KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-4-97 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 232/94, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302, Indian penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.. for four months, has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial is that on 30-3-93, the appellant made a telephone call and asked Dr. Pradip Bahadur Singh (deceased) to have evening dinner together. At about 4. 00 p. m. Dr. Pradip Bahadur Singh met the appellant and both of them came to the house of the appellant on Kinetic Honda scooter of deceased (Dr. Singh) and the appellant took him in a room of his house situated at G-36, M1g Colony, Indore and caused blow by means of an iron dumb-bell. Thereafter the accused/appellant went to Dr. Nikhil Oza in the evening at 7. 00-7. 15 p. m. in M. Y. Hospital, Indore when Dr. Oza was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer (CMO ). The appellant was in drunken state and told him that he had committed murder of Dr. Singh. Dr. Oza noticing the hands of the appellant stained with blood informed the head Constable on duty at the Police Outpost situated at M. Y. Hospital, Indore and directed to take the appellant to the Police station. Head Constable Ramsahai sent intimation to this effect to Police Station sanyogitaganj from where A. S.. AJay Bais accompanted by Head Constable chandrapal Singh reached at M. Y. Hospital and found the appellant sitting in the chair in from of Dr. Nikhil Oza, Dr. Oza pointing at the appellant said that according to the appellant he had committed murder of dr. Singh in M.. G. Colony and thereafter has come here. At that time Dr. Gangwal and sweeper Shekhar etc. were also present in whose presence the appellant also disclosed that he has committed murder of Dr. Pradip Bahadur Singh and his dead body was lying in his room. Thereafter, the Assistant Sub inspector Ajay Bais took the appellant to Police Station MIG wherefrom he also took ASI Tiwar. At that time Dr. Gangwal and sweeper Shekhar etc. were also present in whose presence the appellant also disclosed that he has committed murder of Dr. Pradip Bahadur Singh and his dead body was lying in his room. Thereafter, the Assistant Sub inspector Ajay Bais took the appellant to Police Station MIG wherefrom he also took ASI Tiwar. Govindsingh and witnesses Arjunsingh and Jitu and reached to the house of the appellant at G/36, M.. G. Colony where the appellant showed the dead body of the deceased Pradip Bahadur Singh. He also told that he had committed the murder of Dr. Singh by means of a dumbbell because the deceased was defaming him (the appellant) without any reason or rhyme. The Sub-Inspector deputed Head Constable govindsingh on the spot in the room of the appellant and came to the Police Station. Sub-Inspectof Ajay Bais lodged the FIR (Ex. P/17) to this effect which was registered as crime No. 1786/93 for the offence punishable under Section 302,. P. C. recorded by pw-19 Town Inspector (Station House Officer) Shri girish Kumar Subedar. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by dr. R. K. Singh (PW-12) who gave the postmortem report Ex. P/16. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the serologist and their reports are ex. P/22 and P/23 respectively.. O. Shri girish Kumar also prepared the spot map ex. P/18. On completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE appellant/accused abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and adduced 23 documents while the accused examined two witnesses in his defence and adduced four documents. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of confession is not admissible, because the same was made before the Police and no Panchanama was prepared by the police regarding pointing out of the dead body by the accused/appellant in his room. A boy informed PW-13 constable Nathuram on duty at. P. S. MIG that in House No. G-36 MIG a dead body was lying and the FIR was reduced into writing after seeing the dead body by the Police by Head Constable PW-14 Chandrapal singh. Thereafter, memo of recovery of the body was prepared. A boy informed PW-13 constable Nathuram on duty at. P. S. MIG that in House No. G-36 MIG a dead body was lying and the FIR was reduced into writing after seeing the dead body by the Police by Head Constable PW-14 Chandrapal singh. Thereafter, memo of recovery of the body was prepared. Learned counsel also submitted that the police had not recorded the statement of PW-18 Dr. Nikhil Oza as per provisions under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') and the statement was directly recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. The police had also not recorded the statement of the appellant about discovery of the fact as per provision under Section 27 of the Evidence act. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body was lying, in the room in possession of the appellant and the same was recovered at his instance. Learned counsel place reliance on the Supreme Court judgment on the legal proposition on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession rendered in the case of shankarlal v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1981 SC 765 ) : (1981 Cri LJ 325) and haramba v. State of Assam ( AIR 1982 SC 1595 ) : (1983 Cri LJ 149 ). ( 5 ) IN oppugnation, the learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai has supported the impugned judgment and finding of the learned trial Court and referred to para 24 in which the learned trial Court considered the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession made before Dr. Nikhil Oza (PW-18), the evidence of last seen, finding of the dead body of the deceased inside the room of the appellant and the law on appreciation of evidence of relative of the deceased as well as how much weight can be attached to the evidence of police witnesses, ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, we do not find any deficiency in the impugned judgment in which the learned trial court has elaborately discussed and appreciated the evidence adduced by both the parties and the law regarding circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession. ( 7 ) THE statement of PW-18 Dr. ( 7 ) THE statement of PW-18 Dr. Nikhil Oza before whom the appellant made extra judicial confession immediately after the incident, is that he was knowing the appellant as well as the deceased Dr. Singh. He was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer (CMO) from 2. 00 p. m. (noon) to 9. 00 p. m. on 13-3-1993. In the evening at about 6. 45 p. m. , he was busy in checking of the patients. At that time, the appellant reached on a scooter in front of the room of CMO on duty and after alighting from the scooter sat in front of this witness. He was in an inebriated state and the smell of alcohol was coming from his mouth and his hands were stained with blood. He disclosed before him that "today because of some circumstances he committed murder of some body and came to him to surrender before him". This witness pw-18 Dr. Oza asked as to whom he had killed? he replied that he was coming after committing murder of Dr. P. B. Singh. On the basis of this statement of the appellant Dr. Nikhil Oza sent intimation through ward boy shekhar to the Police Outpost situated in myh campus itself and the police on duty took the appellant Dr. Sav. He also deposed that his statement was recorded in the magistrate's Court in which he had disclosed the abovementioned facts. In cross-examination, the say of this witness is that the police had not recorded his statement and he gave the statement before the Magistrate for the first time. On the prayer of the learned defence counsel, sealed envelope was opened by the learned trial Court wherein the statement of this witness Dr. Nikhil Oza and other two witnesses, namely, dr. R. Gangwal PW-16 and PW-3 ward boy shekhar were found. In para 6, he has denied about recording of his statement by the police in which there is omission of coming of Dr. Sav (the appellant) on scooter and sitting in a chair. In para 7 the say of his witness is that the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh was Resident Surgical Officer (RSO) and was doing his Post Graduation. He was senior to him. The appellant was also senior to him. Sav (the appellant) on scooter and sitting in a chair. In para 7 the say of his witness is that the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh was Resident Surgical Officer (RSO) and was doing his Post Graduation. He was senior to him. The appellant was also senior to him. On the date of disclosure about the incident before him by the appellant, he was not having intimacy with the appellant, but was having normal relations as he was having with other doctors and he was not on such a post because of which he could help the appellant. In para 10, this witness Dr. Nikhil oza (PW-18) has denied the defence suggestion that he was having normal relations with the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh and the appellant did not come and disclose anything to him. He also emphatically denied that he was having family relations with Dr. P. B. Singh and because of which he gave false statement. ( 8 ) ON visualization of the statement of pw-18 Dr. Oza, we find a ring of truth. In cross-examination, there is absolutely nothing which may fragile his statement. Merely because his statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code before the Magistrate, would not automatically dilute the worth of evidence of this witness as well as pw-16 Dr. R. Gangwal. We are reminded the law on this point in the case of Ramesh singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( (2004) 11 SCC 305 ) : (2004 Cri LJ 3354) wherein after considering the earlier leading judgments on this point, it is held that "the evidence of witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Magistrate, by itself would not discredit the said evidence. It is only that the evidence of such witnesses must be considered with caution and if there are other circumstances on record which might support the truth of evidence of such witnesses, it can be acted upon. " In this case, though the statements of three witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the same have been accepted for basing the conviction. (Also see : N. Somashekar v. State of Karnataka ( (2004) 11 SCC 334 ) : ( AIR 2005 SC 1510 ). " In this case, though the statements of three witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the same have been accepted for basing the conviction. (Also see : N. Somashekar v. State of Karnataka ( (2004) 11 SCC 334 ) : ( AIR 2005 SC 1510 ). ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid legal position, on test, we do not find any infirmity to discard the testimony of Dr. Nikhil Oza PW-18 who is an independent witness and no omission, contradictions or improvements have been brought on record by the defence counsel in his court-statement with the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code. ( 10 ) THE appearance of the appellant immediately after the incident before Dr. Oza and disclosure about commission of murder of the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh is fully admissible in evidence as extra-judicial confession. At that time no police personnel was present. Police was called by Dr. Oza after disclosure by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel that the evidence of extra judicial confession is not admissible, because the same was made before the police. ( 11 ) THE statement of PW-18 Dr. Nikhil oza finds support from the statement/evidence of PW-21 Smt. Pushpa Singh, wife of the deceased who deposed that the deceased was doing his M. S. Course in M. Y. Hospital. She knew the appellant Dr. N. V. Sav and also identified him in Court. On the date of incident, at 3. 00 p. m. , the appellant's phone was received by her wherein he had expressed desire to talk with her husband she gave the receiver of the telephone to her husband who talked with the appellant and thereafter told her that the appellant has invited him. Her husband declined, but the appellant told him that he was coming to him and they will take food together in the evening. Thereafter at about 4. 00 p. m. the appellant Dr. Sav came to their house and asked her husband to come with him. The further say of this witness is that in spite of much disinclination and refusal, the appellant pursued him and took her husband with him. In the night at 8. Thereafter at about 4. 00 p. m. the appellant Dr. Sav came to their house and asked her husband to come with him. The further say of this witness is that in spite of much disinclination and refusal, the appellant pursued him and took her husband with him. In the night at 8. 00 p. m. , she received a telephone call that the appellant had committed murder of her husband by assaulting with a dumb-bell. This witness has further deposed that the deceased had told her that the appellant was jealous with him, because some days prior to the date of incident, there was a news published in the newspaper that the appellant Dr. Sav misbehaved with a woman in Burn Unit and he was having doubt on her husband-the deceased for spreading this incident. In cross-examination, omission was put to her about the news in the newspaper against the appellant and having doubt for that news on her husband, but the same is not mentioned in her police statement Ex. D/3. According to her she mentioned this fact to the police. In cross-examination para 5, she admitted that her husband was having friendship with the appellant and appellant also Insisted for co-operation in preparing the Thesis, but after submission of Thesis on 17th and 18th march, 1993, the incident of Burn Unit did take place. In cross-examination she stood firm on the important and material circumstance that Dr. Sav came to their house and took the deceased with him. Therefore, the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and thereafter he was found dead inside his room. The aforesaid omission is not of such nature which may cause dent to evidence. ( 12 ) THE landlord of the tenanted premises/room of the appellant PW-20 Manmal kothari has deposed that the appellant was tenant in a room situated at the backside of the house owned by this witness at G-36 mig Indore. He was paying Rs. 400/- per month as rent and there was 11 months' agreement between them. The appellant resided in that room as a tenant for one or two months after 31st March. The further say of this witness is that as a neighbour, only the appellant was residing in a room and except the appellant, he had no other tenant in his house. The appellant resided in that room as a tenant for one or two months after 31st March. The further say of this witness is that as a neighbour, only the appellant was residing in a room and except the appellant, he had no other tenant in his house. On the date of incident he was on tour and when he returned back, he came to know about commission of murder of his friend by the appellant. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not issuing any rent-receipt and was receiving cash amount of rent. This witness has proved the rent-agreement vide Ex. P/21 executed by the appellant and on both the pages at portion marked A to A, he proved the signatures of the appellant Dr. Sav. This agreement was seized through memo Ex. P/13 by the police. He also proved his signature at portion marked B to B on the seizure memo. He, in his cross-examination also proved the signature of the witness rehman at portion B to B on the rent agreement. He denied the defence suggestion that he got the forged signature at B to B portion and also created forged rent-deed. We have carefully gone through the statement of this witness and find no reason as to why he would prepare forged rent-agreement in the name of the appellant. On perusal of this document, it is clearly established that the appellant was in possession of the room wherein the dead body of the deceased was found. This is the third strong circumstance against the appellant. ( 13 ) HAVING given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was before the police, therefore the same is not admissible. Learned trial Court has not considered the confessional statement given by the appellant before the police. There is no two opinions that confession made by the accused before the police is not admissible in evidence (See : Section 25 of the Evidence Act), but, in the instant case, the appellant made extra-judicial confession before Dr. Nikhil Oza (PW 18), when Dr. Oza was on duty in the evening. We have discussed the evidence of Dr. Oza (PW 18) in the foregoing paragraphs and we do not find any material to discard the statement of this witness. Nikhil Oza (PW 18), when Dr. Oza was on duty in the evening. We have discussed the evidence of Dr. Oza (PW 18) in the foregoing paragraphs and we do not find any material to discard the statement of this witness. So far as non-recording of statement by the police under Section 161 of the Code, the same would not attach vulnerability to the statement of Dr. Nikhil Oza (PW 18) given in the Court and prior to that his statement was also got recorded under Section 164 of the Code. Dr. Oza, after the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before him, sent intimation to the police outpost and police took the appellant from his Ward. The substantive evidence would be the evidence given in Court. Under Section 161, sub-section (1) of the Code, the police has power to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and under subsection (3) the police may reduce the statement into writing. Dr. Oza belonged to a respectable profession. There is no evidence available on record direct or circumstantial to say that he had an axe to grind against the appellant. On going through his entire statement, we find that Dr. Oza has given every honest statement. Immediately after extra-judicial confession made by the appellant Dr. Oza sent intimation to the police and the appellant may not be having very close intimacy with him, but both were very well known to each other belonging to the same profession and working in the same hospital. Therefore, it could not be considered as surprise, making of extra-judicial confession of murder of deceased Dr. P. B. Singh by hitting a dumb-bell on his head. The extra-judicial confession finds sufficient support from the medical evidence of Autopsy Surgeon dr. R. K. Singh (PW 12) who proved the postmortem examination report ex. P/16. On external examination, this witness found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- contused lacerated wound present on left ear region across it, transversely middle part with laceration on 5. 5 x 1. 5 cm x bone deep. It is broader posteriorly. Contusion present on 9 x 6. 5 cms, area transverse, The lacerated wound marginal tissues show comparison effect and driven in towards right side. Depression effect present on left tempero parietal region towards right side. 5 x 1. 5 cm x bone deep. It is broader posteriorly. Contusion present on 9 x 6. 5 cms, area transverse, The lacerated wound marginal tissues show comparison effect and driven in towards right side. Depression effect present on left tempero parietal region towards right side. There is a depressed fracture present on left tempero parietal bone vault in 11 cm. x 6. 5 cm. sagital area just beneath lacerated wound just above and across mastoid. Bones are in pieces with multiple fragmentation on posterior half part. Bone pieces are displaced medially forward right side. Meninges are torn and contused. Brain matter beneath it is lacerated in posterior half part in area 4 x 1 cm x 0. 5 cm and contused. Scalp shows Echymosis against injury localised. Sub-dural and extra-dural haemorrhage present on right side. Stomach contains yellowish pasty matter about 200 grams, rice, pulse pieces. Small intestine : smell present, mucose congested. Large intestine contains some digested food, healthy. Liver congested, healthy. Kidney congested, healthy. Pleura congested, healthy. Muscles and Bones : temporalis muscle is ecchymosed. Left temporal muscle is ecchymosed externally while right temporalis muscle on internal aspect ecchymosed. The fracture on vault of skull is under at mastoid region gaping 0. 8 cms. Then it has extended into base of skull going towards pituitory fossa. From fossa this fracture is tripurcate. 1. One going to right anterior cranial fossa radiating - further 5 cm. long. 2. One going to right lessen wing of splenial middle part 3. 5 cm. by radiating type. 3. One going to right middle cranial fossa up to lateral end of petros part of temporal bone 11 cm. long radiating type. These fractures are radiating type, becoming gradually narrowed, tapered, towards right side, wider on left side. Base of skull is having about 150 cc of blood, some of which is clotted. The injury is fresh, showing red colour. Ecchymosis caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours prior to death. The injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Larynx and trachea :- Contains mild fluid, rest healthy. Lungs : Healthy, congested. Heart : Both sides contain blood quite amount, rest healthy, Part of blood clotted. Ribs, Cartilages : Healthy. Abdominal wall Healthy. Remaining parts were healthy. The injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Larynx and trachea :- Contains mild fluid, rest healthy. Lungs : Healthy, congested. Heart : Both sides contain blood quite amount, rest healthy, Part of blood clotted. Ribs, Cartilages : Healthy. Abdominal wall Healthy. Remaining parts were healthy. ( 14 ) IN the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the death was due to cardlo-respiratory failure as a result of head injury. Duration of death was within 24 hours since the time of postmortem examination on 31-3-93 at 11. 00 a. m. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to Dr. R. K. Singh, the dumb-bell seized from the room of the appellant was sent to him and on examination, he opined that the injury found on the person of the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh could be caused by this dumb-bell. He proved his report in this regard Ex. P/17-A. There is absolutely nothing in cross-examination of this witness which could cause any dent to expert evidence. ( 16 ) PW-1 Arjunsingh is a witness for preparation of memo and seizure. PW-3 shankar ward boy is the witness of extra-judicial confession. PW-6 Rupchand. PW-7 sajan, PW 8 Kailash and PW 9 Ganpat are the witnesses for seizure, inquest and composition of news and they have turned hostile. Though these witnesses have accepted their signatures on the concerned document and also confronted with the documents as well as their case-diary statements, but their statements are of no use either for the prosecution or for the defence. ( 17 ) PW-15 Head Constable Ramsahay has deposed that on 30-3-1993, he was posted in the outpost at M. Y. Hospital. Indore. In the evening at about 8. 00 p. m. ward boy called him and on is reaching, the ward boy told that the appellant is saying something. Thereafter, the appellant disclosed that he has committed murder of Dr. Singh. He also asked for calling the police on which, this witness Head Constable (Ramsahay) sent telephonic message to the main Police Station Sanyogitaganj from where Sub-Inspector Bais came to the hospital and before him, the appellant also confessed his guilt. His hands were stained with blood and he also disclosed commission of murder in his room. The appellant was taken by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Bais, Head constable Chandra Shekhar (PW 3) ward boy in an ambulance to M.. His hands were stained with blood and he also disclosed commission of murder in his room. The appellant was taken by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Bais, Head constable Chandra Shekhar (PW 3) ward boy in an ambulance to M.. G. Police Station in whose jurisdiction place of incident was situated. The statement of this Constable would not be admissible for confessional statement made by the appellant before him, but his statement would be relevant with regard to his reaching to the hospital and finding the appellant with blood stained hands and disclosure of the place of incident. ( 18 ) PW-16 Dr. R. Gangwal was also on duty in M. Y. Hospital, Indore on the date of incident from 2. 00 p. m. to 9. 00 p. m. and according to this witness, when he reached in the ward, Dr. Nikhil Oza (PW 18) informed him about arrival of the appellant enebriated condition and the appellant confessed about commission of murder of Dr. Singh. In our considered view, the statement of this witness Dr. R. Gangwal would not be admissible in evidence, because Dr. Oza has nowhere stated that he disclosed all the events as stated by him, to him. ( 19 ) PW-17 Shriniwas Tiwari A. S.. of P. S. , M.. G. Indore has testified that on 30-3-93, he was posted in M.. G. Police Station. On the same night at about 8. 00 p. m. . Inspector Bais, ward boy Shekhar and Head constable Ramsahay brought the appellant at the Police Station and they told him that the appellant was saying that he had committed murder of Dr. Singh. Thereafter he went with all these persons including the appellant to the place of incident. The room of Dr. Sav was located at the back portion of house No. G-36 MIG Colony, Indore and inside the room, the dead body of Dr. P. B. Singh was lying. Thereafter, this witness deputed Head Constable Govindsingh (PW-4) and returned back to the Police Station where the Town Inspector PW-19 Shri Girish subedar recorded the FIR Ex. P/17 at the instance of Sub-Inspector Ajay Singh Bais. This witness has also stated that he recorded the statement of Dr. Oza, ward boy Shekhar, dr. Gangwal and Bablu. But Dr. Oza denied recording of his statement by the police. As discussed above, this contradiction will not corrode the prosecution case, because ultimately dr. P/17 at the instance of Sub-Inspector Ajay Singh Bais. This witness has also stated that he recorded the statement of Dr. Oza, ward boy Shekhar, dr. Gangwal and Bablu. But Dr. Oza denied recording of his statement by the police. As discussed above, this contradiction will not corrode the prosecution case, because ultimately dr. Oza has given substantive evidence in the Court and supported the version of police witnesses of outpost of M. Y. Hospital, Police Station Sanyogitaganj, indore as well as M.. G. By giving admissible substantive evidence in the Court and prior to that he had also given the statement before the Magistrate. In cross-examination of this witness, he further stated that he recorded the statement of the owner/landlord of the house and he denied the defence suggestion regarding confessional statement made by the appellant. On visualizing the testimony of this witness, we find that confessional statement would not be admissible, but his going to the place of incident to the room of the appellant along with the landlord and other persons and finding the dead body of Dr. Singh would be admissible in evidence. ( 20 ) PW-19 Girish Kumar Subedar, Station House Officer of Police Station MIG indore has proved recording of the First Information Report Ex. P/17 at the instance of ASI Shri Bais. Thereafter, he reached on the spot and prepared the spot map at the instance of Ajay Singh Bais which is Ex. P/18. Thereafter he prepared the inquest report of the dead body Ex. P/2 in presence of the Panch-witnesses. He also proved the inquest report in the Court. He sent the dead body of Dr. Singh through request letter Ex. P/19 and thereafter, received the Postmortem Report Ex. P/16. The appellant was arrested the same day. e. 30-3-1993 vide arrest memo Ex. P/5 and on disclosure statement by the appellant vide Ex. P/6, he effected seizure of dumb-bell, one Sandozbaniyan, one printed lungi having blood stains through seizure memo Ex. P/7. He also collected blood from the place of incident available on the wall, one pant, a quilt- stained with blood, one empty quarter, one cup and one bowl (katori) a packet of cigarette, a match-box, salty-chips, one pair of shoes through seizure memo Ex. P/4. He also recorded the memorandum-statement of the appellant Ex. P/7. He also collected blood from the place of incident available on the wall, one pant, a quilt- stained with blood, one empty quarter, one cup and one bowl (katori) a packet of cigarette, a match-box, salty-chips, one pair of shoes through seizure memo Ex. P/4. He also recorded the memorandum-statement of the appellant Ex. P/11 and in pursuance thereof seized one Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing Registration No. MIE-786 vide seizure memo Ex. P/10. He also found blood on the handle of the scooter. He effected seizure of rubber handle cover with blood vide seizure memo Ex. P/20 and sent all the seized articles including the sealed packet received from M. Y. Hospital, containing viscera, bed-sheet and clothes of the deceased to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, indore and on 26-5-93 and 31-5-93 S. P. Office received reports from the laboratory. He denied the defence suggestion that he did not record any report and received information and no disclosure statement was made to him by the appellant. This witness also seized the rent-agreement Ex. P/21 from witness Manmal Kothari (PW 20) through seizure memo Ex. P/13 and proved the Forensic Science Laboratory report and serologist's Report Ex. P/22 and P/23 respectively. He denied the defence suggestion about false creation of rent agreement and seizure thereof. Though the Panch-witnesses have not supported the memorandum statement and seizure at the instance of the appellant, but we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Investigating Officer Shri girish Kumar Subedar (PW19 ). To this effect, he proved all the documents. There is no evidence available on record to establish that this witness Girish kumar Subedar and other police officials, as discussed hereinabove were having any kind of ill-will with the appellant or personal interest in the death of Dr. P. B. Singh. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Shankarlal (1981 Cri LJ 325) (supra ). In this judgment, the Supreme court has enunciated the law regarding circumstantial evidence and observed that (para 31) :- "in a case' of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In this judgment, the Supreme court has enunciated the law regarding circumstantial evidence and observed that (para 31) :- "in a case' of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is not to be expected that in every case depending on circumstantial evidence, the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence should be set out in the judgment. Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment. The simple expectation is that the judgment must show that the finding of guilt, if any has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. " ( 22 ) IN the instant case the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Dr. Oza is conclusively proved and its intrinsic value is not reduced even after detailed and piercing cross-examination. The Supreme Court, in the case of darshanlal v. State of J. and K. ( AIR 1975 SC 898 ) : (1975 Cri LJ 774) maintained the conviction of the appellant Darshanlal only on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the wife's uncle and in case of Magharsingh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1975 SC 1320 ) : (1975 Cri LJ 1102) relying on AIR 1954 SC 322 , held that (para 5) :-- "the evidence furnished by the extra judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. " ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment pronounced in the case of herambarahma (1983 Cri LJ 149) (supra ). " ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment pronounced in the case of herambarahma (1983 Cri LJ 149) (supra ). In this judgment the Supreme Court, relying on the observation made in the earlier judgment in the case of Rahim Beg v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1973 SC 343 ) : (1972 Cri LJ 1260), wherein it is said that the evidence of extra-judicial confession has to pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. In the case of Heramba (ibid) there was absolutely no evidence of previous association or acquaintance between the witness and the accused and there was no corroboration to the evidence of extra-judicial confession by independent material particulars. Applying the test as pointed out in the case of herembarahma or Rahim Beg the case at hand stands on much better footing. The appellant, immediately after the incident. reached in the hospital where he was posted and disclosed about the commission of murder of deceased Dr. P. B. Singh who was also posted in the same hospital. The witness Dr. Nikhil Oza was also posted there. They all were having previous association and also association on the date of instant incident. The motive for confession would be a matter of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence. In the instant case, the appellant is a literate person and after commission of crime, must have felt that he could not escape from the clutches of law and thought it better to surrender immediately to law through known and acquainted person and the best person could be his associate. e. Dr. Nikhil Oza who was posted as Casualty Medical Officer in M. Y. Hospital, Indore. It is also the matter of spontaneous psychological effect in the mind of the culprit. It is not necessary that each and every culprit after commission of offence would react in the same fashion, it depends upon person to person. On the basis of the available evidence. It is also the matter of spontaneous psychological effect in the mind of the culprit. It is not necessary that each and every culprit after commission of offence would react in the same fashion, it depends upon person to person. On the basis of the available evidence. e. the appellant and deceased were well known to each other and were also having good terms, but after the news reporting the appellant was thinking that the deceased had played some role because of which he had grievance in his mind and he took him from his house in the presence of wife of the deceased namely, PW 21 smt. Pushpa Singh. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found inside the room of the appellant. His exclusive possession over the room where the dead body of dr. P. B. Singh was found, is fully proved on the basis of the evidence discussed herein- above and after causing injury to the deceased by dumb-bell he reached to the M. Y. Hospital, confessed before Dr. Nikhil Oza and thereafter, submitted himself to the police. He was arrested the same day, the dead body was also found inside his room immediately after his disclosure and there was absolutely no time for concocting and fabricating the evidence by the police. So far as the use of exact words is concerned, no question was put to Dr. Oza as to what exact words were used by the appellant before him and he was not at all confronted with his statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure. This shows that his statement in the Court was completely in line with the statement under Section 164 of the Code and the same can be used for the purposes of corroboration. The leading judgment on this issue is the judgment rendered by the supreme Court in the case of Shiv Bahadur singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh ( AIR 1954 SC 322 ), in which their Lordships of the supreme Court based the conviction of the accused on extra-judicial confession made by him before two independent witnesses. In the instant case, extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before his colleague dr. Oza and it was voluntary. There was another witness also. e. ward boy shekhar, but this witness turned hostile. Dr. In the instant case, extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before his colleague dr. Oza and it was voluntary. There was another witness also. e. ward boy shekhar, but this witness turned hostile. Dr. Oza immediately sent intimation to the Police Out Post situated in camp is of M. Y. Hospital, itself and thereafter within no time police machinery moved into the matter as discussed hereinabove. ( 24 ) IN Forensic Science Laboratory Report Ex. P/22, blood was found on the earth (Article A), quilt (rajai), shawl, lungi-seized from the spot (room of the appellant) (Articles C-1, C-2 and C-3), iron dumb-bell (Article E) seized from the appellant, baniyan and lungi (Articles F-1 and F-2 respectively) of the appellant and the articles found in sealed packet sent by the hospital to the police containing pant, shirt, underwear, baniyan and chadar (Article H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and H-5) were also having blood. These articles were sent to the Serologist and in the Serologist's report Ex. P/23, human blood was found on all these articles except article 1 which disintegrated. On Article 3 shawl C-2 which must be containing the blood of the deceased as shawl seized from, the spot. e. room of the appellant and chadar from the hospital. The Article 6 baniyan (F-1) is of the appellant. Some blood of 'b' Group was found on baniyan of the appellant and the appellant failed to give any explanation of this. ( 25 ) IN the case of Maghar Singh (1975 Cri LJ 1102) (supra), on the clothes seized from the appellant, human blood was found. Human blood was also found on the weapon of offence recovered at the instance of the appellant and these circumstances were found sufficient to lend assurance to the evidence of extra-judicial confession. In the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has stated that he was falsely implicated and the witnesses were speaking against him at the instance of the police. But, there is absolutely no material on record that as to why the police would cook up a false case against the appellant. ( 26 ) THE appellant examined two witnesses in defence namely, DW-1 Jairam kulkarni (DW-1), store-keeper in Surgery department M. Y. Hospital, Indore. He brought the Thesis submitted by the deceased Dr. But, there is absolutely no material on record that as to why the police would cook up a false case against the appellant. ( 26 ) THE appellant examined two witnesses in defence namely, DW-1 Jairam kulkarni (DW-1), store-keeper in Surgery department M. Y. Hospital, Indore. He brought the Thesis submitted by the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh in the Surgery Department in the month of March, 1993. The head of the Department of Surgery was Dr. L. S. Sharma (DW-2), Dr. L. S. Sharma has testified that the deceased Dr. P. B. Singh submitted the Thesis on 18-3-93 and he expressed his gratitude for his help to appellant Dr. Navin Sav. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had good relation with all students. He expressed his ignorance about any strained relations between the appellant and the deceased developed after submission of the Thesis. The defence examined both the witnesses to establish that the appellant had no motive for commission of murder of the deceased. But looking to the statement of the wife of the deceased PW-21 Smt. Pushpa Singh after submission of the Thesis, there was news in the newspaper against the appellant with regard to misbehaviour by him with some woman in Burn Unit of the hospital and the appellant was thinking that the deceased was spreading those news. ( 27 ) APART from this, some time in some cases it is difficult to find out the motive which remained locked inside the mind and heart of the culprit. The Supreme Court considered and explained, this situation in the case based on circumstantial evidence. In ranga Nayaki v. State ( (2004) 12 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2005 SC 418 ) (para 10) and held as under :- "motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undis- coverable. Lord Chief Justice Campbell struck a note of caution in Red v. Palmer, thus - "but if there be any motive which can be assigned. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undis- coverable. Lord Chief Justice Campbell struck a note of caution in Red v. Palmer, thus - "but if there be any motive which can be assigned. I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small; pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties". Though, it is a sound presumption that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailants. In Atley v. State of u. P. ( AIR 1955 SC 807 : 1955 Cri LJ 1633), it was held : (AIR SC p. 810, para 6) -"that is true and where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty, but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. ". In some cases it may be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases inference from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. There may also be cases in which it is not possible to disinter the mental transaction of the accused which would have impelled him to act. No proof can be expected in all cases as to how the mind of the accused worked in a particular situation. Sometimes it may appear that the motive established is a weak one. That by itself is insufficient to lead to an inference adverse to the prosecution. Absence of motive, even if it is accepted, does not come to the aid of the accused. Sometimes it may appear that the motive established is a weak one. That by itself is insufficient to lead to an inference adverse to the prosecution. Absence of motive, even if it is accepted, does not come to the aid of the accused. " ( 28 ) EX-CONSEQUENTI, on the basis of the aforesaid conspectus of the case, we fully concur with the judgment and finding of the trial Court and are of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant on the basis of the evidence discussed hereinabove. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. Through his counsel, he is directed to surrender to his bail bonds before the trial Court on 13-2-2007 and the trial Court is directed to remand the appellant to jail for serving out the remainder part of his jail sentence. On failure to comply with the direction as aforesaid, the trial Court shall take appropriate legal action against the appellant and his surety, under intimation to this Court. Appeal dismissed. .