Per Sharma J. 1. This criminal appeal is by the husband of the deceased who has been convicted for committing her murder and sentenced to im­prisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/- un­der section 302 RPC by the Additional sessions Judge, Kishtwar by his judgment dated: 30.07.1997. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in evidence is that the deceased Zainbi Begum was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Dur­ing the wedlock, she gave birth to three sons and a daughter. The appellant was married to the deceased about 20 years before the date of occurance. It so happened that on the night of 4th Feb. 1990, the appellant killed his wife and thereafter went to the house of PW Ghulam Hussain Numberdar of the village where his son Mohd. Akbar had gone to sleep for the night. He told his son that he should reach home be­cause his daughter was having stomach ache. On reaching home, P W Mohd. Akbar found his mother bleeding from her head. On closer examination he found her dead, he immedi­ately informed his uncle P W Bashir Ahmad and others who reached on spot. They also found weapon of offence an exe lying near the place of occurrrance. Accused, however, did not re­turn home after informing his son and was found missing. Later he appeared before Sub-judge Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar and stated before him that he has killed his wife, he was then handed over to the police by the Magistrate on the basis of admission made by him before him. 3. The first information report of the oc­currence was lodged by PW Mohd.Shafi on 05.02.1990 on the basis of which case under Section 302 RPC was registered against the ap­pellant. He was finally sent up to stand his trial for alleged offence under Section 302 RPC and the learned trial court found him guilty under section 302 RPC and he was sentenced accord­ingly. 4. Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there being no di­rect evidence, the circumstantial evidence re­lied by the trial court does not warrant convic­tion because the statement of the appellant be­fore the Magistrate admitting his guilt is ad­missible and there is no reliable evidence that he was last seen with the deceased. 4. Mr.Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there being no di­rect evidence, the circumstantial evidence re­lied by the trial court does not warrant convic­tion because the statement of the appellant be­fore the Magistrate admitting his guilt is ad­missible and there is no reliable evidence that he was last seen with the deceased. Mr.Kapoor, on the other hand argued that the circumstan­tial evidence relied by the prosecution is con­sistent only with the hypothesis that accused alone had killed his wife. 5. The circumstantial evidence relied by the trial court is; (1) last seen (2) conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrance 8 his admission before the Sub-judge Kishtwar that he has killed his wife, (3) medical evidence and (4) motive. 1.Last seen. Mohd. Akbar Khan is the son of the accused-appellant. He has been considered a child wit­ness by the trial court because his statement is preceded by a number of questions put to him to test his power of understanding. However, at the age of the witness being 14, it could not be said that he would be under a disability to understand the questions put to him or from giv­ing rational answers to those questions by ten­der years. 14 is an age when a child is fully developed and ordinarily he should be consid­ered as a competent witness unless court con­siders otherwise because of any disability. Be that as it may, the trial court has after putting him number of questions satisfied itself that he is a competent witness before recording his statement on oath. According to this witness, the appellant used to be absent from home con­tinuously for 4 to 6 months before returning and all household expenses used to be incurred by his mother the deceased. On the contrary as and when he would return he used to hold out threats of elimination to his mother. Accord­ing to him on the day of occurrence the appel­lant as well as deceased were together in their residential premises. However, before going to bed the appellant turned him out of the house. He therefore, slept in the house of PW Ghulam Hussain village numberdar. Since Ghulam Hussain was not present, he and his son Farooq alone were present. At night, appellant came there and woke him up asking him that his younger sister was having stomach ache, so he should go and look after her. He therefore, slept in the house of PW Ghulam Hussain village numberdar. Since Ghulam Hussain was not present, he and his son Farooq alone were present. At night, appellant came there and woke him up asking him that his younger sister was having stomach ache, so he should go and look after her. He immediately rushed home and found his mother dead who was bleeding from the injury caused by a sharp edged weapon. He started looking for his fa­ther, but he had disappeared. He then ap­proached PWs Mohd. Shafi and Mohd. Hussain and informed them about the murder of his mother. The statement of this witness is so natu­ral and convincing that despite grilling cross-examination, the defence failed to shake his credibility. Moreover, being son of the appellant he has no axe to grind against him. As a matter of fact after the death of his mother the family had to depend upon the appellant, he therefore, had no reason to screen the real cul­prit by implicating his father. This apart, the appellant disappeared after informing the wit­ness about the ailment of his daughter who was in the same room, it is against normal human conduct that father would disappear from home after asking his son to go and take care of his daughter who was having stomach ache, it is also against normal human conduct that if some­body else was the assailant, the appellant should have disappeared, so the first circumstance that the accused and the deceased were together in the room at the time of occurrence is fully proved. This circumstance is further proved by the statement of PW Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, the elder son of the appellant. According to him while his parents stayed at home he was sent to attend marriage in another village. The deceased was killed on the same night about which he got the information next morning. There is other evidence also. This evidence sufficiently proves circumstance that he and the deceased were together in their house at the time of occurrence. This fact finds further sup­port from the statement of PW Shri Bansi Lal Bhat, the then Sub-Judge, Kishtwar before whom he appeared on 05.02.1990 and informed him that he had killed his wife on the previous night. After this statement was made, the learned Magistrate handed him over to the police. This fact finds further sup­port from the statement of PW Shri Bansi Lal Bhat, the then Sub-Judge, Kishtwar before whom he appeared on 05.02.1990 and informed him that he had killed his wife on the previous night. After this statement was made, the learned Magistrate handed him over to the police. This therefore, conclusively proves that the accused was last seen with deceased where­after she was found dead. This circumstance, therefore, is proved. 2.Conduct The conduct of the accused is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. His con­duct in this case is in two parts, the first part pertains to his having informed his son PW Mohd. Akbar Khan about the ailment of his daughter whereafter he disappeared. His nor­mal conduct should have been to return home with the son to take care of the daughter if she was really ill. however, since he was not tell­ing the truth, therefore, he disappeared imme­diately thereafter. It is clear that he ran away from the scene of crime after killing the deceased. It appears he could not withstand the burden of guilt of having killed his wife who was innocent and in order to make clean brust of the guilt he approached the local Magistrate on the next morning, but his conduct in putting his son on wrong track and then disappeared is a circumstance which is relevant. According, to PW Shri bansi Lal Bhat, the then Sub-Judge Kishrwar, the accused appeared before him dur­ing court hours and told the learned Sub-judge that he had killed his wife Zainab Begum on the night intervening 4/5th Feb. 1990. After assuring himself about the mental state of the appellant, learned Magistrate forwarded letter to Sub-Divisional police officer Kishtwar as per order dated: 05.02.1990 EXPW-18 which reads as under:- "A person namely Ghulam Mustafa, s/o Ghulam wali Khan, r/o village Kidroo paddar Tehsil Kishtwar appeared before me today and stated that he had committed the murder of his wife Mst. Zainabi on intervening night of 4th and 5th Feb. 1990 at Kidroo Padder. The infor­mation given by the said person, who has sur­rendered before me discloses a cognizable of­fence. SDPO Kishtwar is hereby directed to register a case and proceed under law. Zainabi on intervening night of 4th and 5th Feb. 1990 at Kidroo Padder. The infor­mation given by the said person, who has sur­rendered before me discloses a cognizable of­fence. SDPO Kishtwar is hereby directed to register a case and proceed under law. The per­son has been taken into custody and is being handed over to SDPO Kishtwar through Sh.Badri Nath HC No.21 posted in the pros­ecution wing of this court." Ordinarily this should have been treated as FIR, but the case was registered on the basis of statement of PWMohd. Shafi. Not only this, the Magistrate should have in fact recorded the statement of the appellant and forwarded the same to the police alongwith the appellant. Be that as it may, statement made by the appellant before the Magistrate is admissible as his con­duct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act which is relevant even if it may be treated as confes­sion. However, m case this statement was made before a police officer, it would be inadmissi­ble under Section 25 of the Evidence Act as laid down by the Supreme Court in "A.Nagesia vs. State of Bihar" AIR 1966 SC 119:- "18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other ad­missions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27." However, if the first information is given by the accused himself which includes his confession, it is not admissible as his con­duct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act while its non-confessional part is admissible under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. this was also laid down in Nagesias case (supra) by holding that:- "(10) Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the record­ing of the first information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence, it may be used to corroborate the informant un­der Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. The information report as such is not substantive evidence, it may be used to corroborate the informant un­der Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the in­formation is admissible against him as evi­dence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant, see Faddi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri. Appeal No.210 of 1963 dated: 24.01.1964 (AIR 1964 SC 1850), explaining Nisar Ali vs. State of U.P. (S) AIR 1957 SC 366 and Dal Singh vs. King Emperor, 44 Ind App 137; (AIR 1917 PC 25). But a confessional first information report to a police officer cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act." In view of the above, it is not neces­sary to decide whether a statement made by the appellant to PW Shri Bansi Lal Bhat is a confession or not, but it is certainly a conduct which is relevant. The fact that the accused ran away from the place of occurrence after informing his son about the illness of his daughter incriminates him because it is only the guilty rather than the innocent who ran away as observed by their Lordships in State of U.P.vs. Krishan Gopal AIR 1988 SC 2154 in which while referring to the standard of proof their Lordships quoted the following passage with approval:- "Glanville Williams: Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxewell, p.340 (342), "The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together and the evidence of such events may also be said to be de­pendent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence to establishing that the defend­ant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally defendant. A juror may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence to establishing that the defend­ant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally defendant. A juror may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who ran away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other." Since the appellant not only ran away from the place of occurrence, but also confessed his guilt before a Judicial Magistrate, his con duct therefore, is relevant under Section 8 which lends assurance to the statement of Mohd. Akber Khan his son that he and the deceased were together in the house when he was turned out from his house at night by the appellant. So this circumstance is conclusively proved and has been rightly relied by the learned trial court. 3. Medical Evidence According to PW Mohd. Akber, the de­ceased had been struck by an axe which was lying nearby the deadbody. In the course of investigation, the police seized an axe which was strained with blood which was lying at the place of occurrence, as per seizure memo EXP W-II. This seizure memo has been proved by the PWs SHO Hem Raj Sharma, Mohd.Hussain, Ghulam Hussain and Mohd. Shafi. Now, let us see whether the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be caused by the axe which was found at the place of occurrence. Doctor Ravinder Singh who conducted the autopsy has found the following injuries on the deadbody:- "Incised wound with brusing of edges extending from latter border of the left nasal bone at the level of infraorbital margin extend­ing on to the right side near right infraorbital margin over the zygomatic bone and extending backward at the upper margin of external orditary meatus about 6.5" long i.e.2.5" in nomrofrontalis view and 4" in the nonnolateralis view; Medial end of the wound extending 7" deep while the latteral end 2.5" lateral to occipital condyle on right side. The wound is 3.5" deep at its posterior end; Injury No.2 incised wound with bruises of edges 2.5" long behind the ear extending from the mastioid process of the temporal bone down­wards and lateralyal; 0.5" deep. The two wounds are separated by skin but bone has com­pletely been cut. The second wound is 0.5 cm lower than the wound No. 1 mentioned above on the right side." Both these injuries according to the Doc­tor were anti-mortem and caused by a heavy sharp edged weapon. He also opined that both the injuries could be caused by the seized axe. So the statement of PW Mohd. Akber Khan that the deceased had been struck on the head with the axe which was lying on spot finds ample corroboration from the statement of Dr.Ravinder Singh. So medical evidence has corroborated what was observed by PW Mohd.Akbar son of the accused and other wit­nesses immediately after the occurrence. 4.Motive. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention to do a particular act. There is an unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence that the appellant was not taking care of his family, he used to keep away from home for months returning sometime after two months, four months or even six months. Even after staying out for such long lime he used to pick up quarrel with the deceased and accord­ing to the prosecution accused even suspected her fidelity. The relations between the appel­lant and the deceased were thus far from cardial and he, therefore, decided to eliminate her when his eldest son namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan was out having gone to attend the marriage of a relation and ensuring the absence of PW Mohd. Akber Khan by turning him cut at night. This shows he had a strong motive to kill his wife and absence of his two elder sons came handy. Examination of the accused u/s 342 Cr.P.C. When the evidence of his having ap­peared before Sh.Bansi Lal Bhat, the then Sub Judge, Kishtwar about he had killed his wife was put to him, the appellant admitted that he did appear before the Sub-Judge on 05.02.1990. But the explanation offered by him is that he had complained to the Judge about his wife having been killed by someone. But what was stated by him to Shri Bansi lal Bhat, Sub Judge Kishtwar, has been recorded in EXPW-18. But the explanation offered by him is that he had complained to the Judge about his wife having been killed by someone. But what was stated by him to Shri Bansi lal Bhat, Sub Judge Kishtwar, has been recorded in EXPW-18. The explanation furnished by the accused is false firstly because what he stated is documented in the memorandum EXPW-18, secondly, if his wife had been killed by someone else he had not to put his son PW Mohd.Akber on false track and run away from home and thirdly if his wife was killed by someone else as stated by him he should have raised alarm and in­formed his neighbours about her murder and named the assailants as he was sleeping in the same room where she was killed. Not only this, his normal human conduct would have been to resist the assault on his wife and see that the assailants were brought to book. But he in­stead disappeared from the scene of crime. So what he stated to the Magistrate is correct and his explanation is false. So it is a false expla­nation offered by him. We wish the learned PW Shri Bansi Lal Bhat now a member of the Higher Judicial Service had recorded the state­ment of the assused and forwarded the same to the police for verification and appropriate ac­tion if it was found to be correct. But this fail­ure is not fatal to the prosecution because his memorandum EXPW-18 contains the informa­tion conveyed to him by the appellant on the basis of which police should have registered the case. 6. Since the accused has given false expla­nation to the circumstances of his having ap­peared before Shri Bansi Lal Bhat before whom he admitted having killed his wife, the court is entitled to draw inference against him as his answers lend to show that he has committed murder of his wife. Since the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the question arises whether the evidence satisfies the test. Since the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, the question arises whether the evidence satisfies the test. This has been reiterated by the apex court in Gimbir vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 which reads:- "The law regarding circumstantial evi­dence is well-settled, when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests; (1) the circum­stances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was com­mitted by the accused and none-else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapa­ble of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." 7. As noticed above all the three circum­stances namely, last seen, conduct of the accused and the medical evidence unerringly point out to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence. We, are therefore, of the opinion that the trial court has weighed the evidence produced by the prosecution fairly, decided the character of witnesses correctly and reached result rightly. We are also of the opin­ion that the trial court has rightly rejected the evidence produced by the defence because the witnesses do not inspire any confidence. We, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the trial court confirm the finding returned of the sentence awarded. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed and the sentence awarded by the trial court confirmed. It is made clear that order dated: 19.11.1997 passed by this court in sus­pending the sentence awarded shall also count for remission of sentence under the Jail Manual as he was not admitted to bail. Both the appeal as well as reference made by the trial court are disposed of accordingly.