ORDER

1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. These two appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Appeal No. 1258 of 2003 was filed by appellant Mohan Lal and Appeal No. 170 of 2001 is filed by co-accused Devi Singh. We are told that appellant Mohan Lal passed away and Mr Doongar Singh, counsel appearing for him submitted that he died in jail while undergoing imprisonment for life. Counsel for the State also submits that this fact is true. Appeal No. 1258 of 2003 abates and is dismissed.

2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2001 along with now deceased Mohan Lal is alleged to have caused the death of one Kesri Mal in the night of 26-6-1976. Mohan Lals sister, Mohini was married to Kesri Mal. It is alleged that Kesri Mal had some extramarital relationships and this was not liked by the appellant Mohan Lal and he with the assistance of the appellant Devi Singh caused the injury on the neck of Kesri Mal, while he was sleeping and he died on the spot. The prosecution case is that Mohan Lal and Devi Singh both went to the house of Kesri Mal during the night and there was nobody else in the house except Kesri Mal and they climbed over the wall and gained entry into the house and using "dhariya", Devi Singh gave a cut injury on the neck of Kesri Mal. His dead body was put on a cot and kept in the chowk. On the next day, some villagers of the locality found the house of Kesri Mal locked and they went to the police station. police came to the house and broke open the house and saw the dead body of Kesri Mal in the chowk. The body was sent for post-mortem examination and PW 29 conducted the investigation. On 28-7-1976, the present appellant was arrested from his house. Based on confession made by the appellant, "dhariya" and some bloodstained clothes were recovered from his house. The appellant was in judicial custody from 31-7-1976 to 2-8-1976, and the police informed the Magistrate that this appellant desired to give confession before the Magistrate. On 2-8-1976, the Magistrate recorded the confession of the present appellant. In the confession he narrated the whole incident and also the involvement of his co-accused Mohal Lal.

3. Based on the confession and the recovery of "dhariya" and other articles, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Division Bench of the High Court elaborately considered the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed conviction and sentence.

4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State.

5. The counsel for the appellant strenuously contended before us that confession statement relied upon by the prosecution was recorded by the Magistrate without following the legal formalities and the confession was not voluntary in nature and therefore the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court should not have placed reliance on that. It is also contended that the appellant was not given sufficient time for reflection and the Magistrate e straightaway recorded the confession and it resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant. It was also pointed out by the appellants counsel that the accused in his statement before the Magistrate categorically stated that he was beaten up by the police for three days and this clearly indicated that the confession was recorded under threat and coercion. The copy of the confession was produced before us and we have gone through it. The f recorded confession shows that the Magistrate followed the legal formalities in recording the confession. The Magistrate told the appellant that he was not bound to give any confession and if given, it would be used against him. The Magistrate also told the appellant as to whether anybody had used any force or pressure or coercion to make the confession statement. The appellant answered in the negative. The various answers given by the appellant to t