JUDGMENT KAMLESH SHARMA J.—This appeal at the instance of convict Ranjit Singh is against the judgment dated 31-1-1997, passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 I PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case of his non-payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The matrix of prosecution case in brief is that the sister of appellant, namely, Kashmiro Devi was married to deceased Sunder Ram and was residing with him along with her three children Sunilma aged 12 years, Sunil aged 10 years and Monu aged about 7 years in village Jeor, Sub Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur. Deceased Sunder Ram, along with his two brothers, namely, Budhi Ram (PW-1) and Prasa Ram were jointly residing in a house with their respective wives and children, along with their mother Sunehru Devi (PW-4), though each one of them was having separate room and kitchen. According to the prosecution, there was no love-lost between Kashmiro Devi and deceased Sunder Ram and about one year prior to the occurrence a Khangi Panchayat was held before whom they had re-conciled their disputes. During that time, deceased Sunder Ram had asked the appellant, who had been running a medical practitioners shop in village Jeor, not to visit his house because he has been instigating his wife Kashmiro Devi as a result of which there used to be quarrels between him and Kashmiro Devi. Accordingly, the appellant did not visit the house of his sister Kashmiro Devi for about one year but on 6-8-1994 he visited her in the absence of deceased Sunder Ram, had his meals and went away. On the very next day, i.e., 7-8-1994 he again came to the house of deceased Sunder Ram at about 8 PM when he was sitting in his kitchen along with his son Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and daughter Kumari Sunilma (PW-3). He was noticed by Sunerhru Devi (PW-4), Nanki Devi (PW-5) and Budhi Ram (PW-1) going straight to the kitchen, who were sitting in the courtyard and soon thereafter they heard the cries of Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3) that the appellant had attacked their father with a knife. He was noticed by Sunerhru Devi (PW-4), Nanki Devi (PW-5) and Budhi Ram (PW-1) going straight to the kitchen, who were sitting in the courtyard and soon thereafter they heard the cries of Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3) that the appellant had attacked their father with a knife. Budhi Ram (PW-1) rushed to kitchen and saw the appellant giving knife blows to deceased Sunder Ram, who was sitting against the wall and bleeding from his chest and head. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot. Deceased Sunder Ram was brought out of the kitchen and was put on the cot in the courtyard. In the meantime, Hari Singh, Bhagat Ram (PW-9), Siri Ram (PW-11) and Sant Ram came on the spot. One Dr. Ranjit Singh from village Jagaatkhanna was called through Budhi Ram (PW-1), who, after examining Sunder Ram, declared him dead. Jai Singh (PW-6), the then Pradhan Gram Panchayat informed the police over the telephone that Sunder Ram had been murdered by his real brother-in-law, namely, Ranjit Singh, the present appellant. On receipt of telephonic message Inspector Hans Raj (PW-17) came on the spot and recorded the statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. was recorded. After completing investigation challan was put up, respondent was tried under Section 302 IPC and ultimately convicted. The defence of the appellant was of clear denial. Pleading his innocence, he has stated in his replay to the last question put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as under: - "I am innocent. I have not committed any offence. I have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, my brother-in-law Sunder Ram was having litigation with his brothers as he was deprived of the ancestral property. Even mother of deceased was also involved in litigation against deceased Sunder Ram. One week prior to the incident while deceased Sunder was under the influence of liquor, he had abused Suresh and Budhi Ram and then Sunder deceased was mercilessly beaten up by Suresh, Paras Ram and Budhi Ram. Thereafter, I gave treatment to the deceased on 8-8-1994 at about 7.30 a.m. while I was coming from my house in a boat, then I was arrested by the police and involved in this case. No knife was recovered from my possession." 3. Thereafter, I gave treatment to the deceased on 8-8-1994 at about 7.30 a.m. while I was coming from my house in a boat, then I was arrested by the police and involved in this case. No knife was recovered from my possession." 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has produced as many as 17 witnesses and out of them Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunil Kumar (PW-2), Kumari Sunilma (PW-3), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW~5) are the eye-witnesses. Budhi Ram (PW-1) is the real brother or deceased Sunder Ram and he has reiterated his statement in Ext. PW-1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. According to him, on hearing the cries of Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3) "Papa Ko Maar Diya" he rushed to the kitchen of deceased Sunder Ram and saw the appellant giving another knife blow on the head of deceased Sunder Ram besides the one he had already given on his chest. Besides identifying the assailant, he has also deposed that knife Ext. P-1 is the same with which the appellant had attacked deceased Sunder Ram. This witness has denied the suggestions put to him in the cross-examination that at the relevant time deceased Sunder Ram was taking liquor in the kitchen along with other two persons; that a week prior to the occurrence deceased Sunder Ram was given beating by this witness and his nephew Suresh as a result of which he remained confined to the bed for 3/4 days and that it was Suresh, who was involved in the commission of the crime, and in order to save him this witness was deposing falsely. However, he had admitted that the ancestral property was divided between him, his two brothers and his mother, who had gifted her share to him excluding his two brothers but he has denied that because of the gift made by his mother in his favour deceased Sunder Ram was having grudge against him. The other two eye-witnesses Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5), who were sitting on a cot in the courtyard at the relevant time, nave deposed that they had seen the appellant going to the kitchen where deceased Sunder Ram was present along with his son Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3). The other two eye-witnesses Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5), who were sitting on a cot in the courtyard at the relevant time, nave deposed that they had seen the appellant going to the kitchen where deceased Sunder Ram was present along with his son Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3). According to them, they saw the appellant giving knife blows to deceased Sunder Ram and thereafter running away from the spot when Budhi Ram (PW-1) rushed to the kitchen. Sunehru Devi (PW-4) was given even threat of her life when she asked the appellant as to why he had killed her son Sunder Ram. All those suggestions which were put to Budhi Ram (PW-1) were also asked from these two eye-witnesses in their cross-examination which they have denied. Nanki Devi (PW-5) has explained that the kitchen of deceased Sunder Ram is visible from the place where she, along with Sunehru Devi, was sitting in the courtyard. She has also deposed that deceased Sunder Ram had asked the appellant not to visit his house as he was instigating his wife for entering into quarrels with him. 4. The other eye-witnesses, namely, Sunil Kumar (PW-2) and Sunilma (PW-3), son and daughter of deceased Sunder Ram, have not supported the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Kashmiro Devi wife of deceased Sunder Ram has been given up. Both these witnesses have admitted that at the time of occurrence they were taking the meals in the kitchen. Sunil Kumar (PW-2) has stated that his father was taking liquor in the kitchen along with two other persons but he showed his ignorance that who had killed his father. As per the observations made by the Sessions Judge, this witness was found perplexed and was not giving answers to the simple questions asked to him out of fear and also for the reason that he was tutored to remain silent. Any how, in his cross-examination he has admitted the presence of his grand mother Smt. Sunehru (PW-4), his aunt Nanki Devi (PW-5) and Pushpa in the courtyard. Any how, in his cross-examination he has admitted the presence of his grand mother Smt. Sunehru (PW-4), his aunt Nanki Devi (PW-5) and Pushpa in the courtyard. He and his sister have denied that their father had received injuries in his head and chest which shows that they were not giving true version of the occurrence under the influence of their mother who is real sister of the appellant though they have admitted that the appellant, who is their maternal uncle, was arrested by the police. 5. The other two witnesses, who had come to the house of deceased Sunder Ram immediately after the occurrence, are Jai Singh (PW-6) and Siri Ram (PW-11). Jai Singh (PW-6), who was Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, has deposed that on hearing the cries of Smt. Sunehru from the house of deceased Sunder Ram at about 5 p.m. on the day of occurrence that who had killed her son he had sent his wife to inquire as to what had happened, who, after visiting the house of deceased Sunder Ram within 10/15 minutes, came back and informed him that the appellant had killed Sunder Ram with a knife. Immediately thereafter, he went to the house of Sunder Ram and found him having two knife injuries; one in his stomach and another on his head. He was told by Sunehru, Nanki Devi and other persons of the family present on the spot that Sunder Ram had been killed by the appellant with a knife. At about 11 p.m. he informed the police over the telephone from the house of Sukhdev that appellant had killed Sunder Ram ex-Pradhan in response to which the police had reached in the village during the night but it had started its proceedings in the morning. He is also witness to recovery memos Ext. PB, PC, PD, PE and PF vide which police took into possession blood-stained earth and blood from the kitchen; two mats Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-3; blood-stained stone Ext. P-4 and blood-stained clothes of deceased Sunder Ram Ext. P-5 to Ext. P-7 and a portion of cot Ext. P-8. He has also stated that at 8.30 a.m. the appellant was apprehended by the police at Jeori Pattan, when he was about to board the boat and in his presence, he has produced the knife Ext. P-3; blood-stained stone Ext. P-4 and blood-stained clothes of deceased Sunder Ram Ext. P-5 to Ext. P-7 and a portion of cot Ext. P-8. He has also stated that at 8.30 a.m. the appellant was apprehended by the police at Jeori Pattan, when he was about to board the boat and in his presence, he has produced the knife Ext. P-1 from the pocket of his trousers which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PG. Pass Book Ext. P-9 and bunch of keys Ext. P-10 belonging to the appellant were also produced by Bhagat Ram (PW-9) and were taken into possession by Ext. PH in the presence of this witness. In his cross-examination, he has stuck to his earlier statement made in examination-in-chief. He has explained that the distance between Jeori Pattan Ghat and the house of deceased Sunder Ram is one furlong. According to him, till the time he remained with the police, no paper was sent to the police station by it. He has also stated that as per his information a week prior to the occurrence deceased Sunder Ram had abused his nephew Suresh and one of his brothers under the influence of liquor and he was given beating by them. The distance of kitchen of Budhi Ram (PW-1) from the kitchen of deceased Sunder Ram, as given by this witness, is 15 feet. The other witness Siri Ram (PW-11) has deposed that on hearing the noise from the house of deceased Sunder Ram he had gone there and the members of his family had told him that appellant had murdered Sunder Ram with a knife. He had seen deceased Sunder Ram having two injuries; one on his chest and another on his head which were bleeding as a result of which his clothes were smeared with blood. In his cross-examination, he has further stated that at that time he found Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5) besides the children of deceased Sunder Ram present on the spot. 6. Another set of witnesses are Bansi Ram (PW-7) and Bhagat Ram (PW-9) who have stated that immediately after the occurrence the appellant had come to the shop of liquor vend where Bhagat Ram was working as salesman Bansi Ram (PW-7) has stated that when appellant was taking out pass-book and keys from his pocket a knife Ext. 6. Another set of witnesses are Bansi Ram (PW-7) and Bhagat Ram (PW-9) who have stated that immediately after the occurrence the appellant had come to the shop of liquor vend where Bhagat Ram was working as salesman Bansi Ram (PW-7) has stated that when appellant was taking out pass-book and keys from his pocket a knife Ext. P-1 had also come out which the appellant had again put in his pocket after handing over the pass-book and keys to Bhagat Ram. His further statement is that Bhagat Ram and appellant used to live and take meals together and on the asking of Bhagat Ram that the appellant shall prepare meals on that night the appellant shall prepare meals on that night the latter had replied that he was going to Bilaspur as he had killed his sisters husband, ex-pradhan. This witness has identified the knife as Ext. P-1 which the appellant had with him at the relevant time. He has with-stood the cross-examination and has further added that he had gone to the house of Sunder Ram at 9.15 p.m. on the day of occurrence and stayed there along with other villagers during the night. As per the version given by Bhagat Ram (PW-9) on 7-8-1994 at about 7.45 p.m. or 8 p.m. the appellant came running and perplexed to the liquor vend where he was working as salesman and demanded Rs. 1,000/- and told him that he had killed Sunder Ram, ex-Pradhan, his brother-in-law. When he refused to give money, the appellant left his pass-book and bunch of keys on the table and ran away, which was handed over to the police by him vide Ext. PH. This witness, in his cross-examination, has denied that he had seen knife with the appellant when he had visited him at his shop. He has also denied that Suresh or Harish Chander or some other person had purchased wine from his shop and were taking it near his shop on the day of occurrence. He had gone to the house of deceased Sunder Ram at 8.30 p.m. along with Pradhan Jai Singh and his statement was recorded by the police next day at 8 a.m. whereafter the appellant was arrested. 7. The autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sunder Ram was conducted by Dr. He had gone to the house of deceased Sunder Ram at 8.30 p.m. along with Pradhan Jai Singh and his statement was recorded by the police next day at 8 a.m. whereafter the appellant was arrested. 7. The autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sunder Ram was conducted by Dr. B.S. Bains (PW-8), who found the following injuries : - Injury No. 1 : "There was evidence of incised wound in the right parietal region of skull. It is directed horizontally i.e., from front to the back, measuring 2.5 cmx 1 cm. clotted blood was present in and around the wound. The scalp hair were soaked with blood and blood fluid was coming out from the said wound. After reflecting the scalp, there was evidence of contusion around the said wound on the periostium. There was no injury/fracture of the skull bones. After removing the skull cap, underlying structures were found to be normal. Injury No. 2 : There was evidence of incised (stab) injury (penetrating) in the front of the left side of chest in the intercostal space formed by the third and 4th ribs lateral to the sternum on left side. There was evidence of clotted blood in and around the wound. On tilting the body to one side, the blood fluid was coming out from the opening of the above said wound. The wound was having almost oval shape with clean cut margins. The wound was measuring 2.5 cmx 1 cm. This wound was directing from above downwards from anterior to posterior and from left to right side of the chest-wall, piercing through skin, sub-cut tissue, muscles, pleural cavity, producing laceration to the tip of the left lung and piercing through the pericadium and perforating the anterior wall of right ventricular chamber. Pericardial sac was full of blood fluid with evidence of presence of blood fluid in the left ploural cavity as well." Both the injuries were described as incised wound and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was cardiac temponade as a result of ante-mortem injury to the pericardium and heart and injury No. 2 individually or both the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death which could be caused with knife Ext. P-1. The probable time between the injury and death was given as within few minutes. In his cross-examination the doctor has deposed that knife Ext. P-1. The probable time between the injury and death was given as within few minutes. In his cross-examination the doctor has deposed that knife Ext. P-1 is fish shaped and its tip portion is double-edged and pointed one. According to him, it is difficult to say that oval shaped injury cannot be caused with a weapon having pointed edge since there is contractility of the musculature and elasticity of the tissue which can distort the shape of the wound. It is influenced by the relative movement of the victim and assailant. He has further stated that both the injuries were caused successively as these could not be caused simultaneously. He has specifically denied that injury No. 2 could be caused by knife Ext. P-1. The report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh has also been placed on record as Ext. PM in which it is opined that alcohol was found in the viscera of deceased Sunder Ram tested in the laboratory. 8. Nain Singh (PW-12), the then Moharar Head Constable, in police station, Sadar, Bilaspur, has proved the Rapat Roznamcha dated 7/8 August, 1994 Ext. PL, which was recorded by him on the basis of telephonic message received from Jai Singh (PW-6). Investigation Officer, Inspector Hans Raj (PW-17) has, inter alia, stated that the appellant had produced knife Ext. P-1 "from his pocket which was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PG in the presence of witnesses. He has explained in his cross-examination that though he had reached the spot at 2 am yet he had recorded the statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) at 6 a.m. as earlier nobody had come forward for the same. According to him, the appellant was apprehended at Jeori Ghat at a distance of 1 1/2 furlong from the place of occurrence by A.S.I. Puran Singh, Constables Tirath Ram and Amar Singh at 8 p.m. and produced before him for the formal arrest. He has denied that knife was already lying on the spot and also that he had noted any empty bottle of wine and glasses in the kitchen as shown in photograph Ext. P-16. According to him, the distance between the Courts at Bilaspur and Police Station can be covered on foot within 15 to 20 minutes still the copy of F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate at 5.15 p.m. though it was registered at 8.30 a.m. 9. P-16. According to him, the distance between the Courts at Bilaspur and Police Station can be covered on foot within 15 to 20 minutes still the copy of F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate at 5.15 p.m. though it was registered at 8.30 a.m. 9. On the evidence on record, the Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the author of injuries found on the person of deceased Sunder Ram which had caused his homicidal death. In order to challenge these findings, the first submission made by Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Sessions Judge has failed to consider that from the facts and circumstances on record an alternative probable version favourable to the appellant is made out which makes the prosecution story doubtful and points out that the assailant(s) might not be the appellant. These facts and circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel are : - (i) There was a litigation between deceased Sunder Ram and his brother Budhi Ram (PW-1) on a gift of her share made by their mother Sunehru Devi (PW-4) in favour of Budhi Ram which fact has been admitted by him In his statement; (ii) The relations between deceased Sunder Ram and his brother Budhi Ram (PW-1) as well as his nephew Suresh were strained, as stated by Jai Singh (PW-6). It is also stated by him that deceased Sunder Ram was given beating by them one week prior to the occurrence when they were abused by him under the influence of liquor though this has been denied by Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5); (iii) From the statement of Sunil Kumar (PW-2), son of deceased Sunder Ram, it has come on record that deceased Sunder Ram, along with two other persons, was taking liquor in the kitchen which fact is supported by the photograph Ext. P-16 on record showing tumblers, a judge and an empty bottle of liquor in the kitchen which were completely ignored by the Investigating Officer, Hans Raj (PW-17) and also by the report of Chemical Examiner Ext. PM stating that alcohol was found in the viscera of deceased Sunder Ram; (iv) The name of the assailant was not known to anyone and the name of the appellant was introduced at a later stage after due delegations. PM stating that alcohol was found in the viscera of deceased Sunder Ram; (iv) The name of the assailant was not known to anyone and the name of the appellant was introduced at a later stage after due delegations. Learned counsel, referring to the statement of Jai Singh (PW-6) that he had heard cries of Sunehru Devi (PW-4), mother of deceased Sunder Ram that who had killed her son, has argued that had she as well as Nanki Devi (PW-5) and Budhi Ram (PW-1) seen the appellant inflicting knife blows on deceased Sunder Ram her spontaneous cries would have been that Ranjit Singh, the appellant, had killed her son deceased Sunder Ram; (v) Though daily diary report Ext. PL was recorded in the Police Station, Bilaspur at 12,15 a.m. during the night of occurrence on receipt of telephonic message from Jai Singh (PW-6) that ex-pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jaggatkanna, has been murdered by his brother-in-law Ranjit Singh in pursuance of which Investigating Officer Hans Raj (PW-17) had reached at the place of occurrence during the night at 2 a.m. yet statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded at 6 a.m. on the following day and the explanation given by Investigating Officer Hans Raj (PW-17) is that nobody was coming forwzrd to give the statement. Learned counsel has further urged that even recording of statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. at 6 a.m. on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PA/1 was recorded at 8.30 a.m. in the Police Station is doubtful in view of the statement of Jai Singh (PW-6) who remained throughout with the police during the investigation that the police had not sent any paper to the Police Station and also that a copy of F.I.R. Ext. PA/1 was received by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur at 5.15 p.m. though the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur is at a walking distance of 15/20 minutes from the Police Station, Bilaspur. (vi) The clothes which the appellant was wearing at the time of alleged occurrence were not taken into possession to show that these were blood-stained which would have been there in the normal course, had he been the assailant. (vi) The clothes which the appellant was wearing at the time of alleged occurrence were not taken into possession to show that these were blood-stained which would have been there in the normal course, had he been the assailant. Bansi Ram (PW-7) and Bhagat Ram (PW-9), who had allegedly met the appellant immediately after the occurrence had not noticed blood stains on the clothes of the appellant which further shows that he was not the assailant in the absence of any material on record that the appellant had changed the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. 10. This argument, though attractive, is found without any substance on deeper examination. There may not be any love-lost between deceased Sunder Ram and his brother Budhi Ram (PW-1) as well as his nephew Suresh due to the civil litigation and they friight be quarrelling of and on with deceased Sunder Ram, when he used to abuse them under the influence of liquor and they might have given him beating one week prior to the occurrence but all these circumstances, even if assumed to be correct, do not suggest that either they were the assailants or they are trying to shield the real assailant and have any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. In view of the ocular evidence of Budhi Ram (PW-1) Sunehru Devi (PW-4), Nanki Devi (PW-5) as well as the evidence of Jai Singh (PW-6) and Siri Ram (PW-11), who had reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellant and none else who after entering the kitchen of deceased Sunder Ram had attacked him with knife and inflicted the injuries on his person as per the post-mortem report conducted by Dr. B.S. Bains (PW-8). The presence of Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5) at the time of occurrence is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt who have categorically denied that deceased Sunder Ram was taking liquor in his kitchen at the time of occurrence. B.S. Bains (PW-8). The presence of Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5) at the time of occurrence is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt who have categorically denied that deceased Sunder Ram was taking liquor in his kitchen at the time of occurrence. In this view of the matter, the statement of Sunil Kumar (PW-2), minor son of deceased Sunder Ram, that his father and two other persons were taking liquor in the kitchen at the time of occurrence is of no avail, more so, for the reason that from the demeanour of this witness it is proved on record that he was perplexed, not answering simple questions out of fear and was tutored to make statement only to that extent and remain silent in respect of other questions. So far as presence of tumblers, jug and an empty bottle of liquor in the kitchen, as shown in the photograph Ext. P-16 is concerned, it is also of no consequence as these things are ordinarily found in the kitchen, the empty bottle of liquor is used for containing liquids. Similarly, the presence of alcohol in the viscera of deceased Sunder Ram as per the report of Chemical Examiner Ext. PM only shows that he had taken liquor before he was done to death and it does not suggest that he was taking liquor in the kitchen along with two other persons at the time he was attacked. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that name of the appellant was introduced later after due deliberations is fallacious in view of the consistent statement of eye-witnesses Budhi Ram (PW-1), Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5) from the very beginning that the appellant had murdered Sunder Ram. So far as the statement of Jai Singh (PW-6) that he had heard the cries of Sunehru Devi (PW-4) that who had killed her son is concerned, it was not put to Sunerhru Devi (PW- 4) or to other eye-witnesses who could explain this discrepancy, which is otherwise minor, to suggest that the name of the assailant was not known at the time of occurrence. The prosecution version that from the very beginning the appellant was known as the assailant is also corroborated by daily diary report Ext. The prosecution version that from the very beginning the appellant was known as the assailant is also corroborated by daily diary report Ext. PL which was recorded at 12.30 a.m. in Police Station, Bilaspur, on receipt of telephonic message from Jai Singh (PW-6) that ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Jagaatkhanna, has been murdered by his brother-in-law, Ranjit Singh, the appellant. This document has been duly proved by Nain Singh (PW-12), who had received the said telephonic message and thereafter recorded the daily diary report. The correctness of this document has not been challenged on behalf of the appellant by suggesting to this witness in cross-examination that Jai Singh (PW-6) had not mentioned the name of appellant as the murderer of deceased Sunder Ram. It is correct that as per the statement of Investigating Officer Hans Raj (PW-17), he had reached the place of occurrence at 2 a.m. but he could not record the statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr. P.C. till 6 a.m. as nobody ; had come forward to make such a statement but it is not unnatural when a close relation, i.e., brother of the wife of deceased Sunder Ram was the assailant and the family was under the shock of murder of their near and dear one. After recording the statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the inquest report Ext, PJ was prepared wherein the said statement was incorporated naming the appellant as the assailant. Thereafter, dead body was sent to District Hospital for post-mortem at 8 or 9 a.m. as stated by Investigating Officer Hans Raj (PW-17) I and the post-mortem was conducted at 12.15 p.m., as mentioned in the post-mortem report. 12. We find that F.I.R. Ext. PA/1, which was recorded on the basis of Rukh sent by Investigating Officer, Hans Raj (PW-17), was registered at 8.30 a.m. in Police Station, Bilaspur, which is at a distance of 50 kilometres from the place of occurrence, as such, there is no delay in recording the FIR. 12. We find that F.I.R. Ext. PA/1, which was recorded on the basis of Rukh sent by Investigating Officer, Hans Raj (PW-17), was registered at 8.30 a.m. in Police Station, Bilaspur, which is at a distance of 50 kilometres from the place of occurrence, as such, there is no delay in recording the FIR. No doubt, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur is at a walking distance of 15/20 minutes from the Police Station, Bilaspur where a copy of FIR had reached in the evening at 5.15 p.m. yet this circumstance is not enough to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that FIR was not registered at 8.30 a.m. but at a later point of time to introduce the name of the appellant after due deliberation. We also do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of I.O. Hans Raj (PW-17) to wait till dawn to prepare inquest report and make other investigation in the absence of sufficient light during the night, as stated by him. He has rightly not taken into possession tumblers, jug and an empty bottle of liquor found in the kitchen as these were not incriminating articles, as discussed hereinabove. 13. Another factor that the clothes which the appellant was wearing at the time of occurrence were not taken into possession to show that these were bloodstained which would have been there in the normal course, is also not material to hold the appellant as innocent in view of the evidence of eye-witnesses and others who had reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. The possibility of his changing the clothes before he went to Bhagat Ram (PW-9) at the liquor vend immediately after the occurrence where Bansi Ram (PW-7) was also present is not ruled out as they had not noticed blood stains on his clothes. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of eye-witnesses is not worthy of any credence being close relations and also due to some discrepancies found in their statements is also without any substance. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of eye-witnesses is not worthy of any credence being close relations and also due to some discrepancies found in their statements is also without any substance. He is not right in pointing out that Budhi Ram (PW-1) was not on the spot at the time of occurrence as he had not come forward to give his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. till next morning at 6 a.m. and was supposed to be in his Tea Stall which he was running at Jeori Pattan as stated by Jai Singh (PW-6). This argument is also devoid of any merit as the presence of this witness and other eye-witnesses is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, as discussed herein above. The discrepancy or the improvement pointed out by the learned counsel in the statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and his deposition in the Court is not material at all as in his deposition in the Court he has further elaborated his statement that he had seen appellant giving knife blows to deceased Sunder Ram who was sitting along the wall by stating that when he rushed to the place of occurrence he saw the appellant giving knife blows on the head of the deceased. The improvements in the statements of Sunehru Devi (PW-4) and Nanki Devi (PW-5) made in the Court as compared to their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel are the same as discussed by the Sessions Judge in Paragraph-28 of his judgment and these have rightly been held to be of minor nature as their statements were recorded in the Court after a lapse of about one year. 15. Another submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged extra-judicial confession made to Bhagat Ram (PW-9) in the presence of Bansi Ram (PW-7) immediately after the occurrence is involuntary, unnatural and not worthy of any credence. It is proved on record that Bhagat Ram (PW-9) was not only friend of appellant but was also residing and dining with him, as such, he was the man of his confidence to whom he could go not only to seek his help but also to unburden himself. By chance Bansi Ram (PW-7) was also present at that time who had noticed the knife Ext. P-1 with the appellant. By chance Bansi Ram (PW-7) was also present at that time who had noticed the knife Ext. P-1 with the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that these two witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant by making the statement that he had made extra-judicial confession before them. It is correct that Bhagat Ram (PW-9) has admitted that he has not noticed knife with the appellant at that time which might be for various reasons such as he was busy in- talking with the appellant or he might be sitting or standing at a place where from he could not see the appellant taking out the pass-book and bunch of keys along with knife from his pocket as was seen by Bansi Ram (PW-7), etc. No doubt, extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but it assumes importance in the case like the present one which is proved by the ocular evidence. Even if the statements of Bansi Ram (PW-7) and Bhagat Ram (PW-9) are not taken into consideration for proving extra-judicial confession, these are relevant to prove the conduct of the appellant immediately after the occurrence. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has also attacked the recovery of knife Ext. P-1 on the ground that there is discrepancy in the time of its production by the appellant. As per the statement of Jai Singh (PW-6) the appellant had produced knife Ext. P-1 at 8.30 a.m. immediately after his arrest at Jeori Pattan whereas the time of arrest given by Investigating Officer Hans Raj (PW-17) is 8.30 p.m. There seems to be some mistake in giving the time by Jai Singh (PW 6), though his statement is corroborated by I.O. Hans Raj (PW-17) that the knife Ext. P-1 was produced by the appellant immediately after his arrest. However, identification of the knife or it was not found stained with blood loses its importance in view of the statements of eye-witnesses that they had seen the appellant giving knife blows to deceased Sunder Ram. 17. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is also without any substance that the oval-shaped injuries found on the person of deceased Sunder Ram in the post-mortem report were not connected with the knife Ext. P-1. 17. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is also without any substance that the oval-shaped injuries found on the person of deceased Sunder Ram in the post-mortem report were not connected with the knife Ext. P-1. In this regard, the statement of doctor B.S. Bains (PW-8) is relevant who has categorically overruled the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant in his cross-examination that the injuries in question cannot be caused by double-edged knife Ext. P-1 and has also explained the relevant factors which contribute in the shape of the wound. Above all in view of the ocular version on record, deficiency in the medical evidence, if any, not connecting the injuries with the weapon of offence is of no consequence. By now it is well settled that the medical evidence being an opinion evidence cannot be preferred over and above the ocular evidence which is found to be worthy of credence. 18. The last argument raised on behalf of the appellant is also without any force that F.I.R. Ext. PA/1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. as the telephonic message containing the information of cognizable offence recorded in daily dairy report Ext. PL was the First Information Report. We do not find the telephonic message complete in all respects as the name of the victim and other particulars are not given in it and in our opinion I.O was right in proceeding to the spot and recording statement of Budhi Ram (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PA/1 was registered. 19. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. 20. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I PC and the sentence of life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 2,000/- awarded to him by the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 1997, passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is affirmed. Appeal dismissed. -