Judgment :- The Appellant is the Accused in S.C. No. 197/96 on the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. By the Judgment (dated 30-6-1997), the Second Additional Judge has convicted the Appellant/Accused under Sec. 304(II), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. Relationship of the parties is not disputed. P.W. 1 Nataraja Gounder is the brother-in-law of deceased Senthil. P.W. 2 Radhakrishnan is the brother of the deceased Senthil. Senthil got married and also has child. Since there was dispute between Senthil and his wife, Senthil, was living separately with his mother and brother P.W. 2. The deceased Senthil is alleged to have been having drinking habit. The deceased Senthil and the Appellant/Accused are relatives as well as friends. On 17-9-1995 11.00 a.m., while P.W. 1 was standing in his "Kalam" (fsk;) he had seen the Appellant/Accused-Sivakumar, one Ravikumar and Senthil going on the way. P.W. 1 did not actually know where they have been going. On the same day at about 4.30 p.m. P.W. 1 learnt about the body of Senthil lying near Tea Stall of one Rathinammal. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 went there, they found Senthil dead and body lying there. Registration of case and Investigation :- P.W. 1 lodged Ex. P Complaint in Kinathukadavu Police Station. On receipt of Ex. P1, P.W. 13 Head Constable registered the F.I.R. (Ex. P21) in Crime No. 240/95 under Section 174, Cri. P.C. P.W. 13 Investigating Officer had taken up the Investigation. Inspecting the scene of occurrence, he has prepared Ex. P2 Observation mahazar and Ex. P22 Rough Plan. On the same day, from 8.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars and Inquest was held on the body of the deceased Senthil. Ex. P23 is the Inquest Report. After the Inquest, the body was entrusted to P.W. 10 Head Constable for being handed over for Autopsy. Pursuant to the requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 11 Dr. Jothi Arunachalam has conducted the Autopsy. He found a circular penetrating wound greater cm. in diameter situated in fourth intercostal space 3 cm. medial to right nipple. P.W. 11 opined that the injury would have been caused by Air Gun like M.O. 1. Further opining that the injury was due to profuse haemorrhage and shock due to penetrating injury, P.W. 11 issued Ex. P11 Post Mortem Certificate. in diameter situated in fourth intercostal space 3 cm. medial to right nipple. P.W. 11 opined that the injury would have been caused by Air Gun like M.O. 1. Further opining that the injury was due to profuse haemorrhage and shock due to penetrating injury, P.W. 11 issued Ex. P11 Post Mortem Certificate. On 21-9-2995, the Appellant/Accused accompanied by his friends Ravikumar and Murugaraj went to the house of P.W. 6 Nataraj at Palghat. The Appellant/Accused made a request for staying in the house of P.W. 6 for two or three days. After brief stay, the Appellant/Accused and his friends Ravikumar and Murugaraja had left the house of P.W. 6. On the 29-9-1995 - 7.00 p.m. the Appellant/Accused went to the office of the Village Administrative Officer at Servaikaranpalayam. The Appellant/Accused had voluntarily given a Confession Statement to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer, admitting his guilt. In the Confession Statement, the Appellant/Accused is alleged to have stated that he shot at Senthil while he repeatedly stated and that after five minutes, the Appellant/Accused was informed by Murugaraj that Senthil had fallen down. Thereafter, the Appellant/Accused and his friends Murugaraja and Ravikumar left the place. P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer has recorded Extra Judicial Confession Statement of the Appellant/Accused (Ex. P. 3). P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer has handed over the Appellant/Accused along with Ex. P3 Extra Judicial Confession Statement given to him to Kinathukadavu Police Station and he produced the Appellant/Accused before the Inspector of Police P.W. 14, P.W. 5 had also given his Report Ex. P4. The Appellant/Accused was arrested by P.W. 14 Inspector of Police. On being interrogated, the Appellant/Accused had given the Confession Statement. On the basis of his Confession Statement, M.O. 1 Air Gun was seized from the Appellant/Accused. On the basis of Ex. P3 Extra Judicial Confession, the case in Crime No. 240/95 was altered from Section 174, I.P.C. into Section 302, I.P.C. under Ex. P24 Express Report. P.W. 9 Rajan is working as Scientific Assistant Grade I Ballistic Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Madras. On requisition from the Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 9 has examined M.O. 1 Air Gun and found that it is in working condition. P.W. 9 opined that it is a 0.22/5.5 mm. of calibre rifle on test firing. It was found to be in working condition. On requisition from the Judicial Magistrate, P.W. 9 has examined M.O. 1 Air Gun and found that it is in working condition. P.W. 9 opined that it is a 0.22/5.5 mm. of calibre rifle on test firing. It was found to be in working condition. The muzzle velocity of the pellet from the above Air Rifle is about 400 feet per second. As per T.S.R. 991 Annexed to Schedule II under Arms Rules, pellets did not penetrate 1" thick dead wood plank at the range of five feet. If a human body is shot by his kind of Air Rifle in a close range, there is every chance to occur death. On completion of formalities of Investigation, the Appellant/Accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. In the Trial Court, to substantiate the charges against the Appellant/Accused, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined. Exs. P1 to P24 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 3 were were produced to the Court. The Appellant/Accused was questioned about the incriminating evidence and circumstances under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Denying all of them, the Appellant/Accused had stated that a false case is foisted against him due to enmity between him and P.W. 1. Upon consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12, the Trial Court found that the circumstances forthcoming are formidable establishing the guilt of the Appellant/Accused. On Extra Judicial Confession made to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer, the Trial Court found that the Extra Judicial Confession is voluntary and that guilt of the Appellant/Accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, finding that the Appellant/Accused had no intention to cause death, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Appellant/Accused under Section 302, I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 304(II), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. Assailing the conviction and findings of the Trial Court, learned Senior Counsel advanced elaborate arguments contending that the case of Prosecution suffers from several infirmities which were not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel has inter alia raised the following contentions :- (i) That Prosecution was originally groping in darkness which led to registration of the case under Section 174, Cri. P.C. for suspicious death; (ii) Non production of evidence proving that the pellet was discharged from M.O. 1 Air Gun and non production of Foreign Body located during the Post Mortem are fatal to the Prosecution. P.C. for suspicious death; (ii) Non production of evidence proving that the pellet was discharged from M.O. 1 Air Gun and non production of Foreign Body located during the Post Mortem are fatal to the Prosecution. (iii) That Ex. P3 Extra Judicial Confession to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer does not pass the test of probabilities and is not L.W. corroborated in material particulars, reliance is placed upon (1971) 84 Mad LW (Crl) 9 (In Re : Lakshmanan) in support of the contention that Extra Judicial Confession made to Village Headman has no evidentiary value. On the above contentions and relying upon number of decisions, learned Senior Counsel prayed for setting aside the verdict of conviction and the sentence. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 6, 7 and 9, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. A. N. Thambidurai submitted that even de hors the Extra Judicial Confession, Prosecution has adduced satisfactory evidence establishing the complicity of the Appellant/Accused. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has rightly found that Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer has passed the test of reliability and that finding does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that when death is proved to be due to Gun Shot Injury, non recovery of the Foreign Body would not in any way affect the Prosecution case. Reiterating the reasonings and findings of the Trial Court, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the reasonings are well supported by the evidence on record and that there is no reason warranting interference. Upon consideration of the Judgment of the Trial Court, evidence and materials on record, elaborate submissions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal :- (i) Whether the Appellant/Accused is right in contending that Ex. P3 Extra Judicial Confession Statement does not pass the test of reliability and other parameters fixed for acting upon the Extra Judicial Confession ? (ii) Whether the circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution are proved establishing the guilt of the Appellant/Accused ? (iii) Whether the conviction of the Appellant/Accused is based upon proper assessment of evidence and whether the conviction warrants any interference ? (ii) Whether the circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution are proved establishing the guilt of the Appellant/Accused ? (iii) Whether the conviction of the Appellant/Accused is based upon proper assessment of evidence and whether the conviction warrants any interference ? The key witness P.W. 7 Ravikumar, who accompanied the Appellant/Accused to hunting is the eye-witness and is also the witness who accompanied the Appellant/Accused to Kerala and other places after the occurrence. P.W. 7 has turned hostile. Obviously, his hostility is to save the Appellant/Accused, who is his close friend. In consideration of the other evidence, hostility of P.W. 7 would not in any way affect the Prosecution case. On that footing, case of the Prosecution and the evidence adduced is to be analysed. From the facts detailed above, it is clear that the Prosecution mainly relies upon the following formidable circumstances :- (i) Evidence of P.W. 1 Ravikumar on 17-9-1995 11.00 a.m. and that Senthil was last seen alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused. (ii) The Appellant/Accused purchased M.O. 1 Air Gum from the shop of P.W. 8 Prakash; M.O. 1 Air Gun is in working condition and the death was due to Gun Shot wound and the opinion evidence P.W. 11 Dr. Jothi Arunachalam. (iii) Conduct of the Appellant/Accused in leaving for Kerala after the occurrence and that he did not return to Servaikaranpalayam Village for few days. (iv) Extra Judicial Confession to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer and Confession Statement to P.W. 14 Inspector of Police and recovery of M.O. 1 Air Gun at the instance of the Appellant/Accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be of conclusive nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete. In every case based upon circumstantial evidence and in this case as well the question that need to be determined is whether all the linkages in the chain of circumstance is so Appellant/Accused. It is to be seen whether the learned Sessions Judge has arrived at the finding of guilt upon proper and careful evaluation of the circumstances. Circumstantial I - The deceased Senthil last seen alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused :- On 18-9-1995 11.00 a.m. P.W. 1 was standing in his "Kalam" (fsk). It is to be seen whether the learned Sessions Judge has arrived at the finding of guilt upon proper and careful evaluation of the circumstances. Circumstantial I - The deceased Senthil last seen alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused :- On 18-9-1995 11.00 a.m. P.W. 1 was standing in his "Kalam" (fsk). He had seen the deceased Senthil going along with the Appellant/Accused Shivkumar and P.W. 7 Ravikumar. At that time, P.W. 1 did not know where they were actually going. That deceased Senthil went along with the Appellant/Accused and Ravikumar and one Murugaraj is mentioned in Column XV of Ex. P23 Inquest Report also corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1. At about 4.30 p.m. through P.W. 2 Radhakrishnan, P.W. 1 learnt about the body lying near one Rathinammal Tea Stall. That deceased Senthil was last seen alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused is an incriminating circumstance against the Appellant/Accused. Evidence of P.W. 1 is assailed contending that his name is not mentioned in Column IV of Ex. P. 23 Inquest Report and that P.W. 1, who is the close relative of the deceased Senthil is only a planted witness. No doubt, in Column IV of Ex. P. 23 Inquest Report, the name of P.W. 1 that he is the person who had seen the Deceased Senthil last seen alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused is not mentioned. It is only stated :- Column IV in Ex. P. 23 - Inquest Report does not in any way weaken the evidence of P.W. 1 since as per the evidence of P.W. 2, he had also seen his Brother-Senthil going along with the Appellant/Accused Shivakumar, P.W. 7 Ravikumar and others. That being so, there is nothing strange in mentioning the name of P.W. 2 Radhakrishnan in Column IV of Ex. P. 23 Inquest Report as the person who had last seen the Deceased Senthil alive in the company of the Appellant/Accused. Omission to mention the name of P.W. 1 in Column IV of Ex. P. 23 Inquest Report does not in any way affect the Prosecution case nor the credibility of P.W. 1. Circumstances II : To establish this circumstance that the Appellant/Accused had purchased M.O. 1 - Air Gun, P.W. 8 Prakash is examined. P.W. 8 is a partner in Sri Krishna Associates, Pollachi and has been doing his business in Household Articles, Toys and Gift Articles. Circumstances II : To establish this circumstance that the Appellant/Accused had purchased M.O. 1 - Air Gun, P.W. 8 Prakash is examined. P.W. 8 is a partner in Sri Krishna Associates, Pollachi and has been doing his business in Household Articles, Toys and Gift Articles. Air Gun is also sold in his shop. According to P.W. 8, Sakthi Dairy and ABT Company would purchase the Articles from his shop. P.W. 8 has stated that the Appellant/Accused would purchase articles from his shop on behalf of Sakthi Dairy. P.W. 8 was mainly examined to prove the fact that as per the direction of his Father, he sold M.O. 1-Air Gun to the Appellant/Accused Shivakumar under Bill No. 3680 for Rs. 500/-. When speaking on those materials aspects, P.W. 8 has turned hostile. There is no Rules of Law that the evidence of Hostile Witness is to be rejected en bloc. In a Criminal Prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party, calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. While so considering, if the Judge considers that in the process, the credit of the witness is not completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of witness as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of other evidence on record that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in the process, if the witnesse's testimony is impugned, and in the process the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence discard his evidence in toto. Thus, though P.W. 8 has turned hostile, his evidence is relevant to the extent :- (i) Air Guns like M.O. 1 are sold in the shop of P.W. 8. (ii) that Appellant/Accused used to purchase Articles from Krishna Associates shop of P.W. 8. That evidence forthcoming from the version of P.W. 8 goes in support of the Prosecution case to the limited extent of probabilising the purchase of M.O. 1 - Air Gun by the Appellant/Accused. (ii) that Appellant/Accused used to purchase Articles from Krishna Associates shop of P.W. 8. That evidence forthcoming from the version of P.W. 8 goes in support of the Prosecution case to the limited extent of probabilising the purchase of M.O. 1 - Air Gun by the Appellant/Accused. It would be unrealistic to accept the contention of the Appellant/Accused that there is no trace of evidence showing the purchase of M.O. 1 by the Appellant/Accused. Recovery of M.O. 1-Air Gun at the instance of the Appellant/Accused which is referred shortly is the connecting link of the Appellant/Accused with M.O. 1, During Autopsy, P.W. 11 Dr. Jothi Arunachalam has found :- "there is a Circular penetrating wound (sic) CM in diameter situated in fourth Intercostal space 3 CM medial to right nipple. It's margins are bruised and surrounded by blackening." On dissection of wound, it was found :- "thoracic cavity deep. It is directed medially downwards, piercing through intercostal muscles, pleura, perforating the right lung near its medial border which covers the anterior surface of heart and it has penetrated." P.W. 11 has further opined that the deceased would appear to have died of profuse haemorrhage and shock due to penetrating injury to vital organs. Thus, death is proved to be due to penetrating injury-Gun Shot Wound. During the Post Mortem, P.W. 11 noted "Foreign body seen in X-ray could not be traced." The Foreign Body though detected, was not recovered. The main attack on the case of Prosecution is that when the Foreign Body was found inside the body, P.W. 11 ought to have further probed and recovered the pellet (if any) to substantiate the Prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in all cases of death by Fire Arm, the Prosecution is to prove :- (i) that the production of pellet, which caused the death. (ii) that the pellet was discharged from the Air Gun involved. (iii) that the Appellant/Accused shot the fire. Contending that neither the evidence of P.W. 11-Post Mortem Doctor nor the evidence of P.W. 9 Scientific Assistant, Ballistic Division would conclusively establish the above aspects, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the absence of evidence establishing the linkage of circumstances is fatal to the prosecution case and the trial Court erred in not properly appreciating the same. This contention is to be appreciated in the light of the evidence of P.W. 11. This contention is to be appreciated in the light of the evidence of P.W. 11. Though Foreign Body is seen in the X-ray, it could not traced out. But P.W. 11 has clearly opined that the penetrating Injury was due to pellets and it would not have been caused by Nail or Screw etc. His opinion evidence is strengthened by the circular penetrating Injury noted on the body. Its margins are bruised and surrounded by blackening. Blackening around the penetrating would clearly establishes that the firing was at a short distance. At this juncture, we may usefully refer to the Statement of the Appellant/Accused in Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession, wherein he has stated that he has fired at the deceased Senthil at the short range. Thus, non-recovery of pellet from the body of the deceased Senthil is not a serious handicap to the Prosecution case in establishing these formidable circumstances. Opinion evidence of P.W. 9 that M.O. 1 Air Gun was found to be in working condition is another relevant evidence. After referring to the muzzle velocity of the pellet, P.W. 9 opined that if a human body is shot by Air Rifle like M.O. 1 in a close range, there is every chance to occur death. Opinion, evidence of P.W. 9 is of strong character and yet another connecting link evidence. Circumstance III - Conduct of the Appellant/Accused leaving for Kerala :- P.W. 6 Nataraj is a resident at Palghat. His Brother is employed in ABT Industries and the Appellant/Accused is known to him. According to P.W. 6 on 21-9-1995, the Appellant/Accused came to his house along with his friends P.W. 7 Ravikumar and Murugaraj and requested to stay in his house for two or three days. After brief stay for two or three days, the Appellant/Accused in trying to hide himself at a distant place is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Criminal intention of the Appellant/Accused is to be inferred from his subsequent conduct in leaving the scene of occurrence and hiding himself along with his friends. Stay of the Appellant/Accused and his friends is clearly brought out by the evidence of P.W. 6. Bare denial of the evidence of P.W. 6 by the Appellant/Accused has no force. In Ex. Criminal intention of the Appellant/Accused is to be inferred from his subsequent conduct in leaving the scene of occurrence and hiding himself along with his friends. Stay of the Appellant/Accused and his friends is clearly brought out by the evidence of P.W. 6. Bare denial of the evidence of P.W. 6 by the Appellant/Accused has no force. In Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession Statement, the Appellant/Accused has stated that he stayed in the house of one Kanagaraj. There is no mention of name of P.W. 6 Nataraj in Ex. P. 3. The said Kanagaraj was not examined in the Court, though he was examined during the Investigation. Prosecution case is attacked on the non-examination of the said Kanagaraj and the case of the Prosecution that the Appellant/Accused had left for Kerala is unbelievable. Merely because the Appellant/Accused had not mentioned the name of Nataraj P.W. 6 in Ex. P. 3, it does not in any way affect the veracity of P.W. 6. It is to be noted that without mentioning the names of the persons, whom he has visited, the Appellant/Accused had generally stated." P.W. 6 has no reason to depose falsehood against the Appellant/Accused. On the ground of non-mention of his name in Ex. P. 3, the version of P.W. 6 cannot be doubted. The circumstance that the Appellant/accused was hiding himself is a clear manifestation of his guilt, which is a strong incriminating circumstance unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the Appellant/Accused. Learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence of P.W. 6 and has drawn the inference of guilt of the Appellant/Accused. Circumstance IV : Extra Judicial Confession :- On 29-9-1995 7.00 p.m. the Appellant/Accused went to P.W. 5 - Village Administrative Officer and confessed his guilt. It is well settled law that in the processes of proof Extra Judicial Confession, the Court is to be satisfied that it is not the result of inducement, threat or promise. Extra Judicial Confession possess a high probative value as it emanates from the person, who committed the crime, provided it is free from suspicion. While appreciating the Extra Judicial Confession, the Court is to consider the relevant factors like :- (i) to whom it is made. (ii) the time and place of making it (iii) the circumstances, in which it was made. and the Court is to look any suspicious circumstance. Ex. While appreciating the Extra Judicial Confession, the Court is to consider the relevant factors like :- (i) to whom it is made. (ii) the time and place of making it (iii) the circumstances, in which it was made. and the Court is to look any suspicious circumstance. Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession Statement is seriously assailed on the ground that it is inherently improbable. The main contention of the Appellant/Accused is that it neither passes the test of reliability nor passes the test of probabilities and that there are several suspicious circumstances around Ex. P. 3. Attacking Ex. P. 3, learned Senior Counsel contended that when the Appellant/Accused is not known earlier to P.W. 5, it is quite improbable that an educated person like the Appellant/Accused would have gone to a stranger - Village Administrative Officer. It is further contended that when the Appellant/Accused was not in the dragnet of the Police, there was no impelling fear in his mind to go the Village Administrative Officer to confess to his guilt and that Ex. P. 3 does not pass the test of probabilities. This contention has no merits. The Appellant/Accused belongs to a village Servaikaranpalayam. P.W. 5 is the Village Administrative Officer of that village. In all probabilities, the Appellant/Accused would have had prior acquaintance with P.W. 5. Already the case was registered under Section 174, Cr. P.C. The Police must have been making the efforts to arrest the culprit. The Appellant/Accused himself being an educated, in an attempt to evade the arrest was going around the distant places. While so quote probably he might have felt remorse and surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer has no reason to falsely implicate the Appellant/Accused. Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession to the Village Administrative Officer is seriously attacked on the ground that the Village Administrative Officer is not an independent person, but a Public Servant and the Extra Judicial Confession made to him is prohibited under Rule 72 Cri. R.P. Administrative Officer has no evidentiary value and that it is a weak piece of evidence, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Accused has relied upon. R.P. Administrative Officer has no evidentiary value and that it is a weak piece of evidence, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Accused has relied upon. (i) (1971) 84 Mad LW (Crl) 9 (In Re v. Lakshmanan) (ii) 1979 Mad LW (Crl) 4 (In Re v. R. D. Bagavandas); (iii) 1995 (2) LW (Crl) 513, (Raja v. State) In the first case In Re v. Lakshmanan, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the above rule was intended to prevent false Extra Judicial Confession being secured through the help of the Village Munsif after commencement of the Investigation. The Bench further observed : "The Extra Judicial Confession itself is a weak evidence and its value becomes less when it is obtained by a person in the position of a Village Munsif after investigation of the case had started". The Bench, however held that such a statement was admissible. The factual situation in In Re v. Lakshmanan ((1971) 84 Mad LW (Cri) 9) case stands on different footing. In the said case, the occurrence was on 2-5-1970. The Village Munsif himself went to the scene of occurrence and saw the dead body and then sent the Complaint given by P.W. 1 along with his Report to the Police and to the Magistrate. The alleged Extra Judicial Confession to the Village Munsif in the said case was on 7-5-1970. In those factual backdrop, the Division Bench has observed that the Extra Judicial Confession is a weak piece of evidence and that it is not safe to rely upon such Extra Judicial Confession. In Re v. Lakshamanan case is obviously distinguishable. The Village Munsif participated in the early part of the Investigation. By lodging the Report, he became part of the Investigation, which is not so in the case in hand. Till 29-9-1995 when the Appellant/Accused approached P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 5 was nowhere in the picture. There is nothing on record to show that he had known about the Investigation. When P.W. 5 had not known about the Investigation, applying In Re v. Lakshmanan case to Ex. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession cannot be discarded as weak piece of evidence. The second decision in (1979 Mad LW (Crl) Summary of Cases) 4 (In Re v. R. D. Bagavan Alias Bagawandas) ended in acquittal for want of evidence on other material aspects. P. 3 Extra Judicial Confession cannot be discarded as weak piece of evidence. The second decision in (1979 Mad LW (Crl) Summary of Cases) 4 (In Re v. R. D. Bagavan Alias Bagawandas) ended in acquittal for want of evidence on other material aspects. On that factual background, a Division Bench has observed that the Extra Judicial Confession made to the Village Munsif is a weak piece of evidence and cannot by itself form basis of Conviction. But, that is not the case in hand. Even de hors the Extra Judicial Confession, by establishing the other circumstances, the Prosecution has convincingly brought home the guilt of the Appellant/Accused. Drawing the attention to Rule 72, Crl. R.P. it is submitted that once the Investigation has started, the Village Munsif is prohibited from recording the Extra Judicial Confession. Therefore, it is contended when the F.I.R. was registered on 17-9-1995, P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer was prohibited from recording any Extra Judicial Confession and no probative value could be attached to Ex. P. 3. In this regard, reliance is placed upon 1995 (2) LW (Crl) 513 (Raja v. State). Rule 72 Crl RP is being embodied to avoid any possible misuse of Extra Judicial Confession in actual practice. In those days, Village Munsif/Village Headman had played major role in the initial stages of the Investigation. To prevent any possible misuse of the same, Rule 72 Crl. R.P. was incorporated. As said earlier, on the basis of Ex. P1 Complaint, a case in Crime No. 240/95 was registered under Ex. P. 21, FIR on 17-9-1995 under Section 174, Crl. P.C. for suspicious death. PW 5 Village Administrative Officer was nowhere in the picture at that stage of the Investigation nor is it elicited from him that he had any knowledge of the Registration of the case in Crime No. 240/95. Therefore, applying Rule 72 Crl. R.P. and that the Investigation was already started, it cannot be held that P.W. 5 was prevented from recording the Confession Statement nor can it be said that he obliged the Police. Why should a responsible Public Servant like P.W. 5 rope in the Appellant/Accused in a murder case ? Therefore, applying Rule 72 Crl. R.P. and that the Investigation was already started, it cannot be held that P.W. 5 was prevented from recording the Confession Statement nor can it be said that he obliged the Police. Why should a responsible Public Servant like P.W. 5 rope in the Appellant/Accused in a murder case ? There is no inflexible Rule that that Confession Statement made to the Village Administrative Officer is inadmissible and Extra Judicial Confession to a Village Administrative Officer cannot be doubted merely on the ground that it is made to a person in Authority. Though P.W. 5 is the Village Administrative Officer, his evidence and the Statement Ex. P. 3 has ring of truth. These points were raised before the Trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that "the Extra Judicial Confession has passed the rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility by means of acceptable evidence with reference to its truthfulness and genuineness". This Court finds no reason to adopt a different view. P.W. 5 has produced the Appellant/Accused before P.W. 14 Inspector of Police. P.W. 14 has arrested the Appellant/Accused. On being interrogated, the Appellant/Accused had voluntarily given the Confession Statement. Pursuant to his Confession Statement, M.O. 1-Air Gun was recovered under the Bridge in Pappannans Thottam. Recovery of M.O. 1 at the instance of the Appellant/Accused is yet another incriminating circumstance against the Appellant/Accused, which was properly appreciated by the trial Court. The fact that the Appellant/Accused had knowledge of the place where the weapon was hidden is yet another definite piece of evidence against him. Admissible portion of the Confession Statement (Ex. P. 5) is attacked on the ground of improbabilities that M.O. 1-Air Gun would have gone unnoticed by the others. It is the further contention that even if the recovery is accepted, the same is only innocuous for want of evidence connecting M.O. 1-Air Gun with the occurrence. This contention has no merits. Like in any other case, the weapon used is not an "Aruval" or "Kathi". Unusually "Air Gun" is used. When the Appellant/Accused has made the Statement that he had kept the Gun inside the Bridge in Pappanans Thottam and that it was concealed below the Bridge is a strong piece of evidence against the Appellant/Accused. The admissible portion of the Confession Statement marked as Ex. P. 5 reads. Unusually "Air Gun" is used. When the Appellant/Accused has made the Statement that he had kept the Gun inside the Bridge in Pappanans Thottam and that it was concealed below the Bridge is a strong piece of evidence against the Appellant/Accused. The admissible portion of the Confession Statement marked as Ex. P. 5 reads. The place where the Gun was hidden is not indicated. But, in the Confession Statement, the Appellant/Accused had stated. In the Trial Court, Prosecution would have done better had it marked the above sentence also along with Ex. P. 5. Non-marking of the hiding place does not in any way affect the evidentiary value of Ex. P. 5. The very fact that the Appellant/Accused has shown the place of hiding is an incriminating circumstance operating against the Appellant/Accused. Recovery evidence by itself is subsidiary and cannot sustain the Conviction. But, it is a valuable piece of corroborative evidence. If the other evidence is satisfactory and adequate, the Court could well act upon the Confession Statement and the recovery thereon. The Trial Court has rightly inferred the criminal intention of the Appellant/Accused by recovery of M.O. 1 at his instance. The credibility of the Prosecution case is attacked on the ground of inconsistency in the time of occurrence between the evidence of P.W. 1 and the Charge. In his evidence, P.W. 1 has stated that he saw the deceased Senthil proceeding with the Appellant/Accused at 11.00 a.m. on 17-9-1995 he heard about the body lying near Rathinammal Tea Stall at about 4.30 p.m. P.W. 2 heard about the same at about 3.30 p.m. Therefore, it is contended that there is vast variation in the version of witnesses as to the time of occurrence throwing serious doubts on the Prosecution case. In the Charge-sheet, the time of occurrence is stated at about 5.00 p.m. By a careful consideration of the evidence, this Court finds no inconsistency in the time of occurrence. By and large, the exact time consciousness cannot be expected from the ruralites. Their sluggish time sense is matter of common experience while dealing with the Rural witnesses. Any variation in the time of occurrence of the Witnesses would not in any way undermine the Prosecution case. The Appellant/Accused had shot at the Deceased Senthil in a spur of moment when they were went for Hunting. There was no pre-plan or pre-meditation. Their sluggish time sense is matter of common experience while dealing with the Rural witnesses. Any variation in the time of occurrence of the Witnesses would not in any way undermine the Prosecution case. The Appellant/Accused had shot at the Deceased Senthil in a spur of moment when they were went for Hunting. There was no pre-plan or pre-meditation. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant/Accused under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. Having gone through the evidence, this Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly found that the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Appellant/Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Sessions Judge has meticulously analysed the entire evidence and recorded the findings. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence which are in conformity with the facts and circumstances of the case. Cogent and convincing reasonings adopted by the Trial Court are well balanced and based upon the evidence on record. The Sentence of Imprisonment of Five years also cannot be said to be harsh or unreasonable warranting interference. This Appeal is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. Therefore, the Judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Dt/- 30-6-1997) in S.C. No. 197/96 convicting the Appellant/Accused under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and the sentence of Imprisonment are confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.