Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.- In Sessions Case No. 14 of 1963, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru, convicted the sole accused, Yendra Narasimhamurthy, under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence. The charge against the accused was that, on the night of 19th December, 1962, he committed the murder of Khammammettu Manikyam of Kotapadu, by strangulation with his towel. The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ of the charge. The prosecution examined 29 witnesses while the accused did not examine any defence witnesses. The prosecution marked Exhibits P-1 to P-35. These include two documents which are very important for the decision of this case. Of these, Exhibit P-6 is a statement of the accused recorded by the J. S. C. M., Chintalapudi, on the night of the occurrence when the accused turned up before the latter of his own accord. Exhibit P-18 is a statement of the accused recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, by a competent Magistrate (J.S.C.M.), Eluru (P.W. 24) after duly observing all the formalities. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and on Exhibits 1-6 and The story of the prosecution witnesses is to the following effect: Khammammettu Manikyam became an orphan when she was young. Her paternal uncle, Nanduri Ramaiah, who was a resident of Recherla, brought her up and gave her in marriage to P.W.1 who was a ryot of Kotapadu, Tiruvuru taluk Krishna district, which was only about 5 or 6 miles from Chintalapudi in West Godavari district. The deceased lived a happy married life with P.W.1 and bore him two sons and two daughters. One of the daughters died. The deceased was a dutiful wife and, in addition to looking after the household, she was also doing some out-door work by going to the villages and collecting amounts due to the family. She was also supplementing the income of the family by cooking; and supplying food to visitors in the village. Things went on happily like this until the accused came into her life. The accused was a touring photographer who went from village to village with his camera, serving the villagers. She was also supplementing the income of the family by cooking; and supplying food to visitors in the village. Things went on happily like this until the accused came into her life. The accused was a touring photographer who went from village to village with his camera, serving the villagers. In the course of his tours he came to Kotapadu village for the first time in or about 1958, where he took a photograph of P.W. 4. Then the accused came into contact with the deceased, and P.W. 4 arranged for supply of meals to him by the deceased. The accused and the deceased had a strong attraction for each other. P.W. 4 also recommended to the deceased that she might take the accused as a paying guest in her house. The deceased readily took the accused into her house. Uptill then, the deceased was living a hundrum life of a house wife looking after her household, husband and children. The accused soon stirred in her mind passionate feelings of love and developed intimacy with her. They were carrying on the intimacy until one night the accused committed the mistake of groping over the body of P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, in an irresistible urge to contact P.W. 1’s wife (the deceased) who was also sleeping in the same room as her husband on a different cot. P.W.1 suspected that the accused was having intimacy with his wife (deceased). He, therefore sent out the accused out of his house. The attachment between the accused and deceased was so strong that neither of them could feel happy when away from the other. The accused was trying to keep himself away from her but, all the same whenever she came to him, he always showed his intense love for her lived and cohabited with her. The deceased had an irresistible impulse to go and contact him. There was no restriction on her movements. She was free to go outdoors for the purpose of collecting amounts due to the family. On this pretext, she was able to go out and meet the accused frequently and cohabit with him. The accused himself was sufficiently within the reach of the deceased. Once, he kept away from her for months together. The deceased then felt this absence very intensely. On this pretext, she was able to go out and meet the accused frequently and cohabit with him. The accused himself was sufficiently within the reach of the deceased. Once, he kept away from her for months together. The deceased then felt this absence very intensely. On one occasion, she started for Vizagapatam with one K. Satyam and his mother as travelling companions, on the pretext of going to the hospital for treatment. But her real intention was to contact the accused and live with him. She got down at Eluru without going further towards Vizagapatam, and managed to contact the deceased. The accused engaged for her a house at Kamavarapukota which belonged to P.W.10’s brother and lived there for about 3 months, creating a feeling in P.W.10 and others that they were husband and wife. K. Satyam, meanwhile wrote to P.W.1 that the deceased had stayed away at Eluru and had not gone further to Vizagapatam. Later on, the accused himself wrote a letter without signature to P.W.1 purporting to be written by the deceased herself from Kamavarapukota. P.W.1 sent his son (P.W.2) to bring the deceased back from Kamavarapukota. P.W. 2 went to that village, contacted his mother and asked her to go with him. But the deceased told her son (P.W. 2) that she would return to her house at Kotapadu only if the accused himself took her from Kamavarapukota. P.W. 2 thereupon contacted the deceased’s cousin (P.W.9) at Recherla and took him to Kamavarapukota. The accused raised some objection in the matter of sending the deceased to the village but P.W. 9 somehow managed togather some elders of the village and with their intervention, took her to his village of Recherla. Afterwards, P.W.1 came to Recherla and took the deceased away to his house. Subsequently, the accused continued to meet the deceased now and then. Once again, accused kept away from her for some months. The deceased was feeling the absence of contact very keenly and was pining away for the company of the accused. At this time, a travelling jeweller called Tatayya came into her life. She met him in the village and asked him whether he contacted a touring photographer. Then Tatayya understood her feelings and managed to contact the accused and took him to the deceased. At this time, a travelling jeweller called Tatayya came into her life. She met him in the village and asked him whether he contacted a touring photographer. Then Tatayya understood her feelings and managed to contact the accused and took him to the deceased. He acted from then onwards as a go between managing to arrange meetings between the accused and the deceased frequently. The deceased also took Tatayya as a paying guest in her house. He was not an unselfish type of man. He took advantage of the fact that he knew the secrets of the deceased. He protested to the deceased about his having to always satisfy her by getting the accused to her and he (Tatayya) insisted on having his share in her favours. The deceased felt that she was not in a position to deny him what he wanted and, therefore, yielded her favours to him also. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, the accused turned up in the village of Kotapadu at about 6 P.M. He went to the house of the deceased apparently because he also had an irresistible impulse to contact her. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, was away from the house at the time, but his elder son (P.W.2) was present. He resented the coming of the accused and there was a quarrel in the course of which P.W.2 beat the accused. With the help of his friends, P.W. 2 tied the accused with ropes and took him to the house of the local Panchayat Board President (P.W.7). P.W. 2 beat the accused even in the presence of P.W.7 but the latter straightaway released the accused. The accused took this to heart keenly. He said that he would file a complaint before the Police. Some days later, P.W. 2 quarrelled with the deceased and went away from the house. P.W.12 is a tailor, who is keeping his shop at Chintalapudi. He had several times seen the accused and the deceased together at Chintalapudi. After he was beaten by P.W. 2, the accused complained about it to P.W.12 and requested him to take him to a doctor. P.W.12 accordingly took the accused to a Government doctor to get a certificate. The doctor advised the accused to give a complaint at Vissannapet Police Station and said that the Police would do all that is necessary. After he was beaten by P.W. 2, the accused complained about it to P.W.12 and requested him to take him to a doctor. P.W.12 accordingly took the accused to a Government doctor to get a certificate. The doctor advised the accused to give a complaint at Vissannapet Police Station and said that the Police would do all that is necessary. The accused took leave of P.W.12 and went away saying that he would go to Kotapadu and return back and then give the report. But the accused did not come back. Therefore, P.W.12 and his friend, Dr. Satyanarayana, went in search of the accused. At about 3-30 P.M., the deceased came to the shop of P.W.12 and made inquiries about the accused. Finding drat the accused had gone away on his professional work, she asked P.W.12 to inform the accused that she had come in search of him and that she wanted the accused to refrain from giving any report to the Police against her son (P.W.2). Later on, the accused returned to the shop of P.W.12 in the evening at about sun-set time and P.W.12 told him what the deceased had asked him to tell. The accused left P.W.12’s shop saying that he was going to Eluru. Soon afterwards, the accused contacted P.W.18, who was a labourer by profession and used to be frequently employed by the accused for carrying his camera and photo samans to various villages. The accused told P.W.18 that the deceased was in the village and that he (accused) would pay him Re. 1 if he would show her to him. P.W.18 went in search of the deceased and saw her near the local cinema hall. He carried information to the accused, and took him there. The accused contacted the deceased in the cinema hall and took her away from there talking to her. The accused asked P.W.18 to inform P.W.12 that he (accused) had already met the deceased and to ask P.W.12 to bring to the accused his bag of clothes which he had left in P.W.12’s shop. P.W.18 accordingly carried this information to P.W. 12 and brought P.W.12 as well as the cloth bag (M.O. 13). But neither the accused nor the deceased turned up. Then P.W. 12 handed over the bag to P.W.18 and went away. P.W.18 accordingly carried this information to P.W. 12 and brought P.W.12 as well as the cloth bag (M.O. 13). But neither the accused nor the deceased turned up. Then P.W. 12 handed over the bag to P.W.18 and went away. When P.W. 12 was going homewards and had walked about a furlong from the cinema hall, he came across the accused. The latter was then looking very confused. The accused was having on his person only a dhoti and a lalchi but did not have on him any towel though when he had gone away with the deceased he had been wearing a towel as usual. Then the accused took P.W. 12 to the cinema hall and met P.W.18. The accused took P.Ws. 12 and 18 to a meals hotel which was run by P.W.19, had meals with them, paid for all of them, and then purchased some cigars from the shop of one Nazir after which he sent away P.W.18. After P.W.18 left, the accused told P.W.12 that the deceased had abused him and kicked him and that there was no sin in case such a woman is killed P.W.12 thereupon took the accused to the house of P.W.18 and found the latter sleeping on the pial of one J. Appayya. The accused woke him up by flashing a torch on him. He took P.W.18 also along with him to the tea shop of one Giri Virayya the father of P.W. 22. Afterwards the accused took P.Ws. 12 and 18 to a lonely place and told them that they must help him. They asked him as to what help he wanted of them. The accused wanted them to take an oath of secrecy that they would not disclose to anybody what he would tell them. He told them that he had killed the deceased and asked them to bring a crow-bar and to be by his side at the time when he would dig a pit and bury the body of the deceased in the tank. P.Ws. 12 and 18 felt scared and refused to do any such help though he offered to pay Rs. 15 or Rs. 20. The accused then told them that he would go directly to the Magistrate and disclose to him what had happened. P.Ws. 12 and 18 felt scared and refused to do any such help though he offered to pay Rs. 15 or Rs. 20. The accused then told them that he would go directly to the Magistrate and disclose to him what had happened. The accused turned up at the house of the J. S. C. M., Chintalapudi (P.W.13) at about 1 A.M. that night and woke up P.W. 13 by shouting “Magistrate Magistrate”. After P.W.13 woke up and came out to the verandah of the house, the accused told him that he, along with another person had murdered a woman near a cinema hall in Chintalapudi, and asked P.W.13 to record his statement Thereupon P.W.13 recorded the statement (Exhibit P-6) of the accused, read it over to him (accused) and the latter admitted it to be correct. Then P.W.13 took the signature of the accused on the statement (Exhibit P-6). Meanwhile P.W.13 sent his peon to bring the Head constable (P.W. 26) who was living in the same street. The Magistrate (P.W.13) finished recording the statement (Exhibit P-6) of the accused by 2-15 A.M. P.W. 26 was brought by the Magistrate’s peon by that time. P.W.13 handed over the accused to P.W. 26 along with Exhibit P-6. P.W. 26 took the accused and his statement (Exhibit P-6) to the Police Station registered a crime under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sent express F.I.Rs. to the concerned authorities. He questioned the accused and the latter gave a statement that he had kept, by the side of the gate of the Police Station, his bag containing photographic articles and clothes. In pursuance of this statement, the accused took them to the spot and produced the bag (M.O. 13) which then was found to contain a towel (M.O.12) and some other articles. P.W. 26 prepared a mahazar (Exhibit P-19) and seized the articles. The accused then said that he would show the corpse and also the other person Tatayya who had been mentioned by him in Exhibit P-6 as the other person who took part in the murder. Accordingly, the accused took P.W. 26 and the panchayatdars to the house of one Dosapati Ramayya and there showed Tatayya who was sleeping. From there, the accused took P.W. 26 tothe pasture land near a tank same distance away from the cinema hall and pointed out to him a corpse which was lying there. Accordingly, the accused took P.W. 26 and the panchayatdars to the house of one Dosapati Ramayya and there showed Tatayya who was sleeping. From there, the accused took P.W. 26 tothe pasture land near a tank same distance away from the cinema hall and pointed out to him a corpse which was lying there. The corpse was lying with face downwards and back upwards. The left hand was folded under the abdomen and a towel (M.O.11) was found tied around her neck. P.W. 26 then prepared a mahazar (Exhibit P-21). P.W. 26 held an inquest over the corpse and Exhibit P-3 is the inquest report. P.W. 26 removed the towel (M.O.11) from the neck of the deceased. After inquest, he sent the corpse to the doctor (P.W.14) for post-mortem. The Sub-Inspector (P.W. 28) and the Circle Inspector (P.W.29) did further investigation. In the course of the investigation, the Police sent the accused to the J.S.C.M., Eluru (P.W. 24). The latter, after duly observing all formalities, prescribed rules and precautions, recorded the statement (Exhibit P-18) of the accused. In it, the accused made it appear as if Tatayya alone committed the murder and the accused did not take part in the actual murder. In all other respects, this statement is in substantial agreement with Exhibit P-6 but for the fact that Exhibit P-18 gives elaborate details. The doctor (P.W.14) held post-mortem at 2-45 P.M. on 20th December, 1962, and found seven external injuries which he has described in the post-mortem certificate (Exhibit P-8) as follows: "1. Ligature mark half an inch width horizontally round the neck below the thyroid cartilage; 2. Contusion of breasts and petechial haemorrhages on it; 3 Multiple small abrasions on the front of lower 1/3 of right fore-arm; 4. Abrasion 2" long at the angle of mandible (left); 5. Abrasion multiple small on the outer aspect of upper half of left fore-arm 6. Abrasion 1" x 3/4" on the right knee; 7. Multiple abrasions small on the inner aspect of upper 1/3 of right leg. " On dissection, he found clear indication that the deceased had died of asphyxia and shock as a result of strangulation and the death would have been instantaneous. The doctor has stated as follows: "On account of injury No. 2 together with other injuries, I concluded that they were caused by turning the body and exercising compression on the back. " On dissection, he found clear indication that the deceased had died of asphyxia and shock as a result of strangulation and the death would have been instantaneous. The doctor has stated as follows: "On account of injury No. 2 together with other injuries, I concluded that they were caused by turning the body and exercising compression on the back. It is possible that injury No. 1 may be caused by tying towel round the neck and tightening at its both ends................in case the deceased is not aware of the fact it is possible even for a single person to cause the said strangulation by towel................In case the deceased is aware of the fact of the incident then it is not possible for a single person to cause the strangulation to her by towel because she will resist. I did not find any signs of resistence, from the body of the deceased. The abrasions pointed out by me on different parts of the person of the deceased given by me in the post-mortem certificate go to show that the deceased was compressed from the back without giving her due opportunity for struggle..........In my opinion, the said abrasions were only caused as the portions of the body have come into contact with the hard surface of the ground. The present is a case of compression exercised on the back of the deceased..............The death of the deceased might have occurred about 19 to 24 hours back from the time of the post-mortem examination..............I do not find any semen in the gentails of the deceased. About spermatozoe I did not examine," After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. When questioned in the committing Court and Sessions Court, the accused completely denied all the evidence of the prosecution against him. In particular, he denied even his intimacy with the deceased. When questioned about Exhibit P-6, he stated as follows: "I did not give my statement to the Magistrate at Chintalapudi. My signature was taken on some paper by the police in sub-jail on the evening of 20th December, 1962. " When questioned about Exhibit P-18, he stated as follows: "I have given the statement to the Magistrate at the instance of the Police, Chintalapudi. The statement was not read over to me by the Magistrate. My signature was taken on some paper by the police in sub-jail on the evening of 20th December, 1962. " When questioned about Exhibit P-18, he stated as follows: "I have given the statement to the Magistrate at the instance of the Police, Chintalapudi. The statement was not read over to me by the Magistrate. I put my signature on the statement." He has also stated as follows: "The Police having arrested (me) asked me to admit the fact that I had murdered a lady. I denied any knowledge of the same. I was troubled by the Police. I was hand-cuffed............. I do not know the deceased Manikyam. I had no illicit intimacy with Maniykam.........." The accused did not examine any defence witnesses. It isproved beyond doubt that the deceased was strangled to death. Whoever did that act would ordinarily be guilty of murder. The question is whether the accused committed the murder. The prosecution evidence connecting the accused can be conveniently classified as follows: (1) Exhibit P-6, the judicial confession made by the accused before the Magistrate; (2) Oral evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 18 about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to them; (3) Exhibit P-18 recorded from the accused under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. This is not a confession but contains numerous statements which are of the nature of admission; (4) The background including the question of motive; (5) The various features and circumstances appearing in evidence which are in consonance with the confession, viz., (a) the accused himself pointing out the corpse; (b) the accused producing the bag (M.O. 13) which contained the towel (M.O. 12) which is exactly similar in all respects to the towel (M.O. 11) which was found on the neck of the corpse, and M.Os. 11 and 12 being identified by the dhobi (P.W.11); (c) the accused pointing out Tatayya; (d) the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased when she was alive and soon afterwards his being seen by P.W.12 alone and in a confused state of mind. P.W.17 also saw the accused in a perturbed condition and this was shortly prior to the accused confessing to P.Ws. 12 and 18 about his having murdered the deceased. P.W.17 also saw the accused in a perturbed condition and this was shortly prior to the accused confessing to P.Ws. 12 and 18 about his having murdered the deceased. Item (4): There is a very exhaustive evidence about the background relating to the intimacy between the accused and the deceased and the various incidents leading to the accused contacting the deceased at the cinema hall, which we have already mentioned earlier in our judgment. The facts of the case are proved by very reliable evidence which is free from discrepancies. We find no room to disbelieve the evidence regarding the intimacy. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there has been no motive proved for the accused killing the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the motive for the offence consists of the accused feeling jealousy over the deceased having picked up intimacy with Tatayya and the accused believing that the deceased had instigated her son (P.W. 2) to beat him (accused). It is proved beyond doubt that the accused felt very keenly about his having been tied up and beaten in the public and humiliated by P.W. 2. This is clear from the letter (Exhibit P-2) which he wrote to P.W. 8 on 30th November, 1962, in which he mentioned as follows: “While I was going in the public bazaar in your village, Khammamettu Venkateswara Raocame tumultously, and insulted me. For which I was feeling awfully. I came to you to report on account of this, and I was feeling your presence. I reported the matter to higher authorities as the time was lapsing................” The evidence of P.W. 2 and others shows that P.W. 2 gave a beating to the accused of his own accord, that the deceased, due to her motherly affection, was giving it out that she had instigated P.W. 2 to do so, with a view to save her son, ii possible, from the consequences thereof, and that she was trying her best to induce the accused to give up pursuing the proceedings against P.W. 2. In Exhibit P-18, the accused has stated that even he assured the deceased that he would just make the police give an admonition to P.W. 2 and allow the matter to be dropped. In Exhibit P-18, the accused has stated that even he assured the deceased that he would just make the police give an admonition to P.W. 2 and allow the matter to be dropped. The version of accused in Exhibit P-18 suggests that the reason why the accused did not bear any lasting ill-feeling towards the deceased was that, he was really feeling great love for her up to the end and that at the time of the occurrence he became enraged because Tatayya was representing to him that the deceased had got the accused beaten and had abused him. In Exhibit P-18 he has stated as follows: “He told me that I was beaten at the instance of that girl. I asked him why she would encourage to beat me............” In Exhibit P-6 he does not give any particular reason for the murder in detail. But, he says that because the deceased abused him and Tatayya and as both of them were unable to tolerate the abuses, they both killed her. From Exhibit P-18 it would appear that the accused was moving on friendly terms with her till the end. His version that he had sexual intercourse with her shortly prior to the occurrence is confirmed from the Serologist’s report that semen and spermatozoe were found in the saree of the deceased. The fact that semen or spermatozoe were not found in the body of the deceased does not in any way affect the statement of the accused under Exhibit P-18. For, there is evidence that the deceased had not reached menopause stage and it is very likely that she positively avoided the discharge of semen into her body with a view to avoid the risk of pregnancy. The indication in Exhibit P-6 (read with portions of Exhibit P-18) that strangulation was done by the accused due to resentment in the mind of the accused due to abuses as mentioned in Exhibit P-6 is not impossible of being true. It has to be accepted as there is no other version available about what happened at the time of occurrence. But, the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the motive of accused to kill the deceased was due to his jealousy over Tatayya and over a belief that deceased had instigated P.W. 2 to beat him (accused) cannot be ruled out altogether as impossible of being true. But, the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the motive of accused to kill the deceased was due to his jealousy over Tatayya and over a belief that deceased had instigated P.W. 2 to beat him (accused) cannot be ruled out altogether as impossible of being true. For, the version of accused regarding part played by Tatayya at the time of occurrence does not find any appreciable corroboration in the evidence not even regarding the presence of Tatayya along with the accused and the deceased when the latter went to the field of occurrence from the cinema hall. Item (1): Exhibit P-6 is a most important piece of evidence and it runs as follows: "Myself and a jewel merchant Tatayya killed Kammammettu Manikyam of Kotapadu village by twisting her neck near the tank which is by the side of Annapurna Talkies after one reel of first show was over. I kept that girl for sometime. I went away after 5 years when it was felt difficult in their house. Till then I stayed in their house. I went to Kamavarapukota. When my photos were there, that girl used to revolt against her husband and son because they used to tear my photos. She sent for me when her son-in-law, husband and daughter attempted together to kill her. I went from Chintalapudi to karnam’s house at Kotapadu and sent word. Four years back, she told me that they tried to kill her and that she wanted to come away with me and she started. I told her that it was not possible and threatened her. I came away. Afterwards she herself came to me to Eluru. I took her to Kamavarapukota and kept her there. I consoled her and when I asked her to go home she did not go. I wrote letters to Recherla karnam and to the husband of that girl without furnishing my name and address. After three months they came and took her. While they were writing letters now and then, I used to go there. Afterwards as he was unable to bear her body she kept this jewel merchant Tatayya. Later on, I came to know after some days. I asked her; for that she said that it was true and she kept him. I told her to suffer as she liked. From that date, he used to go. Afterwards as he was unable to bear her body she kept this jewel merchant Tatayya. Later on, I came to know after some days. I asked her; for that she said that it was true and she kept him. I told her to suffer as she liked. From that date, he used to go. If necessary she used to send for me through him. He used to take me since then. He used to gather information about my welfare, and difficulties now and then, and used to tell her. I escaped from her informing her that I was moving with elders from one year. Afterwards, I went away to Aswaraopet. Whenever, the karnam of that village was asking me to come, on seeing me at Eluru for photographing, I was not going. When Kotapadu karnam and Gantipati Subbarao pressed me to come I sent word that I would come on a particular day and month and ten days were over. It might be 21st of last month. After-wards, I went to Kotapadu at 6 o’clock in the evening. While I was going to Karnam’s house, through washerman bazaar, the son of that girl aged 25 years (P.W. 2) and another four persons beat me together in the bazaar. Afterwards, they took me to the house of the President. President reprimanded them and sent them away. I agreed that it was by mistake and fault. I sent a report to Visannapeta Police Station and wrote a letter to Kotapadu Munsif from Chintalapudi. I was not going since then. It seems Khammammettu Manikyam came to Chintalapudi to-day noon. While I was going to Eluru from Venkatayapuram for enlargement of photos I came to Chintalapudi at 6o’ clock in the evening. While I was going to bus-stand the jewel merchant appeared and stopped me. I stayed away, as he stopped me saying that it was essential. It seems that girl told him that she herself made me to be beaten and he asked her whether she would do the same thing to him also tomorrow. She said that as I had gone abroad, she made it like that, and she said that she was not willing to do like that to him. Again, she told him that her son was ready to beat him also. At last it seems he demanded her the money she owed him. She said that as I had gone abroad, she made it like that, and she said that she was not willing to do like that to him. Again, she told him that her son was ready to beat him also. At last it seems he demanded her the money she owed him. Afterwards when he told me that she abused me, I informed him that I could not believe. Afterwards, I met that girl by the side of the Annapurna Talkies after the cinema was begun and asked her and knew. She told me that it was a fact to abuse me. I told her that in case I was insulted and beaten in the bazaar I would feed it painful. When I told her that I used not to appear to her, she abused me. Afterwards I pushed her while standing. After-wards, when she came for settlement, she threw me with her leg. She told me that in case I rejected her, she wanted me to think over what would happen to me. Tatayya was also present there. He asked her how many persons are to be insulted? He (accused) may tolerate. But I (Tatayya) cannot tolerate. So saying he beat her. Afterwards she grew angry and abused both of us. Myself and Tatayya being unable to tolerate the abuses, squeezed her neck and Tatayya tied her neck with my towel and we killed. We left the dead body near that tank and came away being afraid of it. Tatayya went on his own way. I came to bazaar. After I sat for two hours, my conscience did not agree. Thinking that there would be no peace of mind even if I have a lease of life I woke you up and told you at your house. Tatayya would be sleeping either near Dosapativari bungalow or Venkamma’s meals hotel." The learned Counsel for the accused contends that Exhibit P-6 is inadmissible in evidence and relies on Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor1. In that case, the relevant facts were as follows. The First Class Magistrate, under the orders of the District Magistrate, proceeded by car to the scene of dacoity and to places material to the events connected with it. The accused, who was already under arrest, made a statement before the learned Magistrate. The latter did not observe any formalities but took rough notes of what he was told. The First Class Magistrate, under the orders of the District Magistrate, proceeded by car to the scene of dacoity and to places material to the events connected with it. The accused, who was already under arrest, made a statement before the learned Magistrate. The latter did not observe any formalities but took rough notes of what he was told. After dictating to a typist a memorandum from the rough notes, he destroyed the rough notes Such memorandum called a note, containing the substance but not all of the matter to which the accused spoke, was put in evidence. Their Lordships of:he Privy Council observed as follows: "But it was not suggested that the Magistrate, though he was manifestly acting under para. 5 of the Code, either purported to follow or in fact followed the procedure of sections 164 and 364......The Magistrate offered no explanation of why he acted as he did instead of following the procedure required by section 164.................." Contention was raised before their Lordships that it was admissible by virtue of sections 17, 21, 24 and 26 of the Evidence Act, just as much as it would be if deposed by a person other than a Magistrate. Their Lordships repelled this contention and held that oral evidence also was inadmissible. The facts of that case are substantially different from the facts of the present case. In this case, Yendra Narasimhamurthy was not an accused when he went to the Magistrate of his own accord and he was not under arrest by the police and no investigation was going on in any crime registered against him at the time when the Magistrate recorded his statement (Exhibit P-6). On various occasions the Madras High Court had to deal with cases like the present one where a person appeared before the Magistrate and gave a statement at a time when there was no case already registered against him and no investigation was pending against him. In Arunachala Reddy v. Emperor2 it was observed as follows: "The main evidence against him is his own confession (Exhibit A), corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 and by the fact that the cloths he had been wearing were stained with human blood. The first information of the occurrence was given by the appellant himself. After killing his uncle, he went straight to the nearest Magistrate (P.W.1) and told him what he had done. The first information of the occurrence was given by the appellant himself. After killing his uncle, he went straight to the nearest Magistrate (P.W.1) and told him what he had done. The Magistrate told him to pull himself together and gave him an hour for reflection. At the end of that time, the appellant was still in the same mood and made a complete confession, which the Magistrate recorded in the manner prescribed by section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, which he need not have done as the confession was not taken under that section..............The Sessions Judge rejected the contention, holding that the Magistrate was entitled under section 190 (1) (c), Criminal Procedure Code, to record and act on the information furnished by the appellant himself.............Assuming that the Magistrate was duly empowered to act under section 190 (1) (c) his view was correct. Apart from that, confessions like other admissions, are relevant evidence under the Evidence Act, unless they are rendered inadmissible by some circumstances or circumstances which the Act declares to be of an invalidating nature." In In re, Nainamuthu Kannappan3it was observed as follows: "It is urged upon us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the statement made by the appellant to the Joint Magistrate, P.W. 9, was, improperly admitted in evidence. Learned Counsel argues that this was a statement made under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and since it was not recorded after observing the formalities prescribed by that section, it should not have been put in evidence. We think that that objection would be just if the Magistrate had been investigating the case but he was not investigating the case or any of the facts connected with the case On the contrary, this information given by the accused was itself the first information of the crime. The ruling cited to us in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor1does not apply to the facts here............" In In re, Ramaswami1the relevant facts were as follows. A Magistrate recorded: a statement as dying declaration from a person who was in grave condition at the hospital. That person survived. He became accused at the trial. In that trial, that statement was excluded from the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge as inadmissible as it was not a statement recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, with compliance of formalities required under that section. That person survived. He became accused at the trial. In that trial, that statement was excluded from the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge as inadmissible as it was not a statement recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, with compliance of formalities required under that section. The accused was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. He was also convicted under section 309, Indian Penal Code. The matter came up before the Bench of the Madras High Court. Anantanarayanan, J., observed as follows (at page 445): “But, equally, we desire to make it clear that Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor2 ought not to be construed, in our view, as amounting to some authority that under no circumstances whatever could a statement made by a person amounting to a confession of a crime to a Magistrate be admitted in evidence, unless the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, are complied with. Needless to say the decision itself does not seem to be authority for any such view, nor does it override the clear provisions of section 21 of the Evidence Act, which render such admissions liable to be admitted in evidence, unless they fall within the mischief of the succeeding sections, such as sections 24, 25 and 26. Consequently, where the statement is made by an accused person to a judicial officer before any investigation has at all commenced, or is totally outside the scope of any such investigation we are not clear that such a statement is liable to be excluded, unless the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code had also been complied with, we would further observe that the posit ion that statements recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code themselves are inadmissible, unless the formalities of that section are strictly adhered to, would not appear to be the latest and the current view of the law. For, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out in W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 that the true test in all such cases is whether the non-compliance was so vital as to cut at the root of the jurisdiction, or so abhorrent to natural justice that a serious prejudice has been occasioned.” Shri Rama Sarma, the learned Advocate for the accused, has relied on the decision in Bala Majhi v. State of Orissa4. In that case, three questions were referredto a Full Bench. Of that, question No. 3 was as follows: “(3) Does non-compliance with the provisions of section 164 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, by the Magistrate when recording a confessional statement render the same a nullity or inadmissible, if there is satisfactory evide*nce,‘aliunde ‘, before the Court that the confessional statement was voluntarily made?” The learned Judges of the Full Bench, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor2 held as follows (at page 176): “Such a confession vitiated by substantial non-compliance, as indicated above, with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 164 is not a valid record of the confession and cannot, therefore, be made use of under section 26, Evidence Act. There is thus no scope for invoking the aid either of section 29, Evidence Act, or section 533, Criminal Procedure Code, to cure such defect.” It does not appear that, in that case, the learned Judges were dealing with a confession similar to Exhibit P-6 which was recorded at a time when there was no case registered against the accused and when there was no investigation pending against him. In view of the various decisions of the Madras High Court, we find that Exhibit P-6 was rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge to be admissible in evidence, Item No. 3: Exhibit P-18 is self-exculpatory. But, various features, which are mentioned there, which are in the nature of admissions, can certainly be relied upon against the accused. Item No. 2:P.W.12 and P.W.18 have deposed to the extra-judicial confession. Their evidence is consistent and convincing. The learned Advocate for the appellant points out that P.W.12 is a tailor and P.W.18 is a labourer and there was no necessity for the accused to go and confess to them and that their evidence is unreliable. Exhibit P-18 itself contains various passages which show that P.W.12 was a close friend with whom the accused was moving as such even on the date of occurrence on friendly terms. Exhibit P-18 itself contains various passages which show that P.W.12 was a close friend with whom the accused was moving as such even on the date of occurrence on friendly terms. The version of P.W.12 and P.W.18 shows that the accused, after having committed the offence, was in a perturbed condition and approached them for help in burying the corpse and when he found that they would not give him the help, he declared that he would go and make statement before the Magistrate Their version is also corroborated by the fact that the accused did turn up before the Magistrate the same night and give statement. We see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of P.W.12, and P.W.18 regarding extra-judicial confession is reliable. Item No. 5.-These details in evidence lend strong support to the evidence found in the confession (Exhibit P-6) recorded by the learned Magistrate and in the extra-judicial confession. The version given in Exhibit P-6 is corroborated in many particulars by the evidence onrecord. The following are some of the instances. In Exhibit P-6, the accused made a statement as follows: “I wrote letters to Recherla Karnam (P.W. 8) and to the husband of that girl (P.W.1) with, out furnishing my name and address.” P.W.1 deposes that he got letter such as mentioned in this passage. There is a portion in Exhibit P-6 as follows: “Afterwards, they took me to the house of the President (P.W. 7). President reprimanded them, and sent them away.” P.W. 7 corroborates this item of statement. There is another portion in Exhibit P-6 thus: “I sent a report to Vissannapeta Police Station and wrote a letter to Kotapadu Munsif from. Chintalapudi................Myself and Tatayya being unable to tolerate the abuses squeezed her neck and Tatayya tied her neck with my towel and we killed.” This is corroborated by the fact that when the accused took P.W. 25 and others to the scene of offence, deceased was found strangled to death with towel (M.O. 11) round her neck. Thus it is very similar to the towel (M.O. 12) which was found from accused’s bag and recovered at the instance of the accused near the police station. The dhobi (P.W.11) identifies M.Os. 11 and 12 as towels belonging to the accused which he washed for the accused. Thus it is very similar to the towel (M.O. 12) which was found from accused’s bag and recovered at the instance of the accused near the police station. The dhobi (P.W.11) identifies M.Os. 11 and 12 as towels belonging to the accused which he washed for the accused. He admits that there are no identification marks on the towel. His evidence by itself cannot be completely acceptable as regards identification but it is of some value when considered along with the other evidence regarding M.O. 11 and M.O. 12 mentioned above. So, we find as follows. Exhibit P-6 is admissible in evidence. It is proved satisfactorily by the learned Magistrate (P.W.13) who recorded it. It was obviously voluntary. In Exhibit P-6 itself the accused has stated as follows: “I came to bazaar. After I sat for two hours, my conscience did not agree. Thinking that there will be no peace of mind to me hereafter in my life even if I have a lease of life I woke you up and told you at your house.” Except for the difference of the question as to whether accused also killed the deceased, Exhibit P-18 agrees completely with Exhibit P-6 and is more elaborate. The statements in Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-18 are amply corroborated by evidence of the various witnesses as well as accused’s conduct in showing and producing various things. Evidence of extra-judicial confession given by accused before P.Ws. 12 and 18 is also admissible in evidence and is also reliable. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment as follows: “Because the accused has committed murder of the deceased Manikyam intentionally in pursuance of his pre-planned manner by means of strangulation with M.O. 11 and as such he deserves due punishment for the same.” He proceeded on the basis that the accused was having a motive for murder on two grounds as already referred to by us. We find that the evidence on the whole shows that the accused did not have any standing grudge against the deceased, but, on the other hand, was intensely affectionate towards her and took her in a sleeping mood from the cinema hall to the corn fields and even had intercourse with her but killed her due to sudden rage arising from being abused on the spot. We find on the whole that the evidence available is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The sentence awarded is the minimum prescribed under the law and we hold that it is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal. K.N.R. --------- Appeal dismissed; Conviction and sentence confirmed.