Judgment K. S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Ashwani Kumar (30) of Karandi (Punjab) was married to maina Devi (25) of Bhattu Kalan (Haryana) on February 16, 1991. The couple a had young son named Anup who was 3 years (date of birth september 22, 1994 ). In February-March 1998 the boy disappeared. Ashwani Kumar was charged for murder. He was found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment dated november 3, 2001 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 I. P. C. and to rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 201 I. P. C. There were also sentences of fine. Ashwani Kumar has filed the present appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that the appellant alongwith his wife Maina Devi (PW-8), his brother Partap, partaps wife Kamla Rani lived together in Karandi under one roof. Ashwani kumar developed illicit relations with Kamla Rani and on this account started maltreating his wife Maina Devi. Ashwani Kumars mother Raja would advise Maina to follow the instructions given by Kamla Rani who was her senior. Maina had complained about Ashwanis affair with Kamla rani to his brother Umed Singh (PW-11 ). 3. On January 18, 1998 Umed Singh (PW-11) met his sister Maina devi (PW-8) at Karandi, Maina Devi again complained to him about the maltreatment at the hands of her husband. She also told her brother that her husband had threatened to seek divorce. Umed Singh wanted to take his sister Maina back with him to Bhattu Kalan but Ashwani did not send her, promising that he would himself bring her to Bhattu Kalan. However, Umed singh (PW-11) took the young lad Anup with him. On February 11, ashwani brought Maina Devi to Bhattu Kalan in his jeep RJ-80-C-0233. Ashwani was in a great hurry and did not even wait to have a cup of tea. On February 13, Ashwani returned to Bhattu Kalan and told his wife Maina Devi to get Anup ready and she did as asked. Ashwani took his son Anup from Umed Singhs house. Anup was never seen alive thereafter. At that time Anup was wearing a green cap, light green jersey, a bushshirt, trousers and blue socks. His mother had also given to him two spare shirts. Ashwani took his son Anup from Umed Singhs house. Anup was never seen alive thereafter. At that time Anup was wearing a green cap, light green jersey, a bushshirt, trousers and blue socks. His mother had also given to him two spare shirts. Soon afterwards Ashwanis father Dhanpat Singh Punia also came to Bhattu Kalan and enquired about Ashwani from his wife Maina and umed Singh since Ashwani had not returned to Karandi. 4. On February 14, Umed Singh visited Karandi and met Ashwani who told him that Anup had been left with his aunt (Bua) at Ram Sara. On february 25, Umed Singh accompanied by his uncle Lt. Col. Sultan Singh (PW-10) and aunt Bimla Devi as well as his mother went to Ram Sara but did not find Anup in the aunts house. On February 26, Umed Singh again returned to Karandi and asked Ashwani about the boy. Ashwani gave evasive answers and contradictory replies. Umed Singh and Maina Devi searched for Anup at various places but could find him or any clue about his whereabouts. 5. On April 10, Umed Singh, his uncle Lt. Col. Sultan Singh and brother Sheobir again visited Karandi where they met members of ashwanis family but Ashwani was not present in the house. Ashwani was called when he reached the house. He was asked in the presence of aforementioned persons about the whereabouts of the child. Ashwani confessed that on February 13, he had thrown the child in a canal near mallekan in District Sirsa. The whole conversation of over 1 hours was tape-recorded by Lt. Col. Sultan Singh. He thereupon wrote a complaint in his own handwriting to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad on April 13, on the basis of which case was registered against Ashwani for the murder of his son. 6. On April 14, at 7.00 A. M. Ashwani came to the house of Mani ram (PW-7) at Ramsara. At that time Sultan Singh (PW-10) was also there. Ashwani came in a jeep and on reaching the place he started weeping and confessed to Mani Ram that his son had drowned in a canal when he had thrown him. Ashwani also confessed that he was having an affair with his sister-in-law Kamla Devi and his wife Maina had seen them in a compromising position. On this account Kamla Rani would often quarrel with Maina. Ashwani also confessed that he was having an affair with his sister-in-law Kamla Devi and his wife Maina had seen them in a compromising position. On this account Kamla Rani would often quarrel with Maina. Furthermore, Ashwani confessed to Mani Ram and Lt. Col. Sultan Singh that he had murdered his son Anup to be free to marry Kamla after divorce from Maina. 7. Ashwani was arrested and his jeep was taken into possession. Investigation was taken up by Inspector Karna Singh, S. H. O. Police Station bhattu Kalan who had already registered the F. I. R. on April 11. During investigation Ashwani identified the place of occurrence and the site plan of the place of the occurrence was prepared by the Investigating Officer. A search was conducted for the body but it was not found. However, a decomposed skull of the boy, his socks, jersey and pants were recovered. Maina Devi and Umed Singh identified the skull as that of Anup on the basis of the above clothes. The Investigating Officer also took into possession two audio cassettes which contained the recorded conversation between Ashwani and Lt. Col. Sultan Singh, the recording had been done by lt. Col. Sultan Singh on April 10 at Karandi. In this recorded conversation ashwani had openly confessed that he had murdered Anup by throwing him in the canal near Mallekhan on February 13. 8. After conclusion of the investigation the accused was sent up for trial. At the trial charge was framed against him under Sec.302 I. P. C. for the murder of his son and under Sec.201 I. P. C. for throwing the dead body in the canal with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment. Ashwani pleaded not guilty on both counts and claimed to be tried. 9. At the trial, the prosecution examined Roshan Lal (PW-1), mate, Irrigation Department who testified that he had seen the dead body of a child floating in the Karamsana minor on February 14, 1998. The dead body was wearing a green jersey, black shoes and blue socks, Het Ram (PW-2) testified as regards seeing the skull lying on the banks of the karamsana minor, and had seen a man burying the skull with the clothes. HC Manphool Singh (PW-3) testified regarding the despatch of the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory through C. Dharambir Singh (PW-4 ). HC Manphool Singh (PW-3) testified regarding the despatch of the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory through C. Dharambir Singh (PW-4 ). Krishan Kumar (PW-5) gave evidence as regards delivery of the special report to the senior officers including the Area Magistrate on April 11. Sham Chand (PW-6), Mani Ram (PW-7), Maina (PW-8), Apar Singh photographer (PW-9), Lt. Col. Sultan Singh (PW-10), Umed Singh (PW-11), Inspector Karna Singh (PW-12) were other witnesses who appeared on behalf of the prosecution. 10. Ashwani Kumar was examined without oath under Sec.313 cr. P. C. and he denied all the circumstances which had appeared in prosecution evidence against him. He pleaded that he was innocent, he did not have illicit relations with Kamla. He did not take Anup with him from umed Singhs house. He further stated that his wife wanted to get rid of him and falsely implicated him in this case. 11. Learned Additional Sessions came to the conclusion that even if the statements Roshan Lal (PW-1) and Het Ram (PW-2) ( the witnesses who had seen the body and skull on the canal bank in February, 1998) are ignored there was sufficient evidence to establish Ashwani Kumars guilt. The delay in reporting the matter to the police was of no consequence because the relationship of the complainant with Ashwani Kumar was so sensitive that the complainant party wanted to be on firm ground that the accused had actually murdered the boy, therefore, the delay had occurred. The evidence of Maina (PW-8) and Umed Singh (PW-11) was accepted. Furthermore, the confession of guilt by Ashwani before Mani Ram (PW-7)and Lt. Col. Sultan Singh (PW-10) was also accepted. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the prosecution case by first submitting that there was a long delay of nearly two months in the registration of the case, there was absence of motive and confusion regarding the date of arrest. The second line of attack was the weakness in relying upon the so called extra judicial confession, the contradictions in the Maina Devis testimony and the failure of the prosecution to conclusively establish that the skull and the clothes were of the deceased Anup. 13. We shall now proceed to examine the above points one by one. The prosecution case was that Anup had been taken by his father from Bhattu Kalan on February 13. 13. We shall now proceed to examine the above points one by one. The prosecution case was that Anup had been taken by his father from Bhattu Kalan on February 13. Prior to this there had been some misunderstanding between Ashwani Kumar and his wife which was revealed to Umed Singh (PW-11) by Maina Devi (PW-8) when Umed singh visited Karandi. 14. Maini Devi wanted to return with her brother to her parental home at Bhattu Kalan but Ashwani Kumar did not allow her. Therefore, umed Singh brought Anup with him to Bhattu Kalan on January 18. Ashwani Kumar took Maina Devi to Bhattu Kalan in his jeep RJ-80-C-0233 on February 11, and dropped her there. Ashwani Kumar returned to bhattu Kalan after two days on February 13 and took Anup with him. That was the last time when Maina saw her son. 15. From this day onwards until the unravelling of the whole mystery by Lt. Col. Sultan Singh on April 10, the situation was indeed somewhat sensitive. It is obvious that Lt. Col. Sultan Singh, a serving Army officer and who had come to know about Anups disappearance upon return to his village on leave on April 5, 1998, took the lead to discover the truth. Maina Devi was Lt. Col. Sultan Singh brothers daughter and Ashwani kumar was a son-in-law of the family. No one in his right mind would proceed against his son-in-law without concrete and definite evidence. Such was the delicate nature of the relationship. As it is Ashwani Kumar who had abandoned his wife and was not caring for her. The effort on the part of maina Devis family would have been to some how pacify Ashwani Kumar and ensure that Maina Devi returns to her matrimonial home. They may not have started personal investigations if Lt. Col. Sultan Singh had not come home on leave and taken the initiative in this regard. Therefore, the delay which occurred in reporting the matter to the police is not at all a significant factor in this case because the delay was on account of a very piquant situation -- a father was not disclosing the whereabouts of his own son to his wife, the mother of the child. 16. Once Lt. Col. Sultan Singh took the matter under his control things began to move swiftly. 16. Once Lt. Col. Sultan Singh took the matter under his control things began to move swiftly. He went to Karandi with his wife Bimla and nephews Umed Singh and Sheobir to enquire into the whole story. He asked Ashwani Kumar to furnish details and Ashwani Kumar took two days time to explain about Anups whereabouts. Lt. Col. Sultan Singh again returned to Karandi on April 10, with Umed Singh and Sheobir. Ashwani kumar was cornered and confessed his guilt. Ashwani Kumar made this confession in the presence of his father Dhanpat Singh, brothers Partap and goma Ram, brother-in-law Surjeet and also in the presence of Umed Singh and Sheobir. It was on the basis of this confession that the complaint was addressed by Lt. Col. Sultan Singh to Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad and case F. I. R. No.126 dated April 11, 1998 under Sections 302 and 201 i. P. C. was registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan. Thus the delay in this case is not at all an important factor. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no motive for the appellant to murder of infant son. What the learned counsel seems to forget is that some men are governed by passion and when they face obstacles in their way to the fulfillment of their passionate desires then they are capable of doing anything to remove the obstacle. Ashwani kumars main obstacle was his wife Maina Devi but his desire to end the relationship with his wife was so strong that he not only abandoned her at her parents home but also stole from her the boy to whom she had given birth 3 years earlier. Such was the hatred which Ashwani Kumar felt for his wife. He wanted to abandon her and also hurt her more by physically eliminating her son. This was the motive with which the appellant had committed the murder. 18. Learned counsel for appellant had also tried to build up an argument on the basis of the arrest of the appellant. Prosecution evidence was that accused had been arrested on April 14 but this was contradicted by maina Devis statement which was to the effect that Ashwani Kumar had informed her brother and father on April 8 that he had finished the child and that he would furnish some evidence after four days. Prosecution evidence was that accused had been arrested on April 14 but this was contradicted by maina Devis statement which was to the effect that Ashwani Kumar had informed her brother and father on April 8 that he had finished the child and that he would furnish some evidence after four days. On the third day ashwani Kumar was produced before the police by Mani Ram (PW-7 ). She further stated that her statement was recorded by the police after Ashwani kumar was arrested. From this the argument that was built up was that ashwani Kumar was not arrested on April 14 but on April 11. This argument was further sought to be strengthened by the fact that originally the site plan of the place of the occurrence had been prepared on April 12 at the pointing out of Ashwani Kumar accused but later the date was changed from April 12 to April 14. 19. Whether the accused was arrested on April 11, 12 or 14 is not very material in this case because the date of arrest is not crucial. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused nor was the identity of the accused in any doubt. The police would have gained nothing by changing the date of arrest from April 12 to 14 and indeed no advantage has been achieved by the prosecution in the process. Therefore, the argument regarding arrest is insignificant. 20. This is a case in which a lot of pressure was put on the accused by the relatives of his wife to get him to disclose the whereabouts of his son. The accused finally buckled under pressure and confessed. There was really no way out for the accused because he had taken Anup from Bhattu Kalan on February 13 and had no explanation regarding what transpired between that day and the registration of the case. Even at the trial no counter story or explanation was put forward regarding the fate of the young lad. The mother of the boy had said that her son had been taken away by her husband. Witnesses were unanimous that this was so. The husband was not giving any explanation. Therefore, it was the mounting pressure of no less a person than a Colonel of the Indian Army that Ashwani Kumar confessed on sustained interrogation. The mother of the boy had said that her son had been taken away by her husband. Witnesses were unanimous that this was so. The husband was not giving any explanation. Therefore, it was the mounting pressure of no less a person than a Colonel of the Indian Army that Ashwani Kumar confessed on sustained interrogation. At this time no case had been registered against him and there was no police pressure whatsoever on him. It was not as if that the police was closing in on him when he felt compelled to confess. Therefore, ashwani Kumars confession was voluntary and truthful. 21. The sequence of events which led to recording of appellants confession were that, first of all on April 7, Lt. Col. Sultan Singh and his wife Bimla, Umed Singh (PW-11) and Sheobir had met the appellant and asked him to furnish proof of whether Anup was alive or not. The appellant asked for sometime and consequently Lt. Col. Sultan Singh and another returned after 2 days. He had a long conversation with Ashwani Kumar and tape recorded the entire conversation. The transcript of the tape recorded conversation was produced before the Trial Court. It was during this conversation that Ashwani Kumar made the confession. The confession made by accused is not the usual type of confession but is one which was tape recorded, therefore, the exact words used are also available for the courts perusal. However, the Trial Court does not appear to have relied upon the tape recording although the audio cassettes and the transcripts of the conversation were on record. The appellant has, of course, denied that it was his voice. Without going into the technical aspects of admissibility of the tape recorded evidence, suffice it so that there is sufficient evidence of the confession made by the appellant to Lt. Col. Sultan Singh. 22. As regards the skull which was recovered from the banks of karamsana minor alongwith the clothes of the deceased, learned counsel argued that there was no proof that the skull was the son of Ashwani and maina Devi. D. N. A. finger prints could have established this but these techniques were never employed in this case. Col. Sultan Singh. 22. As regards the skull which was recovered from the banks of karamsana minor alongwith the clothes of the deceased, learned counsel argued that there was no proof that the skull was the son of Ashwani and maina Devi. D. N. A. finger prints could have established this but these techniques were never employed in this case. The only evidence led by the prosecution as regards the skull was of the Forensic Science Laboratory, madhuban who had examined the skull morphologically and anatomically to determine its species, origin, sex and age and reported that the skull was of a human skull of a child aged between 3 to 6. The facial features of the skull were absent. Therefore, superimposition techniques could not be carried out. However, the clothes which had been recovered near the skull were identified to be those of deceased boy by his mother. 23. The other argument that was built up was that the recovery memo of skull showed that it was recovered on April 14 but the statement of mhc Manphool Singh (PW-3) was to the effect that case property had been deposited with him on April 12 and it included a parcel containing the skull. This was certainly a serious contradiction in the prosecution evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the police had tried to pad the evidence by planting the skull. 24. The manner in which the whole story of this case had unfolded shows that, in a manner of speaking, the entire investigation had been conducted by Lt. Col. Sultan Singh. The police came into the picture when the case was registered and the accused had to be arrested. Thereafter the investigating Officer started his own investigation to strengthen the case against the accused and in this process they committed several acts of folly. The conclusion regarding the date of recovery of the skull was one such act. The evidence collected by Lt. Col. Sultan Singh who testified as PW-10 at the trial and also the statement of Maina Devi (PW-8) is so strong that whether or not the skull was of the deceased would make no difference. As a matter of fact the case against the appellant is not weakened by the failure to establish that the skull was of the deceased by using the D. N. A. techniques. As a matter of fact the case against the appellant is not weakened by the failure to establish that the skull was of the deceased by using the D. N. A. techniques. Therefore, this crude act of padding would not make a difference in the final outcome of this case. 25. We are convinced that the appellant had murdered his son after picking him up from Bhattu Kalan on February 13, 1998 and then disposed of his dead body. The learned Trial Court had correctly found the appellant guilty. This appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.