( 1 ) "beatus ille qui procul negotiis. . . . . . paterna rura babus exercet suit" (happy he who far, removed from business. . . tills with his own oxen the fields that were his father s), wrote Horace years before the Christ, and yet exodus to the towns continues unabeted The lure is for an opening, for riches or for mere crumbs. Anant Ram was no exception. His relative Chotey Lal was already settled in the harried, harassed, half-crushed, cockroach of a city called Delhi, as a domestic help with one Pushp Nath Khosla. He too migrated to Delhi to live with Chotey Lal in the stairs of Khosla s house and to look out for a job He had hardly seen twelve or thirteen summers of his life How could he know the December of his life was just waiting to lower him into the icy grave of enternal sleep. He was found dead on the morning of August 5, 1985, a victim of carnal intercourse and strangulation

( 2 ) ON August 6 the appellant was arrested for having committed the crime and after the trial he was found guilty, and was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal

( 3 ) THE prosecution has learned heavily on an extra Judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant on August 5, at about 6 a. m before Hari Ram (Public Witness -2) and on the statement of Som Nath (Public Witness -6) that the appellant had visited his house twice on the 4th, the first with the deceased which came to an end at about 8 30 p. m. and the second unaccompanied by any one and lasting from 9 30 p m. to 11 p m. As per Som Nath while leaving his house for the second time. the appellant had told him that he was going to the house of the deceased

( 4 ) AS would be borne out from above, the prosecution has tried to show through Som Nath that the appellant knew he deceased well and that after consuming liquor with. Som Nath he had left for the house of the eceased at about 11 p m. on the fateful night. The fact that the appellant Knew the deceased or that the had even dented together sometime before 8: 30 p. m has not succeeded in raising our eye brows. To us this leads the prosecution neither here nor there. Of course, the second limb of the evidence, if taken to be worthy of reliance, can be treated as an important circumstance However, unfortunately for the prosecution, we reject it for the simple reason that this part of his statement finds no mention in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No more words need be wasted on him.

( 5 ) THE moment we think of the alleged extra-judicial confession, Hari Rani appears on the central-stage inviting our attention. He is a shopkeeper. His real sister is married to the brother of Chotey Lal. He is brief but incisive. 218 He tells us that on August 5, 1985 at about 6 a. m. the appellant came to him and as he appeared "very disturbed", he enquired the reason. The appellant, thereupon, told him that on August 4 he had gone to the house of the deceased afer consuming liquor and after subjecting him to a forced carnal intercourse, had strangulated him to death as he had threatened to make public what had been done to him Hari Ram further tells us that he had advised the appellant to the Police station and confess, and that at 7 am. when Chotey Lal also visited him he told him about the visit of the appellant and his confession. Standing alone and judged by ilself, positively it is an impressive account. However, a critical analysis with the assistance of other attending evidence and circumstances, would share it into pieces. record to show that the appellant was ever friendly with him or that he had been even visiting his shop before August 5. There is thus no history of previous association between him and the appellant as may justify the inference that the appellant repose confidence in him. To us thus, it seems highly improbable that the appellant would rush to him to make a confession. We thus reject it as unworth