JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 18, 1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby the appellant-Bhanwar Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW- 17 Lalsingh, A.S.I. Incharge, Police Outpost, Indira Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Udhyog Nagar, Kota submitted a written report Ex.P22 at Police Station Udhyog Nagar on January 17, 1995 at 4:10 p.m. It was inter alia stated in the written report that today at 3:40 p.m., he had reached at Power House Circle on Govt. duty, where Dileep Singh (PW- 11)- Jailor, Central Jail, Kota and Badrilal Meena (PW- 12)- Jailor, Subjail, Chhabra met him and told him that they wanted to get a pair of now shoes made from a shoemaker. Thereafter he called Kishan Mochi from his house through Suresh. Kishan took measurement of the feet of Dileep Singh and Badrilal. When he, Dileep Singh and Badrilal were talking with one another, Bhanwar Lal S/o Prabhulal, by caste- Bairwa came near them. He was having a Farsi stained with blood. Bhanwar Lal said that he had caused injuries with Farsi to Motha Singh (Mota Singh)- Sikh, R/o- Kansua and Parmanand, Raigar, R/o- Indira Gandhi Nagar and they are lying in an injured condition in the courtyard of his house. With the help of both the Jailors, he caught hold of Bhanwar Lal and took him to the place of incident where he found both Motha Singh and Parmanand unconscious and injured. Thereafter he brought Bhanwar Lal to the Police Station alongwith the Farsi. It was also stated in Ex.P22 that on his way to Police Station, he had informed the SHO on telephone about the incident. On the basis of Ex.P22, a formal F.I.R. Ex.P23 was written and the SHO registered a case against the appellant Bhanwar Lal under Section 307 & 323 IPC and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer seized and sealed the Farsi vide Ex.PIO. The appellant Bhanwar Lal was arrested vide Ex.P14 and Shirt stained with blood, which the appellant was wearing at the time of arrest was also seized and sealed by the I.O. vide Ex.P13. The Investigating Officer seized and sealed the Farsi vide Ex.PIO. The appellant Bhanwar Lal was arrested vide Ex.P14 and Shirt stained with blood, which the appellant was wearing at the time of arrest was also seized and sealed by the I.O. vide Ex.P13. Both Mota Singh and Parmanand died on January 7, 1995 and the investigation proceeded for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code Inquest report of the dead bodies of both the deceased Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 were prepared by the I.O. on January 18, 1995. Site Plan Ex.P 9 was also prepared. Blood found on the place' of occurrence was seized and sealed vide Ex.P16. Some hair stained with blood were found at the spot and the I.O., seized and sealed those hair vide Ex.P17. Post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of both the deceased was conducted by PW- 13 Dr. Y.K. Sharma, Medical Jurist, Kota and he prepared the post-mortem reports Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 Pant & Shirt of deceased Mota Singh and a 'Jerkin of deceased Parmanand were also seized and sealed vide Ex.P28 & Ex.P29 by the I.O. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was Lald against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Kota (North), Kota, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kota. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant Bhanwar Lal, which was denied by him and the appellant Claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC., the appellant Claimed innocence and stated that on the date of alleged incident, four persons including Parmanand and Mota Singh (@ Mohta Singh) came at his residence and started taking liquor. They compelled him to pay Rs. 5,000/- . Thereafter he went to his father and took Rs. 2,500/- from him and borrowed Rs. 1,500/- by pledging ornaments belonging to his wife. When he returned at his house after about one hour, he found Parmanand and Mota Singh dead. It was also stated by him that Mota Singh was a notorious man and several cases were pending against him. Thereafter he went to his father and took Rs. 2,500/- from him and borrowed Rs. 1,500/- by pledging ornaments belonging to his wife. When he returned at his house after about one hour, he found Parmanand and Mota Singh dead. It was also stated by him that Mota Singh was a notorious man and several cases were pending against him. On seeing them dead, he left his house for Police Station to lodge a report and found the police personal on the way to whom he narrated the whole incident. Police personal accompanied him to the Police Station and a case was got registered by them against him. In defence DW- 1 Hukam Singh was examined. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here- in- above. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 7. There is no dispute that both the deceased met with homicidal death and this fact is established by the medical evidence on record. Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW- 13) stated that on January 18, 1995, he was posted as Medical Jurist, M.B.S. Hospital, Kota and on request of P.S., Udhyog Nagar, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Parmanand S/o Kishan Lal, by caste- Raigar, aged 35 years, R/o Indira Gandhi Nagar and found the following injuries:- External Injuries (1) Incised wound 9" X 1" X 2" longitudinal extending from right lower part of frontal region going backward through right temporal region cutting middle of right ear upto neck below and behind right ear. Brain matter & bones cut. (2) Incised wound 3" x 3/4" x 1" longitudinal on middle right parietal region, bone cut, brain matter cut. (3) Incised wound 10" x 1" x 2" longitudinal extending from left frontal region going backwards upto back of left parietal region. Internal Injuries Haematoma over the scalp. Communited fracture right frontal bone. Right temporal bone brain matter is seen coming out. Communited fracture Right parietal bone, brain matter is seen coming out, communited fracture left frontal bone, left parietal bone. Brain matter is out and badly lacerated. 8. Dr. Sharma further stated that in his opinion the cause of death was coma as a result of injuries on head. Right temporal bone brain matter is seen coming out. Communited fracture Right parietal bone, brain matter is seen coming out, communited fracture left frontal bone, left parietal bone. Brain matter is out and badly lacerated. 8. Dr. Sharma further stated that in his opinion the cause of death was coma as a result of injuries on head. He also stated that all the injuries individually as well as collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All the injuries could be caused by a Farsi. He prepared the post-mortem report Ex.P1 1. 9. It was also stated by Dr. Sharma that on the said day, he also conducted the post-mortem, examination on the dead body of Mohta Singh (@ Motha Singh) S/o Dayal Singh Sikh, aged 55 years, R/o Kansua at 11:30 a.m. and found the following injuries:- External Injuries (1) Incised wound 9" x 2" x 1 " longitudinal on middle of right temporal region of scalp, 2" above right ear bone cut. (2) Incised wound 10" x 1" x 1/2" longitudinal on middle of right temporal parietal region of scalp, bone cut, 2" above injury No. 1. (3) Abrasion 3/4" x 3/4" on left cheek. Internal Injuries (1) Haematoma all over the scalp. Communities fracture right temporal bone, right parietal bone. Brain matter is badly lacerated and seen coming out. 10. Dr. Sharma further stated that in his opinion, the cause of death was coma as a result of injuries on head. External injuries No. 1 & 2 could be caused by a sharp weapon including a Farsi. Both these injuries collectively and individually were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post-mortem report Ex.P12 was prepared by him. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the testimony of Dr. Sharma. In our opinion, his testimony is trustworthy and it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that both the deceased Parmanand and Mota Singh met with the homicidal death. 12. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all. It is not necessary here to extensively deal with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Suffice it to observe that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the offence charged. The prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence. 12. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all. It is not necessary here to extensively deal with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Suffice it to observe that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the offence charged. The prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence. The pieces of circumstantial evidence which have been found proved and held as forming an incriminating chain against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge are, as under:- (i) Extra- judicial confession; (ii) motive; (iii) Motha Singh and Parmanand were found injured and unconscious in the chowk (courtyard) of the house of the appellant; (iv) blood stained Farsi found in the appellants possession; (v) blood stained shirt of the appellant. 13. In Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 670 , the Apex Court held as under:-In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 1994 (2) SCC 220 , (wherein one of us, Dr. A.S. Anand, J., as His Lordship then was, spoke for the Bench) this Court held as under:- "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs not reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the Court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinise the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof." In Dhananjoy Chatterjees case (supra), the decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharasthra 1984 (4) SCC 116 , was relied on. In the later case, it was also held that a false explanation or false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction, of three essential conditions, namely (i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (ii) the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (iii) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 14. Bearing the afore quoted principles in mind, we purpose to examine each of the pieces of the aforesaid incriminating circumstantial evidence to see whether these circumstances taken together, are sufficient to raise inference that the victims were done to death by the appellant. (i) Extra judicial confession 15. PW- 11 Dileep Singh stated that on January 17, 1995, he was posted as Jailor, Central Jail, Kota. Badrilal (PW- 12), Deputy Jailor, Sub- jail, Chhabra, came to him and said that he wanted to get a pair of new shoes made for uniform. Thereafter, both he and Badrilal went to the power house circle, where they met with Lalsingh, A.S.I. He inquirers from Lalsingh about the shoemaker from whom they could get the shoes made. Lalsingh called Kishan Mochi through Suresh. Kishan Mochi took measurement of Badrilals foot, Dileep Singh further stated that when they were talking with one another, the appellant Bhanwar Lal came there from the side of Prem Nagar, who was having a Farsi in his hand. Lalsingh stopped him and asked where was he going and what was his name? The appellant replied that "his name is Bhanwar Lal and he has killed two persons Motha Singh and Parmanand with Farsi and they are lying injured in the chowk of his house." Thereafter Lalsingh, Badrilal and he took the appellant to his house and found both Motha Singh and Parmanand in an injured condition and unconscious. Blood was coming out from their wounds. Thereafter, Lalsingh and Badrilal took the appellant to the Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, on Motorcycle. He also went to the Police Station on his Scooter. The statement of Dileep Singh has been corroborated by PW- 12 Badrilal & PW- 17 Lalsingh, A.S.I. 16. Blood was coming out from their wounds. Thereafter, Lalsingh and Badrilal took the appellant to the Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, on Motorcycle. He also went to the Police Station on his Scooter. The statement of Dileep Singh has been corroborated by PW- 12 Badrilal & PW- 17 Lalsingh, A.S.I. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the alleged extra judicial confession was made to PW- 17 Lal Singh, A.S.I, who was a Police Officer, it could not be proved against the appellant in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar- AIR 1996 SC 119 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under:- "Section 25 provides: "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence." The terms of S. 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused. It covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession made before any investigation has begun. The expression accused of any offence covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession." 17. We agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that no confession made to a police officer can be proved against a person accused of any offence. In the instant case, had the extra judicial confession been made to PW- 14 Lalsingh alone, it could not be proved against the appellant, but it was also made before PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal. In our considered opinion, extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant, could be proved by adducing evidence of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal. The statement of PW- 17 Lalsingh, ASl with regard to the extra judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Dileep Singh (PW- 11) and Badrilal (PW- 12) had given different versions with regard to the extra judicial confession and there was difference in the words as spoken out by the appellant and, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses could not be relied upon by the trial Court. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Dileep Singh (PW- 11) and Badrilal (PW- 12) had given different versions with regard to the extra judicial confession and there was difference in the words as spoken out by the appellant and, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses could not be relied upon by the trial Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance of Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 65 . 19. Having considered the above submission, we are of the opinion that it has no force. There is no material discrepancy with regard to the extra judicial confession between the statements of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal. The difference in the words as spoken out by the appellant, which was pointed out by the learned counsel in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, is insignificant and due to fading of memory of these witnesses, who were examined on October 30, 1995 and March 21, 1996 respectively, whereas the incident had taken place on January 17,1995. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that both Dileep Singh and Badrilal were not related to the appellant and, therefore, there was no question of making confessional statement before them by the appellant. Moreover, PW- 17 Lal Singh, ASI, did not mention about the extra judicial confession while informing the Police Station on telephone as it is clear from the report written in "Roznamcha" Ex.P24. Reliance was placed on Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, JT 1998 (8) 43 and Dhula v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 771. 21. The facts of the aforesaid cases are different from that of the instant case. It is true that both Dileep Singh and Badrilal are not related to the appellant and Lalsingh, ASI (PW- 17) did not inform the police station about, the alleged extra judicial confession while informing about the incident on telephone. But, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, only on this ground, the testimony of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal cannot be discarded. PW- 17 Lalsingh could not be expected to give all details in his telephonic message Ex.P24. The appellant was coming towards power house circle having a Farsi stained with blood in his hand and on being asked, he had made the confessional statement. PW- 17 Lalsingh could not be expected to give all details in his telephonic message Ex.P24. The appellant was coming towards power house circle having a Farsi stained with blood in his hand and on being asked, he had made the confessional statement. Under these circumstances, confessional statement could be made by the appellant before PW- 11 Dileep Singh & PW- 12 Badrilal, although they were not related to him. 22. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the testimony of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal is reliable and trustworthy and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. The prosecution has succeeded to prove that the appellant had made a confessional statement voluntarily before PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 12 Badrilal that he had killed Motha Singh @ Mota Singh @ Mohta Singh and Parmanand. (ii) Motive:23. PW- 7 Bherulal stated that there was a plot (piece of land) belonging to the appellant near power house. The deceased Mohta Singh also had a plot there. He further stated that he had seen Mohta Singh throwing stones of the wall situated in between the plots of Bhanwar Lal and Mohta Singh. Bhanwar Lal asked Mohta Singh not to throw stones, but he refused to oblige him. From this statement, it is clear that there was a dispute between the appellant and one of the deceased persons Mohta Singh. Deceased Parmanand had gone to the house of the appellant with Mohta Singh. In his statement under section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant had said that on the date of the alleged incident, four persons including Parmanand and Mohta Singh came at his residence and started taking liquor. They demanded Rs. 5,000/- as Firauti from him. In view of these facts we are of the opinion that the appellant had a motive to commit the alleged crime and the prosecution has also proved this circumstance also. (iii) Mohta Singh and Parmanand were found injured and unconscious in the chowk (courtyard) of the appellant. 24. It is not in dispute that both the deceased were found injured and unconscious in the courtyard of the house belonging to the appellant and this fact has also been established by the testimony of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 17 Lal Singh. 24. It is not in dispute that both the deceased were found injured and unconscious in the courtyard of the house belonging to the appellant and this fact has also been established by the testimony of PW- 11 Dileep Singh and PW- 17 Lal Singh. Both Dileep Singh and Lal Singh stated in their statements that they took the appellant Bhanwar Lal to his house and found Mohta Singh and Parmanand lying injured and unconscious in the courtyard. They also stated that blood was coming out from their wounds. We are of the opinion that these statements are reliable and prove that both the deceased were found unconscious, having injuries on their person, in the courtyard of the house of Bhanwar Lal, the appellant. (iv- v) Recovery of blood stained Farsi & blood stained Shirt from the possession of the appellant. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P35 could not be read in evidence against the appellant as it was not put to him when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (1) Daulat Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 RCC 153. (2) S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1976 SC 2140 . (3) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 . (4) Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1566 . 26. We agree with the above submission of learned counsel for the appellant. When the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., no question was put to him in respect of S.F.S.L. report Ex.P35 and therefore, it cannot be used against the appellant in view of the aforementioned decisions. But, the recovery of blood stained Farsi (Article- 1) and blood stained Shirt (Article- 2) from the possession of the appellant stands proved from the statements of PW- 11 Dileep Singh, PW- 12 Badrilal, PW- 17 Lalsingh and PW- 18 Naseemullah Khan, PW- 17 Lalsingh and PW- 12 Badrilal deposed that when the appellant was coming from the side of Prem Nagar, he was having a Farsi in his hand, which was stained with blood. PW- 11 Dileep Singh also stated that the appellant was having a Farsi in his hand. PW- 11 Dileep Singh also stated that the appellant was having a Farsi in his hand. He further stated that at Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, Farsi was seized and seizure memo Ex.P10 was prepared, which was signed by him. PW- 18 Naseemullah Khan stated that he was posted as SHO, PS., Udhyog Nagar. On January 17, 1995, Lalsingh, In-charge, Police outpost, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Kota submitted a written report Ex.P22 before him. On the basis of this report, formal F.I.R. Ex. P23 was written and a case was registered. He also stated that the appellant Bhanwar Lal was brought by Lalsingh, A.S.I. He further stated that Farsi (Article- 1) was seized and sealed and he prepared Ex.PIO. The appellant was wearing a Shirt (Article- 2), which was stained with blood and, therefore, it was also seized and sealed vide Ex.P13. PW- 14 Babu Lal deposed that on January 17, 1995 at about 4:30 p.m., the appellant Bhanwar Lal was brought by Lalsingh at the Police Station. The appellant was having a Farsi stained with blood. Farsi was seized and sealed by the SHO vide Ex.PIO and he also put his signatures. He also stated that a Shirt stained with blood, which the appellant was wearing was also seized and sealed vide Ex.P13.27. On close and careful scrutiny, was find the above statements as true and trustworthy. Both Dileep Singh and Badrilal are independent witnesses. The appellant had reached at the power house circle just after the incident. He was having a Farsi (Article- 1) stained with fresh blood. He was taken to his house immediately and thereafter, to the Police Station by Lalsingh and others, where Farsi (Article- 1) and Shirt (Article- 2) belonging to the appellant were seized by the SHO. In these circumstances, the aforesaid witnesses could say that Farsi & Shirt were stained with blood and it can be held that both the articles were stained with the human blood, which was of the deceased persons. In cross- examination, no question was put to any of the aforesaid witnesses suggesting that Farsi and Shirt were not stained with human blood or they were stained with the blood of theappellant. At the time of arrest, where was no injury on the person of the appellant. In cross- examination, no question was put to any of the aforesaid witnesses suggesting that Farsi and Shirt were not stained with human blood or they were stained with the blood of theappellant. At the time of arrest, where was no injury on the person of the appellant. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant did not state that he had sustained any injury causing blood stains on his shirt. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that it has also been proved by the prosecution that a Farsi (Article- 1) and a Shirt (Articie- 2) stained with human blood were recovered from the possession of the appellant.28. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 (4) SCC 116 , it was also held by the Apex Court that a false explanation of false plea taken by the accused can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of three essential conditions, namely (i) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (ii) the said circumstances points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (iii) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.29. In the instant case, all these three essential conditions are fulfilled and, therefore, false explanation taken by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that after having arranged the amount demanded by the deceased, when he came back at his house he found Motha Singh and Parmanand dead, can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.30. On scrutinising the entire material on record, we come to the conclusion that the aforesaid circumstances have been fully proved by the prosecution evidence. These circumstances are of conclusive nature and tendency. The chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of guilt of the appellant. These circumstances proved by the prosecution show that in all human probobability, the alleged act was done by the appellant.31. These circumstances are of conclusive nature and tendency. The chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of guilt of the appellant. These circumstances proved by the prosecution show that in all human probobability, the alleged act was done by the appellant.31. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the report Ex.P24 written in "Roznamcha" was the F.I.R. and a case should have been registered on it, but, the SHO did not treat it as the First Information Report and registered the case on the written report Ex.P22, which is inadmissible in evidence under section 162 Cr.PC. Assuming that Ex.P24 was the F.I.R., but on this ground alone, the appellant cannot get acquittal.32. in view of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that both the deceased Mota Singh and Parmanand were inflicted injuries with a Farsi by the appellant, which resulted in their death.33. The trial Court has found the appellant guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code The incident had taken place in the house of the appellant. As already stated, in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant stated that on the date of alleged incident, four persons including Parmanand and Mohta Singh @ Mohta Singh came at his residence and started taking liquor. They demanded Rs. 5,000/- as Firauti. PW- 11 Dileep Singh, the then Jailor, Central Jail, Kota deposed that deceased Mohta Singh was a jail bird and had remained confined in Central Jail, Kota. PW- 18 Naseemullah Khan also stated that so many cases were registered at Police Station against the deceased Mohta Singh and he was a history- sheetor. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.PC., it appears to us that both the deceased came at the house of the appellant to extort money from him and when the appellant refused to pay Rs. 5,000/- to them, then scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased and thereafter, due to grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased, the appellant caused injuries with Farsi to both the deceased which resulted in their death. It also appears that both the deceased were drunk and, therefore, they could not defend themselves. 5,000/- to them, then scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased and thereafter, due to grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased, the appellant caused injuries with Farsi to both the deceased which resulted in their death. It also appears that both the deceased were drunk and, therefore, they could not defend themselves. Secondly, by entering into the house of the appellant under the influence of liquor to extort money, the deceased committed an offence of criminal trespass and, therefore, the right of private defence of his property had accused to the appellant. In exercise of the right of private defence, the appellant could cause any other injury to the deceased, but he did not have the right to cause death of Mohta Singh and Parmanand. It was not a pre- meditated act. The appellant caused injuries without any intention of doing more harm than what was necessary for the purpose of the private defence available to him. In our view, the appellant had exceeded in exercise of his right of private defence of his property. The act of the appellant comes under Exception- 1 and Exception- 2 of Section 300 IPC and in these circumstances, he cannot be held guilty for murder under section 302 Indian Penal Code But, he is liable to be convicted under section 304 Part I IPC as the injuries were caused to both the deceased with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.34. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant Bhanwar Lal is partly allowed. While setting aside his conviction under section 302 IPC, we convict him under section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- . In default of payment of fine, he will have to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The judgment of the trial Court is modified to this extent.Appeal partly allowed.