JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 72/2012 whereby while acquitting the co-accused Smt. Krishna from the offences under Sections 364, 364/34 & 302/34 of I.P.C. by extending her the benefit of doubt, the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence Sentence U/s 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 08 months' additional R.I. U/s 364 IPC 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months' additional R.I. U/s 4/25 of Arms Act 01 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months' additional R.I. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently 2. The prosecution story emanates from a written report submitted by one Bajrang Das (P.W. 3) on 25.01.2011 to the effect that his nephew Satyanarain alias Lalaram who was a resident of Danthal went to his work place at Bhilwara from Danthal on 25.01.2011 at around 7.00 A.M. Satyanarain was working in the shop of Vinod Kumar. At around 12.30 in the afternoon, Sanwarmal Vaishnav and his wife both came on the motorcycle to the shop at Badla Choraha and took away Satyanarain stating that they wanted to show him a tractor. Satish Biyani telephoned Lala after two hours, on which, he informed that Sanwra had inflicted knife blows to him. When the telephone got disconnected, Vinod Biyani went to Paldi to the house of Sanwra and asked the whereabouts of Satyanarain then, he was informed that Satyanarain was killed by him and the dead body was lying inside his house. Vinod went inside the house and saw that the dead body of Lala was lying in the room in a pool of blood which was oozing out from his stomach and his neck was tied with a muffler. 3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 25/2011 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant and his wife, namely, Smt. Krishna Devi. 3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 25/2011 was registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant and his wife, namely, Smt. Krishna Devi. During the course of investigation, the police added Section 4/25 of the Arms Act in the matter and arrested the accused-appellant and his wife Smt. Krishna on 27.01.2011. 4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 302/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and against Smt. Krishna for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 364, 364/34, 302, 302/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to the accused appellant and under Sections 364, 364/34 & 302/34 of I.P.C. to Smt. Krishna, who both pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/63 documents were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant and his wife, the co-accused Smt. Krishna, both were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of trial to which they denied and stated that they were falsely implicated and were innocent. However, the accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. 8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, acquitted the coaccused Smt. Krishna from the offences alleged against her but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 28.06.2013. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the accused-appellant had been falsely implicated as there were major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial court absolutely fell in error while convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged in the present case. 11. He further submits that the prosecution story is highly doubtful as it is against the human conduct that if a person murders someone and keeps the dead body inside his house, as to why he will sit normally outside his house with the loud music in the background. 11. He further submits that the prosecution story is highly doubtful as it is against the human conduct that if a person murders someone and keeps the dead body inside his house, as to why he will sit normally outside his house with the loud music in the background. Not only this, even if someone inquires about the whereabouts of a missing person, it is unbecoming of a normal human conduct to inform that he murdered someone and kept the dead body inside his room. Since it is not a natural conduct, it appears that the prosecution falsely implicated the accused-appellant in the present case. 12. Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments submits that there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that present appellant was guilty of the offences alleged in the present case and therefore, the trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting the accused-appellant for the alleged offences. 13. In the alternative, learned counsel submits that the conviction of the accused-appellant may be converted from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. as there was no intention or motive on the part of the accused-appellant to kill Satyanarain. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged in the present case on the strength of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined before the learned trial court wherein the prosecution had been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the commission of the offences alleged at the hands of the accused-appellant. He further submits that the statements of P.W. 13 - Mathuralal alias Jwara and P.W. 14 - Satish Kumar were well supported by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of P.W. 24 - Dr. Gyanprakash who was one of the board members who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Satyanarain and stated that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and excessive bleeding due to the injuries inflicted by sharp edged weapon. In the postmortem report (Ex.P/49) also, the cause of death was shown to be 'shock resulting from excessive haemorrhage internally due to multiple injuries antemortem in nature'. In the postmortem report (Ex.P/49) also, the cause of death was shown to be 'shock resulting from excessive haemorrhage internally due to multiple injuries antemortem in nature'. He further submits that the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife was made on the information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P/52). He further submits that the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/63) corroborating the blood group of the deceased on the articles sent for F.S.L. including the weapon of offence and the clothes of the deceased as well as accused-appellant completes the chain of circumstances establishing beyond all manner of doubt the fact that it was none other than the accused-appellant who committed the offences alleged in the present case and therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 28.06.2013 requires no interference by this Court. 15. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have closely gone through the record of the trial court as well as judgment dated 28.06.2013 impugned herein. 16. P.W. 3 - Bajrang Das who was the first informant in the present case stated that on 25.01.2011, Satyanarain who was son of his younger brother went for work from Danthal in the morning at 7.00 A.M. He was informed by Vinod Biyani at around 3.00 P.M. that Lala alias Satyanarain was taken away by Sanwra and his wife at around 12.30 P.M. on the pretext of showing some tractor. Satish called Lala, who informed him that Sanwra had inflicted knife blows and had confined him inside his house. Vinod on went to the house of Sanwra at Paldi asked about the whereabouts of Satyanarain who confessed that Sattu had been killed by him and the dead body was lying inside his house. Thereafter, the police was informed and he affixed his signatures on the memos prepared by the police during the course of investigation. 17. P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani stated that he had a grocery shop at Badla Choraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara and Satyanarain used to work at his shop. On 25.01.2011 at around 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon, Satyanarain was taken away by Sanwarmal and his wife and when he did not return for 2-2 1 /2 hours then, his younger brother Satish called Lala on his mobile who informed him that Sanwarmal had inflicted knife blows to him. On 25.01.2011 at around 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon, Satyanarain was taken away by Sanwarmal and his wife and when he did not return for 2-2 1 /2 hours then, his younger brother Satish called Lala on his mobile who informed him that Sanwarmal had inflicted knife blows to him. On getting this information, he, his brother Sunil, his friend Mathuralal and Bherulal went to the house of Sanwarmal who was found sitting outside his house and the tape recorder was being played in the full volume inside his house and on being asked, he confessed that he and his wife had murdered Satyanarain and the dead body was lying inside his house. When they went inside, they saw the dead body of Lala having 4-5 injuries on the stomach and chest with a muffler tied in his neck, was lying in a pool of blood. 18. P.W. 8 - Sunil Kumar who was brother of Vinod Biyani (P.W. 7) also stated almost on the same lines as P.W. 7. 19. P.W. 13 - Mathuralal alias Jwara also deposed in his statement the same story which was narrated by P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani. 20. P.W. 14 - Satish Kumar deposed before the trial court about the incident almost on the same lines as P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani and stated that he was informed on mobile phone when he talked with Lala that Sanwarmal had inflicted knife blows to him and he was lying confined in his house. Immediately, he informed this to his brothers Vinod and Sunil and they went to Paldi at the house of Sanwarmal, where he was found sitting outside his house and on going inside the house, they found the dead body of the deceased Satyanarain lying in the pool of blood. 21. P.W. 16 - Kailash was the recovery witness of bloodstained knife stated that he affixed his signatures on the memos prepared by the police for recovery of knife and other articles i.e. mobile and stick. 22. P.W. 18 - Smt. Rukma who was staying near the house of the accused-appellant Sanwarmal stated that when she went outside her house, she heard the sound of tape recorder being played loudly from the house of Sanwarmal. 23. P.W. 24 - Dr. 22. P.W. 18 - Smt. Rukma who was staying near the house of the accused-appellant Sanwarmal stated that when she went outside her house, she heard the sound of tape recorder being played loudly from the house of Sanwarmal. 23. P.W. 24 - Dr. Gyanprakash who was one of the board members who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased, described the number and nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and stated that the cause of death was shock and excessive bleeding due to injuries suffered by the deceased Satyanarain by sharp edged weapon. 24. P.W. 26 - Ramkishan was the investigation Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recoveries, collected the samples and after conducting the investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted his report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 25. The recovery memo of weapon of offence i.e. knife is Ex.P/17. The postmortem report is Ex.P/49 wherein the cause of death was shown as shock resulting from excessive internal haemorrhage due to multiple antemortem injuries. Ex.P/52 is information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding recovery of weapon of offence. Ex.P/63 is the F.S.L. report of the articles sent for examination. 26. The testimony of P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani, P.W. 8 - Sunil Kumar, P.W. 13 - Mathurlal alias Jwara and P.W. 14 - Satish Kumar is clear on the aspect that Satyanarain alias Lala was taken away by the accused-appellant Sanwarmal and his wife on the motorcycle from the shop of Vinod (P.W. 7) where the deceased was working. Their testimony as far as the circumstance of Lala being seen alive lastly in the company of the accused-appellant Sanwarmal is unflinching and convincing. Further, the telephonic conversation between the deceased Satyanarain alias Lala and P.W. 14 - Satish Kumar to the effect that Lala was assaulted by Sanwarmal after having inflicted knife blows in a way is an oral dying declaration. The same gets corroborated by the statements of P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani, P.W. 8 - Sunil Kumar and P.W. 13- Mathuralal alias Jwara who stated that Lala was taken away on the motorcycle by Sanwarmal and his wife. 27. The same gets corroborated by the statements of P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani, P.W. 8 - Sunil Kumar and P.W. 13- Mathuralal alias Jwara who stated that Lala was taken away on the motorcycle by Sanwarmal and his wife. 27. The statements of P.W. 7 - Vinod Biyani, P.W. 8 - Sunil Kumar, P.W. 13 - Mathurlal alias Jwara and P.W. 14 - Satish Kumar also show that on getting the information on telephone by Satish Kumar (P.W. 14), when they reached the house of Sanwarmal and asked the whereabouts of Lala, Sanwarmal confessed before them that he had murdered Lala and his dead body was lying inside a room in his house. This statement of the accused-appellant has to be treated to be an extra judicial confession which gets amply corroborated by the factum of recovery of dead body of Lala from inside a room in Sanwarmal's house and from the statement of P.W. 24 - Dr. Gyanprakash and the postmortem report (Ex.P/49) wherein it was elaborated that injuries inflicted by sharp edged weapon were the cause of death of the deceased Lala. 28. We also note that the recovery of weapon of offence vide Ex.P/17 and the F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/63) wherein the blood group on the articles sent for examination was shown to be of human origin and "B" group completes the chain of circumstances clearly establishing the fact that it was none other than the accused-appellant who was responsible for commission of the offences alleged in the present case. 29. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the story of the prosecution was not probable and was highly doubtful on the basis of the conduct of the accused-appellant is noted only to be rejected as there is ample cogent and convincing evidence on record in term of testimony of the eye-witnesses who stated that the deceased Satyanarain alias Lala was taken away by the accused-appellant Sanwarmal and his wife on the motorcycle and on telephone, Lala informed P.W. 14 -Satish Kumar that accused-appellant Sanwarmal had inflicted knife blows to him resulting into his death. The same is getting corroboration from the recovery so made and the F.S.L. report of the articles sent for examination. 30. The same is getting corroboration from the recovery so made and the F.S.L. report of the articles sent for examination. 30. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant with respect to the conversion of the conviction of the accused-appellant from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. does not carry any weight in our mind in view of the fact that there were repeated blows and number of injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased Satyanarain alias Lala by sharp edged weapon clearly depicting the intention of the accused-appellant was to commit murder and nothing else. Therefore, in our view, in the present circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant to convert his conviction from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part - I of I.P.C. 31. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed by the trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 364 of I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act deserves to be upheld. 32. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned trial court is upheld.