JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has been further convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been awarded. 2. The prosecution case may be stated in brief. The deceased is the father's sister of the accused. On 7-7-1963, the only son of the accused died and he suspected the deceased as having practised witchcraft. On 8-7-1963, the deceased and Mundi Majhiani (p. w. 6) worked as labourers in the field of Fagu Majhi (p.w. 2) at a distance of about 2 miles from their village. They were returning together in the evening. Suddenly the accused came out, while they were passing through a dense forest, and caught hold of the neck of the deceased who raised an alarm that she was being assaulted. P.W. 6 ran away out of fear and reported the matter to Raimat Majhiani (p.w. 7), the wife of the village Padhan (p.w. 8). Subsequently the accused made an extra-judicial confession before P.W. 8 that he killed the deceased as his only son died the previous day on account of the witchcraft practised by the deceased. The accused also admitted his guilt before the Punches on 11-7-1963. On 12-7-1963, the village Chowkidar (p.w. 4) heard of the murder by the accused from P.W. 8. On 13-7-1903, P.W. 4 reported to the Writer Constable (p.w. 3) of Eisoi Police Station that the deceased was missing from the village. The accused was not mentioned as the author of the crime in that report. On the basis of the report P.W. 3 prepared Station Diary Entry (ext. 1). While in police custody the accused admitted before the A.S.I (p. w. 10) that he threw the dead body of the deceased into a cave near Chandra hill. He led the A.S.I. to the cave wherefrom the dead body was discovered. The doctor (p.w. 5) held the post-mortem examination on 16-7-1963 and found no injury on the dead body as it was in a highly decomposed state and could not give any reasons as to the cause of death. On 15-7-1963, the A.S.I. sent a report to the Officer-in-charge which was treated as the F.I.R. (ext. 9). 3. The accused took the plea of denial. On 15-7-1963, the A.S.I. sent a report to the Officer-in-charge which was treated as the F.I.R. (ext. 9). 3. The accused took the plea of denial. He says that his son died on 7-7-1963 and he cremated the dead body in the morning of 8-7-1963, was throughout in the village and did not go out. 4. The learned Sessions Judge discarded the extrajudicial confession of the accused before p.ws. 8 and 9. His finding on this score has not been assailed before us by the learned Government Advocate. The extra-judicial confession was rightly ruled out from consideration. 5. The conviction of the Appellant rests on the evidence of the eye-witness P.W. 6 and the discovery of the dead body in consequence of the information received from the accused. The doctor deposed that as the dead body was in a highly decomposed state, it was not possible for him to notice the injuries on it and to give reasons for the cause of death. It is open to the prosecution to establish by circumstantial evidence that the deceased died as a result of bomicide. Direct evidence may not always be available. P.W. 6 is an independent witness who deposed in a straightforward manner that she ran away out of fear after the accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased and the latter shouted on account of the assault. She immediately narrated the story to P.W. 7 who fully corroborates her. P.W. 2 supports the prosecution version that both the deceased and P.W. 6 worked in his field and returned together at the end of the day. We accept the version of P.W. 6 that the accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased inside the dense forest. Thus the deceased was last seen being caught hold of by the accused on the neck. Thereafter the deceased was missing and untraced. The accused, while in police custody, stated to P.W. 10 that he had thrown the dead body of the deceased into a cave near Chandra hill. He led P.W. 10 to the cave wherefrom the dead body was discovered. The statement of the accused that he threw the dead body into the cave is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The dead body was discovered in the cave in consequence of the information received from the accused- K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . The statement of the accused that he threw the dead body into the cave is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The dead body was discovered in the cave in consequence of the information received from the accused- K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . In his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused was asked to explain his knowledge of the existence of the dead body in the cave. He denied the fact of having made the statement and having given discovery of the dead body. We have perused the evidence of P.W. 10 and we are satisfied that his version is true. 6. Thus the deceased was found last being caught hold of by the accused on the neck where after she was missing and that it was on the information of the accused, the dead body of the deceased was discovered from a very unusual place which is a cave in a hill inside a dense forest. From these circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that the deceased died as a result of the assault by the accused on her, though the exact nature of the assault could not be determined, and that after the murder it is the accused who threw the dead body into the cave. The circumstantial evidence is complete that the deceased died as a result of homicide of which the accused was the author. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Barman, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed