JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present appeal filed by the appellant – original accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the Sessions Court") in Sessions Case No.51 of 2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life-imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the Sessions Court was that the appellant – accused Dineshbhai Vasantbhai alias Babalal Kanani and the deceased Uttambhai were very close friends, however, the deceased Uttambhai used to insist the accused to commit an act against the order of nature and he also had a lusty eye on his wife. The accused, therefore, being fed up with such conduct of the said Uttambhai, had called him at his house situated in Sankadisheri Green Chowk at about 8.30 a.m., on 27.8.2011 when nobody was at home. When the said Uttambhai came to the said house of the accused, some quarrel had taken place between them, and thereafter, the accused inflicted number of injuries with the knife on the person of the said Uttambhai. As a result thereof, the said Uttambhai succumbed to the said injuries. The appellant – accused thereafter went to Morbi City Police Station with the blood-stained knife and his blood-stained clothes, and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR was registered as I-CR No.180 of 2011 at the said Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The Investigating Officer, after collecting sufficient evidence against the accused submitted the charge-sheet before the Court of Additional Chief Magistrate at Morbi, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial, where it was registered as Sessions Case No.51 of 2011.

3. The sessions Court, framed the charge against the accused at Exh.9 for the alleged offences, however, the same having been denied by the accused and he having claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and produced number of documents in support of the charge levelled against the accused. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, most of the panch witnesses, the witnesses who had the knowledge of the alleged incident, the father of accused and the wife of the accused had turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The Sessions Court had also not permitted the FIR registered pursuant to the complaint given by the accused, to be received in evidence. However, relying upon the evidence of the father and the uncle of the deceased Uttambhai and relying upon the other evidence with regard to the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, the Sessions Court held the charges levelled against the accused as proved and convicted and sentenced for the alleged offences as stated herein above.

4. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.K.B. Anandjiwala appearing for the appellant – accused, placing heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 119, and the provisions contained in Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act, submitted that the confession made before the police under no circumstance is admissible in evidence against the accused and even if the First Information Report is given by the accused himself before the Police Officer, which amounts to a confessional statement, the proof of such confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. According to him, the confession before the Police Officer in the form of FIR would not only include the admission of the offence, but also all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement, and therefore, no part of confessional statement would be receivable in evidence