JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This is an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj convicting the Appellant u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life in S.T. No. 34-M of 1958. 2. The Appellant, a young lad of 18 years, was charged with the Commission of murder, by intentionally causing the death of Raimani Bewa, his partner aunt, by a Kodali (spade), an offence punishable u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. The facts shortly stated are these: The accused Appellant was a bachelor living with his younger brother and a young unmarried sister Labanga (p.w. 3) the other three sisters having been married were living separately. The accused had illicit connection with the Jaimani Bewa (p.w. 10) who was an agnatic aunt of the accused. Jaimani was a young widow, aged 25 years, of one Guro, the first cousin of the father of the accused, who had died three or four years before the date of the incident leaving him surviving his said widow Jaimani and four children through her. As a consequence of the illicit connection between Jaimani and the accused, Jaimani became pregnant and with the help of an old lady (p.w. 5) who administered some medicine to her for abortion she caused miscarriage. This family scandal between the young nephew and the aunt came to be known to many persons in the village including the members of their own family. The said deceased Raimani, an old lady of sixty years, is alleged to have spread rum ours of this scandal in the village with the result that Jaimani was tested by the villagers with reference to her illicit connection with her nephew, the accused. By reason of the scandal, Jaimani tried to dissuade the accused from visiting her in the house and she complained that it was Raimani, the deceased, who was responsible for the spreading of the scandal in the village. The accused, however, did not stop his visits to her in the night and continued to have sexual intercourse with her frequently. But ultimately Jaimani expressed her unwillingness to submit herself to the accused's lust because of the scandal. The accused, however, did not stop his visits to her in the night and continued to have sexual intercourse with her frequently. But ultimately Jaimani expressed her unwillingness to submit herself to the accused's lust because of the scandal. In fact, Jaimani expressed to the accused that she would no longer subject herself to sexual intercourse with him unless he could devise means to check Raimani who was responsible for the spreading of the scandal. Accordingly the accused, as the prosecution case is, pitched upon a plea of getting rid of Raimani. 3. On the date of the incident (Monday September 8, 1958) the accused is stated to have met Raimani in the weekly market and told her that Goddess appeared in his dream on the previous night and told him that gold would be available at a certain spot, one mile away from the village, at night. The accused asked Raimani if she was willing to follow him to fetch the same and she readily assented and the accused promised to wake her up at midnight. On his return, the accused is stated to have dined with his mistress Jaimani in the latter's house and shared bed with her. At midnight the accused with a broomstick (M.O. VI) and a spade (M.O. II) which he collected from the house of Jaimani, went to Raimani's house. Then the accused and Raimani together went one mile away from the village. Then the accused asked Raimani to bow down in devotion before they could pitch upon the gold he had dreamt of. She did accordingly and then the accused cruelly dealt the fatal plows with the spade in his hand. The blood splashed on his wearing clothes (M.Os. III and VI) and also stained his person prefusely. It is said that the accused then stripped the deceased bare of her Sari (M.O. I.), opened the broomstick (M.O. VI) spread it on her naked waist and came with the Sari (M.O. I) which he threw away on the way in the jungle in a sal bush. These, in short, are the facts which led to the prosecution of the accused. 4. At the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction of the accused was mainly based on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused himself, as also the confession made by the accused before the Magistrate (p.w. 6). These, in short, are the facts which led to the prosecution of the accused. 4. At the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction of the accused was mainly based on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused himself, as also the confession made by the accused before the Magistrate (p.w. 6). That apart, the prosecution also relied on the recovery of certain material objects, including the Sari, which the deceased had worn at the time of the incident. It was on this state of evidence that the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid for the murder of the deceased. 5. As regards the extra-judicial confession, the most material evidence was given by the younger sister of the accused, p.w. 3 Labanga. She said that her brother, the accused, had told her that the police would arrest him and in that event she should stay with her other brother and if she feared, she should shift to her uncle or her sister. The witness Labanga in her evidence further said that the accused also added that the police would arrest him as he had killed Raimani. One day later the accused was actually arrested. In this connection the evidence of p.w. 10 Jaimani is also relevant. Jaimani in her evidence had given a detailed description of what actually had happened from the beginning to the end. If her evidence is to be believed, there can be no doubt as to the accused's having been guilty of the crime. But the defence criticism against her evidence is that she was an accomplice in the crime and therefore her evidence should not be believed. In our opinion, the evidence of the sister Labanga alone is sufficient to come to a finding that the accused had in fact made a confession of the crime. 6. Then as regards the confession made before the Magistrate, the evidence of the Magistrate himself (p.w. 6) shows that on September 15, 1958 the accused was produced before him for recording his confession. The Magistrate had told the accused that he was a Magistrate and that the accused was not bound to confess and further that if be made such confession, it could be used as evidence against him at the trial. Thereafter the Magistrate had sent him to the jail hazat. The Magistrate had told the accused that he was a Magistrate and that the accused was not bound to confess and further that if be made such confession, it could be used as evidence against him at the trial. Thereafter the Magistrate had sent him to the jail hazat. The accused was left to himself in the jail hazat for two days and it was not until September 17, 1958 that he was produced again before the Magistrate. On the latter date the Magistrate repeated to the accused the aforesaid cautions. Then the Magistrate questioned the accused generally to satisfy himself whether the accused was free from all extraneous influences. The Magistrate, after being so satisfied, recorded the confession. No police officer was within sight or hearing at the time. The Magistrate had read over the confession to the accused. The accused admitted the confession to be correct and affixed his thumb-mark, in his presence, on the confessional statement which the Magistrate had recorded. It was adduced at the trial and marked as Ext. 3. It further appears that the Magistrate had certified that the confessional statements was made voluntarily. It was urged that apart from two days' time given for reflection from 15-9-1958 till 17-9-1958 the Magistrate should have allowed the, accused some more time for reflection on the 17th September also, after giving him the usual caution. It is undoubtedly desirable that on the date on which the confession is recorded the accused is given some more time for reflection by being allowed to sit in a corner of the Court room after the usual caution is given. This is irrespective of the time for reflection allowed to him when he is remanded to jail custody after his production before the Magistrate. The necessity for thus giving him further time for reflection arises mainly because the accused is produced in Court from jail, in the custody of police constables, and some further time should be given to remove all traces of any influence that might have been produced in the mind of the accused when he has marched in police custody from-the Jail to the Court room. Though this is a healthy practice which all Magistrates recording confessions should invariably follow, we are not prepared to lay down, as a rule of law, that unless further time is given for reflection, on the date on which the confession is actually recorded, that confession should be held to be inadmissible. That will depend ultimately on whether, on a careful review of all the facts and circumstances, the Court can reasonably hold that the confession was made voluntarily. In this case the long interval of 48 hours is we think sufficient to remove an traces of police influence from the mind of the accused. We think that the confession made by the accused was by itself sufficient for the conviction of the accused for the murder of the deceased. 7. Then lastly, with regard to the recovery of the material objects on which the prosecution relied at the trial, it appears that the Sari (M.O. I.) was recovered from the jungle in the presence of the seizure witnesses. P.W. 7 said that the accused bad come to his house and from there the accused was taken to the sub-inspector of police and on his confession he was arrested. The witness further said that the sub-inspector of police asked him where he had kept the Sari of the deceased and the weapon of the offence. The accused said that he had kept the spade in Bhadi of Jaimani (p.w. 10) and the Sari of the deceased in the forest. Then the witness said that the accused had led them to the jungle and brought out the Sari (M.O. I.) kept inside a Sal bush. The evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused because unless the accused had committed the murder, it was not possible for anybody else to know about the Sari which was concealed in the jungle. This evidence is further corroborated by p.w. 8 who said that the accused after arrest led the police together with them and pointed out the cloth of the deceased in the forest and the spade in the Bhadi of Jaimani. It also appears that the wearing cloth (M.O. III) and the covering cloth (M.O. IV) of the accused with which he wrapped himself had also been seized by the police. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner. It also appears that the wearing cloth (M.O. III) and the covering cloth (M.O. IV) of the accused with which he wrapped himself had also been seized by the police. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner. In one of them, namely M.O. III, the origin of the blood was found to be human on serological test. The accused gave no satisfactory explanation to account for the presence of human blood-stains on his wearing cloth and contended himself with a mere denial. The accused, after his arrest, also led the police officer (p.w. 12) to Jaimani's (p.w. 10) house and pointed out the Bhadi where he had deposited the spade (M.O. II) stained with blood. The police officer seized it. In this context the medical evidence further strengthened the prosecution case. The doctor (p.w. 2) said that both the external injuries and all the internal ones were grievous and could have been caused by a heavy cutting weapon like a spade of the nature of M.O. II which was recovered as aforesaid. Thus from the manner and the circumstances in which the incriminating material objects were recovered as aforesaid, it is clear that the accused was guilty of the murder of the deceased. 8. We must, therefore, maintain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Narasimham, C.J. 9. I agree. 10. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed