Judgment

Nanavati, J.—The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The conviction is based upon the extra judicial confession made before P.W. 5—Ram Kishan. The trial Court and the High Court have believed the said extra-judicial confes­sion as nothing could be said against the evidence of Ram Kishan.

2. What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 5—Ram Kishan had not disclosed the fact that the appellant having made extra judicial confession immediately but he did so after 20 days and therefore the courts below should not have relied upon his evidence, P.W. 5 is a close relative of the appellant. The appellant happens to be the brother-in-law of his son as the sister of the appellant has married the son of this witness. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that he had any reason to falsely involve the appellant in commission of such a grave offence. After going through his evidence, we find that his evidence is quite reli­able.

3. It was also submitted that it was not probable that the appellant would have gone to Ram Kishan and made such a confessional statement. Ram Kishan’s son being his brother