Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7-3-2000 of the learned Special Judge (S. C. S. T. Prevention of Atrocities) and additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 86/98 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, information was received by the control Room over telephone through PS Heeranagar that one Ranjeet Singh had informed the said Police Station that in the house bearing No. AH. 37 sukhia, a murder had taken place and accused had been caught and detained. This information was recorded by (PW13) Brajeshmishra, SHO in the General diary at Serial No. 357 (Ex. P/19 -C at 14. 50 hours ). The SHO then proceeded along with (PW 8) Balkishan (Constable) to the house in question. On reaching the house when he went to its first floor, he found that the door was closed from inside. He asked the inmate to open the door and when the door was opened by the appellant from inside, he was inside having a Sword in his hand, his hands were soiled in blood, there was blood on the door, on the double bed deceased jayawati was lying and her body was smudged with blood. (PW 12) Trilochansing @ Lucky then asked the accused as to why he had done so to which the accused replied that whatever he had done was right and that he should be quiet and go away. ( 3. ) SHO Brijesh Mishra (PW 13) persuaded the accused to hand over his Sword and it was laid down on the floor by him. (PW 8) Balkishan was deputed to stand guard. The information was sent to the Control Room and senior Officials of Police were apprised of the incident who arrived at the place of the occurrence. (PW 11) Hukumsingh gave report Ex. P/16 in writing and on the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons were issued for holding inquest and inquest report Ex. P/8 was prepared. (PW 8) Balishan was deputed to take the dead body of Jayawati for postmortem examination. (PW 11) Hukumsingh gave report Ex. P/16 in writing and on the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons were issued for holding inquest and inquest report Ex. P/8 was prepared. (PW 8) Balishan was deputed to take the dead body of Jayawati for postmortem examination. At the instance of Trilochansingh (PW 12), spot map Ex. P/20 was prepared. In the presence of (PW 3) Rajesh Dubey and (PW 4) Nanuram, the Sword was seized from the floor, earing lying near the body of the deceased, the cotton in which the blood was collected, simple cotton, the sheath of the Sword lying behind the door, the blood stained bed sheets and pillow cover were seized vide Ex. P/13. Accused was arrested under Memo Ex. P/6 and he was asked to remove his clothes and his clothes namely Shirt, Jeans, pair of Shoes and the blood removed from his hands were seized vide Ex. P/4. Accused was taken to Police Station heeranagar and offence under Section 302 IPC was registered vide Ex. P/21. Accused was also sent under requisition Ex. P/22 for medical examination. ( 4. ) ON 7-9-97, Assistant Surgeon P. C. Jain (PW 5) performed Autopsy on the body of Jayawati and gave P. M. Report Ex. P/11. As per report Ex. P/11 the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:- (1) Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0. 5 cm transverse oblique in direction (Tr. 06) on upper mid point of abdomen. (9 cm above umbilicus ). (2) Contused abrasion 1. 5 x 0. 4 cm on left hypocondrium region. (3) Contused abrasion 3 x 1 cm on pubic region. (4) Abrasion 1 x 0. 5 cm on pubic region (3 cm below injury No. 3 ). (5) Incised wound - Stab wound internally size 3. 4 cm x 2 cm on the upper point of Abdomen. Vert. Oblique direction (Vt 06)present. 17 cm below the ant. End of axillary fold internally it runs obliquely upwards passes through whole wideness of abdominal wall (Lat side), both walls of stomach (through and through) and makes cut mark on Lt lobe of liver (size of wound is 1. 3 x 0. 4 x 3 cm deep ). The whole abdominal cavity full of blood and very little food particles (semi digested) come out from stomach and present near wounds on stomach. 3 x 0. 4 x 3 cm deep ). The whole abdominal cavity full of blood and very little food particles (semi digested) come out from stomach and present near wounds on stomach. (6) Incised wound - 3 x 2 x 1 cm size on lateral part of Lt inguinal region (Vt. 06 ). (7) Incised wound - chopped size 4 x 2 x 0. 3 cm (ms deep) on Lt middle finger (dorsum aspect and near base Vt. 06 ). (8) Incised would - 4 x 2 x 0. 3 cm (ms. deep) on Lt. Palm near base of thumb and index finger (Vt. 06 ). (9) Incised wound - 2 x 0. 5 x 0. 2 cm (ms deep) on Lt index finger (Tr. 06) mid part and palmer aspect. (10)J[ncised wound 2. 5 x 1 x 0. 3 cm on Lt forearm. Present 8 cm above the wrist joint on antro medial. (11) Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm (upto skull deep) on Lt temporal area of head in sagital (2 cm above the Lt ear pinna and runs posterior. (12) Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0. 5 cm on Lt Buttock (upper and outer quadrant and Vt 06 ). (13) Incised wound 1. 5 x 0. 4 x skin deep present. Buttock (upper and outer Quadrant ). (14) Incised wound 1 x 0. 2 x skin deep (4 cm above ). (15) Incised wound 7 x 3 x 1 cm on Rt forearm present at 5 cm above the wrist joint on postomedia. (16) 4 Incised wound - 4 x 2 cm chopped cut present Rt base of thumb and other three 1 cm x 4 cm type x skin deep on Rt hand of palmer aspect in one plane. (17) Incised wound 5 x 2 x 0. 3 cm (ms. Deep present from Rt angle of mouth and runs laterally. ( 5. ) IN the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, death occurred on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body. ( 6. ) THE clothes removed from the body were sealed and brought to the police Station where they were seized. The Scientific Officer Dr. Sudhir Sharma (PW 10) was requested to inspect the spot who gave his report Ex. P/14. ( 6. ) THE clothes removed from the body were sealed and brought to the police Station where they were seized. The Scientific Officer Dr. Sudhir Sharma (PW 10) was requested to inspect the spot who gave his report Ex. P/14. The seized items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination from where report Ex. P/29 was received. According to the report, the Sword, the bed sheets, the pillow cover, the clothes of accused as also his shoes, the blood collected from his hands, the clothes of the deceased were found stained with blood. The report of Serologist Ex. P-30 further disclosed that there was human blood on the Sword, bed sheet, swab, Salvar, underwear and brassiere, Bed sheet contained blood stains of a group. On the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the accused harboured ill-will towards his step mother and prompted by the said hatred, he committed her murder. After investigation accused was prosecuted. ( 7. ) THE accused denied having committed any offence in his statement under Section 313, he stated that the real culprit had been left out and he had been falsely implicated though he was innocent. He further stated that he had come at 9. 30 with his father from Bhopal and the Police had taken him without disclosing any reason and had administered beating and on 7-9-97 he was produced before the Magistrate and sent to Jail. However, the learned Special judge, on trial, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as hereinabove stated. ( 8. ) LEARNED Sr. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the father of the appellant Machhisingh had contracted a number of marriages and through these wedlocks he had 13 children including the appellant. He was fond of maintaining keeps at various places like sailors and the deceased was his concubine. He further submitted that in the circumstances in which the said murder is alleged to have been committed and the appellant has been stated to have been the perpetrator, there are reasons to believe that it is with a view to screen the offence committed by some one else, possibly his father, that the true story has not come to the surface and he has been punished wrongly. Attention has been invited to Ex. P/14, Spot Inspection Report, prepared by (PW 10) Dr. Attention has been invited to Ex. P/14, Spot Inspection Report, prepared by (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma from Forensic Department in which the initial story of the prosecution indicated that the accused was Machhisingh and he had murdered his wife. Attention has also been drawn to the statement of (D W1) Dr. Ravindra choudhary to prove Ex. D/5, MLC Report of the appellant with regard to his having been examined in the M. Y. Hospital by the said doctor in relation to his injuries to indicate that he was already in the police custody and, therefore, his being in the house where the dead body was found was not possible. Learned Dy. AG has supported the judgment and stated that from the testimony of (PW 13)Brijesh Mishra, there remains no room for speculation about the identity of the accused as the appellant was caught on the spot with the weapon of the offence and also circumstances indicate that he was guilty. ( 9. ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 10. ) THE prosecution, in this case examined, in all, 13 witnesses. (PW 1) Surendra Kaur, (PW 2) Suresh, (PW 3) Rajesh Dubey, (PW 9) Kiran, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. Before adverting to the evidence of the other witnesses, since great stress had been laid by the Sr. Advocate on the testimony of (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma of the Local Forensic laboratory Unit, we first proceed to consider his deposition and the report given by him. Dr. Sudhir Sharma has deposed that on 6-9-97, at 16 hours, he had inspected the spot on being required to do so by the Police. The room in which the incident had taken place measured 16 x 12 feet, the deceased was lying supine wearing a Salvar suit. She had injuries on face caused by sharp weapon. She was wearing ring in her hand and also bangles. She was also wearing a necklace and other ornaments. On the right side of the deceased, there was lot of blood over her head and on left side of her gluteal region she had injuries caused by sharp weapon. The blood stains were noticed on the floor till door. Near the door the sheath of the Sword was lying and the blood stained Sword was also lying. On the right side of the deceased, there was lot of blood over her head and on left side of her gluteal region she had injuries caused by sharp weapon. The blood stains were noticed on the floor till door. Near the door the sheath of the Sword was lying and the blood stained Sword was also lying. The Sword was about two feet long and the blade in the middle measured 2. 5 cm. He has referred to his report Ex. P/14 Learned Counsel has taken us through Ex. P/14, to point out that in the said report Machhisingh has been mentioned as the accused and in describing the incident, it is mentioned that accused had for some reason assaulted his keep with a Sword and himself informed the Police and was found inside the room who had come out in the morning on being so directed by the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination, he has refuted the suggestion that he spoke to anyone except the investigation Officer while he was engaged in the Spot Inspection. ( 11. ) ON the basis of the above admission of (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma, the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel is that once it was clear from the evidence of the prosecution itself that the person who was caught on the spot was not the appellant but his father Machhisingh who had committed murder of his mistress, the case of the prosecution falls inasmuch as according to the prosecution it was the person who was inside the room who committed the murder and that person was Sardar Machhisingh. Learned Counsel submits that even assuming, as the prosecution would contend, that name of Machhisingh was mentioned on account of some confusion, in giving the description of the offence, it is clearly mentioned that the accused had committed murder of his mistress. It is not disputed that the deceased was mistress of Machhisingh and, therefore, the mention of the name Machhisingh is not an out come of any confusion but a result of a prompt enquiry made by this witness from the investigating Officer and the accused has been subsequently roped in with a view to protect Machhisingh for reasons known to the prosecution and its investigating Agency. ( 12. ) THERE is an obvious fallacy in the statement made. ( 12. ) THERE is an obvious fallacy in the statement made. Although in the report P/14 the name of the accused had been mentioned as Machhisingh and it has been stated that he committed murder of his keep, no specific question has been asked by the defence to the effect that name of the appellant was not mentioned by anyone. Apart from saying that he had not spoken to anyone except the Investigating Officer, (PW 10) Sudhir Sharma has not stated as to from what Sources he gathered the information with regard to the name of the assailant and the details of the incident. If this evidence is read in apposition with the evidence of (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra it becomes luculent, that he categorically denies having had any discussion or conversation with Sudhir sharma. He has, on the contrary, stated that Sudhir Sharma received information through Control Room. He had already reached the spot and sudhir Sharma had arrived latter on. However, in the same breath he says that he cannot say that he had any discussion with him. ( 13. ) IF the above evidence of (PW 10) Sudhir Sharma and his report Ex. P/14 is examined in the context of the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra, the picture of the prosecution case becomes clear. We may reiterate that immediately upon receipt of the information which was recorded in Rojnamcha, (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra, Station House Officer, had proceeded towards the spot along with Constable (PW 8) Balkishan. In his testimony (PW 13) has deposed that the information was received in the afternoon and after recording the same in Ex. P/19, he had proceeded with balkishan to the spot and reached there within 2-3 minutes. On enquiry it was learnt that the house belonged to Machhisingh. As he entered the house, in" the first room he found Trilochansingh. Trilochansingh volunteered to take him to the place and took him to the first floor to a room which was locked from inside. He knocked the door and Trilochansingh also called from outside. From inside someone replied that he would open the door only after the arrival of the Police. When he disclosed his identity, after verifying from the hole in the door, door was opened. He saw that the person inside was having a Sword which was blood stained and so were his hands. From inside someone replied that he would open the door only after the arrival of the Police. When he disclosed his identity, after verifying from the hole in the door, door was opened. He saw that the person inside was having a Sword which was blood stained and so were his hands. He pointed out to the place where the dead body was lying and stated that he should be arrested. At that time Trilochansingh asked him, "dara why have you done so". He stated that whatever he did was right and that he should keep quiet and go away. At the instance of this witness, the accused kept his Sword down. He asked his name, he learnt that he was ranjeet Singh, the accused facing the trial. If the evidence of (PW 13) Brijesh mishra is considered vis-a-vis the evidence of (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma, sudhir Sharma has based his information on what he learnt from others while brijesh Mishra has deposed on the basis of what he did and what he found. Under these circumstances, the information of (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma cannot be taken into account unless the source from which he claims to have received it, confirms it. Although (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra does admit that he may have had conversation with Sudhir Sharma, he does not say that he had given the information recorded in Ex. P/14 to Sudhir Sharma. Under these circumstances, the source of the information having not confirmed the information recorded, much credit cannot be given to the recitals in P/14 based on hearsay and to the testimony of (PW 10) Dr. Sudhir Sharma. ( 14. ) THE testimony of (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra is further fortified by that of (PW 11) Hukumsingh and (PW 12) Trilochansingh. (PW 11) Hukumsingh is the son of the deceased aged 17 years. He was a student of Class- XI, he deposed that Ranjeet Singh was his step-brother and his father had 8 sons and 5 daughters. On the fateful day, he had left the house to see a movie. After having told his friend to be ready, he was to come back to the house to collect money and when he came, he found that a car was parked outside in which his sister-in-law and maid servant were sitting. He then over heard Dara and Ranjeet talking over the phone. After having told his friend to be ready, he was to come back to the house to collect money and when he came, he found that a car was parked outside in which his sister-in-law and maid servant were sitting. He then over heard Dara and Ranjeet talking over the phone. He knocked the door stating that he wanted to talk to his mother. Ranjeet Singh had stated that he should go because he wanted to speak to jayawati (deceased ). When he insisted that he wanted to talk to his mother, ranjeet Singh told him that she was in the bath room. He called her from the other side but there was no response and when he complained to Ranjeet Singh, ranjeet Singh shouted back asking him to go as he wanted to speak to her. Sensing that something was wrong he rang up his mother who was at Bhopal. After a short time the Police Inspector and a Constable arrived. Ranjeet Singh opened the door and said that murder had taken place. Ranjeet Singh had a sword in his hand which was blood stained. His hands were also smudged in blood. He was asked by the Police Inspector to drop the Sword which he did. His mother was lying on the bed in blood. He, therefore, gave report Ex. P/16 to the police. On the basis of this report Dehati Nalish Ex. P/17 was recorded. In Ex. P/17 there is a full account of the incident which corroborates the testimony of this witness. (PW 12) Trilochansingh also corroborates the version of (PW 11)Hukumsingh except that he had reached at a stage when Ranjeet Singh had already come out of the room and had been taken into custody. ( 15. ) LEARNED Sr. Advocate has submitted that in the testimony of (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra, SHO, the Court has allowed the statement to come on record to the effect that the accused had said that he had murdered the deceased while such a confessional statement which is outside the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act should not have been taken on record. We do agree with the objection of the learned Counsel. The said statement should be omitted from consideration. We do agree with the objection of the learned Counsel. The said statement should be omitted from consideration. However, it does not, in any way, diminish the effect and impact of the testimony of the witnesses (PW 11) Hukumsingh, (PW 12) Trilochansing and (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra. ( 16. ) THERE is evidence led by the defence. (DW 1) Dr. Ravindra choudhary has been examined by the accused to prove his injury report Ex. D/5. The accused had been examined by Dr. A. Choubey Resident Surgical Officer and Dr. Choubey only identified his signatures. Since the doctor who examined him was not offered for cross-examination, he could not be asked whether the accused was examined at 11. 30 AM or PM. From the arrest memo Ex. P/6 it is seen that, the accused was arrested at 17. 15 hours and it appears that it is on account of some confusion that the time has been mentioned as 11. 30 AM in Ex. P/5. Be that as it may, by proving only the signatures, it cannot be said that it was at 11. 30 AM that the accused was examined. ( 17. ) IN view of the overwhelming evidence of the witnesses to the effect that after the telephonic information was received at the Police Station and the police (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra along with (PW 8) Balkishan had reached the place of the incident, the accused was commanded to open the door and after the door was opened, the accused was found in possession of a Sword which was blood stained, his hands were blood stained and he was the sole occupant in the room in which the deceased was lying on the bed in badly injured condition, as per report Ex. P/29 his trousers, shirt and shoes, P/l, P/2 and P/3 were found blood stained and in the report of the Serologist Ex. P/13, Sword was found stained with human blood. Under these circumstances, there is clinching evidence indicating the complicity of the appellant in commission of the crime. The appellant has offered no explanation whatsoever to show as to how being the only other occupant in the room, he had blood stained Sword having human blood with his hands soiled in blood with the body of the deceased lying on the bed in a badly injured condition in a pool of blood. The appellant has offered no explanation whatsoever to show as to how being the only other occupant in the room, he had blood stained Sword having human blood with his hands soiled in blood with the body of the deceased lying on the bed in a badly injured condition in a pool of blood. All these circumstances clearly point to the guilt of the appellant. Even though the evidence is circumstantial, each circumstance clearly indicates and points to the guilt of the accused and is incompatible with any hypothesis, whatsoever, of his innocence and the circumstances taken together make a complete chain proving that he is guilty. We, therefore, find that his conviction is proper and calls for no interference in this appeal. ( 18. ) WE may here record that learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Bijoy Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar, 2003 supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1093 where the Supreme Court has ruled that if there is delay in forwarding report as required under Section 157 of the Cr. P. C, though the entire prosecution case is not rendered doubtful, it requires the court to be on guard and in case of non-explanation of the delay, Court should be cautious and should minutely examine the prosecution version to ensure that there was no false implication of innocent person. In respectful defence we have examined the prosecution evidence minutely. We find that the evidence of (P. W. 11), (P. W. 12) and (P. W. 13) clearly proves that it was the accused and accused alone who had committed the murder in question. In the present case though there is a delay in receipt of the report under Section 157 by the magistrate having jurisdiction, the delay is not from the prosecution side. The evidence brought by the prosecution is natural and convincing. Nothing has been shown as to why the witnesses, specially (PW 13) Brijesh Mishra, SHO would allow the real culprit to go scot free and pick up the present appellant. The fact that the appellant was found inside the room and he had bolted the door from inside and when the door was opened, he was found with a Sword in his hand which was blood stained and so were his hands are the tell-tale circumstances which show that it was he who committed the murder. ( 19. The fact that the appellant was found inside the room and he had bolted the door from inside and when the door was opened, he was found with a Sword in his hand which was blood stained and so were his hands are the tell-tale circumstances which show that it was he who committed the murder. ( 19. ) THE appeal being sans merit, it is dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed.