JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This Jail Appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by accused-appellant Mubarak Ali through Jail Superintendent, Aligarh against judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 passed by Sri Vinod Kumar-II, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Hathras. By the impugned judgment, accused-appellant has been convicted under s. 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 Cr.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. Further, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo 2 years and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as R.I.) respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story as evident from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") as well as material available on record are as follows. 3. A written report (Ex.Ka-1) was presented in P.S. Sadabad, District Mahamaya Nagar by PW-1, Sugriva Singh Rawat, on 12.01.2008 stating that he is resident of Nai Basti, Eidgah. Some unsocial elements used to visit the house of his neighbor Mubarak Ali to which Informant, PW-1 had been objecting and on account thereof accused Mubarak Ali bore enmity with Informant's family. On the fateful evening, i.e. 12.01.2008, at about 6.00 PM Informant's son, Manveer Singh, had gone to the shop of Lala for purchasing certain commodities. Accused-appellant Mubarak Ali, resident of Nai Basti, Eidgah, owing to aforesaid enmity, lay in ambush in the way and assaulted his son with knife with intention to kill him. His son raised an alarm, whereupon Informant, his another son, PW-2 Rajveer Singh, Informant's wife, Smt. Phoolwati, PW-3 Bhagwan Das, son of Ram Vilas, resident of village Sarauth, Dilip Sharma, son of Satish Chandra Sharma and several other persons, who were present nearby the place of occurrence, rushed to the spot. Seeing witnesses reaching the spot, accused-appellant inflicted several knife blows and saying that though he (Manveer Singh) escaped that day but would not be saved in future, fled away. PW-1 Informant along with family members and neighbor took injured Manveer Singh to Sadabad Government Hospital in a serious condition. Condition of injured being precarious, he was referred to Agra. Informant then went to Police Station for lodging FIR. PW-1 Informant along with family members and neighbor took injured Manveer Singh to Sadabad Government Hospital in a serious condition. Condition of injured being precarious, he was referred to Agra. Informant then went to Police Station for lodging FIR. On the same day another application (Ex.Ka-2) was also given at Police Station Sadabad to the effect that while carrying injured to Agra for treatment, he succumbed to his injuries at about 8.30 PM near Bhagwan Talkies, Agra. 4. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1), PW-6 Constable Shivpal Singh registered a case at Case Crime No. 16 of 2008 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and prepared chik FIR (Ex.Ka-10). He also made entry of the case in General Diary, a copy of which has been filed in Court as Ex.Ka-11. Immediately on registration of the case, investigation was undertaken by PW-5, S.S.I. Satish Chandra, who proceeded to place of occurrence and, prepared site-plan (Ex.Ka-5). He also took sample of blood and simple earth,packed in separate packs, sealed them and prepared recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3). He prepared inquest report (Ex.Ka-6) on 13.01.2008 in Tehsil Campus, Sadabad. In the opinion of Investigating Officer as well as witnesses of inquest, death had occurred due to injuries sustained by deceased. Thereafter he sealed dead body and sent the same to District Hospital for post mortem after necessary documentation, through Constable Ashok Kumar and Jitendra Kumar. 5. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Manveer was conducted by PW-4, Dr. A.K. Paliwal on 13.02.2008 at about 1.00 PM. According to Doctor, the deceased was of average body built and aged about 15 years; rigor mortis was present all over the body and about half a day had passed since his death. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of deceased: (1) Punctured wound 3.5 x 2 cm, cavity deep on front of right side of chest, 8 cm below right nipple at 5'O clock position. (2) Incised would 4x1 cm, muscle deep on front of left palm, medial side (3) Abrasion 1 x cm on back of right hand. 6. On internal examination, membranes were found pale. (2) Incised would 4x1 cm, muscle deep on front of left palm, medial side (3) Abrasion 1 x cm on back of right hand. 6. On internal examination, membranes were found pale. Right pleura was found punctured and clotted blood were present; right lung (lower lobe) punctured; heart was empty; abdominal peritoneum was punctured; abdominal cavity contained clotted blood; teeth 15 x 15; stomach contained 150 gram pasty food material; lever was punctured; gall bladder was half full; spleen and both kidneys were pale and urinary bladder was empty. In the opinion of Doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries. He prepared post-mortem report (Ex.Ka-4) and after sealing the dead body as well as clothes of deceased (10 in number), he handed over the same to the Constables who had brought the dead body. 7. Subsequently, PW-5, S.I. Satish Chandra was transferred and investigation was undertaken by PW-8 Rakesh Chandra Sharma. He recorded statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and after conclusion of investigation submitted Charge-Sheet No. 18 of 2008 (Ex.Ka-15) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras who took cognizance of the offence on 04.03.2008. 8. The case being triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Sessions Court on 04.04.2008. He recorded statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and after conclusion of investigation submitted Charge-Sheet No. 18 of 2008 (Ex.Ka-15) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras who took cognizance of the offence on 04.03.2008. 8. The case being triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Sessions Court on 04.04.2008. Learned Sessions Judge, Hathras framed charges against accused-appellant on 26.05.2008 as under: ^^eSa] vuUr dqekj] l= U;k;k/kh'k] gkFkjl vki vfHk;qDr dks fuEu vkjksiksa ls vkjksfir djrk gaw %& ÁFke & ;g fd fnukad 12-01-2008 dks le; djhc 6-00 cts 'kke LFkku ykyk dh nqdku fLFkr ubZ cLrh] bZnxkg] dLck lknkckn ftyk gkFkjl esa vkius lk'k; o tkucw>dj oknh ds iq= euohj flag dks Nqjk Hkksad dj] pksV igqapkdj xEHkhj :i ls ?kk;y dj fn;k ftlds dkj.k bykt ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gks x;hA bl Ádkj vkius ,slk ekuo o/k fd;k tks gR;k dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA vr% vkius /kkjk&302 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSaA f}rh; & ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius oknh ds yM+ds euohj flag dks xkyh xykSt djds bl vk'k; ls viekfur fd;k fd og Ádksfir gksdj yksd 'kkfUr Hkax djrkA bl Ádkj vkius /kkjk&504 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA r`rh; & ;g fd mDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius euohj flag dks Hkfo"; esa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj vkijkf/kd la=kl dkfjr fd;kA bl Ádkj vkius /kkjk&506 HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA ,rn~}kjk vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkjksi ds rgr vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk,xkA^^ "I, Anant Kumar, Sessions Judge, Hathras charge you accused Mubarak Ali with the following charges: Firstly, that you on 12.01.2008 at about 6.00 PM at the Shop of Lala situated in Nai Basti Eidgah, Quasba Sadabad, District Hathras intentionally and deliberately inflicted grievous injuries to Manveer Singh, son of informant by stabbing knife on him, on account of which, during course of treatment, he died. Thereby, you committed homicide which falls within the category of murder and, therefore, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. which is within the cognizance of this Court: Secondly, on the aforesaid date, place and time you intentionally insulted informant's son Manveer Singh knowing that it might have provoked him to break the public peace. Thereby, you have committed an offence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly on the aforesaid date, place and time, by threatening Manveer to kill him in future, you committed criminal intimidation. Thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court. I hereby direct you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid charges." (English Translation by Court) 9. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of his case, prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses, out of which PW-1, Sugriva Singh, PW-2 Rajveer Rawat, PW-3 Bhagwan Das and PW-7 Sanjay Singh alias Sanju are witness of fact. Rest are formal witnesses. PW-4 is Dr. A.K. Paliwal, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Manveer and has proved Post-mortem report (Ex.Ka-4). PW-5, S.S.I., Satish Chandra is first Investigating Officer, who has proved site plan (Ex.Ka-5), recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3) in respect of blood stained and simple earth' inquest (Ex.Ka-6) and other documents prepared by him. He has also proved material Exhibits before the Court including clothes of the deceased. PW-6 Constable Shivpal Singh had registered FIR at Case Crime No. 16 of 2008 on presentation of written report (Ex.Ka-1) by Informant PW-1 and had prepared chik report and made entry of the crime in General Diary. He has proved copy of chik FIR (Ex.Ka-10) as well as G.D. (Ex.Ka-11). PW-8 Rakesh Chandra Sharma is second Investigating Officer who had arrested the accused-appellant and after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-15) in Court. 10. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He stated to have been falsely implicated in the case and that prosecution witnesses in connivance with Informant are deposing falsely. He is not aware of the injuries sustained by the deceased. He did not adduce any oral evidence in support of defence. 11. After hearing counsel for parties, Trial Court recorded verdict of conviction against accused-appellant and sentenced him as stated above. 12. He is not aware of the injuries sustained by the deceased. He did not adduce any oral evidence in support of defence. 11. After hearing counsel for parties, Trial Court recorded verdict of conviction against accused-appellant and sentenced him as stated above. 12. Trial Court relied on ocular version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that incident took place before them and they are witnesses of incident of accused-appellant causing injuries to Manveer which ultimately proved fatal causing his death while he was on the way for Hospital. It has also observed that minor inconsistencies and contradictions were not material and substantial so as to discredit ocular version of aforesaid three witnesses. Witnesses proved that on 12.01.2008 Manveer had gone to the shop of Lala for some purchases at about 6.00 PM when Mubarak Ali caught him and attacked with knife. First attack was taken by Manveer on his hand resulting injury on his hand and second attempt was on his chest. This evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is duly corroborated by medical evidence also. The mere fact that PW-1 is father and PW-2 is brother of deceased per se is not sufficient to reject oral and ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, in absence of further material to show that any of the aforesaid witnesses has any reason to give false statement and implicate accused-appellant falsely. The above oral evidence is consistent with FIR version. It has also observed that though there is no evidence of availability of light at place of incident, but time of incident being around 6.00 PM in the evening and it is true that some darkness followed in winter season at that point of time but accused-appellant is neighbor of Informant, PW-1 Sugriv Singh, and such person could have been easily recognized even if there is some darkness since person is well known. This fact is not sufficient to discredit the ocular version of witnesses. PW-2 being son of PW-1 was well acquainted with Manveer and, therefore, could have easily identify him even when incident took place in the late evening in winter season, i.e., around 6.00 PM. Site plan also shows that shop of Lala was near the place of incident. It has also relied on discovery of weapon, i.e. knife on the information given by accused-appellant in custody and said knife in forensic examination was found to have stains of human blood. 13. Site plan also shows that shop of Lala was near the place of incident. It has also relied on discovery of weapon, i.e. knife on the information given by accused-appellant in custody and said knife in forensic examination was found to have stains of human blood. 13. Though in case of eye-witness motive loses its importance but when motive is shown, it has to be proved. PW-1 has clearly said that accused-appellant had a suspicion that his wife used to talk with deceased Manveer Singh and had some illicit relations with him; accused-appellant also had nexus with unsocial elements who use to visit his residence regularly. On this aspect, Court below not find anything otherwise extracted by defence in cross-examination. A person may show a criminal behavior for various reasons and it cannot be said that a particular fact will not cause any reason of enmity or motive to commit a crime. Therefore, Trial Court held that motive was also proved by prosecution witnesses. Though incident took place around 6.00 PM, but Manveer Singh died at around 8.30 when he was being taken to Hospital at Agra. Nature of injuries shows that there was intention of accused-appellant to kill the deceased. Therefore, on the basis of ocular version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3; discovery of weapon of crime, i.e., knife on the information given by accused-appellant while in custody and forensic report proving that weapon had human blood on it, Trial Court held that prosecution has successfully proved case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. though denied entire incident and claimed that he was falsely implicated but could give no such reason as to why he was falsely implicated and also did not produce any evidence in defence, hence prosecution case remained un-rebutted. 14. Feeling dissatisfied, accused-appellant has approached this Court through Jail Superintendent by means of this Jail Appeal. 15. Heard Sri Araf Khan, Advocate, assisted by Sri Lihazur Rahman Khan, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for State. 16. 14. Feeling dissatisfied, accused-appellant has approached this Court through Jail Superintendent by means of this Jail Appeal. 15. Heard Sri Araf Khan, Advocate, assisted by Sri Lihazur Rahman Khan, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for State. 16. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that Court below has erred in fact and law in convicting and sentencing appellant inasmuch prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond doubt; there was no eye witness; evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses has been misread by Court below and there is no evidence to show that appellant attacked the deceased and caused his death. He submitted that FIR is ante time; incident is said to have occurred at 6.00 PM and FIR was lodged at 7.00 PM. the deceased's father and brother both claimed that they were busy in taking the deceased for Hospital for treatment and this shows that FIR has been lodged subsequently. 17. Learned A.G.A. on the contrary submitted that incident was seen by deceased's father, brother and other witnesses, who deposed in the Court below and no material inconsistency has been found in their statements and coupled with the fact that weapon of crime was recovered by Police on the information given by accused-appellant when in custody clearly prove that it is only the accused-appellant who has committed crime and, therefore, prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt which has been accepted by Trial Court and looking to the nature of offence, not even adequate but minimum punishment has been awarded, hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that for the threat caused by appellant to the deceased openly in the market area, he has rightly been convicted under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. 18. In order to consider the rival submissions, we have to first examine whether PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3's statement can be said to be an ocular testimony of the incident in question. 19. In the FIR, PW-1 said that Manveer went to make some purchases from shop of Lala at around 6.00 PM on 12.01.2008. The accused-appellant lay in ambush and attacked Manveer Singh with knife with an intention to kill him. 19. In the FIR, PW-1 said that Manveer went to make some purchases from shop of Lala at around 6.00 PM on 12.01.2008. The accused-appellant lay in ambush and attacked Manveer Singh with knife with an intention to kill him. FIR version further said that Manveer when assaulted by accused-appellant raised alarm and hearing it, Informant, his son Rajveer Singh, wife Smt. Phoolwati and Bhagwan Das and other persons near him ran towards the place of incident. When accused-appellant saw these persons coming, he quickly inflicted knife injuries to Manveer Singh and said that today he was saved but in future he will not and then ran away. This FIR version shows that Informant, his son Rajveer Singh and wife Smt. Phoolwati were not present near shop of Lala or where accused-appellant was hiding and waiting for Manveer. These persons ran towards place of incident when they heard alarm raised by deceased. However, Informant said that when they ran towards Manveer Singh saw accused-appellant inflicting knife injuries on the body of deceased and saying that though he (Manveer Singh) has saved that day but would not be saved in future, fled away. This part of incident was seen by Informant and others. Informant himself is PW-1 and in cross examination he has said that he was not present at his house when incident took place. His statement in this regard reads as under: ^^ftl le; ?kVuk gqbZ eSa ?kj ij ugha FkkA^^ "When the incident took place, I was not at home." (English Translation by Court) 20. He further submitted that Mubarak Ali was laying in ambush was told to PW-1 by some persons but who those persons are, has not been stated. Therefore, this statement is hearse as details of any such person giving this information has not been disclosed. However, PW-1 has clarified that in his Gali there are only two houses, one of himself and another of Om Prakash. On hearing alarm he ran towards place of incident and accused-appellant inflicted injuries by knife before him and he saw it. He clearly said that two knife injuries were caused upon deceased by appellant. There is not much cross examination on this aspect. On hearing alarm he ran towards place of incident and accused-appellant inflicted injuries by knife before him and he saw it. He clearly said that two knife injuries were caused upon deceased by appellant. There is not much cross examination on this aspect. Therefore, statement of PW-1 that injuries caused by knife on the body of the deceased which were seen by him remained uncontroverted which also prove FIR version even if other part of statement of PW-1 is not accepted. 21. PW-2 is brother of deceased. He has also stated that hearing alarm raised by Manveer Singh, Informant, Smt. Phoolwati, mother of PW-2; Dilip Sharma and Bhagwan Das ran to the place of incident and saw two knife injuries inflicted by Mubarak Ali, accused-appellant on the body of Manveer Singh, who fell near the shop of Lala after sustaining aforesaid injuries. Appellant, thereafter ran away and could not be caught. PW-2 brought Manveer Singh to Government Hospital, Sadabad where looking to his precarious condition Doctor referred him to Agra and while he was on the way to Hospital at Agra, Manveer Singh succumbed to injuries near Bhagwan Talkies, Agra. Death, therefore, obviously caused due to injuries sustained by Manveer Singh. In the cross-examination, PW-2 said that when he reached place of incident, Manveer Singh had got two injuries, one on the hand and another on the chest, and lot of blood was oozing out. It is argued that PW-2, therefore, is not a witness to the alleged infliction of knife by Mubarak Ali upon Manveer Singh. On the contrary PW-2 only saw Manveer Singh in injured condition when reached the place of incident. Here we find that reply in cross examination is obviously in the context of question asked from witness. The witness in the examination-in-chief said that on hearing alarm he ran towards place of incident from his house. There is a 20 paces distance from house of Informant to place of incident. It is a straight road as is evident from site plan. In the examination-in-chief witness said that when he was running towards deceased after coming out from house he saw accused-appellant inflicting knife injuries upon Manveer Singh and executing a threat that in future he will not be saved, accused-appellant fled away. This evidence is in the time factor when witness was running from his house to the place of incident. In the examination-in-chief witness said that when he was running towards deceased after coming out from house he saw accused-appellant inflicting knife injuries upon Manveer Singh and executing a threat that in future he will not be saved, accused-appellant fled away. This evidence is in the time factor when witness was running from his house to the place of incident. In the cross-examination what he said is that when he reached place of incident after covering 20 paces, there he found Manveer Singh in injured condition since by that time accused-appellant had already fled away. If we read this statement of PW-2 in entirety and also in the light of site-plan showing that there is about 20 paces distance from the house to the place of incident, we do not find any inconsistency or material contradiction that PW-2 is not an eye-witness of the injuries caused by accused-appellant on the person of deceased. PW-2 being real brother of Manveer Singh, his conduct was natural in carrying him to Hospital at Sadabad and when Doctor referred injured person to District Hospital, Agra, PW-2 carried him to Hospital at Agra but in the mid way injured died. In our view, ocular testimony of PW-2 of injuries caused by appellant upon Manveer Singh cannot be said to be incorrect or discreditworthy and on the other hand entire evidence is consistent and duly corroborated the FIR version as well as statement of PW-1. Both witness are consistent on the fact that accused-appellant stabbed deceased twice and this is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 22. PW-3, Bhagwan Das, has also given a similar statement and he is also an eye-witness of the incident. He also came to the place of incident and this fact has been corroborated by PW-1 and PW-2 both. His ocular version prove the incident of stabbing by Mubarak Ali. The manner in which two injuries were inflicted by Mubarak Ali has also been stated by PW-3 which is consistent with ocular version of PW-1 and PW-2. The threat extended by Mubarak Ali before running away and the words uttered by him are also corroborated by ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. In the cross-examination though an attempt has been made to prove that he was a chance witness. The threat extended by Mubarak Ali before running away and the words uttered by him are also corroborated by ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. In the cross-examination though an attempt has been made to prove that he was a chance witness. To this extent we also find that he has come to the residence of Sua Pahalwan for some work which he did not state clearly as to what for he has come though he was resident of another Village Sarauth and Sua Pahalwan was resident of village Karaiya. Even Village Karaiya is about 2 miles from place of incident. While going to Village Karaiya, he followed the way from Sadabad and in between witnessed the said incident. At one place of cross-examination he said that he heard alarm raised by Manveer Singh when he was near water tank and then he reached the place of incident where 10-15 people were present and injured was bleeding. Then he also accompanied injured to Hospital where they reached around 7.00 PM. This part of cross examination of PW-3 shows that he had no occasion to see accused-appellant inflicting injuries by stabbing with knife and on the contrary after hearing alarm when he reached the site 10-15 people were already present. In the light of these facts, we find it difficult to accept testimony of PW-3 as an ocular testimony to the incident of stabbing by knife on Manveer Singh by Mubarak Ali and it appears that PW-3 reached the site after Manveer Singh had fled away and in cross-examination this statement has been given by PW-3 on the information he received but he himself is not an eye witness to this fact. He only saw Manveer Singh in an injured condition and thereafter took him to Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Agra and while in the way Manveer Singh died. Even if this part of statement of PW-3 that he saw Mubarak Ali inflicting knife injuries upon Manveer Singh is excluded still we find that oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 on this aspect is very clear and there is no material contradiction to discredit their testimony, and subsequent part is corroborated by PW-3. 23. Then there is another relevant aspect, i.e., discovery of knife used in the crime on the information given by accused-appellant. 23. Then there is another relevant aspect, i.e., discovery of knife used in the crime on the information given by accused-appellant. This fact has been proved by PW-7, Sanjay Singh, who is witness to the recovery memo. An attempt was made to argue that PW-7 was an interesting witness and relative of deceased but this fact has been clearly denied by PW-7. 24. PW-8, Investigating Officer, Rakesh Chandra Sharma, has also proved arrest of appellant on 17.01.2005. When statement of accused was recorded, he gave information and thereafter caused discovery of knife used in the crime. On this aspect we do not find anything extracted by defence in cross examination to discredit the above witness. 25. This part of evidence that weapon used in the crime in question was recovered on the information given by accused-appellant is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872"). Section 27 of Act, 1872 provides for how much of information received from accused who is in custody of police may be proved. It reads as under: "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." 26. Aforesaid provision is by way of proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of Act, 1872. An statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. 27. In Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 659 Court said that Section 27 permits proof of so much of information which is given by persons accused of an offence when in custody of a Police Officer as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, irrespective of whether such information amounts to a confession or not. Sections 25 and 26 of Act, 1872 provides that no confession made to a Police Officer whether in custody or not can be proved as against the accused. Sections 25 and 26 of Act, 1872 provides that no confession made to a Police Officer whether in custody or not can be proved as against the accused. Section 27, therefore, is proviso to above Sections and statement even by way of confession, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible as evidence against accused in the circumstances stated in Section 27. 28. In Mohmed Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828 Court observed that though interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been subject of consideration in several authoritative pronouncement but its application to concrete cases is not always free from difficulty. In order to make its application swift and convenient Court considered the provision again and said: "12. The expression "Provided that" together with the phrase "whether it amounts to a confession or not" shows that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section in to operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word "distinctly" means "directly", "indubitably", "strictly", "unmistakably". The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered" is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered" is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered." 29. Idea behind Section 27 has been explained by Court in para 20 of judgment in Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45 as under: "20. If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-exculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya vs. Emperor, (1947) AIR PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. State of Maharashtra vs. Danu Gopinath Shirde and Others, (2000) Cri. LJ 2301. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given. " (Emphasis added) 30. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given. " (Emphasis added) 30. Similar issue has been considered in a recent judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2009, Raju Manjhi vs. State of Bihar, decided on 02.08.2018. Therein Court held that Act, 1872 provides that even when an accused being in the custody of police makes a statement that reveals some information leading to the recovery of incriminating material or discovery of any fact concerning to the alleged offence, such statement can be proved against him. Court held that recoveries of used polythene pouches of wine, money, clothes, chains and bangle were all made at the disclosure by the accused which corroborates his confessional statement and proves his guilt and such confessional statement stands and satisfies the test of Section 27 of Act, 1872. 31. In the case in hand, witness has proved the fact that on the information given by accused in custody, weapon of crime was recovered and, therefore, in our view, this fact is admissible in evidence and Court below has rightly taken the same as a relevant admissible evidence. 32. Accused-Appellant was given due opportunity of defence but he chose not to give any evidence and under Section 313 Cr.P.C. his reply is evasive. 33. In these entire facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that Court below has rightly held that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant. 34. Learned counsel for appellant, however, argued that Smt. Phoolwati, wife of Sugriv Singh, Informant was not examined though PW-1 and PW-2 both claim that she also reached with them at the site of incident simultaneously. Besides, Dilip Sharma was also not examined. 35. We find no substance in the above argument for the reason that it is not the number of witnesses, but their quality which is material. Besides, Dilip Sharma was also not examined. 35. We find no substance in the above argument for the reason that it is not the number of witnesses, but their quality which is material. Non examination of one or more witnesses will not help an accused if the evidence adduced by prosecution is sufficient to prove the charge leveled against accused-appellant and, therefore, non examination of any witness per se will not be of any assistance to accused-appellant. 36. With regard to ante-timing of FIR, we find that initially Manveer Singh sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Hospital at Sadabad where, as per PW-3, they reached at about 7.00 PM when Doctor did not administer any treatment and looking to severity of injuries immediately referred them to Agra. Brother of Manveer, by a private vehicle, proceeded for Agra. In the meantime, father of deceased, PW-1, initially lodged report at Sadabad Police Station at around 7.00 PM. When distance of Police Station is about one kilometer it cannot be said that FIR is ante time. Time is mentioned approximately and when such an incident has occurred, it is not expected that every person will be taking steps by noticing exact time with a close observation of watch. Initially, report is that of an injury and that is why it was registered under Section 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. but when Manveer Singh died at around 8.30 on the same day and his brother communicated this fact by phone to Informant, he gave this information to Police on the same day by Ex.Ka-2 and thereafter case was registered under Section 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 37. Looking into the evidence as discussed above there can be no doubt that it is only appellant who has committed crime in question. 38. No argument has been advanced on conviction and sentence under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. but we have examined this aspect also. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, which we have already discussed above, conviction of accused-appellant under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. also is duly proved by evidence and Trial Court has rightly given a verdict of conviction. 39. Now coming to the question of sentence, it is a matter of common knowledge that punishment should be adequate and in this regard various factors need be considered. 39. Now coming to the question of sentence, it is a matter of common knowledge that punishment should be adequate and in this regard various factors need be considered. In the present case, accused-appellant has been found guilty of murder and has committed a crime under Section 302 I.P.C. where minimum punishment is life imprisonment, therefore, punishment awarded to accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. cannot be said to be illegal, erroneous or excessive. The punishment imposed upon accused-appellant under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. also cannot be said to be excessive or unjust considering the entire evidence, as we have already discussed above. Impugned judgment and order passed by Trial Court, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. 40. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Hathras in Session Trial No. 162 of 2008, State vs. Mubarak Ali, relating to Case Crime No. 16 of 2008, under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras awarding sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is hereby maintained and confirmed. 41. Lower Court record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to Court concerned for necessary compliance. Copy of judgment be also sent to accused-appellant through the Jail Superintendent concerned for intimation forthwith.