Judgment DALELA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 8-9-1977 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 46/77. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the charge framed by the learned trial Court against the appellant, he in the night falling between 21st and 22nd Feb. 1977 at about 1 a. m. in his own house intentionally killed his wife Smt. Pushpa by strangulation. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined thirteen witness and exhibited twenty eight documents. In his statement, the appellant denied the prosecution evidence and stated that his wife (deceased) was pregnant and on the relevant night, she felt severe pain in the stomach. He arranged for a truck to carry her to hospital but the truck did not turn up and she died early in the morning and later on she was cremated. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After considering the evidence of both the sides and arguments advanced, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Against the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) WE have heard the arguments of both the sides. ( 4 ) AFTER the death, the dead body of the deceased was cremated and, a such, the post mortem could not be done. ( 5 ) THERE is no eye witness in the matter and the prosecution case substantially and mainly based only on the extra judicial confession of the appellant made before PW 5 Bhiya Ram and PW 6 Babu Lal. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of extra judicial confession is not trust worthy; that P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 before whom the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made, were not the men of confidence of the appellant and, as such, it is highly improbable for the appellant to have made confession before them and that the trial court fell into error by convicting the appellant on the basis of the extra judicial confession. ( 7 ) WE have gone through the evidence on record and the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. We have carefully considered and scrutinised the testimony of P. Ws. ( 7 ) WE have gone through the evidence on record and the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. We have carefully considered and scrutinised the testimony of P. Ws. 5 and 6. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 5, the appellant came to him at about 4 a. m. and asked him to join in the cremation of the deceased wife. When P. W. 5 asked the appellant as to what happened to his wife, he (appellant) confessed before him (P. W. 5) that he had killed her by strangulation. P. W. 5 then went with the appellant to the latters residence and there, he (P. W. 5) saw the dead body of the deceased and found that there was string around her neck, her tongue in between her teeth, her eyes were protruded outward and blood was coming out of her nose and mouth. On seeing this, P. W. 5 refused to join in the cremation. The persons collected there including the father of the appellant warned P. W. 5 not to say anything to anybody otherwise he (P. W. 5) would have to face the dire consequences. P. W. 5 came back and pondered over the matter and ultimately lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P. 4 with the police at 8 a. m. In the F. I. R. he had written what he had deposed before the trial court as P. W. 5. No enmity seems to exist between P. W. 5 and the appellant. On the other hand, in F. I. R. Ex. P. 4, there is a mention that P. W. 5 had seen the appellant beating his wife more than once. P. W. 5 has also deposed that the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel in his (P. W. 5) presence. Ordinarily, a husband and wife would quarrel in the presence of the first friend or the person of confidence. Therefore, there is an indication on record that P. W. 5 is the friend or the man of confidence of the appellant. From the prosecution evidence, it is also established that some persons were already called to take the dead body of funeral and, as such, there was no necessity of calling P. W. 5 to join in the cremation, if P. W. 5 was not the man of confidence of the appellant. From the prosecution evidence, it is also established that some persons were already called to take the dead body of funeral and, as such, there was no necessity of calling P. W. 5 to join in the cremation, if P. W. 5 was not the man of confidence of the appellant. It seems that P. W. 5 was the man of confidence of the appellant and that is why, he (appellant) went to call P. W. 5, even though some persons had already been called and gathered. To our mind, P. W. 5 is a reliable witness and his testimony inspires confidence. The evidence of extra judicial confession seems to be trustworthy and worth acceptance. ( 9 ) P. W. 6, though declared hostile, has lent the support to the testimony of P. W. 5 so far as the making of extra judicial confession by the appellant is concerned. He has also said that the appellant confessed in his presence that he had killed his wife by strangulation. The appellant in his statement has simply said that he did not go to call P. W. 5. Thus, the appellant has denied to have gone to P. W. 5 and made extra judicial confession. But as we find the testimony of P. W. 5 to be reliable, trustworthy and worth acceptance, the denial on the part of the appellant does not affect the testimony of P. W. 5 in any way. ( 10 ) WE find P. W. 5 to be reliable and trustworthy witness. His testimony with regard to extra judicial confession finds corroboration by F. I. R. Ex. P. 4 and the testimony of P. W. 6. In our opinion, the evidence of extra judicial confession has come from the mouth of PW 5, who appears to be unbiased not even remotely inimical to the appellant and in respect of whom, nothing has come on record to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the appellant and the testimony of P. W. 5 with regard to extra judicial confession clearly conveys that the appellant is the author of the alleged murder. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant before PW 5 seems to be true, voluntary and free from suspicion. ( 11 ) IT is well settled in law that extra judicial confession can from the basis of conviction. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant before PW 5 seems to be true, voluntary and free from suspicion. ( 11 ) IT is well settled in law that extra judicial confession can from the basis of conviction. If any authority of the Honble Supreme Court is needed in this regard, the case of State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony reported in AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985 Cri LJ 493) may usefully be referred to. ( 12 ) THE appellants version is that the deceased had died on account of stomach ache, does not seem to be worth acceptance and does not inspire confidence. PW 5 has testified that when he saw the dead body of the deceased, he found that there was a string around her neck, her tongue in between the teeth and the eyes were protruded outward and the blood was coming out of nose/mouth. The blood found on the rajai and rali, whereupon the dead body was lying, were found to be stained with human blood, as per the F. S. L. report Ex. P. 28. The condition of the dead body as described by PW 5 clearly shows that the death was not due to the stomach ache but it was due to asphyxia by strangulation. Vide Chapter IX Death from Asphyxia in the Modis Medical Jurisprudence, 21st Edn. ( 13 ) THE death was caused around 1 a. m. The extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before PW 5 at about 4 a. m. and the PW 5 lodged the FIR Ex. P. 4 at 8 a. m. We do not think that there was any delay in lodging the F. I. R. As PW 5 was threatened to face the dire consequences if he disclosed anything to anybody, naturally some time was taken to think and ponder in the light of the threat and ultimately PW 5 overcoming the fear of threat, lodged the FIR at 8 a. m. To our mind, the FIR is not delayed nor it can be said that the FIR is a concocted one as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 14 ) PW 7 Subhash is the scribe of the FIR. ( 14 ) PW 7 Subhash is the scribe of the FIR. He says that the FIR was written by him at the instance of PW 5 at 11 a. m. , whereas the prosecution case is that the FIR was lodged at 8 a. m. In our view, such discrepancy with regard to the time of lodging the FIR is minor in nature and does not go to the root of the matter. Such minor discrepancy cannot be annexed with undue importance. We find that it is fully proved that the appellant has murdered his wife by strangulation and, as such, he has been rightly convicted for the offence under S. 302, IPC. We broadly agree with the conclusion arrived-at by the learned trial court that the accused appellant has murdered his wife by strangulation. We also approve the reasons given by the learned trial court in support of the said conclusion. ( 15 ) NO other point has been pressed and argued before us. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeal having no force is hereby dismissed. Since the accused appellant is on bail, he shall surrender himself before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur within seven days from today to undergo the sentence awarded by the learned trial court. In case he does not surrender himself before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur within the stipulated time, the Sessions Judge is directed to cause him arrested and send him to jail for serving-out the remaining sentence awarded by the trial court. Appeal dismissed.