JUDGMENT : A.K. Shrivastava , J.- Feelingaggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.11.2001passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha ,District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 9/2001convicting appellant under Section 302 of IPC and thereby sentencing him tosuffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs . 200/-, indefault, further R.I. of one month, the appellant has knocked the doors of thisCourt by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973. 2.The admitted position is that appellant is the son-in-law of Ghassu Khan (hereinafter referred to as "thedeceased"), who is father of Arjun Bi (PW-15),who is wife of appellant. The author of FIR Ibrahim (PW-11) is the son and brother-in-law of the deceased and appellantrespectively. 3.In brief the case of the prosecution is that when for the second time Arjun Bi was brought back in her nuptial home, her in-lawswere ill-treating her and on coming into know by the deceased in this regard,he brought his daughter back to his house where she continued to reside. Thedeceased was not sending his daughter to her nuptial home and a Panchayat in that regard was convened, in which it wasdecided that the appellant will now reside in the Village of the deceased wherehe will live in a separate house with his wife and will also earn hislivelihood. Thereafter, the appellant started living in a house given by thedeceased. It is the further case of prosecution that appellant sold 3 to 4kilograms of Lentil ( Masoor ) which was disliked bythe deceased who became annoyed and Lallu Khan, whois uncle-in-law of appellant pacified him, while thedeceased scolded and insulted him. 4.In between the night of 9th and 10th November, 2000 when the deceased was inhis field, his son Bhattu alias Iqbal and Sajid went to provide meals to him and while theywere going back the deceased told that they should sent Guddu and Ibrahim to irrigate the land and this message wasso informed by the said Bhattu alias Iqbal to Ibrahim , as a result ofwhich Ibrahim , Irshad and Munna Khan went to the field in which the deceased waspresent. When these three persons came nearby the mound ( Medh )of Mehrab , they heard the shrieks of the deceasedsaying that "@ Hindi @" ( Mukhtar don'tkill). In reply, these persons in high tone spoke thatthere is no need to frighten because they are coming. When these three persons came nearby the mound ( Medh )of Mehrab , they heard the shrieks of the deceasedsaying that "@ Hindi @" ( Mukhtar don'tkill). In reply, these persons in high tone spoke thatthere is no need to frighten because they are coming. Thereafter in the lightof moon they saw appellant carrying sword was coming out from the Tapra (hut) and on seeing these persons, he fled from theplace of occurrence. 5.At the spot these persons saw the deceased in injured condition and the bloodwas oozing from his forehead and neck region. By leaving Irshad in the Tapra , Ibrahim and Munna Khan went to lodge the report on the bicycle. On theway they found Fareed (PW-11), who told that theappellant met and informed him that he has murdered his father-in-law,thereafter ibrahim went to the Police Station andlodged the First Information Report ( Ex.P . 25). 6.On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was triggered andset in motion. 7.Initially the case was registered under Section 307 of IPC, however, when thedeceased was sent to the hospital he was found to be dead, as a result of whichthe case was converted under Section 302 of IPC. 8.After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which on this turn committed the case to theCourt of Sessions and from where it was received by the Trial Court for theTrial. 9.Learned Trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheetframed charges punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant whichhe denied and requested for the trial. 10.In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 19witnesses and placed Ex/P/1 to P/42 the documents on record. 11.The defence of appellant is of alibi as well as falseimplication and in support of his defence he examinedone witness namely Asgar Khan (DW-1). 12.The learned Trial Judge on close scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that thecharge under Section 302 of IPC has been proved against the appellant andeventually convicted him and passed the sentence to suffer life imprisonmentand fine of Rs . 200/- with defaulting clause. 13.In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailingthe judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 200/- with defaulting clause. 13.In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailingthe judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14.It has been contended by Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for appellant that there is no direct evidence againstthe appellant and the prosecution has based its case upon circumstantialevidence, but if the cumulative effect of evidence placed on record is takeninto consideration collectively, it will not form a complete chain unerringlypointing out the guilt towards the appellant, and therefore, the learned TrialCourt erred in convicting him. 15.It has been then contended by learned counsel that the extra-judicialconfession made by appellant to Farced (PW-1) cannot be relied upon for thesimple reason that his case diary statement was recorded on 18.11.2000,although the incident took place" 9 days earlier and this witness was alsopresent when the inquest report of the dead body was prepared. It has also beenput forth by the learned counsel that plea of alibi which was established wasnot accepted by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the impugned judgmentcannot be allowed to remain in stand. It has been then further contended by himthat appellant was arrested on 13.11.2000 after 48 hours of the incident andfive injuries were found on his person including an incised wound on his backwhich indicates that firstly the appellant was assaulted by the deceasedbecause one cannot imagine that after causing fatal injuries by appellant tothe deceased, he could cause injury on the back to the deceased, the therefore,it can be inferred that the deceased was the aggressor and firstly he assaultedthe appellant. On these premised submissions, it has been submitted by the learnedcounsel that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant andhence, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from all thecharges. 16.Combating the aforesaid submissions, Shri C.S. Dixit , learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of theimpugned judgment and submitted that it has been proved from the evidence of Ibrahim (PW-11) that he heard the shrieks of his father(the deceased) saying that appellant is killing him and thereafter he sawappellant coming out from the Tapra having sword inhis hand and on seeing Ibrahim , Irshad and Munna Khan, he fled from the place of occurrence.Learned Public Prosecutor has also invited our attention to the seizure memo ofthe sword, which has been found to be recovered at the instance of appellantfrom the field. It has also been put forth by learned Public Prosecutor thatthere is extra-judicial confession made by appellant to Fareed (PW-1). In that context, he had invited our attention to Ex.D.l which is the case diary statement of said witness. Hence, it has been argued bythe learned Public Prosecutor that taking to the cumulative effect of all thecircumstances certainly a complete chain has been formed unerringly pointingout the guilt towards the appellant and if that is the position the learnedTrial Court did not commit any error in convicting him. 17.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered viewthat this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 18.The present case cannot be said to be a case of pure circumstantial evidenceand it is a case of cumulative effect of circumstances as well as evidence of res gestae because the son of thedeceased namely Ibrahim (PW-11) accompanying two morepersons namely Irshad and Munna Khan were going to irrigate the field of the deceased and according to himafter providing meals by Bhattu alias Iqbal and Sajid to the deceasedin between 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. when these two persons came back to home theyinformed this witness that the deceased has called him to irrigate the field,as a result of which this witness along with Irshad and Munna Khan went to the field at 10.30 p.m. andwhen they reached nearby the mound ( medh ) of Mehrab , he heard the shriek of his father saying that".... Hindi ..", ( Mukhtar don't kill, save mesave me). In reply, this witness told that they are coming and you should notbe frightened. Further this witness is saying that when he came nearby the Tapra he found appellant carrying a sword was running awayand on seeing this, this witness rushed inside the Tapra while Irshad and Munna Khanwho were accompanying this witness chased the appellant, but they came backafter some time and informed that appellant by carrying Sword, Farsa and a Torch had ran away towards Parasi .This witness further says that the deceased was uncoscious and was having injuries on his head, temporal, neck and on the wrist. 19.Further this witness says that after leaving Irshad nearby his father, he came to the Village and informed Lallu Khan and thereafter along with Munna Khan he went tolodge the report. 19.Further this witness says that after leaving Irshad nearby his father, he came to the Village and informed Lallu Khan and thereafter along with Munna Khan he went tolodge the report. On the way, he met Fareed (PW-1),and on being asked that where he is going this witness replied that he is goingto lodge the report. Thereafter the said Fareed toldthat he met appellant, who has stated that he had killed the deceased and alsoasked that if he is having some money it may by given to him (the appellant),but according to this witness, he did not give any money to him. 20. Ibrahim (PW-11) was cross-examined at length, but heremained vivid in his version during his entire cross-examination and the onlyinference which we can be drawn from his unimpeachable testimony is that heheard the shriek of his father saying that appellant is killing him andthereafter when this witness rushed towards the Tapra he found that appellant carrying a sword was running away. Promptly thiswitness lodged the FIR (Ex.P/25) in the Police Station at 2.00 a.m. and the distance of Police Station is 11 km. fromthe place of occurrence. Initially the case was registered under Section 307 ofIPC, but when the deceased died in the hospital on the same day the case wasconverted and registered under Section 302 of IPC. 21.Looking to the unimpeachable testimony of Ibrahim (PW. 11) we find that his statement fulfils the requirement of Sections 6 and 8of the Evidence Act. We have scrutinized his testimony with great care andcaution and we find that this witness was in the field and when he reachednearby the Tapra he noticed that soon after the shriekof the deceased saying that appellant is killing and further to save his life,at that juncture, he saw appellant coming out from the Tapra having sword in his hand and on seeing this witness as well as Irshad and Munna Khan, he ranaway from the place of occurrence and on entering inside Tapra he found that the deceased was lying having umpteen severe injuries. All thesecircumstances clearly establish that the appellant is the only person whocommitted the offence by causing injuries by sword to the deceased. All thesecircumstances clearly establish that the appellant is the only person whocommitted the offence by causing injuries by sword to the deceased. Accordingto our firm view the conduct of appellant destroyed the presumption of hisinnocence, and therefore, we have no scintilla of doubt in holding thatappellant dealt brutal blows by sword to the deceased, as a result of whichfirstly he became seriously injured (almost dead) and soon thereafter hesuccumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 22.On bear perusal of the statement of Farced (PW-1), we find that at the relevantpoint of time he was coming back to his village in his bullock cart. On theway, appellant met him who flashed the torch light on him. Further this witnesssays that appellant was having a sword in his hand and on seeing him armed withsword this witness became frightened and on being asked by this witness thatwhat has happened, appellant told that he has quarreled with his father-in-lawand murdered him. Thereafter appellant made demand to provide some money butthis witness avoided and told that in the morning only he can arrange themoney. This witness is also saying that it was a moon light and after travelingfor some distance in bullock cart he found Ibrahim and Munna Khan to whom he told what interactedbetween him and the appellant and these persons namely Ibrahim and Munna Khan also told that appellant had assaultedthe deceased. Thereafter Munna Khan and Ibrahim went to lodge the report and this witness went tohim village. 23.True, the case diary statement of Fareed (PW-1) wasrecorded after eight days, but according to us, looking to the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case, his evidence cannot be said to be unnatural,because it is borne out from his testimony that seeing the appellant havingsword he became frightened. 24.We do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for appellantthat before lodging of the FIR the extra-judicial confession was already madeto Fareed (PW-1) which was also informed to Ibrahim by Fareed before lodgingof the FIR and this fact did not find place in the FIR. 24.We do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for appellantthat before lodging of the FIR the extra-judicial confession was already madeto Fareed (PW-1) which was also informed to Ibrahim by Fareed before lodgingof the FIR and this fact did not find place in the FIR. Accordingto us, the FIR is net plaint of a civil suit and every minute details are net always required to be mentioned in the FIR.We should also realise that on seeing his fatherbesmeared in the blood and further observing that appellant carrying the swordin his hand had ran away, this witness must have become astonished and if inthese facts and circumstances he had not stated about the extra-judicialconfession of appellant to Farced, according to us, neither the FIR can bedisbelieved nor the case of prosecution would be diluted. 25.Similarly, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counselfor the appellant that although this witness Fareed (PW-1) was present at the time of the preparation of the Panchayatnama of the dead body (Ex.P/26), but he did not inform to the Police that appellantgave extra-judicial confession to him. According to us, looking to the evidenceof this witness we find that he became frightened on seeing the sword in thehands of the appellant and the Panchayatnama of thedead body was prepared on the same day in the morning and by that timeappellant was not arrested as he was arrested only on 13.11.2000 and therefore,in these circumstances if he did not inform the investigating agency aboutgiving extra-judicial confession by the deceased to him at the time of thepreparation of panchayatnama of the dead body(Ex.P/26), it was not unnatural on his part. 26.Even if for the sake of arguments, we ignore the evidence of Fareed (PW-1), looking to the unimpeachable testimony of Ibrahim (PW-11) and the conduct of the appellant corningout from the Tapra of the deceased carrying the swordand running away on seeing Ibrahim and hiscompanions, we are of the view that all these strong circumstances are againstthe appellant indicating that he is the only person who committed the murder ofthe deceased. 27.We also do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant that the deceased was the aggressor because appellant was havinginjuries including incised wound on his back which cannot be caused by thedeceased after he became seriously injured, and therefore, it should beinferred that firstly the deceased caused injuries to the appellant and inorder to exercise of right of his private defence theinjuries were caused by appellant to the deceased. This defence for the first time is being raised here only in the appeal and it was not atall taken in the Trial Court during the trial nor there isany explanation in this regard under Section 313 of Cr.P.C .Although, a question was put to Munna Khan that didhe see injuries on the person of the appellant, but according to us thissuggestion put to this witness cannot be said to be a defence of self defence . 28.According to the autopsy surgeon Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-5) the deceased sustainedfollowing injuries which reads thus : "(1) Incised wound above the right eye 6 cm left to rightoblique size 12 cm x 2.5 cm x brain deep fracture bone. (2) Incisd wound on right temporal region. Ant. Post size 17 cm x 4 cm x brain deep. (3)Incised wound on right temporal region just above the pinna below 2nd injury size 11 cm x 5 cm x brain deep. (4)Incised wound on post scalp region to mastoid process size 9 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm,brain deep. (5)Incised wound at nip of neck at mid line 8 cm x 1 cm x upside down, bone cut. (6)Incised wound on left occipital region anterior part 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (7)Incised wound on occipital region right side, right of left 6 cm x 2 cm x braindeep. (8)Incised wound on shoulder post anterior 8 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep. (9)Incised wound on right post scapular region to lateral 8 cm x 1.5 cm x muscledeep posterior anteriorly . (10)One abrasion right central region oblique 15 cm x 0.5 cm above downward xmuscle deep. (11)Abrasion on left scapula region to neck downward to upward 6 cm x 0.5 cm xmuscle deep. (12)Abrasion on left shoulder 2 cm x 1 cm skin deep. (13)Abrasion on left back medial to scapula size 5 cm x 0.5 cm upside down. (10)One abrasion right central region oblique 15 cm x 0.5 cm above downward xmuscle deep. (11)Abrasion on left scapula region to neck downward to upward 6 cm x 0.5 cm xmuscle deep. (12)Abrasion on left shoulder 2 cm x 1 cm skin deep. (13)Abrasion on left back medial to scapula size 5 cm x 0.5 cm upside down. (14)Incised wound left side of wrist lateral side medial to lateral. Radial arterycut along with muscle. (15)Incised wound at base of right index finger, lateral to medial 7 cm x 2 cm xbone cut." Thepostmortem report of the deceased is Ex.P . 1.According to the doctor, the deceased had died due to cardio respiratory arreston account of compound compress fractures and multiple injuries on the head andbrain leading to shock and excessive haemorrhage .Looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased we are of the view that theact of appellant would come within the purview of culpable homicide amountingto murder and learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting theappellant. 29.We have also gone through the reasonings assigned bythe learned Trial Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 of 1PC andwe find those reasonings to be quite cogent as theyare based on correct appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, by thisjudgment we hereby extend our stamp of approval to the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Judge. 30.Resultantly, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same ishereby dismissed.