Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-2-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life but did not impose the sentence of fine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Ram Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for committing the murder of Mohan Singh (aged about 6 to 7 years) s/o Smt. Sushila Devi. The prosecution case, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellant is that Smt. Sushila Devi was earlier married to one Man Singh and out of that wed-lock she gave birth to two sons and one daughter. Four-five years before the date of the incident, Smt. Sushila Devi contacted marriage, with accused Ram Singh. Since this marriage deceased Mohan Singh was living with his mother and accused Ram Singh. Accused-appellant Ram Singh was working in the Rubber Reclaiming Factory of one Om Prakash Soni situated in Udyog Vihar, Sri Ganganagar. The appellant, along with his family members consisting of Smt. Sushila and her children, was living in the quarter situated in the premises of the factory. On the day of the incident, i. e. , the night intervening 6/7th August, 1989, at about 12. 00/12. 30 a. m. , appellant Ram Singh came to his house and asked Smt. Sushila Devi to place the cot out-side the house. Deceased Mohan Singh said that he would like to sleep out-side the house, which enraged the appellant and he knocked Mohan Singh against the wall. This act of knocking was repeated by the appellant several times. Smt. Sushila tried to rescue her son Mohan Singh but she could not succeed. Thereafter, after scaling over the wall, she went in the Ice Factory situated nearby and sought the help of PW 6 Som Dutt, who is the brother of the owner of the ice factory and requested him to save the life of her son. Som Dutt sent Lalit Singh with her. Lalit Singh came with Smt. Sushila but as the door of the factory was locked, he refused to scale over the wall and returned back. Som Dutt sent Lalit Singh with her. Lalit Singh came with Smt. Sushila but as the door of the factory was locked, he refused to scale over the wall and returned back. Smt. Sushila, after scaling over the wall, went to her house and on enquiry, the accused-appellant informed her that the body (deceased Mohan Singh) was inside the room. She thereafter slept on the roof of the house. In the morning she saw that Mohan Singh was lying dead. She thereafter went to the house of Om Prakash Soni (the owner of the factory) and informed him regarding the incident. They were thinking to go to the Police Station to lodged the report but in the meanwhile the appellant came there and confessed his guilt before Om Prakash Soni. All the three then went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. After registering the case, the appellant was arrested by the Station House Officer and he thereafter gave the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the place where the dead body of Mohan Singh was lying and in pursuance to this information, the dead body of Mohan Singh was recovered. After completing the investigation, PW 5 Prem Narain Bishnoi, S. H. O. , presented the challan. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case examined six witnesses. The accused-appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 20-2-1990 that the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case examined six witnesses. The accused-appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 20-2-1990 that the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that (i) Smt. Sushila is not the eye witness of the occurrence and her conduct clearly shows that she was not present at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place; (ii) Om Prakash Soni and Som Dutt are not the reliable witnesses; (iii) the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession and the version given by the witnesses regarding making of extra judicial confession by the accused-appellant during investigation and trial are different; (iv) there is a discrepancy regarding lodging of the report : whether it was Om Prakash Soni who lodged the report or it was Smt. Sushila who lodged the report; (v) the recovery of the dead body of Mohan Singh was not made at the instance of the appellant as the place where the dead body was lying, had already come in the F. I. R. itself and the dead body was recovered from an open place accessible to all and, therefore, the recovery of the dead body cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. ( 5 ) BEFORE considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we would first like two consider the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has relied-upon the statement of PW 1, Smt. Sushila Devi who is the eye witness of the occurrence, the wife of the accused appellant and the mother of deceased Mohan Singh. The evidence of Smt. Sushila Devi is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Om Prakash Soni, to whom Smt. Sushila informed about the incident in the morning of 7-8-1989 and before whom the accused-appellant, also, made an extra judicial confession and from the house of Om Prakash Soni, they went to the police station to lodge the report. PW 6 Som Dutt is the brother of the owner of the ice factory situated adjacent to the place of the incident, where Smt. Sushila went in the intervening night of 6/7th August, 1989 at about 12. 30 p. m. and informed him that appellant Ram Singh is beating her son and requested him to rescue her son. He sent Lalit Singh along with her and Lalit Singh returned back after sometime and informed him that the gate of the factory was locked and there was no light inside the factory. Next day he was informed that Ram Singh has killed his son. PW 3 Tarsem Lal Goyal is a Motbir witness to the recovery of the dead body (Ex. P. 7), the site plan (Ex. P. 8), recovery of gunny bag (Ex. P. 9), Furd-surat-Haal Lash (Ex. P. 10), Panchanama Lash (Ex. P. 11), site plan (Ex. P. 3), recoveries of the underwear and Chappals of Mohan Singh (Ex. P. 4), recovery of towel (Ex. P. 5), and the site-plan from where the towel was recovery (Ex. P. 6 ). PW 4 Dr. K. L. Markandey is the Medical Jurist, who, at the relevant time was posted at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and who performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Mohar Singh. He, also, examined the injuries found on the person of Smt. Sushila. PW 5 Prem Narain Bishnoi, the Station House Officer, who was the Incharge of Police Station, Sadar Sri Ganganagar, where the F. I. R. of the incident was lodged. He investigated the matter and after completion of investigation presented the challan. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, relied upon (i) the evidence of Smt. Sushila Devi and Om Prakash Soni; (ii) the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before Smt. Sushila and Om Prakash Soni; (iii) the recovery of the dead body of Mohan Singh on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant and (iv) the medical evidence which corroborates the prosecution case. ( 7 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Smt. Sushila Devi and Om Prakash are not the reliable witnesses and the conduct of Smt. Sushila clearly shows that she was not the eye witness of the occurrence. ( 7 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Smt. Sushila Devi and Om Prakash are not the reliable witnesses and the conduct of Smt. Sushila clearly shows that she was not the eye witness of the occurrence. Had she been present in the house at the relevant time then she would have tried to save her son and when she returned from the factory, she should have taken care of her son instead of going on the roof to sleep. PW 1 Smt. Sushila has stated that appellant Ram Singh, with whom she contacted second marriage about 4/5 years before, was working in the factory situated at Hanumangarh Road, Sri Ganganagar and they were living in the quarter situated inside the factory premises. About 21/2 months before, at about 2. 30 p. m. , she slept inside the room. Deceased Mohan Singh was, also, sleeping by her side. At about 12. 00 in the night, the accused came and asked her to bring the cot out-side the house. She took the cot from the room and placed it out-side the house. Mohan Singh said that he would, also, sleep out-side the room, upon which the appellant enraged and started beating Mohan Singh. The appellant caught Mohan Singh from the neck and knocked him twice or thrice on the earth/wall. When she tried to intervene, appellant Ram Singh, also, gave beatings to her and pushed her out-side the house and continued to beat Mohan Singh. She scaled over the wall and went to the ice factory where the owner of the factory was not there but his brother was there, to whom she stated that Ram Singh is giving beatings to her son and requested him to rescue her son. He sent a labourer with her but at that time the gate of the factory was closed. The labourer asked her that he will not scale over the wall and returned back. She scaled over the wall, went inside the house and enquired the appellant where Mohan Singh was, to which he replied that Mohan Singh was sleeping in the room. She did not go inside the room and went on the roof of the house of sleep. In the morning, at about 5/6 a. m. she saw that Mohan Singh was lying dead. She did not go inside the room and went on the roof of the house of sleep. In the morning, at about 5/6 a. m. she saw that Mohan Singh was lying dead. From there she went to the house of Om Prakash Soni and reached his house at about 8. 00/8. 30 a. m. and informed him that Ram Singh has killed her son. Ram Singh, also, came there after about half an hour and handed-over the keys of the factory to Shri Soni. Om Prakash Soni asked him where he was going after killing the son of Sushila, on which the accused replied that Mohan Singh was the son of Sushila from her previous husband and, therefore, he has killed him. Thereafter she, along with Om Prakash Soni and accused Ram Singh went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P. 9. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted by the learned counsel for the accused but the evidence of this witness remained unshaken and nothing could be elicited by the cross-examination which could make the evidence of this witness untrustworthy or may raise any suspicion. The conduct of this witness, which has been attacked by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not of such a nature which could make the presence of this witness at the place of the incident doubtful. The presence of this witness at her house is most natural. It was the house where Smt. Sushila was living with her husband (appellant Ram Singh) and son. It was not expected of her to leave her son alone in the dead hours of the night and to go to some other place. Even the presence of this witness at the house has not been disputed by the accused-appellant. She tried to intervene when Ram Singh was knocking the deceased against the wall or the earth. In this scuffle she, also, received injuries, which has been proved by PW 4 Dr. K. L. Markandey, who medically examined this witness, also. Though the conduct of this witness after returning from the ice factory without any assistance and not attending the son appears to be somewhat abnormal, but no uniform principle can be laid down that in a given circumstance all the persons will react in a particular manner. K. L. Markandey, who medically examined this witness, also. Though the conduct of this witness after returning from the ice factory without any assistance and not attending the son appears to be somewhat abnormal, but no uniform principle can be laid down that in a given circumstance all the persons will react in a particular manner. As such, if instead of looking after her son this witness went on the roof to sleep then her evidence on this abnormality, cannot be disbelieved when her presence in the house was most natural and has not been disputed by any of the witnesses or even by the accused-appellant. After going through the evidence of this witness, we are of the opinion that the evidence of this witness inspires confidence and she has disposed what she had actually seen. ( 8 ) PW 2 Om Prakash Soni, in whose factory the accused-appellant was working as a labourer and was living in the quarters situated in the factory premises, has stated that on 7-8-1989, in the morning, at about 8. 00 a. m. , Ram Singhs wife came to his house and informed him that her husband has killed her son. He asked her to sit for sometime and told that they would go to the police station for lodging the report. After about half an hour the accused-appellant came there and confessed his guilt. From there, they went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. The evidence of this witness, also, remained unshaken in the cross-examination. The evidence of this witness, also, inspires confidence and he has stated what he had actually seen and what was confessed by the accused-appellant before him. ( 9 ) THE evidence of PW 1 Smt. Sushila Devi further finds corroboration from the evidence of PW 6 Som Dutt, who has stated that Smt. Sushila came to his house in the night at about 12. 00/12. 30 and informed him that the accused is giving beatings to her son. He sent Lalit Singh with her but Lalit Singh returned after sometime because the door of the factory was closed and there was no light. ( 10 ) THE evidence of Smt. Sushila and Om Prakash Soni further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of P. W. 4, Dr. K. L. Markandey. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are, therefore, most natural and reliable witnesses. ( 10 ) THE evidence of Smt. Sushila and Om Prakash Soni further finds corroboration from the medical evidence of P. W. 4, Dr. K. L. Markandey. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are, therefore, most natural and reliable witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in placing reliance over the evidence of these witnesses and as such the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of force. ( 11 ) THE next circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant before Smt. Sushila and Om Praksh Soni. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that different words relating to the extra judicial confession have been given by the witnesses during the trial and the investigation. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of any substance. The appellant, in an unequivocal terms, admitted his guilt before Om Prakash Soni and Smt. Sushila. He was working in the factory of Om Prakash Soni and, therefore, it was not unnatural for the appellant to have admitted his guilt before Om Prakash Soni because for him, Mr. Soni was the only person who could have saved him. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality in relying upon this evidence of extra-judicial confession. The evidence discloses that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-appellant is voluntary and was not the result of any threat, inducement or a promise. ( 12 ) THE next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not certain who was the person who lodged the report. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Om Prakash Soni has stated that Smt. Sushila lodged the report while Smt. Sushila and Prem Narain Bishnoi, S. H. O. have stated that it was Om Prakash Soni who lodged the report. OM Prakash Soni and Smt. Sushila Devi, both, went to the police station and lodged the report. The F. I. R. has been signed by Om Prakash Soni and Smt. Sushila Devi. Both these witnesses have admitted their signatures on the First Information Report. Prem Narain Bishnoi, S. H. O. , has stated that the F. I. R. was lodged by Om Prakash Soni. The F. I. R. has been signed by Om Prakash Soni and Smt. Sushila Devi. Both these witnesses have admitted their signatures on the First Information Report. Prem Narain Bishnoi, S. H. O. , has stated that the F. I. R. was lodged by Om Prakash Soni. Om Prakash Soni, also, admitted that he, alongwith Smt. Sushila, went to the police station taking the accused-appellant with them and lodged the report. The enquiry was made by the S. H. O. from both the witnesses and the incident was disclosed to the police by Om Prakash Soni in the presence of Smt. Sushila. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of any substance. ( 13 ) THE next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the recovery of the dead body of Mohan Singh cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. It is true that the location of the dead body was disclosed by the informed in the F. I. R. itself. The location of the dead body was already known and as such the recovery of the dead body cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The place where the dead body of Mohan Singh was laying, was earlier known to the police. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not right in relying-upon the recovery of the dead body as an incriminating circumstance against the accused-appellant. ( 14 ) FROM the evidence of P. W. 1, Smt. Sushila, P. W. 2, Omprakash Soni and P. W. 6, Som Dutt, as well as from the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused-appellant, the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant does not require any interference. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, the case against the accused-appellant stands proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt. ( 15 ) IN this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this jail appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.