JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Long and short of the prosecution case is that a reprimand and threat of the deceased Habilder to the appellant due to his alleged insubordination led to his death and grievous injury to the informant. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by a judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, Port Blair in sessions Case No. 17 of 1995 convicting him for an offence under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code for causing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Ramchander Yadav and under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Sitaram who is the first informant, (PW 27) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently. The incident giving rise to the lodging of the aforementioned case being P.S. Kadamtala case no. 14 of 1995 dated 25.5.1995 under section 302 and section 326 of the Indian Penal Code arose out of the following allegations:- 3. On 25.5.1995 the informant constable no. 1534 Sitaram (PW 27), PC 670 Venkat Reddy (PW 2) and PC 1042 (the appellant) were posted at J.P.P. Adajig No. 9. One PC 794 Naushad Hussain and PW 18. V. Sivakumar were also posted with them. Naushad Hussain was admitted in the Kadamtala hospital due to his illness and Ajit Das was sent to Kadamtala hospital by the In-charge of the chowki HC 1606 Ramchander Yadav (deceased) at about 2.45 PM to look after him. The deceased also went to see his ailing colleague Naushad by bus at about 4.30 PM. The informant Sitaram was at the sentry duty at the chowki from 12 noon to 6 PM. He cooked food after his sentry duty. The appellant took his meal first and lay down on the charpai, whereafter the informant took meal and also lay down in his charpai upon spreading over the musquito net. He had been listening music from his radio resting his right leg on the left. Venkat Reddy took his meal last. Ramchander Yadav returned to the chowki by the last bus at about 7.30 PM. He had been listening music from his radio resting his right leg on the left. Venkat Reddy took his meal last. Ramchander Yadav returned to the chowki by the last bus at about 7.30 PM. At that time nobody was on sentry duty. He accosted the appellant by going near his charpai and alleged that none of them want to work and told them to go on medical or take leave. He told that the appellant ought to have been on sentry duty by turn. He further stated that because of all of them, the name of chowki no. 9 is undermined in the eye of public and when the S.P. would come he would narrate the same to him. He also stated that he would disclose to the S.P. as regards his deeds in chowki no.3. At about 8.30 PM the appellant got down from his cot picked up his 303 rifle kept near his bed, loaded it and threatened the deceased to go away otherwise he would fire. PW 2 was standing at a little distance from the deceased. Having been threatened, Ramchander Yadav reiterated that the appellant was a boy of yesterday and he should not talk such loudly. At that, the appellant fired at the deceased which upon entering through his belly pierced his back and hit the informant on his right thigh. The informant thereupon found the deceased lying on his back in the floor, in between his charpai and that of the appellant Jitender Singh and called the deceased but there was no reply. He thereafter shook him and found that the bullet had pierced the deceased below his chest and blood was oozing out and Ramchander was dead. The appellant thereafter went down the barrack with the rifle and rounds and told that he would also kill PW 2, whereupon the informant asked him not to do so. PW 2 out of fear ran away. The appellant also went out of the barrack towards Phultala and hidded some-where. The informant having bleeding injuries was suffering from severe pain and as such he tied the wound with baniyan which he was wearing and waited on the road side on the hope that a• vehicle would pass through, whereafter he found a vehicle which was a police vehicle and on receiving signal from him it stopped. The informant having bleeding injuries was suffering from severe pain and as such he tied the wound with baniyan which he was wearing and waited on the road side on the hope that a• vehicle would pass through, whereafter he found a vehicle which was a police vehicle and on receiving signal from him it stopped. S.H.O. of Kadamtala Police Station, A.K. Singh (PW 28) upon hearing the story, asked him to sit by the side of the driver and with the constables who are accompanying him on patrol duty went to the barrack. On seeing them PW 2 also came out from his hidden place. PW 2 Venkat Reddy, PW 10, Jose and one Prakash an were asked to guard the body. Whereafter the informant was taken to Rangat hospital and was operated upon. The appellant upon coming out of the barrack visited PW 18, V. Shiva Kumar and PW 25 Shiv Raju who was also a constable and on casual leave on that date and confessed his guilt. PW 20 Khitish Mondal and PW 21 P. Vellasamy are the persons to whom also the accused went and made extrajudicial-confession. All of them advised him to surrender. PW 25 Shiv Raju was a shop owner who offered the accused a jeans pant to the appellant as the lungi which he was wearing was blood stained. The appellant thereafter went before the Head Constable D.R. Yadav (PW 6) with his rifle and badulia (one stitched khaki cloth bag with different chambers where in each chamber 10 bullets were kept) hanging on his shoulder before surrendering. He also confessed his guilt. He was thereafter arrested. In the meantime a furdbayan of PW 27 was recorded by PW 28. Apart from doing the acts as narrated hereinbefore he also collected the bullet which was taken out from the right thigh of the Sitaram and piece of baniyan by which his wound was bandaged. The said articles were packed and sealed in presence of the doctor, the informant and the staff nurse Mrs. Madhavi (PW 1). He prepared two seizure lists. In the court he proved the aforementioned articles. He thereafter went to J.P.P. Adajig post no.9, wherein he found 3 constables. He sent P.C. Jose by truck with the furdbayan of Sitaram to Kadamtala P.S. for registering a case and for drawing up the first information report. Madhavi (PW 1). He prepared two seizure lists. In the court he proved the aforementioned articles. He thereafter went to J.P.P. Adajig post no.9, wherein he found 3 constables. He sent P.C. Jose by truck with the furdbayan of Sitaram to Kadamtala P.S. for registering a case and for drawing up the first information report. He had also instructed him to send a message to Rangar Police Station for sending one photographer by .police jeep. He also instructed him to state some persons of Fultala bustee to state about the incident and to come to him so that they may be made witnesses to seizure. P.C. Subramaniam from Kadamtala P.S. came thereafter and reported that Jitender had surrendered with his service rifle as also bullets. He instructed Jose to go to Kadamtala P.S. for the purpose of bringing the first information report and furdbayan of Sitaram after registering the case. In the meantime, some persons from Fultala bustee reached the place of occurrence. Photographer also reached by police vehicle from Rangat. Various photographs were taken, inquest was made by the said witness and the signatures of the witnesses were also obtained. He also prepared a sketch map with index which was marked as Ext. 9. He thereafter took some pieces of blood stained cane and wood from the floor of the barrack and some pieces of control cane and wood in presence of witnesses S.K. Roy (PW 19) and Mrinal Mondal. He packed and sealed them separately upon preparation of seizure list and further put a label describing the articles packed therein and obtained signatures of witnesses on that label. He also signed thereupon. He also seized the mosquito net• which was spread over on the charpai of Sitaram. He found stains of blood therein and a hole made by the bullet. He seized the mosquito net in presence of witnesses and packed and sealed the same. He noticed blood stains on the ground which was spread over on the charpai of Jitendar. He seized that ground sheet under a seizure list. He also found one life bullet and one empty bullet on the ground sheet spread over the charpai of the accused/appellant. He seized those 2 bullets also under a seizure list marked Ext. 1 (j). He identified the life bullet and other articles in court. He found the dead body lying on the floor of the barrack. He also found one life bullet and one empty bullet on the ground sheet spread over the charpai of the accused/appellant. He seized those 2 bullets also under a seizure list marked Ext. 1 (j). He identified the life bullet and other articles in court. He found the dead body lying on the floor of the barrack. The floor was built up with canes and wood and blood percolated through the gap of the canes and woods and fell on the ground under the Machan. He collected blood stained earth and some control earth in presence of witnesses and he packed the same. He further checked the arms and ammunitions of all the constables. He found arms and ammunitions of all constables in tact except the arms and ammunitions of the appellant. He instructed the photographer to take snaps of the dead body and the place of occurrence from different angles. He found a small entry hole 6" below the chest on the right side and exit hole (big size) on the left buttock. He also noticed a corresponding hole on the underwear of the victim which he was wearing at the time of occurrence and found the same with blood stains. He also found pool of blood there. He sent the dead body to mortuary. Dr. K.L. Joarder (PW 7) held the post mortem. 5. Plea of defence as has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge was that the appellant had returned the post at about 12:30 PM. At about 5/5:30 PM Head Constable Ramchander Yadav (deceased), PW 2 and PW 27 were mutually fighting. He left the chowki at about 6 PM and went to road side towards Fultala bustee, as he did not have any duty at that time. When he was coming back, he found Sitaram going away in a drunken condition, and on questioning he told him that the condition of the deceased was serious and asked him to go to P.S. for bringing one vehicle. PW 27, the informant despite being asked as to what had happened, avoided the question by saying that, that was not a proper time to speak, whereupon he went to the P.S. and found the S.H.O. and one constable and told them everything. However, the S.H.O. asked him to sit and he went out alone and after one hour he came back and arrested him. However, the S.H.O. asked him to sit and he went out alone and after one hour he came back and arrested him. Prosecution, in support of its, case examined as many as 29 witnesses. 6. PW 2 and PW 27 who were the colleagues of the appellant are the eye witnesses. PW 1 is the staff nurse of Rangat Hospital where PW 27 was admitted and operated upon. PW 3 is the medical officer of Rangat Hospital who performed the said operation on 26.5.95. PW 4 is a seizure witness in respect of Ext. XIV. PW 19 is also a seizure witness, who after having been informed about the murder, went to post no.9 and put his signature on the seizure memo. PW 23 is a daily rated employee in whose presence the lungi worn by the appellant and left at PW 25's shop was seized. PW 24 is also a seizure witness. PW 26 is the photographer who took photographs of the place of occurrence at the instance of PW 28. PW 19 Swpan Kumar Roy and PW 24 Hari Charan Majumdar and PW 2 Venkat Reddy are also seizure witnesses. PW 22 K. Raju is the witness of seizure of rifle and bandulia containing 35 life cartridges and 10 blank life cartridges. Witnesses who immediately came to the place of occurrence are PW 10 M. Jose, PW 28 S.I. of Police A.K. Singh, who at the relevant time was the S.H.O. of Kadamtala P. S. and was on patrol duty. PW 28 also investigated the case partly. PW 18, V. Shiv Kumar, PW 20, Khitish Mondal, PW 21 P. Vellasamy and PW. 25 Shiv Raju are the persons to whom the accused had gone immediately after the incident and made extra-judicial confession on the same night. PW, 18, V. Shiv Kumar is one of the colleagues of the appellant. He was, as noticed hereinbefore, also posted at the same chowki, but on the date of occurrence, he was on leave. PW 6 D.R. Yadav was in charge of Kadamtala P.S before whom the appellant had gone and surrendered with his rifle and bandulia. PW 1 is also a witness of seizure of the bullet which was removed from the body of the informant. PW 7 is the doctor who held post mortem examination. PW 15 was a colleague of the appellant. PW 1 is also a witness of seizure of the bullet which was removed from the body of the informant. PW 7 is the doctor who held post mortem examination. PW 15 was a colleague of the appellant. It is accepted that PW 15, Ajit Das was admittedly assigned with the duties of looking after Nausad Hussain. Other witnesses, including PW 29 are constables or investigating officer. 7. Neither before the learned Sessions Judge, nor before this court, it has been disputed that Adajig post no.9 is a police chowki in the Jarwa infested area within Kadamtala P.S. in between Kadamtala and Rangat. We may notice that Jarwas are tribes who are dangerous in nature and may kill any innocent person, including passers by with or without provocation, and as such, various police posts have been made for guarding the Jarwa infested area. The learned Sessions Judge analysed the evidence of all the witnesses and found that they were trustworthy. He further examined the post mortem report, report of the serologist, ballistic expert as also the report of the forensic science laboratory and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges as against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. 8. Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has only sought to point out, which according to him, are vital discrepancies in the prosecution case. Learned counsel has firstly submitted that it is strange that although PW 27 was examined medically at the Rangat Hospital, he did not disclose the name of the assailant either before PW 1 or PW 3. He has further submitted that the first information report is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thus, inadmissible in evidence, as investigation started prior to the lodging of the first information report. Drawing our attention to the post mortem report, learned counsel submitted that the entry point of the bullet was found to be oval, whereas according to the learned counsel, keeping in view the medical jurisprudence, as the shot was fired from a very short distance, namely, from a distance of about 6 inches from the body of the deceased, entry point of the bullet ought to have been round. Learned counsel has also placed before us the report of the ballistic expert and has submitted that in his report he had stated that it was not possible to give a definite opinion that the bullet (Ext. I) which had hit the deceased was fired from the said rifle. Learned counsel has further submitted that even from the report of the forensic science laboratory it would appear that the earth which was seized was not blood stained. 9. Learned counsel drew our attention to the following statements of PW 2. "I stated while I was examined under section 161 Cr. P.C that after taking nightmeal Ramchander standing at the middle of the barrack was telling to Jitender that Ajit Das has gone to the hospital for looking after Naushad Hussain and directed him that after wearing uniform to be on duty." He also drew our attention to the statements of autopsy surgeon. Dr. K.L. Joardar (PW 7) and submitted that as would appear therefrom, the stomach of the deceased was found empty and congested. It was submitted that evidently, the prosecution story is apparently false. Learned counsel has in this connection also drawn our attention to the following statements of PW 7:- "Emptying of the stomach starts within 3 & 4 hours from the time of intake of food. Within 6 hours after the intake of food the stomach may be fully emptied. I did not find any injury or fracture on the lumber vertibrae. I did not find any fracture or injury in the sacrum, pubis and is chin. Disending colon lies on the frontal part of abdomen and kidney lies on the posterior part of abdomen. No matter was sent for chemical examination. I do not exactly remember the time taken by me for completing the post mortem examination. It is mentioned it a separate paper and that paper was handed over to the police. It may be about 45 minutes. Death was caused after more than six hours from the time of taking the meal." The learned counsel would urge that the ocular evidence being contrary to the medical evidence, the appellant should be acquitted. 10. Reliance placed by Mr. Mitra on Mani Ram & other vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242, is totally misplaced. The fact situation of that decision was absolutely different. 10. Reliance placed by Mr. Mitra on Mani Ram & other vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242, is totally misplaced. The fact situation of that decision was absolutely different. In that case, direct evidence was not supported by expert evidence and evidence was wanting in most material part of the prosecution case and the evidence of protection witness was totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. In the instant case, medical evidence, apart from supporting the prosecution case, is not contradictory to or inconsistent with the ocular evidence. Where the ocular evidence is direct, there is absolutely no reason as to why the court shall not rely thereupon. Furthermore, if any treatise or any other authority was required to be relied upon, it was incumbent upon the learned counsel to draw the attention of the medical officer thereto so as to enable him to give his opinion on the said subject. The questions raised herein had neither been raised before the learned Sessions Judge nor had been put in cross-examination to PW 7. The Supreme Court stated the law in this regard in Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1261 thus:- "It was next contended that there was material contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular evidence, in that, whereas the two eye witnesses testified that Teja Singh was fired at when he was going along the fields. Sri Menani opined that since the track of injury 1 which he found on the person of Teja Singh was upward to downward in all probability it suggested that the victim had been either in a sitting position or in a lying position or at level lower than the assilant. We do not find any substance in this contention also. Apart from the fact that the opinion of the doctor as to how an injury was caused cannot override unimpeachable testimony of eye witnesses in case there is any inconsistency between them, the above opinion of the doctor is not definitive for in his further cross-examination he clarified that the victim and the assailant could be at the same level." 11. So far as the last submission of Mr. Mitra is concerned, it appears to us that the said submission has been made on certain misconceptions. So far as the last submission of Mr. Mitra is concerned, it appears to us that the said submission has been made on certain misconceptions. Statement made by PW 2, as noticed hereinbefore, is not a statement within the meaning of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statement made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not admissible in evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to Hazari Lal vs. State, AIR 1980 SC 873 . Furthermore, statement of PW 2 has to be read in its entirety. PW 2 categorically stated that he had taken his meal at 8:30 PM and not the deceased. It appears that the aforementioned statement had been recorded out of some confusion, as neither the witness nor the recording Judge was Hindi knowing person. In order to satisfy our conscience, we have ourselves seen his statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from which it appears that he had stated therein that he prepared the meal for 3 persons and the appellant took his meal first. Thereafter, when the deceased came back, he requested him• to take his meal, but he declined saying that he should take his meal and after he took his meal, the incident occurred. In his statement, he had stated that Habildar R.C. Yadav had taken his day meal at 12 noon. It is also on record that only thereafter he had left the barrack with clothing for Naushad and came back after 7:30 p.m. That the court is entitled to look to the statements made in the case diary is no longer in doubt or in dispute. In Mukund Lal vs. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 622, the law is stated in the following terms:- "The provision embodied in sub-section (3) of section 172 of the Cr. P.C. cannot be characterised as unreasonable or arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of section 172 Cr. P.C. the court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the court to call for any such relevant case diary. Under sub-section (2) of section 172 Cr. P.C. the court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the court to call for any such relevant case diary. If there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of section 172 of Cr. P.C." We are, therefore, satisfied that there is absolutely no substance in the said submission of the learned counsel. 12. So far as the submission of the learned counsel to the effect that no blood stained earth was found, we find that the said submission is based on total misconception. From the report of the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, it appears that Ext. X was earth which had been collected. The result of the examination was as follows:- "On bio-chemical and microscopical examination of reddish brown stains/dark brown stains contamination on Ext.2: baniyan, Ext.3: wooden plank, Ext.5: piece of cane, Ext.9: ground sheet, Ext.10: earth, Ext.12: underwear and Ext.15: lungi were found positive for blood tests." However, Central Forensic Science Laboratory in its report dated 9.10.95, referred to item no.5, which earth, meaning thereby control earth, and found that blood was absent but in respect of baniyan, wooden plank, cane, ground sheet, underwear and lungi blood was found to be present and in respect of first 4 items, it was categorically stated that the same were human blood, the group whereof was AB. Only in respect of ground earth, it is stated, that it was insufficient. A confusion appears to have been made in the report dated 20.10.95, wherein it was said:- "The two soil samples (mentioned as Ext. No.10 and control 11) were examined under microscope and then compared by density gradient method. They were found to be similar in all respect." It may be noticed that from the investigating officer's report it is absolutely clear that only a small portion of the blood must have percolated through the wooden planks and this amount of blood stained earth might have been sent. Hence the plea of appellant's learned counsel that no blood was found in the earth is not correct. Hence the plea of appellant's learned counsel that no blood was found in the earth is not correct. In the report dated 4.9.95 the Serologist, however, reported:- "Exhibit 10 – Earth: Some earth weighing 30 grams (approx) having dark brown contamination distributed almost all over." The Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report dated 26.5.95 (Ext.13) states that the quantity of earth sent to it was only 5 grams which according to them was insufficient. The report of the Serologi which is the final authority should be accepted. As regards defects pointed in the ballistic expert's report, it is stated:- "2. The bullex Ext. No.1 is having filling marks on it indicating that it was fired through a rifled firearm. 3. Five Test. 303 cartridges (Ex. No.14) were fired through the rifle Ex. No.13 and the empty fired test cases, thus obtained, were compared with the cartridge case Ex. No.8 under a comparison microscope. As a result of comparison, the firing pin impressions and the extractor marks present in the test fired cartridge cases (Ex. No.14) were found to be matching with the firing pin impression and extractor mark respectively, present in the cartirdge case Ex. No.8. It is, therefore, concluded that the cartridge case Ex. No.8. was fired through the 303 rifle, S.I. No. 54526 - Ex. No.13. 4. Test bullets recovered after firing test cartridge cases (Ex. No.14) through the rifle Ex. No.13 were compared with the bullet Ex. No.1 under a comparison microscope. The result of comparison was inconclusive due to insufficient data and deformation, mutilation of the bullet Ex. No.1. Hence it is not possible to state, whether the bullet Ex. No.1 was fired through the rifle Ex. No.13. However, the class characteristics of rifling such as the number of land and groove marks of rifling (five lands and five grooves), the direction of the twist of rifling (left) and the width of the groove and land markings present in the bullet Ex. No.1 were found to be similar to those present in the test bullets fired through the rifle Ex. No.13. 5. It is not possible to state whether the bullet Ex. No.1 was originally loaded in and fired from the cartridge case Ex. No.8. 6. Cuttings around the encircled holes in the mosquito net Ex. No.7 and the underwear Ex. No.1 were found to be similar to those present in the test bullets fired through the rifle Ex. No.13. 5. It is not possible to state whether the bullet Ex. No.1 was originally loaded in and fired from the cartridge case Ex. No.8. 6. Cuttings around the encircled holes in the mosquito net Ex. No.7 and the underwear Ex. No.12 were taken along with the respective controls and were sent to the Neutron Activation Analysis Unit of this laboratory at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay for ascertaining whether the holes were caused due to the passage of a bullet. The result of their examination will be forwarded when received." 13. A perusal of the report would clearly show that although the result of comparison was inconclusive due to insufficient data and deformation, mutilation of Ext. I, he not only found that the bullet case which was found in the rifle was fired from the said rifle and further from his report it also appears that the class characteristics of rifling, such as the number of land and groove marks of rifling (five lands and five grooves), the direction of the twist of rifling (left) and the width of the groove and land markings present in the bullet Ext. No. I was found to be similar to those present in the test bullets fired through Ext. III. The aforementioned report of the ballistic expert, therefore, fully supports the prosecution case. So far as his opinion to the effect that it was not possible to state whether the injuries mentioned in the post mortem examination report was caused by bullet Ext. I to the exclusion of all others was an irrelevant question and the same is not at all material for the purpose of the present case. So far as the submission of Mr. Mitra to the effect that no statement has been made before PW 1 and PW 3 as regards the names of the actual assailant, we do not find any substance therein PW 1 and PW 3 were not examined or cross-examined on that point. Even the defence had not put its case before the said witnesses by asking question as to whether the identity of the accused was revealed before them. They were witnesses only to the effect that the informant was operated for the purpose of extraction of bullet and he had been medically attended by them. Even the defence had not put its case before the said witnesses by asking question as to whether the identity of the accused was revealed before them. They were witnesses only to the effect that the informant was operated for the purpose of extraction of bullet and he had been medically attended by them. In the instant case the prosecution version has to be considered in broad based manner. 14. There was a police post at a remote place. At the time of occurrence admittedly, four persons were present. Out of the said four persons one was killed and another was injured. The third person, namely, PW 2 was also threatened to be killed and he fled away. Apart from the PW 2 and PW 27 even the other colleagues of the appellant supported the prosecution story. It has not been suggested that even (PW 18) V. Shiva Kumar was enimical to the appellant. He was admittedly posted in the said outpost. He and his father PW 22 were independent witnesses. It is, also in the record that PW 25 and PW 20 who, in their deposition categorically stated that they had been knowing the appellant for some time, had clearly stated the involvement of the appellant. He confessed his guilt before the aforementioned four persons. There is absolutely no reason, nor any case has been made out for disbelieving the said witnesses. It may be true that the extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence but it is also well settled that if the witnesses before whom such extra-judicial confession has been made are truthful ones and their evidences are materially corroborated by other independent evidences, extra-judicial confession can also be relied upon in support of the prosecution case. In the case reported in AIR 1985 SC 1678 , para 7, it has been held it is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the evidence of witnesses who speak to such a confession. I have already observed that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws. 18, 25, 20 and 30. It would depend on the nature of circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the evidence of witnesses who speak to such a confession. I have already observed that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws. 18, 25, 20 and 30. From the materials on record it appears that such extra-judicial confession was made by the accused just after the occurrence of the incident. In the case reported in AIR 1975 SC 1320 , the Apex Court held that the evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be tainted evidence and if corrobaration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was made voluntarily, in such a case the conviction can be based on that evidence alone. 15. The submissions of the learned counsel to the effect that the furdbayan of PW 27 could not have been treated as the FIR is wholly misconceived, in as much as, from the evidence of PW 28 it is absolutely clear that he did not start the investigation prior to lodging of the FIR. In fact, the events narrated hereinbefore clearly go to show that before initiating the investigation he had sent for the copy of the FIR and only upon arrival thereof he started the investigation. The initial statement made to him by PW 27 while he was on patrol duty was only for the purpose of giving him information as to what had happened and for the purpose of obtaining medical relief for himself. Such a statement could not have been treated as first information report. Neither his statement was written down nor on the basis of such information PW 28 himself had noted down the factum of occurrence in the general diary. No vital inconsistency in the deposition of the witnesses has been brought to our notice. In the instant case, the eye witness had given details of assault. Some minor inconsequential and inconsistency in their testimony, if any, must be ignored being trivial in nature. Reference in this connection may be made to Asha vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2828 . 16. In the instant case, the eye witness had given details of assault. Some minor inconsequential and inconsistency in their testimony, if any, must be ignored being trivial in nature. Reference in this connection may be made to Asha vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2828 . 16. It has further to be borne in mind that PW 27 was an injured witness. His presence at the place of occurrence, therefore, stands admitted. It is not the case of the defence that the said injury was a self-inflicting one or caused by some one else. It is true that according to the appellant, PW 27 was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Ramchander Yadav. The defence put forward by the appellant is liable to be rejected, in as much as, not only there is no explanation as regard his conduct. Immediately after the occurrence including the extra-judicial confession made to as many as four witnesses but also he surrendered himself as per the advice of the said witnesses together with the weapon of assault and other cartridges which were given to him. The defence of the appellant cannot stand for a moment's scrutiny, in as much as, had he gone to see Naushad Hussain in the hospital, he would not have carried his rifle and the bandulia containing cartridges. Thus, the factum of his surrender together with rifle as also the cartridges and together with the circumstances noticed hereinbefore point out to the guilt of the appellant alone. 17. Even if PW 27 is treated to be a partisan witness, his evidence has been corroborated by other evidences and the same can be relied upon. Even if a witness is enimical or hostile to the accused, if his evidence is not shaken at the time of cross examination and is supported in material particulars by the materials on record, his evidence can be relied upon. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases Harpal Singh vs. Devinder Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2914 and Kailash & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 2835 . For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge is, therefore, affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. I agree. Appeal dismissed.