JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life. He has further been convicted u/s 201 and sentenced to R.I. for five years, both sentences to run concurrently. 2. The deceased Budu Khatia is the younger brother l of the accused. They separated several years prior to the occurrence. There was some dispute between them regarding the price of a calf which the deceased sold for Rs. 65/ - but did not give the Appellant his share in the money. It is also alleged that the deceased did not give the accused his share in the sale-proceeds of a necklace belonging to their mother (p.w.1). The prosecution case is that on 25-10-1964, when the Appellant found the deceased alone in a place called Bhalududuma Jholi he killed him by giving blow on his neck with a bill-hook (a sharp weapon locally called Gagada Kati') and that very night with the help of his son (p.w.11) threw the dead body into the river Kolab. As the deceased did not return home for three to four days, his mother (p.w.1) became suspicious and made queries from the accused, but the latter gave evasive replies saying that he would kill her as he had killed his brother. P.w.1 brought this matter to the notice of the villagers. A punchayati was held in the village where the accused admitted to have killed his brother at Bhalududuma Jholi (hereinafter called as the 'Jholi). He also led the Punch to the place where he committed the murder. P.w.2, a member of the Punch reported this matter to the police. The police, however, could not trace out the dead body as it was thrown at a place where the water depth was about 30'. From the place of occurrence only some bloodstained earth and leaves containing blood were seized. The billhook, M.O.I., a blood stained Chaddar of the deceased (M.O. II) and the wearing apparels of the accused (M. Os. IV and VI were recovered from the house of the accused. After investigation was complete, the Appellant was charge-sheeted and committed to the Court of sessions to stand his trial for offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced as hereinbefore stated. 3. IV and VI were recovered from the house of the accused. After investigation was complete, the Appellant was charge-sheeted and committed to the Court of sessions to stand his trial for offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced as hereinbefore stated. 3. The accused made a judicial confession before a Magistrate (p.w.3) though at the trial he denied his guilt. He also made an extra-judicial confession before p. ws. 2,4, 5, 8 and 10 though his case was that out of fear for the police and the Punchayats who assaulted him, he confessed his guilt. He also admitted to have led the Punch and pointed out the place under a Sahaj tree near the Jholi where he committed the murder though his case was that out of fear he did all these. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence nor was the dead body traceable for post-mortem examination. The prosecution case, however, rests on the following evidence: (1) The judicial confession (Ext. 3) made by the accused before a Magistrate, p.w.1; (2) The extra-judicial confession made by the accused before p. ws. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10; (3) His admission of guilt before the committing Court; (4) The evidence of p.w.11 who has stated that his father the accused told him that he had killed his uncle and that he should assist him in throwing the dead body into the river; (5) The threat given by the accused to his mother, p.w.1 that he would kill her in the same way as he had killed his brother; (6) Recovery of bloodstained earth and leaves from near the place of occurrence; (7) Recovery of Blood-stained clothes, M. Os. IV and v. from the person of the accused and also the blood-stained Chaddar (M.O. III from the accused; and (8) the recovery of the weapon of offence, M.O.I. from the house of the accused. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that it was the Appellant who had committed the murder and tried to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body into the river Kolab. 5. The main contention of Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is that in the absence of any direct evidence of the murder the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 5. The main contention of Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is that in the absence of any direct evidence of the murder the accused is entitled to an acquittal. This contention however, cannot be accepted in view of the overwhelming evidence in the case. 6. In the Judicial confession made by the accused, he admitted to have committed the offence, though he retracted from the same, contending that it is on account of fear he made that confession. There can be little doubt that this confession was voluntary. The accused was produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 3-11-1964. On that day he was remanded to Jail Hazat and was directed to be produced on before another Magistrate on the following day. He was given further time for reflection and was directed to be produced on 5.11.1964, when p.w.3 the Magistrate made the police to withdraw from his Court. He gave necessary warning to the accused and told him that he was not bound to make a statement and in case he made any statement, it was likely to be used against him in a judicial proceeding. After allowing several hours for reflection, p.w.3, recorded the confession. In spite of that the accused in his statement admitted to have committed the murder of his brother. In his statement the accused's case was that his brother, the deceased did not give him any share from the sale-proceed of the calf and the necklace of their mother. He therefore killed him near the Jholi by means of a bill-hook. Nothing has been brought out from the evidence to suggest that this statement was the result of any coercion by the police. 7. The next question was whether the retracted confession of the accused is true. The overwhelming evidence in the case establishes the truth of the confession. Apart from the extrajudicial confession, and the admission made by the accused in the committing Court, the other evidence goes to show that the confession was true. It is in evidence that the accused led the villagers to the Jholi and pointed out to them the place under Sahaj tree where he killed his brother. It is the evidence of p.w.11 that his father tool him to that place where he found the dead body of his uncle lying under that tree. It is in evidence that the accused led the villagers to the Jholi and pointed out to them the place under Sahaj tree where he killed his brother. It is the evidence of p.w.11 that his father tool him to that place where he found the dead body of his uncle lying under that tree. P.w.11 found two cut-injuries on the right side of the neck and the other over the ear of the deceased. Both the injuries were bleeding and the ground was stained with blood. It is further clear from his evidence that M.O.I. which belonged to the accused was also found to have been stained with blood which the accused washed and he also warned his son, p w. 11 not to disclose it to any body. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of p.w.11 that the dead body what lying near the Jholi as stated in the confession with cut-injuries on the neck of the deceased. This evidence fully testifies to the truth of the confession made by the accused. 8. The extra-judicial confession has been fully established by the evidence of p. ws. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10. The evidence of these witnesses is that the accused admitted before them that he had killed his brother at a place called Bhalududuma Jholi by giving him two blows with a bill-hook from behind and later in, the night he carried the dead body with the help of his son and threw the same into the deep waters of river Kalab. The accused also led them to the place where the witnesses found marks of blood though the place was scraped. There is, nothing to discredit the evidence of these respectable. witnesses and the plea of the accused that he made his statement under coercion must accordingly be rejected. 9. In this statement before the committing Court, the accused clearly admitted that he killed his brother while he was 4. Returning from his father-in-Law's house by giving two blows on his neck with a Gagada Keti. This statement of the accused recorded before the committing Magistrate was tendered by the prosecution and was read as evidence u/s 287, Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, we have got the admission of guilt by the accused at three different stages, viz." (i) the confession before the Magistrate, p.w.3, (ii) extra-judicial confession before the p. ws. This statement of the accused recorded before the committing Magistrate was tendered by the prosecution and was read as evidence u/s 287, Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, we have got the admission of guilt by the accused at three different stages, viz." (i) the confession before the Magistrate, p.w.3, (ii) extra-judicial confession before the p. ws. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10, and (iii) his statement before the committing Court recorded u/s 312 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The evidence of p.w.1, the mother of the accused and that of p.w.11, the son of the accused had considerable eight to the prosecution story. There, is absolutely no reason why these persons one being the mother and, the other being the son of the accused, would falsely depose-against him. Both the witnesses have said that the accused admitted before them that he killed the deceased. P.w.11 has further stated, that his father asked him to accompany him to the place to assist him in throwing the dead body and he did so out of fear as the accused also threatened to kill him if he refused to do so. In fact, at the spot, p.w.11 saw the dead body of his uncle. 11. The blood-stained chaddar, M.O. III was recovered from the house of the accused. It is the evidence of p. ws. 8, 9 and 11 that this chaddar belongs to him, but he was unable to explain under what circumstances human blood was found on the said chaddar. Similarly he was also unable to explain the existence of human blood on M. Os. IV and v. which were recovered from his house. He admits the bill-hook to be his. It is the evidence of the doctor, p.w.6, that a blow with a weapon like M.O.I. is sufficient to kill a person. No doubt, M.O.I. did not contain any marks of blood, but we have it from the evidence of p.w.11 that the accused washed the bill-hook in the river before he returned home after throwing the dead body into the river. 12. As already stated, the accused had a motive for committing the offence as the deceased did not give him his share of the money from the sale-proceeds of the calf and the necklace of p.w.1. In view 'of this evidence it is clearly established that it was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. 13. 12. As already stated, the accused had a motive for committing the offence as the deceased did not give him his share of the money from the sale-proceeds of the calf and the necklace of p.w.1. In view 'of this evidence it is clearly established that it was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. 13. According to the evidence of the doctor p.w.6 one or two blows with a weapon like the M.O.I. were sufficient to cause death and in view of this evidence it can hardly be doubted that the accused intended to commit the murder of his brother. His conviction u/s 302, Indian Penal Code must accordingly be maintained and also the sentence passed therefor. 14. With respect to the charge u/s 201, Indian Penal Code the case mainly rests on the evidence of p.w.11. It is his evidence that his father the accused, on the night of occurrence, asked hi to accompany him to the place of occurrence. Both of them reached the place of occurrence. His father carried one bill-hook and some ropes. He followed him with a Tangi (M.O. II). After reaching the place his father tied the hands and legs of the deceased, put a noose round his neck and then both of them carried the dead body with the help of a bamboo to the Dongaghat of the village. They boarded a boat and came to the mid-stream where his father threw the dead body into the water. Then they rowed back to the spore and returned home. His father warned him not to disclose this fact to anybody. The other circumstance, viz., the place of occurrence as stated in the confession of the accused partly supports the version of p.w.11. The deceased was not traceable in the village. There is nothing to suggest that he was living elsewhere or was still' alive. His wife and children were living in his father-in-law's house. As stated already, the dead body was not traceable for post-mortem examination. This circumstance, fully supports the version of p.w.11 that it was thrown into the deep waters of river Kolab. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that the accused disappearance of evidence of the murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment. l5. As stated already, the dead body was not traceable for post-mortem examination. This circumstance, fully supports the version of p.w.11 that it was thrown into the deep waters of river Kolab. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that the accused disappearance of evidence of the murder in order to screen himself from legal punishment. l5. The question that arises for consideration is whether Section 201 is applicable to a case of an actual offender or it is restricted in its application to persons other than the real of offenders. There was once an opinion that the section applies not to the original offender, but only to such persons who screen the principal offender, but the, point appears to have been set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court in Kalawati and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was held that Section 201 is not restricted to the case of a person who screens the actual offender and is also applicable to persons guilty of the main offence, though as a matter of practice the Court will not convict a person both of the main offence and u/s 201. In view of this legal position, recording of a formal order of conviction u/s 201 and awarding a separate sentence for the same are not called for. In the result therefore, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code are maintained and the conviction and sentence passed u/s 201 are set aside. Subject to this modification in the order of the Sessions Judge dated 12-7-65, the appeal is dismissed. Barman, A.C.J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed