Judgment B.R. Arora, J.-These two appeals arise out of the Judgment dated 2-12-87 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. Accused-appellant Bagda Ram along with accused Dhagla Ram. Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for the offences under Section 302, 120B, 201 and 340 IPC. The case against the accused-appellant is that he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Bhuri by strangulation and throttling and removed (he clothes of the deceased, concealed them in his house and tried to give it the shape of committing suicide by deceased Smt. Bhuri. Accused Dhagla Ram and Mishri Lal, with a common intention to cause murder of Smt. Bhuri, also participated in the crime of strangulation and throttling her while accused Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, with an intention to screening accused-appellant Bagda Ram from the legal consequences of the crime, gave a false information to the members of the parental house of Smt. Bhuri that she had committed suicide whereas actually she was murdered by her husband. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Bhuri (the sister of P. W. 4 Roopa Ram) was married to accused-appellant Bagda Ram about fifteen years before the date of incident and the Muklawa ceremony was performed only about four years before the date of the incident. After she went to her in-laws’ house, she was maltreated by her husband as well as by the other members of her in-laws’ house and she was asked to bring a Timaniya (a gold ornament) from her parents’ house. About fifteen days before the date of the incident she had gone to her parents’ house and informed her brother P. W. 4 Roopa Ram that she is being ill-treated by her husband and was asked time and again that she had brought less dowry and should bring Timaniya from her parents house. She refused to go to her in-laws’ house but on being .persuaded, she went there about fifteen days before the incident. She refused to go to her in-laws’ house but on being .persuaded, she went there about fifteen days before the incident. On 19-10-85, at about 6.30 p.m., Bhuri’s brother-in-law Shesha Ram, along with Joga Ram and Sura Ram, came to the field of P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and informed him that Smt. Bhuri had committed suicide by hanging near a well situated adjacent to the Piou of Diwan Sahib. On receiving this information, P. W. 4 Roopa Ram along with P. W. 5 Mangla Ram and some other persons, went to the Bera of Joga Ram (the father of accused Bagda Ram). The dead body of Smt. Bhuri was lying hi a room. There were injuries on the person of Smt. Bhuri and the ligature marks were present on her neck. Roopa Ran} and the other persons, who were with him. did not believe the theory of committing suicide by Smt. Bhuri and a suspicion arose. They enquired from Bagda Ram how that happend. whereupon accused Bagda Ram disclosed that some altercations took-place between him and Smt. Bhuri and he. along with Dhagla Ram and Mishri Lal. committed the murder of Smt. Bhuri by throttling her. The accused, also admitted before them that he gave her beatings also. They, thereafter, went to the well of Pukha Ram. who. also, informed them that he was taking his she-buffaloes to the water-course for their drinking water and saw accused Bagda Ram. Mishri Lal and Dhagla Ram giving beatings to Smt. Bhuri. Thereafter P. W. 4 Roopa Ram wrote the report (Ex. P8) of the incident and produced it before Jethu Singh. ASL on 19-10-85 al about 4.00 p.m. Jethu Singh, ASL registered the FIR. (Ex.P8) and on telephone informed P. W. 13 Mr. Bhanwar Lal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer), who reached at the Police Station and started investigation and after completion of the investigation, presented the challan. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life but did not impose any fine looking to the draught condition in the area. He, however, acquitted accused Dhagla Ram, Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram of all the offence for which they were tried. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life but did not impose any fine looking to the draught condition in the area. He, however, acquitted accused Dhagla Ram, Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram of all the offence for which they were tried. It is against this Judgment dated 2-12-87, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing accused-appellant Bagda Ram that the appellant has preferred these two appeals. D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 35 of 1988) has been filed by the appellant through jail while D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1988 has been filed by him through his Counsel. 3-4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the FIR, in the present case, was lodged after consultation. His further contention is that the extra-judicial confession, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court, is at variance. A different version has been given in the FIR and the statements of the four witnesses before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession has allegedly been made by the accused and, therefore, the extra-judicial confession, which itself is a weak type of evidence, cannot be made the basis for convicting the appellant as there is no other circumstance to corroborate the evidence of extra-judicial confession. Alternatively, it is submitted that even from the extra-judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the accused before P. W. 11 Narain Singh, it is clear that first deceased Smt. Bhuri gave four-five slaps to the appellant and, therefore, in the sudden provocation he may have caused the murder of deceased Snit. Bhuri and. therefore, the case of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 IPC but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered this aspect of the case and the appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted on this count. Bhuri and. therefore, the case of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 IPC but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered this aspect of the case and the appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted on this count. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the Judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that the FIR was lodged by P. W. 4 Roopa Ram promptly and is not the result of any consultation; the extra-judicial confession, made by the accused-appellant before the four witnesses is true and voluntary and is not the result of any inducement, threat or promise and, therefore, it has rightly been believed by the learned trial Court and no case of any sudden provocation, as argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is made-out and the Judgment , passed by the learned trial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, does not require any interference. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The only witness, whose name has been given in the FIR, is P. W. 6 Pukha Ram, who has stated that he had gone to the water-pond to make his she-buffaloes drink water and there he heard the cries of a lady in the field of Narain Singh and saw accused Bagda Ram and Mishri Lal. He informed his father Roopa Ram when he came after the death of Smt. Bhuri that he had seen Mishri Lal and Bagda Ram in the field. This witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he knows Bagda Ram only and the other person present in the field was not known to him. This he has stated before the Magistrate who recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. The evidence of this witness, viz., P. W. 6 Pukha Ram, is therefore, of no avail to the prosecution and he has not seen any incident. He only saw the accused in the field and heard the cries of a lady and nothing more. 7. P. C. The evidence of this witness, viz., P. W. 6 Pukha Ram, is therefore, of no avail to the prosecution and he has not seen any incident. He only saw the accused in the field and heard the cries of a lady and nothing more. 7. Theprosecution case, therefore, rests mainly upon the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram (the brother of the deceased), P. W. 5 Mangla Ram (the cousin of the deceased), P. W. 8 Bagda Ram (the uncle of the deceased) and P. W. 11 Narain Singh, the Advocate, from whom the well including the land was purchased by Shesha Ram & Ors.. The prosecution has. also, placed reliance over certain other circumstances including the recoveries. 8. The first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR was lodged after consultation with the family members and, therefore, it does not disclose the true genesis and the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, has taken support of the admission made by P. W. 4 Roopa Ram in his statement that he wrote the FIR in the presence of Mangla Ram and after showing it to him he went to the Police Station and gave the information to the police. Merely because when the report of the incident was written at the residence in the presence of Mangla Ram and showing it to Mangla Ram, who is, also, the cousin of the deceased and in whose presence, also, the extra-judicial confession was made by the accused, the FIR cannot be said to be lodged after consultation. Whatever the true facts relating to the events of the occurrence came to the knowledge of both these persons, they put those facts in writing and lodged the FIR and, therefore, the FIR cannot be said to be a piece of concoction and or consultation. 9. The second ground, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the alleged extra-judicial confession, made by the accused-appellant, does not inspire confidence and cannot be read against the accused for the purpose of his conviction if it does not find corroboration from the other evidence. 9. The second ground, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the alleged extra-judicial confession, made by the accused-appellant, does not inspire confidence and cannot be read against the accused for the purpose of his conviction if it does not find corroboration from the other evidence. Now, we take the different extra-judicial confessions made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram, P. W. 5 Mangla Ram, P. W. 8 Bagda Ram and P. W. 11 Narain Singh. So far as P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Magla Ram are concerned, they were present together when the extra-judicial confession was made by the accused on the enquiry made by them how the incident took place because the theory of committing suicide by Smt. Bhuri was not believed by them and on enquiry the accused-appellant admitted that he committed the murder of Smt. Bhuri with the help of Mishri Lal and Dhagia Ram by strangulating her with a rope. The extra-judicial confessions made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram, read as under: Þgeus cxnkjke ls iwNk ;g dSls gqvkA bl ij cxnkjke us dgk fd ejss o Hkwjh ds cksypky gqbZ mlus dgk eSaus <xykjke o feJhyky us feydj Hkwjh ls ekjihV dh mlus dgk ge rhuksa us feydj Hkwjh dk xyk ?kksV fn;kA mlus dgk vc vki jkt esa er tkoksAß q Þesjs dkdk tksxkjke o :ikjke us gekjs lkFk x;s cxnkjke us vfHk;Dr cxnkjke ls iwNk fd Hkwjh dSls ejhA qvfHk;Dr cxnkjke us crk;k fd igys eSus Hkwjh dks iRFkjksa ls ekjihV dh fQj eSaus feljh yky o <xykjke us feydj Qank Hkwjh ds xys esa MkykA feljh yky o <xykjke us Qans dh jLlh dks nksuksa rjQ ls [khapk cxnkjke us crk;k fd eSaus vius gkFkksa ls Hkwjh dk xyk nkc fn;kA mldksa Vwaik nsdj ekj fn;kAß In the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 4 Roopa Rain and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram, there is only a difference that some details have been given in the extra-judicial confession made before P. W. 5 Mangla Ram how the murder of Snit. Bhuri was committed while in the statement of P. W. 4 Roopa Ram, these details are not there. Bhuri was committed while in the statement of P. W. 4 Roopa Ram, these details are not there. But in both these statements the implication of all the three accused, i.e., appellant Bagda Ram and accused Mishri Lal and Dhagla Ram; is there. However, the evidence of these witnesses, so far as accused Mishri Lal and Dhagia Ram arc concerned, was not believed by the trial Court because there was no corroboration on this point from some independent source implicating these two accused and, they did not confess their guilt before these witnesses. These witnesses were cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the accused during their cross-examination, so far as this part of the evidence is concerned, the same was not shattered. The other witness produced by the prosecution to prove the extra-judicial confession, is P. W. 8 Bagda Ram (the uncle of the deceased). The evidence of this witness has not been believed by the learned trial Court. This witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that the accused did not make any confession before him and he made the extra-judicial confession before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram, who told him that the accused had stated so. The evidence of this witness is, therefore, of no help to the prosecution. The last witness to prove the extra-judicial confession is P. W. 11 Mr. Narain Singh, the Advocate, who was the owner of the field in question and who sold the same to the accused party about six months before the dale of the incident. He has stated that on 19-10-85, at about 10.00 a.m., he was in his house situated in his field near the well. Shesha Ram, Krishan Ram and Onad Ram came to his. house. Shesha Ram informed him that his younger brother Bagda Ram’s wife has committed suicide by hanging in the cotton field. He enquired from Shesha Ram that there is no such tree in the field for committing suicide by hanging and a suspicion arose and, therefore, he asked him to call accused Bagda Ram. house. Shesha Ram informed him that his younger brother Bagda Ram’s wife has committed suicide by hanging in the cotton field. He enquired from Shesha Ram that there is no such tree in the field for committing suicide by hanging and a suspicion arose and, therefore, he asked him to call accused Bagda Ram. Shesha Ram called Bagda Ram and initially they did not accept the guilt but ultimately on his asking that either he should tell the truth to him otherwise he would lodge the report because he himself was afraid of the incident because the land still stands in his name in the Revenue record as the sale-deed was not registered and he might be involved in the case; whereupon accused Bagda Ram confessed his guilt and stated as under: Þesjh vkSjr ?kkl dkVus yxh] eSa Hkh mlds fiNs x;k] tgka esjs o esjh vkSjr ds cksypky gks x;h] esjh vkSjr us esjs 2&3 FkIiM ekjs] rc eSus ml ij cM+k iRFkj Qsadk tks mlds isV ij yxk vkSj vkSj og fxj x;h] rRipkr eSa mldh Nkrh ij cS x;h vkSj pkjk cka/kus dh jLlh ls mls Vwaik ns fn;k vkSj fQj ogka ls Hkkx x;kAß Though in the extra-judicial confession made before P.W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram the name of two other accused, viz., Mishri Lal and Dhagia Ram, have been mentioned but in the extra-judicial confession made before P. W. 11 Mr. Narain Singh, the confession of the guilt was made by accused-appellant Bagda Ram and he stated that he was the sole person who committed the murder of Smt. Bhuri. P. W. 11 Mr. Narain Singh is an Advocate and the land in question was purchased by the accused-party from this witness and, therefore, there was every possibility of his making such enquiry from the accused. The extra-judicial confession was not made before this witness on account of any inducement, threat or promise but it seems to be true and voluntary. From the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses, the extra-judicial confession, made by the accused-appellant before these witnesses, stands proved. In the extra-judicial confession the accused-appellant has categorically confessed his guilt. This evidence of extra-judicial confession further finds support from the medical evidence produced by the prosecution. P. W. 1 Dr. From the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses, the extra-judicial confession, made by the accused-appellant before these witnesses, stands proved. In the extra-judicial confession the accused-appellant has categorically confessed his guilt. This evidence of extra-judicial confession further finds support from the medical evidence produced by the prosecution. P. W. 1 Dr. Bheem Dan Detha, who conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Smt. Bhuri, has specifically stated that the death of Smt. Bhuri was caused due to strangulation and throttling by hands, also. It has, also, been stated by the doctor that the deceased had injuries on other parts of her body which could not have been caused after committing the suicide and falling down on the ground because these injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The ante-mortem injuries found on the person of the accused, also, corroborate the extra-judicial confession. The other evidence, which corroborates the extra-judicial confession, is the place of the incident pointed-out by the accused, where the broken pieces of bangles were lying scattered and the bushes were found crushed. This could have happened only if the deceased would have tried for escaping herself and the force used by the accused in throttling her. The recovery of the leather belt, used in the commitment of the murder and recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused, also, corroborates the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the aforesaid three witnesses. The commitment of the crime by the accused-appellant in the field where the crop was standing and the crushed crop and the broken pieces of bangles found there find corroboration from the statement of P. W. 6 Pukha Ram, who had gone to the water-pond to get his cattle drink water and heard the cries of a woman there and saw accused Bagda Ram near that field. Though initially in the FIR the name of this witness has been mentioned as the eye witness who had seen the actual incident but during the trial he only stated that he heard the cries of a woman and saw the accused-appellant there. The other circumstance which corroborates the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 11 Narain Singh is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram. The other circumstance which corroborates the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 11 Narain Singh is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram and P. W. 5 Mangla Ram. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 4 Roopa Ram, P. W. 5 Mangla Ram and P. W. 11 Mr. Narain Singh cannot be said to be made on any inducement, threat or promise but the same appears to have been made by the accused-appellant realising his guilt and the same is voluntary. As such the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the aforesaid three witnesses is trustworthy and inspires confidence. 10. The last contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that even as per the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before P. W. 11 Mr. Narain Singh that when his wife slapped him on his face four times he became angry caught-hold of her and throttled her without any intention to kill her and he even did not have any knowledge that by this act he would cause the death of Smt. Bhuri and as such it was on account of grave and sudden provocation that he committed the murder of Smt. Bhuri and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and at the most he can be held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC. It was not the poor lady Smt. Bhuri who started the quarrel. The quarrel was started by the appellant himself and he, with an intention to kill her, caused the death of Smt. Bhuri by strangulation with a leather belt and throttling her by his hands, also. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was on account of grave and sudden provocation and in the heat of anger that the appellant caused the death of Smt. Bhuri. It was a calculated attempt without any provocation that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Smt. Bhuri. The case of the accused-appellant, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 IPC and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No case for altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC is made-out. The case of the accused-appellant, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of First Exception to Section 300 IPC and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No case for altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC is made-out. The Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, thus, does not suffer from any infirmity.