B.R. Arora, J.-These two appeals arise out of the Judgment dated 3 0-5-96 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Since both these appeals arise out of the same Judgment -one preferred by the appellant through jail and the other is a represented one and relate to the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment .

2. Appellant Laxman, along with one Megha, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for committing the murder of his brother Bhima near the holy-place of Dana Baba situated in village Khekhadiya (district Rajsamand). The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 26-11-95, PW 1 Dewa saw the deadbody of Bhima Bhil lying near Dana Baba holy place of worship. One Kulhari smeared with blood, one Agarbati packet and a match-box were, also, lying by the side of the deadbody of Bhima. He returned to his house and informed Panna Meghwal and Kalu Meghwal. All of these three persons thereafter came near the deadbody of Bhima. The other villagers Narain Singh and others, also, came there. They made an enquiry from Bhima’s brother Laxman (the present accused-appellant) and on enquiry Laxman informed them that on the previous night, at 10.00/11.00 p.m., his brother deceased Bhima had gone for worship to Dana Baba holy place; he and Megha Rawal both followed him; Megha handed-over his Kuihari to, the accused and thereafter Megha caught-hold of both the legs of deceased Bhima and accused Laxman inflicted 5-7 injuries by the Kulhari on the face of Bhima and committed his murder. Thereafter, after leaving the Kulhari at the place of the incident, he and Megha went to their house. Prior to this incident, Megha asked him that his (appellant’s) brother always used to pick-up quarrel and he should be done to death. Thereafter he offered drink to him which he took and then both of them committed the murder of Bhima.

3. Theprosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted accused Megha of the offence Under Section 302 or 302/34, IPC but convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Laxman for the offence Under Section 302, IPC, as stated above. It is against this Judgment that the appellant has preferred these two appeals.

4. Itis contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR lodged by PW 2 Narain Singh has not been placed on reccord and the FIR (Exhibit-P1) is a post-investigation document and is the result of fabrication and embellishment and is hit by Section 162, CrPC The FIR was despatched to the Court after the delay of 24 hours while the Court is situated in the same town and not at a much distance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery of the clothes and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court, do not inspire confidence and the whole of the prosecution case has been concocted and fabricated. The appellant had neither any motive nor any occasion to commit the murder of his real brother and he, therefore, deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we would first like to see the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has produced nine witnesses. PW 1 Dewa is a Motbir witness and a witness to the extra-judicial confession. He, also, lodged the First Information Report at Police Station, Bhim. PW 2 Narain Singh is a Motbi