JUDGMENT 1.This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.6.2000, passed by Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi, then learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 185/98, State v. Ram Charan, (Case Crime No. 207/98) of P.S. Ata, district Jalaun. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.8.1998 at 4.45 a.m. Sri Gokul Prasad resident of village Ukasa, P. S. Ata lodged the F.I.R. at P. S. Ata district Jalaun with these allegations that in the previous night his son Arvind Kumar had gone from his house at about 8 p.m. to purchase gutkha. He did not return back and Gokul Prasad was under an impression that he might have stayed with any one of his friends. At about 3 a.m. he noticed some commotion (halchal) and so he had some suspicion and then he took Ram Kishun and Babu Ram with him and went to back side of the house of accused Ram Charan. He heard some sound coming from the back door, then he peeped inside the house and noticed that there was a dead body in a bag and there was fresh blood inside the house and accused Ram Charan was having an axe in his hand. Then Gokul Prasad shouted and moved towards the door, but in meantime accused Ram Charan and his companions who had committed the murder of Arvind Kumar ran away. He had suspicion that Moti Lal, Pyare Lal, Phool Singh and Ram Sewak also had their hands in this incident. This incident had taken place in between 10 p.m. to 2.30 a.m. in the night of 16/17.8.1998. Thereafter, he got the F.I.R. of this incident written by Ram Autar and went to the police station Ata where he lodged the report. 3. On the basis of the above report, the police registered Case Crime No. 207/98, u/s 302, I.P.C. against the above accused persons and started investigation. Inquest report of the dead body of Arvind Kumar was prepared and then the dead body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem of the dead body of Arvind Kumar was performed on 18.8.1998 at 2 p.m, and in the opinion of the Doctor the death had taken place 1 1/2-2 days ago. He had found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Arvind Kumar: 1. I.W. 5 x 1 cm. Post mortem of the dead body of Arvind Kumar was performed on 18.8.1998 at 2 p.m, and in the opinion of the Doctor the death had taken place 1 1/2-2 days ago. He had found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Arvind Kumar: 1. I.W. 5 x 1 cm. at right ear lower at right side of face cutting lower part of ear lobule alongwith part of mandible and mastoid bone margins clean cut. 2. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. x 2 cm. lateral to Rt. mouth angle. Tailing towards mouth. Margins clean cut. 3. I.W. 3 x 2 cm. at right side of lower lip underlying bone fracture (mandible) teeth missing .. (P.T.) Tailing Rt. side margins clean cut. 4. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. and 2 x 1 cm. at Rt. side of chin and mid part chin 2 x 1 cm. margins clean cut. 5. I.W. 8 x 1 cm. .. (P.T.) front of neck transversely 1/2 cm. above supra sternal notch-trachea, oesophagus, great vessels and corresponding muscle of .. (P.T.) side of front of neck cut through and through. 6. I.W. ..(P.T.) cm. transverse and back of skull at occipital region cavity deep .. (P.T.) lying bone fractured. 7. I.W. 1 x 1/2 cm. x 0.3 cm. front of Prague at left side of face. 8. I.W. 10 x 3 cm. .. (P.T.) at left side of skull vertically placed lower end 3 cm. above left ear underlying bone fracture .. (P.T.) brain matter coming out margins clean cut. 9. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. below medial end of .. (P.T.) towards Rt. Margins clean cut. 10. I.W. 2 x 1 cm. front of upper left chest at nipple line 3 cm. .. (P.T.) clavicle tailing towards left. 11. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. at back of Rt. shoulder clean cut margins .. (P.T.) abrasion at back of Rt. upper middle part size 5 cm. 12. I.W. 4 x 1 cm. at back of Rt. side shoulder 3 cm. Rt. to base of neck clean cut margins. 13. I.W. 5 x 2 cm. bone deep at vertebral line obliquely placed 6 cm. .. (P.T.). 14. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. just above and 1/2 cm. Rt. to injury (No. 13) clean cut .. (P.T.). 4. 12. I.W. 4 x 1 cm. at back of Rt. side shoulder 3 cm. Rt. to base of neck clean cut margins. 13. I.W. 5 x 2 cm. bone deep at vertebral line obliquely placed 6 cm. .. (P.T.). 14. I.W. 3 x 1 cm. just above and 1/2 cm. Rt. to injury (No. 13) clean cut .. (P.T.). 4. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries. 5. The prosecution had sent the blood stained chappal, tahmat, baniyan, underwear, chhalla and ring of the deceased Arvind Kumar to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. Plain and blood stained earth taken from the spot were also sent for chemical examination. It is alleged that during investigation on 20.8.1998 the accused Ram Charan was arrested by the Investigating Officer of the case, and then during interrogation he allegedly confessed his crime, and stated that he could get the axe and hammer used in the incident recovered. Thereafter, he took the police with him to his house and got the blood stained axe and hammer recovered from the khaprail below the chappar of his house. These items were also sent for chemical examination. As per report of the Chemical examiner blood stains were found on these items and human blood was found on the bora (bag) in which the dead body of Arvind Kumar was kept as well as on the tahmat of deceased Arvind Kumar. Blood stains on the remaining articles were disintegrated. The blood stains on tahmat were of 'B' group. 6. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against accused Ram Charan only u/s 302, I.P.C. No charge-sheet was submitted against the other accused named in the F.I.R. 7. Accused-Appellant Ram Charan pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He was charged u/s 302, I.P.C. 8. The prosecution examined Gokul Prasad as P.W. 1. He narrated the entire F.I.R. version on oath. He has stated that after taking dinner in the night, his son Arvind Kumar had gone to take gutkha, and when he did not return back upto 3 p.m. he went to the house of Babu Ram and took Baburam with him. The prosecution examined Gokul Prasad as P.W. 1. He narrated the entire F.I.R. version on oath. He has stated that after taking dinner in the night, his son Arvind Kumar had gone to take gutkha, and when he did not return back upto 3 p.m. he went to the house of Babu Ram and took Baburam with him. Then he went to the house of Ram Kishun and took him also, and then all these persons went to the house of Ram Charan where they heard some sound towards the back side of the house of Ram Charan. Then they reached that place and on peeping through door leaves in the light of the torch which he had taken with him he saw that Ram Charan was tying the bag in which he had kept the dead body of Arvind and that Ram Charan had an axe in his hand. The bag was blood stained. The head of Arvind was outside the bag. There was fresh blood on the floor of the room. Then he shouted and then Ram Charan ran away. Gokul Prasad, Ram Kishun and Babu Ram chased the accused persons upto some distance but thereafter they returned back. It was further stated that thereafter he went to the police station, Ata at about 4-4 1/2 a.m. and there he got the F.I.R. of the incident written by Ram Autar and then he delivered the same at the police station. He proved this F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. He has further stated that he had no enmity with Ram Charan. He did not know as to why Ram Charan had committed the murder of his son Arvind Kumar. 9. Ram Kishun was examined as P.W. 2. He has corroborated the statement of Gokul Prasad (P.W. 1). 10. Baburam was examined as P.W. 3. He has also corroborated the statements of Gokul Prasad P.W. 1 and Ram Kishun P.W. 2. 11. Dr. Akhilesh Chandra Chandel was examined as P.W. 4. He had performed post mortem of the dead body of Arvind Kumar. He has proved the post mortem report as Ext. Ka-17. He submitted that the ante mortem injuries could have been caused to the deceased by a sharp edged weapon including an axe. He further stated that the injuries were sufficient for causing death. 12. Sri B. D. Singh S.I. was examined as P.W. 5. He has proved the post mortem report as Ext. Ka-17. He submitted that the ante mortem injuries could have been caused to the deceased by a sharp edged weapon including an axe. He further stated that the injuries were sufficient for causing death. 12. Sri B. D. Singh S.I. was examined as P.W. 5. He was posted as S.O. at P. S. Ata on 17.8.1998. He stated that constable Baleshwar was posted at P. S. Ata on 17.8.1998 and on the basis of the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1) of the incident he had prepared the chik report of the case, Ext. Ka-1A. Both the F.I.R. and the chik report have been marked by the trial court as Ext. Ka-1. Hence, for the purpose of distinction and to avoid confusion, we have added the letter 'A' on the Ext. mark of the chik report which is now termed as Ext. Ka-1A. Sri Singh has also proved its G. D. Entry, Ext. Ka-2. He further stated that he prepared the inquest report of the dead body Ext. Ka-3. He took the blood stained tahmat and bag and chappals of the deceased in his possession, and prepared their recovery memo, Ext. Ka-4. He also prepared other documents regarding post mortem of the dead body which are Exts. Ka-5 to Ka-9. He also prepared the site plan of the place of incident which is Ext. Ka-10. He further stated that during interrogation the accused had confessed his guilt and thereafter he got the axe and hammer used in the incident recovered. He proved the recovery memo as Ext. Ka-11. He also identified the blood stained and plain earth as Exts. 1 and 2 and the axe and hammer as Exts. 3 to 4. The chappal, underwear and tahmat which were recovered on the spot were proved as Exts. 5 to 7 and the bag used for keeping the dead body was proved as material Ext. 8. 13. Sri Sangam Lal Singh, S.O., who had investigated the case, after transfer of aforesaid B. D. Singh. S. O. of P. S. Ata, proved the recovery memo of torches of the witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 in the light of which the accused was identified. They are Exts. Ka-12, 13 and 14. He also proved the recovery memos of blood stained and ordinary earth as Ext. S. O. of P. S. Ata, proved the recovery memo of torches of the witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 in the light of which the accused was identified. They are Exts. Ka-12, 13 and 14. He also proved the recovery memos of blood stained and ordinary earth as Ext. Ka-15 and the G.D. No. 9 dated 20.8.1998 regarding arrest of the accused as Ext. 15A. After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-Appellant Ext. Ka-16. The prosecution tendered in evidence the report of the chemical examiner as Ext. Ka-18. 14. Learned Presiding Officer of the Court recorded the statement of Ram Charan under 313, Cr. P.C. He denied the prosecution allegation and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the witnesses were deposing against him falsely. He took opportunity to produce defence evidence but no defence evidence was produced by him. 15. After hearing of the case the Presiding Officer of the Court was of the view that the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. was sufficiently proved against the accused-Appellant Ram Charan. He, therefore, convicted the accused-Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 24.6.2000. Aggrieved with that judgment and order the accused-Appellant has filed this appeal. 16. This appeal was initially filed by Sri Udai Narain Khare, advocate but since he did not appear to argue the appeal, a notice was sent to the Appellant to engage another counsel vide order dated 23.4.2007. In compliance of this order, the notice was served upon the accused-Appellant in Jail but he did not show willingness to engage any other counsel in the case. Hence. Mr. Vinay Saran was appointed as amicus curiae vide order dated 26.7.2007 with a direction to seek instructions from the Appellant. Sri Vinay Saran took several adjournments in the case and ultimately argued it on 17th and 18th July, 2008. We heard him as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 17. Learned amicus curiae for the Appellant first of all submitted before us that the F.I.R. of the case is ante timed. He submitted that as per the prosecution case, Gokul Prasad had seen the dead body of his son Arvind Kumar in a bag towards back side of the house of Ram Charan at about 2.30 a.m. to 3 a.m. on 17.8.1998. He submitted that as per the prosecution case, Gokul Prasad had seen the dead body of his son Arvind Kumar in a bag towards back side of the house of Ram Charan at about 2.30 a.m. to 3 a.m. on 17.8.1998. The distance of the village where the incident had taken place is 7 kms., from the Police Station Ata and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at 4.45 a.m. He further pointed out that according to the inquest report the proceeding of its preparation was completed at 8 a.m. on 17.8.1998 and thereafter the dead body was sealed and sent to the mortuary. He pointed out that post mortem of the dead body of Arvind Kumar was performed on 18.8.1998 at 2 p.m. He submitted that it is not clear as to what those constables were doing who had taken the dead body from the village on 17.8.1998 at 8 a.m. and why this dead body was not delivered at the mortuary on 17.8.1998 and why it was delivered at mortuary on 18.8.1998. He further submitted that there is overwriting in the time of lodging of the F.I.R. in the first column at page 1 of the inquest report. He further submitted that the words "Sri Gokul Prasad S/o of Hari Singh R/o Ukasa Thana Ata" have been subsequently added in column No. 2 ; and the ink, and the handwriting are different from the ink of other words and the remaining handwriting on the inquest report. 18. We have perused the record. It is to be seen that as per the F.I.R. allegations the informant had lodged the F.I.R. of this incident at the Police Station, Ata on 17.8.1998 at 4.45 a.m. and Case Crime No. 207/98 was registered against the accused person and then the police party reached the spot and completed the inquest proceedings. 18. We have perused the record. It is to be seen that as per the F.I.R. allegations the informant had lodged the F.I.R. of this incident at the Police Station, Ata on 17.8.1998 at 4.45 a.m. and Case Crime No. 207/98 was registered against the accused person and then the police party reached the spot and completed the inquest proceedings. It appears from perusal of the inquest report that there has been some overwriting in the figure of time at page 1 in column No. 2 and it appears that the figure 4' has been written above 3' in the first line of column No. 1 at page 1 and figure 6' has been written above 5' in line No. 2, and these figures of time which were probably 3.45' a.m. and 5' a.m. have been changed as 4.45 a.m. and 6 a.m. These figures are regarding time of registration of the F.I.R. and time of starting of inquest proceedings. It appears that some wrong time was originally noted which was subsequently corrected. It may be mentioned that at page 2 of the inquest report there is complete description of crime number etc. as Case Crime No. 207/98 u/s 302, I.P.C. in one hand writing without any addition or alteration, and so it appears that there was clerical mistake in noting the time in column No. 1 at page 1 which was subsequently corrected. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged by Sri Gokul Prasad at the police station but this description appears to have been left in the beginning in column No. 2 at page 1. There is a complete description of Gokul Prasad which finds place at page 2 where the entire contents are in one handwriting, and so it again appears to be a clerical omission regarding his name in column No. 2 at page 1, which has been subsequently added by a different pen and ink, but these subsequent corrections and additions have got no effect on the merits of the case in view of correct notings on page 2 in one handwriting with the same pen and ink in one continuation. 19. 19. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that according to the statement of Gokul Prasad P.W. 1 and Babu Ram P.W. 3 they had seen the accused Ram Charan keeping the dead body of Arvind Kumar in the bag but Ram Kishun P.W. 2, who had accompanied the aforesaid two witnesses stated in his statement that he had seen Ram Charan committing murder of Arvind Kumar by giving him blows of axe and he did not count as to how many blows of axe were given by Ram Charan to him. He submitted that this is a major contradiction between the statements of Gokul Prasad P.W. 1 and Baburam P.W. 3 on the one side and Ram Kishun P.W. 2 on the other side. 20. We have perused the statement of Ram Kishun P.W. 2. He has just after making the above statement in his cross-examination stated that his above statement is wrong and that he does not know as to how he gave the above erroneous statement. It may be mentioned that he has corroborated the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 in the examination in-chief that he saw the dead body in the bag. Any how, when he has just after making the above statement in cross-examination contradicted the same in one continuation, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on the basis of such a retracted statement in the course of cross-examination. 21. Learned amicus curiae further pointed out that though Gokul Prasad P.W. 1 and Ram Charan P.W. 2 have stated that they had seen the accused Ram Charan with an axe inside the room of his house but they have nowhere alleged that Ram Charan had gone away with that axe in his hand but Babu Ram P.W. 3 has stated that Ram Charan had gone away with an axe in his hand. He submitted that it is again a material contradiction and so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. 22. He submitted that it is again a material contradiction and so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. 22. Learned A.G.A. submitted in reply that actually Ram Charan had not taken the axe with him when he ran away from the spot and that is why Gokul Prasad P.W. 1 and Ram Kishun P.W. 2 did not say any thing about the axe when they stated about running away of Ram Charan from the spot, and it appears that Babu Ram P.W. 3 has, stated under some misapprehension, that Ram Charan had gone away from the spot with an axe in his hand. 23. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that it has been stated by Gokul Prasad, Ram Kishun and Babu Ram P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that they had identified the accused Ram Charan in the light of torches with them but there is no reference of torches in the F.I.R. and so the allegation that Ram Charan was identified in the light of torches is also an afterthought and this part of the prosecution story cannot be believed. 24. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the F.I.R., is not an encyclopaedia and so omission of this fact in the F.I.R. that the above named witnesses had torches with them is not fatal to the prosecution case. 25. It was further submitted by the learned amicus curiae that there is no direct evidence of any eye-witness who might have seen the accused-Appellant Ram Charan committing the murder of Arvind Kumar and the only evidence, which has come on record is to this effect that he was seen keeping the dead body in a bora (bag), and therefore, at the most, the case falls u/s 201, I.P.C. and there was no evidence of commission of murder of Arvind Kumar by Ram Charan and as such the learned presiding officer of the trial court committed illegality by convicting the accused-Appellant. 26. Learned A.G.A. submitted in reply that it is true that there is no direct evidence of murder of Arvind Kumar by accused Ram Charan in the present case but he contended that there is sufficient evidence to link the accused with the crime. He submitted that the dead body of Arvind Kumar was found inside the house of Ram Charan in its back portion and sufficient blood was also there as is apparent from the inquest report Ext. Ka-3. He submitted that the dead body of Arvind Kumar was found inside the house of Ram Charan in its back portion and sufficient blood was also there as is apparent from the inquest report Ext. Ka-3. He further pointed out that at page 2 of the inquest report it is written that : Jahanpar Ramcharan S/o Rajole Ke makan ke pichhaley uttari kamre khaprail dar men mritak Arvind ka shav ek bora wa tahmat men bandha hua para hai........ Charo tariff jamin par khoon para hai... 27. Learned A.G.A. submitted that presence of sufficient blood on the floor around the dead body of Arvind Kumar leads to the conclusion that murder of Arvind Kumar was done at that place. He further pointed out that as per the statements of the P. Ws. 1 to 3, when they reached there, they saw that Ram Charan had a blood stained axe in his hand at that time, and that Ram Charan fled away from the spot when they shouted. He submitted that all these facts lead to a definite conclusion that murder of Arvind Kumar was committed by Ram Charan with the axe in his hand. He also pointed out that the above axe was recovered from the khaprail below the chhappar of the house of the accused Ram Charan alongwith a hammer and both these weapons were found blood stained as per report of the Chemical Examiner. He further submitted that this recovery on the pointing out of the accused Ram Charan was done on 20.8.1998 when he was arrested by the police, i.e., within three days from the date of the incident and that the recovery of this blood stained axe on the pointing out of the accused Ram Charan again leads to the conclusion that murder of Arvind Kumar was committed by Ram Charan. We find sufficient force in his contention. 28. It was submitted by the learned amicus curiae that the prosecution evidence is self contradictory on the point as to whether the head of the deceased was inside or outside the bag when Gokul Prasad and his companions saw the dead body for the first time in the room of Ram Charan. We find sufficient force in his contention. 28. It was submitted by the learned amicus curiae that the prosecution evidence is self contradictory on the point as to whether the head of the deceased was inside or outside the bag when Gokul Prasad and his companions saw the dead body for the first time in the room of Ram Charan. He submitted that it has no where been stated in the F.I.R. that the head of the deceased was out side the bag and if the head of Arvind Kumar was inside the bag, it could not be possible for Gokul Prasad to draw a conclusion on seeing the bag that it contained the dead body of his son Arvind Kumar. He referred to second page of the inquest report in which it has been specifically stated that the entire dead body was inside the bag and no part of it was visible. He further pointed out that Gokul Prasad has stated in his statement as P.W. 1 that the head of Arvind Kumar was outside the bag and the same thing has been stated by Ram Kishun P.W. 2 and Babu Ram P.W. 3. He further submitted that it is an afterthought of the prosecution witnesses that head of Arvind Kumar was lying outside the bag developed as a device to overcome the shortcoming in the prosecution case that the informant, Ram Kishun and Babu Ram (P. Ws. 1 to 3) could not draw this conclusion on seeing the bag kept in the room from outside the house that it contained the dead body of Arvind Kumar. 29. Learned A.G.A. submitted in reply that it has been stated by P. Ws. 1 to 3 in very clear terms that the face of the deceased was open and it was coming out of the bag when they saw the bag for the first time while standing outside the house of Ram Charan and there is no contradiction in their statements on this point. 1 to 3 in very clear terms that the face of the deceased was open and it was coming out of the bag when they saw the bag for the first time while standing outside the house of Ram Charan and there is no contradiction in their statements on this point. He further submitted that there was time gap of three hours between the incident of seeing the dead body in the bag by the prosecution witnesses which had taken place at 3 a.m. and the time of arrival of the police which had visited the spot at 6 a.m. and during this period the bag might have been stitched and so the head of Arvind Kumar which was lying open at 3 a.m. might have been covered by 6 a.m. He further submitted that according to the statement of Gokul Prasad, Ram Kishun and Babu Ram (P. Ws. 1 to 3), Ram Charan was initially seen in the room with an axe in his hand and that on being challenged by the above named witnesses, he ran away from the spot. He further pointed out that the above axe was subsequently recovered from the khaprail below chhappar of the house of the accused Ram Charan on 20.8.2008. He submitted that this fact again leads to the conclusion that during this time gap of three hours accused Ram Charan, after departure of Gokul Prasad and his companions Ram Kishun and Baburam, had visited his house again and concealed the axe in the khaprail of the house and at the time he might have also tried to stitch the bag so that he may carry it out for disposing it of, but he could not do so and he ran away from the house before arrival of the police. He further pointed out that Mr. B. D. Singh, S.I. P.W. 5 stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the spot, no one from the family of the accused was present inside the house. 30. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that actually the deceased Arvind Kumar was murdered at some other place and his dead body was thrown inside the house of the accused to falsely implicate him. There appears no force in this contention also. 30. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that actually the deceased Arvind Kumar was murdered at some other place and his dead body was thrown inside the house of the accused to falsely implicate him. There appears no force in this contention also. If Arvind Kumar had been murdered at some other place and if his dead body had been thrown at the house of Ram Charan, so much fresh flood would not have been found around the dead body as noted at page 2 of the inquest report. 31. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant that there was no motive for Ram Charan to have committed murder of Arvind Kumar. He also referred to the statement of Gokul Prasad (P.W. 1) who stated in his statement that he and his son had no enmity with Ram Charan and he does not know as to why Ram Charan committed murder of his son Arvind Kumar. This point of absence of motive was argued before the trial court also. The presiding officer of the Court has referred to the statement of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer just after his arrest in which he allegedly stated that he used to commit sodomy with the deceased and this act was being done with the consent of both the parties, and he, being involved in this act of sodomy, had severed his relations with his own wife, but recently the deceased had started to have sodomy committed by some other villagers also, and this act of infidelity of the deceased offended him because he was spending his entire money upon the deceased, and he did not like that the deceased should have such relation with any one else and so he planned to commit murder of the deceased Arvind Kumar, and as per prosecution case, he committed murder of Arvind Kumar in the night of the incident by giving blows to him by axe. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid axe was recovered at the pointing out of the accused three days after the incident from his own house, i.e., on 20.8.1998 on which date he allegedly made the above statement before the Investigating Officer and blood was also found on the axe as per report of the chemical examiner. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid axe was recovered at the pointing out of the accused three days after the incident from his own house, i.e., on 20.8.1998 on which date he allegedly made the above statement before the Investigating Officer and blood was also found on the axe as per report of the chemical examiner. The confessional statement of the accused is inadmissible being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act except that part of the statement which led to the recovery of the arm which is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the above so called confessional statement of the accused, but taking these proved facts into consideration that the accused Ram Charan having an axe in his hand was seen by the informant Gokul Prasad and witnesses Ram Kishun and Babu Ram, (P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) keeping the dead body of Arvind Kumar in a bag inside his house and that there was sufficient blood spread around that place in his house and that he ran away from the spot, we reach this irresistible conclusion that murder of Arvind Kumar was done by Ram Charan, and the learned trial court committed no error, legal or factual, by holding the accused-Appellant guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment. 32. The present appeal has got no force and it is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by trial court are confirmed. The accused-Appellant is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. 33. Mr. Vinay Saran, learned amicus curiae assisted us very well in this case. He shall be paid Rs. 3,000 as his fee by the State exchequer.