge, irregularly split obliquely vertical, smashed with blood. (2) Ecchymosed with traumatic swelling all round the left eye lids conjunctive congested. The internal examination showed frontal bone fractured under the site of injury No. 1, brain and membranes congested. In the opinion of the Doctor, death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as well as head injury. He further opined that the injuries could be caused by Kulhari (material Ex. 1) and death could have occurred at about 6. 45 p. m. on 2-3-1979. 6. PW 1 Sarju Prasad is an eye witness and first informant of the case. He has stated that he is Pradhan of the village for the last six years. Chatur Singh having retired from Army had come back to village about a year before the incident. 45 p. m. on 2-3-1979. 6. PW 1 Sarju Prasad is an eye witness and first informant of the case. He has stated that he is Pradhan of the village for the last six years. Chatur Singh having retired from Army had come back to village about a year before the incident. Nawab Singh had married 12-13 years back purchasing a woman and similarly Chatur Singh had married about 10 months before by purchasing a woman. Both the brothers lived together and their cultivation was joint. On account of frequent fights between ladies differences arose between brothers and therefore they started living separately in the same house. Even after separation, the ladies continued to fight and he (Sarju Prasad) in his capacity as Pradhan used to be called to mediate in the matter. At about 6. 45 p. m. on the date of the incident, he was informed that the accused Chatur Singh and Nawab Singh were fighting. As soon as he reached he saw Chatur Singh assaulting Nawab Singh with a Kulbari. Nawab Singh fell down on which his wife Smt. Kalawati rushed with a kut Phawri and giving abuses. Chatur Singh gave one kulhari blow to her as well as a result of which she also fell down dead. A day before the incident, the deceased Nawab Singh had assaulted the wife of accused Chatur Singh. Meanwhile some persons of the village arrived on the scene. All of them then said that a report about the incident should be lodged, on which Chatur Singh wrote down a report of the incident on the spot and in presence of every one. The said report was also signed by the persons present there. Thereafter the complainant Sarju Prasad also wrote a report of the incident and carried the same to the Police Station which is Ex. ka-2 on the record. He also delivered the report written by Chatur Singh, which is Ex. ka-1, to the Head Constable at the Police Station where he reached at 10 p. m. The Head Constable prepared the chief report on the basis of report written by Sarju Prasad. The Station Officer was riot present at that time. When he reached there, he told the complainant to go back and he came to the village at about 4. 15a. The Station Officer was riot present at that time. When he reached there, he told the complainant to go back and he came to the village at about 4. 15a. m. In his cross examination, he has stated that the accused was a Thakur by caste while he was a Brahmin. There were houses of Thakurs Pin the immediate vicinity of the house of Chatur Singh. The Thakurs living in the neighbouring houses had not come to the spot as it was a harvesting season and they were in their fields. Chaukidar of the village came to the spot after about half an hour. Sri Krishan, Nawab Smeh, Durga and many others of the village came to the scene after sometime; and thereafter Chatur Singh wrote the report Ex. ka-1. At the time of the writing of the report, Chaukidar was not present. At the time when the assault was made, the sun was setting. Chatur Singh had himself written report Ex-ka-1 and nobody had dictated the same. He had written F. I. R. of the incident Ex. ka-2 at his own house. When the Station Officer came, the accused was present on the spot. Subsequently the police men arrested Chatur Singh. The daughter of Nawab Singh is a married lady and she was alive. He denied the defence suggestion that the accused Chatur Singh was not present in the house on the date of the incident and that some unknown people committed the murder in the night. He also denied the defence suggestion that after the Station Officer had come on the spot he dictated the report Ex. 1 to Chatur Singh who wrote it down or the F. I. R. Ex. ka-2 to him (Sarju Prasad ). 7. We have carefully examined the testimony of this witness. He is a Pradhan of the village for the last six years and belongs to a different community viz. he is Brahmin while the deceased were Thakur. Nothing has come in his testimony to show that he had any reason to falsely impli cate the accused. The only suggestion given to him is that he had implicat ed Chatur Singh falsely so that his property may go to the Gaon Samaj. This suggestion has been emphatically denied by the witness. Nothing has come in his testimony to show that he had any reason to falsely impli cate the accused. The only suggestion given to him is that he had implicat ed Chatur Singh falsely so that his property may go to the Gaon Samaj. This suggestion has been emphatically denied by the witness. We are also of the opinion that no one would implicate some one falsely in a murder case so that his property may go to Gaon Samaj. This witness was not going to gain anything personally. His statement that he used to mediate in the fight between the brothers appears to be quite natural and probable as he was the Pradhan of the village. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly criticized his testimony on the ground that the witness has stated is that as soon as he reached he saw Chatur Singh giving Kulhari blow on Nawab Singh and thereafter Nawab Singh fell down which showed that only one blow was given which was contradicted by the medical evidence as post-mortem report shows that deceased had sustained five injuries. In this connection, it may be noticed that injury No. 5 is on the palm and injury Nos. 3 and 4 do not appear to be very serious as they are muscle deep. It is quite possible that injury Nos. 2 to 5 had been caused earlier and the witness could see the last part (injury No. 1) being given to the deceased. From this statement alone, it will not be proper to draw an inference that the witness had not seen the assault being made upon Nawab Singh. At that time, no one else was present except Chatur Singh with a Kulhari and the witness had seen him giving at least one blow to Nawab Singh on his head. The second part of the incident viz. the blow given by the accused to Smt. Kalawati was also seen by him. The testimony of this witness finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence as the post-mortem reports of both the deceased show that they had sustained incised and lacerated wounds, which could be caused as a result of Kulhari blow. We are of the opinion that PW 1 Sarju Prasad had reached the place of occurrence well in time to witness the assault made by Chatur Singh upon Nawab Singh and his wife Smt. Kalawati. We are of the opinion that PW 1 Sarju Prasad had reached the place of occurrence well in time to witness the assault made by Chatur Singh upon Nawab Singh and his wife Smt. Kalawati. He is a truthful and independent witness and in our opinion complete reliance can be placed upon his testimony. S. PW 5 Harnam Singh was the Head Constable at P. S. Sehson. He has orated that PW 1 Sarju Prasad lodged a written FIR of the incident at 10 p. m. on 2-3-1979 which is Ex. ka-2. Sarju Prasad had also brought and delivered at the Police Station a report written by accused Chatur Singh Ex. ka-1. On the basis of the FIR he prepared a chick FIR Ex. 11 and made entry of the same in GD and a copy of the same is Ex. ka. 12. PW 8 O. P. Dixit, Station Office returned to the Police Station at 2. 30 a. m. and then a pain left for the place of occurrence at 3. 15a. m. Thereafter he re turned from the village in the night at 8. 05 p. m. on 3-3-1979 and he had brought accused Chatur Singh under arrest and had deposited six bundles of articles which were taken into possession from the spot. 9. PW 7 Radhey Lal Gautam was Sub-Inspector at P. S. Seshon. He has stated that in accordance with the direction of O. P. Dixit, Station Officer, he held inquest on the body of two deceased at 7 a. m. on 3-3- 1979 and prepared other necessary documents. The accused was arrested at about 10-30-10-45 a. m. on 3-3-1979. He has also stated that no document was got written from the accused and he denied the defence suggestion that any FIR was got written by him from Sarju Prasad or any report was got written from the accused by him. PW 3 Bhola Singh, Constable has stated that he carried papers and bodies of both the deceased from the village to headquarters in Etawah on a camel where he reached at 4-45 p. m. on 4-3-1979. The bodies were produced before the Doctor for post-mortem examination on 5-3- 1979. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it took about three hours to arrange a camel and then he left the village at about 2 p. m. He had to cross two rivers viz. The bodies were produced before the Doctor for post-mortem examination on 5-3- 1979. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it took about three hours to arrange a camel and then he left the village at about 2 p. m. He had to cross two rivers viz. Chambel and Jamuna. PW 6 Vinod Singh, Constable has stated that he deposited eight bundles of arti cles at the Sadar Malkhana on 30-5- 1979 and so long as the articles were in the Police Station, no-body had touched the same. 10. PW 8 O. P. Dixit was Satiation Officer at P. S. Seshon. He has stated that he proceeded for the spot at 3-15 a. m. on 3-3-1979 where he reached at about 4-15 a. m. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan, Ex. ka-23. He also recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Crpc. He recovered a blood stained Kulhari, Ex. 1, a lathi. Ex. 6 and Katpawri Ex. 7 from the spot and prepared their seizure memo. He also collected plain and blood stained earth from the spot. He sent bodies for post-mortem examination and after taking all other necessary steps he re turned to the Police Station at 8-05 p. m. on 3-3-1979. The accused was arrested at 10-30, 11 a. m. He had not got anything written from the accused. He also denied the defence suggestion that the FIR Ex. ka-2 was got written by Sarju Prasad on his dictation or that that the report Ex. ka-1 was got written from accused Chatur Singh under his dictation. 11. As mentioned earlier, immediately after the occurrence serveral persons of the village came on the spot. They enquired about the murder from the accused who told them very frankly that he had assaulted Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati and also gave the reasons for the assault. 1 PW 2 Sri Krishna Gupta is the Principal of Zila Parishad Higher Secondary School which is situate in the same village. He has stated that after getting information of the murder, he went to the house of Chatur Singh where he reached at 7. 30 p. m. He and other witnesses then asked Chatur Singh as to what was the matter. He frankly gave a reply that Nawab Singh and his wife used to frequently fight and assault him and therefore he had killed them. 30 p. m. He and other witnesses then asked Chatur Singh as to what was the matter. He frankly gave a reply that Nawab Singh and his wife used to frequently fight and assault him and therefore he had killed them. He has further stated that Chatur Singh thereafter wrote a report and signed the same in the presence of other persons and the said report is Ex. ka-1. After Chatur Singh had written the report, he also made endorsement thereon certifying that Chautur Singh had voluntarily written the report regarding the murder of his brother and sister-in-law and the said endorsement was signed by him. The report was also certified to have been written by Chatur Singh by other persons present on the spot viz. Nawab Singh, Sarju Prasad, Ugrasen and Durga Singh. The witness has proved the certificate given by him as Ex. Ka-l-A and that of Nawab Singh as Ex. Ka-l-B. In his cross examination, he has stated that the building of the school is in the same village and he resides in one of the room of the school building. The house of Chatur Singh is at a distance of about 200 yards from the school. He had gone to take his food in the village and when he was returning, he heard about the murder. When he reached the house of Chatur Singh, many people including Sarju Prasad, (Pradhan), Durga Singh and Ugrasen were present. Chatur Singh wrote the report Ex. ka-1 a few minutes after he reached there. The accused had not been caught hold by anyone at that time. After the accused had written the report he was asked by the Pradhan to give a certificate and then he made the endorsement and put his signature thereon. He had also put the seal of the Principal of the Higher Secondary School below the signature. The witness has further stated that he always carries seal of office with him. There is no suggestion of any enmity between the accused and this witness. He belongs to a community different from the com munity of the deceased. He is Head Master of Higher Secondary School. The testimony of this witness proves that the report Ex. The witness has further stated that he always carries seal of office with him. There is no suggestion of any enmity between the accused and this witness. He belongs to a community different from the com munity of the deceased. He is Head Master of Higher Secondary School. The testimony of this witness proves that the report Ex. ka-1 was voluntarily written by the accused Chatur Singh in presence of several persons of the village soon after the incident and long before any police officer had come on the; pot. The testimony of PW-1 Sarju Prasad establishes that when Ex. ka-1 was written by the accused even the Choukidar was not present. The testimony of both PW-1 Sarju Prasad and PW 2 Sri Krishna Gupta also proves that an extra-judicial confession was made by the accused to them almost immediately after the occurrence wherein he confessed about the commission of the crime before every-one present there. 13. We have already discussed the statement of PW 1 Sarju Prasad who is an eye-witnesses of the incident. His testimony finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence as in the opinion of the Doctor the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by a kulhari. A blood stained kulhari was also recovered from the spot and its seizure memo Ext. Ka-5 was prepared. This has been proved by the testimony of PW 1 Sarju Prasad who is a witness of the seizure memo, PW 8 O. P. Dixit, Station Officer and PW-7 Radhey Lal Gautam. The report of the chemical examination shows that blood was found on the kulhari. The recovery of plain and blood stained earth from the spot also corroborates the prosecution case. The seizure memo of the recovery made viz. , Ex. ka-6 has been proved by the testimony of PW 1 Sarju Prasad and PW 8 O. P. Dixit. The report of the chemical examination proves that the earth was stained with blood. The testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 Sarju Prasad and Sri Krishna Gupta respectively proves that accused made an extra-judicial confession almost immediately after the incident. All these evidences prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it was accused Chatur Singh who assaulted Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati at about 6. 45 p. m. on 2-3-1979 which caused their death. 14. All these evidences prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it was accused Chatur Singh who assaulted Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati at about 6. 45 p. m. on 2-3-1979 which caused their death. 14. Apart from the evidence discussed above there is also another important piece of evidence against the appellant. The accused himself wrote a report on the spot almost immediately after the occurrence which is Ex. ka-1 on the record. This report was also carried to the police station and was delivered there by PW 1 Sarju Prasad. The report has been written in about one and a half pages and has been signed by Chatur Singh. This report further carries certificates by PW 2 Sri Krishna Gupta, Head Master (Ex. ka-1 a), Nawab Singh (Ex. ka-1b ). Sarju Prasad, (Pradhan), Ugrasen and Dnrga Singh. They have certified that the document was voluntarily written by Chatur Singh in their presence. In this document, the accused has confessed that he assaulted Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati and the circumstance leading to the assault have also been given. This confession is by itself sufficient to prove the prosecution case. Thus on totality of the entire evidence on record the case of the prosecution is fully established. 15. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied his presence in the village on the date of the incident. He stated that he returned to village from his sasural on 3-3-1995 and after he was arrested the police forced him to rate the document Ex. ka-1. He also examined DW1 1 Bishambar Singh in his defence. He stated after receiving information he went to the spot and saw the deadbody lying there and at that time Chatur Singh was not present there. The accused arrived next day about two hours after the Station Officer had arrived in the village and thereafter he was taken to the police Station. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not received any summons from the Court. It was the wife of the accused who had called him. The statement of this witness does not inspire evidence. He did not see the actual assault on the deceased. He learnt the very next day from Sarju Prasad (Pradhan) that Chatur Singh had been implicated in the murder but he neither made one protest nor gave any application to any authority. The statement of this witness does not inspire evidence. He did not see the actual assault on the deceased. He learnt the very next day from Sarju Prasad (Pradhan) that Chatur Singh had been implicated in the murder but he neither made one protest nor gave any application to any authority. In our opinion, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. 16. Sri S. S. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has seriously challenged the admissibility of the document Ex. ka-1. It has been urged that this report is addressed to the Station Officer as the words-"sriman Daroga Ji, Thana Seshon, Zila Etawah" are written on the top and being in the nature of a confession it was inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on a Supreme Court decision in Aghnoo Nageaia v. State of Bihn; AIR 1966 SC 119 , wherein it was held that where the F. I. R. is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 17. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel and in our opinion the contention raised is not ten able in law and the authority cited by him is clearly distinguishable. Sec tion 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The question to be considered is whether the report Ex. ka-1 written by Chatur Singh was a confession made to a Police Officer. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that this document was written by the appellant near the scene of commission of the crime in his own house and almost immediately after the occurrence, when the villagers asked him to write a report about the incident. Neither any police man nor the choukidar. was present at the time when the document was written. It was written long before the FIR was actually lodged at the police Station or any police personnel had received knowledge about the commission of the crime. The place of occurrence is at a distance of about 10 miles from the police station. Neither any police man nor the choukidar. was present at the time when the document was written. It was written long before the FIR was actually lodged at the police Station or any police personnel had received knowledge about the commission of the crime. The place of occurrence is at a distance of about 10 miles from the police station. This document was not carried by the accused but was carried by a private individual to the Police Station and was delivered there along with the written FIR at 10 p. m. No doubt the document Is addressed to the Daroga Ji (Station Officer) of the Police Station but from that fact alone it cannot be inferred that it was an admission of commission of crime which amounted to a confession to a Police Officer. No Police Officer was present near the place of occurrence nor the accused wrote any document in the presence of any Police Officer. In England a confession does not become in admissible by reason of the mere fact that it is made to a Police Officer. (See Phipson on Evidence, Seventh Edition page 258 ). The object of the legislature in enacting Section 25 was to put a stop to the extortion of con fession by the police by malpractice. The reason of the rule is that police should not be encouraged to extort confession in the hope of gaining credit by securing conviction. Legislature having regard to the tainted nature of the source of the evidence, prohibited them from being received in evidence. Persons not in custody of police did not need the same degree of protection. The criterion for excluding the confession under this section is the answer to the question, to whom the confession was made. If the answer is that it was made to a Police Officer, the confession is inadmissible but not other wise. In Ghunnai v. Emperor, AIR 1934 All 132 it was held that even if a police man happens to be a member of a crowd of villagers and a confession was made to the villagers at large, the mere fact that a police man happened to be present in the crowd would not make the confession inadmissible in evidence. In Mt. Maharani v. Emperor, AIR 1948 All. 7, two illustrious Judges Raghubar Dayal and Wanchoo, JJ. In Mt. Maharani v. Emperor, AIR 1948 All. 7, two illustrious Judges Raghubar Dayal and Wanchoo, JJ. of this Court held that a confes sion made by an accused to the village people even if made in the presence of choukidar would not be inadmissible under Sec. 25 as it is not made to the choukidar. Similar view was again taken by another Division Bench in Smt. Sridevi v. State, 1974 Crl LJ 126 (All ). In Mihir Adhikary v. State, 1983 Cil LJ 1559 it was held that what Section 25 contemplates is a statement to a police officer but the section does not exclude all statements made in the presence of a police officer unless it comes within the meaning of Sec tion 26 of the Act and thus if a confession is made to a large number of persons, the mere presence of a police officer in the crowd would not make the same inadmissible. In Aghnoo Nagesia, the accused himself went to the police station and dictated the report which was recorded by the Police Officer incharge (Sub Inspector of Police) then the accused affixed his thumb impression on the same. In these circumstances, it was held that the FIR lodged by the accused was a confession to a Police Officer and was therefore inadmissible. Such are not the facta here. ln Sitaram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1966 SC 1906 the accused after committing the murder of his wife wrote a letter addressed to the Sub-Inspector of police stating about the com mission of crime committed by him. This letter was recovered by the police near the deadbody. The admissibility of the letter was challenged on the ground that it was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court repelled the challenge with the following observation: "no doubt the letter contains a confession and is also addressed to a Police Officer. That cannot make it a confession made to a Police Officer which is within the bar created by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written or knew that it was being written, in such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not have been a confession to the Police Officer if the words sub-Inspector had not been written. The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written or knew that it was being written, in such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not have been a confession to the Police Officer if the words sub-Inspector had not been written. Nor do we think it can become one in similar circumstances only because the words "sub-Inspector" had been written there, it would still have not been a confes sion made to a Police Officer for the simple reason that it was not so made from any point of view. " In our opinion, the facts of present case are similar to the case of Sitaram (supra ). Therefore, unless the admission of commission of crime which amounts to a confession is made in the presence of a Police Officer, it will not come within the ambit of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the report written by the appellant Ex. ka-1 wherein he is admitted to have assaulted and killed Nawab Singh and Smt. Kalawati is admissible in evidence. 18. We may clarify here that even if the report Ex. ka-1 written by the appellant is excluded from consideration, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the commission of crime by him. 19. The next question which requires consideration is what offence has been committed by the appellant. We have held that the report Ex. ka-1 was written by the appellant of his own free will and almost imme diately after the occurrence of the incident. The said report was not written at the suggestion or dictate of anyone-else. The manner in which it was written lends assurance to the correctness of the facts stated therein. It is mentioned in the report Ex. 7a-l and also it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was serving in the Army from where he retired about a year back and then he returned to his village. He was married about 10 months back. Smt. Kalawati and the appellants wife used to fight quite often on petty matters. It is mentioned in Ex. ka-1 that Nawab Singh used to beat the appellants wife which was not liked by him. The brothers had separated sometime back but they continued to live together. He was married about 10 months back. Smt. Kalawati and the appellants wife used to fight quite often on petty matters. It is mentioned in Ex. ka-1 that Nawab Singh used to beat the appellants wife which was not liked by him. The brothers had separated sometime back but they continued to live together. May be that prior to appellants coming home, Nawab Singh was exclusively enjoy ing the house as well as landed property and he may not have liked his presence. The marriage of the appellant would have further aggravated the situation as the deceased may have thought that the appellant may now have a child and their own daughter then would not inherit the entire property. It is also mentioned in the report Ex. ka-1 that a day before, Nawab Singh assaulted the wife of the appellant which was disliked by him and then the trouble started on 2-3-1979 when Smt. Kalawati started giving abuses to the appellant and his wife. In the rural area and in this part of the country, normally, elder brother does not even talk to the wife of is younger brother and certain distance is maintained. Beating by elder brother of the wife of younger brother is almost unknown. In those circum stances, the conduct of Nawab Singh in beating the wife of the appellant a day before the incident must have caused a great provocation in the mind of the appellant and then the abuses given by Smt. Kalawati on 2-3-1979 must have:; aggravated the situation to the extent that the appellant would have lost the power of self-control. 20. It is also mentioned in the report Ex. ka-1 that his brother had assaulted him with a lathi. The exact words used are as follows: "mere Bhai ne bhi mujhe bhi lathi se maara tha. " PW 1 Sarju Prasad and PW 8 O. P. Dixit, Station Officer have both stated that a lathi was found near the deadbody and the same was seized. It was produced as material Ex. 6 and the seizure memo of the name is Ex. ka-8 on the record. It is obvious that first Nawab Singh would have assaulted him with lathi only then the appellant would have hit him by kulhari as after receiving kulhari injury Nawab Singh could not have been in a posi tion to cause him lathi injury. 6 and the seizure memo of the name is Ex. ka-8 on the record. It is obvious that first Nawab Singh would have assaulted him with lathi only then the appellant would have hit him by kulhari as after receiving kulhari injury Nawab Singh could not have been in a posi tion to cause him lathi injury. This shows that initially Smt. Kalawati and Nawab Singh started abusing and then Nawab Singh gave a lathi blow and in retaliation the appellant used kulhari. The appellant had thus acted in right of self-defence. Though the accused was not taken a plea that he acted in exercise of his right of self-defence but if the evidence and material on record show that the accused had really acted in self-defence, the Court is bound to give him the benefit of such a right which would be available to him under law. In G. V. S. Subbrayanam v. State of U. P. , AIR 1970 SC 1079 the accused had pleaded alibi but he was held to have acted in self-defence. The appellant certainly exceeded the said right as the case was not covered by Section 100, IPC. The case is thus covered by Exception (2) to Section 300 and appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C. for which a sentence of ten years R. I. will meet the ends of justice. 21. Regarding the assault on Smt. Kalawati, it is said in the report Ex. ka-1 that after his brother died his sister-in-law rushed with the katpawari and he plied his kulhari. The exact words are as follows: "jab mere bhai mar gai tab meri bhabhi Kalawati gobar ke katpawri le kar mere upar jhapti tab maine bhabhi ke kulhari chala dee jis se bhabhi mar gai. " The post-mortem report shows that Smt. Kalawati received one lacerated wound on top of her head. PW 4 Dr. Saxena has stated that the margins of the wounds were not clean cut. It shows that the sharp edge of kulhari was not used and the blow was not repeated. Doctor has not said that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 4 Dr. Saxena has stated that the margins of the wounds were not clean cut. It shows that the sharp edge of kulhari was not used and the blow was not repeated. Doctor has not said that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case will not be covered by clause 2ndly of Section 300 as it cannot be said that the assault was made with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the appellant knew to be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused. The word knowledge used in clause 2ndiy is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability. It is to be personal knowledge of the person who does the Act. Therefore the offence would be one under Section 304, Part II, IPC for which a sentence of seven years R. I. would meet the ends of justice. 22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC (on two counts) and sentence of imprison ment for life under each count awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section 304, Part 1, IPC and is sentenced to ten years R. I. for having caused death of Nawab Singh. He is further convicted under Section 304, Part II, IPC and is sentenced to seven years R. I. for having caused death of Smt. Kalawati. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forth with to undergo the sentence imposed upon him. After he has surrendered his sureties shall stand discharged. Appeal partly allowed. .