The exculpatory and inculpatory parts of a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be separated, and the statement must be considered in its entirety.

D.B.LAL, J.

1. Jagjit Singh appellant has been held guilty under S.302 of the Indian Penal of the prosecution was that on May 31 1974 at about 8.30 p. m., Lachhman Singh went to the house of his son Harpal Singh deceased in Model Town, Phagwara. Harpal Code by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The case Singh was not found present and thereafter Lachhman Singh went to the house of one Ajit Singh. While he was talking with Ajit Singh, Tarsem Singh and Mota Singh also arrived. Some time later Harpal Singh also came and thereafter he left, saying that he would return subsequently. After about 15/20 minutes, some alarm was raised from the direction of the house of Jagjit Singh accused. When Lachhman Singh, Mota Singh and Tarsem Singh went to that side, they found that Jagjit Singh accused, along with Balwant Singh, his two companions Tarjeeb Singh and Bhupinder Singh and Kulbir Singh who is a nephew of Jagjit Singh, were catching hold of Harpal Singh and were giving him a beating. It was stated that during the course of that beating, Jagjit Singh accused was holding a knife and he gave a knife blow which caused instantaneous death of Harpal Singh. It was further stated that the dead body of Harpal Singh was removed by the accused to the house of Jagjit Singh. Thereafter Lachhman Singh left for the Police Station and met SI Sarup Chand at the Police Station. He made a statement Ex. P-A before him which forms the basis of the first information report (FIR) which was instituted at 9.40 p. m. on May 31, 1974 at Police Station Phagwara. The special report of the case, however, reached the Magistrate at Phagwara on the next day at 12.05 p. m., on June 1, 1974 although the distance of the Court of the Magistrate from the Police Station was only 100 yards. SI Sarup Chand, according to him, reached the spot during the very same night. He performed the inquest and got removed the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Indra Khosla on the next day, on June 1, 1974 at 11. a. m. The doctor found one incised wound in the region of the neck which was sufficiently deep and the death was the result of this very injury. Besides one incised wound, one fracture was detected over the right ankle joint. Three abrasions were found on the right forearm and right elbow joint and the contusion over the left eyebrow. According to the doctor, the incised, wound which was injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Subsequently, a disclosure statement was supposed to have been made by Jagjit Singh accused and the knife Ex. P-1 was said to be recovered at his instance. Some time later the accused was again interrogated on June 4, 1974 and a gold chain and a gold kara which were said to belong to the deceased, were recovered from him. On these facts and allegations, Jagjit Singh accused besides the other four was sent up to stand trial under Section 302. He was also prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 148 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution relied upon the eye witness account which was supplied by Lachhman Singh (P. W. 1), Tarsem Singh (P. W. 2) and Mota Singh (P. W. 3). Ajit Singh (P. W. 5) was also examined. Dr. Indra Khosla came to prove the injuries.

4. The defence was one of emphatic denial. Jagjit Singh, however, stated that when he returned to his house at 8.30 p. m., he found that his wife Amarjit Kaur was struggling with a person who was attempting a rape upon her; inasmuch as her salwar was untied and her clothes were torn and she had also fallen on the ground. The accused attempted to save his wife, but the person attempting to commit rape did not desist with the result that the accused gave a knife blow to him and the assailant fell down dead near his deorhi. Subsequently, the Police came to the spot and at the instance of Lachhman and others, this case was falsely foisted upon him.

5. The learned trial Judge considered th