CrPC- Sec 313 State of Maharastra Vs Alester Pereria(Bom.High Court, Cr. Appeal 430 of 2007) It is thus well established in law that admission or confession of accused in the statement under section 313 of the Code recorded in the course of trial can be acted upon and the Court can rely on these confessions to proceed to convict him. `Knowledge' is again distinguishable from `reason to believe'. The term 'knowledge' contains higher degree while the term 'reason to believe' is a matter of lesser degree. In the first, the person has direct appeal to his sense, while in the latter, there is sufficient cause to believe. While determining knowledge in relation to an event, the conduct of the person prior to and at the time of the event is of relevant consideration. Actus reus requires that to constitute a crime there must be a result brought about by human conduct, to physical event, which law prohibits. When an individual pursues or follows a line of conduct, he is expected to produce certain results. Final events or results may be the outcome of different events or it may be the result of a single act. If the end result is prohibited in law and if knowledge would have to be construed in the events of that case in relation to the evidence on record, the onus obviously is on the prosecution to prove the chain of acts even to attribute knowledge to the accused. The concept of `knowledge' has to be understood and applied to the facts of a given case in complete contra-distinction to the words `information' or `reasons to believe'. There may be difference of degree but that difference has to be kept in mind, as that alone is the paramount consideration even at the stage of framing charge whether under sections 300, 302 or 304 and for that matter, 304 (I) or (II) of the IPC.