JUDGMENT B N. Maitra, J,: The case for prosecution is that the accused Bholanath Kesh married one Maya. The deceased Durga was her sister and she was married to the accused's younger brother, Bhutnath. Durga was a barren woman, and Bhutnath married again. The trouble arose over the second marriage and pursuant to an arbitration Durga's father-in-law gifted four bighas of land to her. But Bholanath and Bhutnath remained in the actual possession of the land. Subsequently, Durga transferred the property to a school at Keshpur, and the members of the school committee used to Centre. The accused took Durga to that hospital for looking after his wife, Maya. Then the accuses and/or Durga bearded a bus and they were seen traveling together. On the night of 21.11.1974 at about 8:30 p.m. took tea at the tea stall at Rashikgunge. On the following morning that is, on 22.11.1974, the dead body of an unknown female was found lying on the field between Rashikgunge and Bishnupur Railway Station with injuries on her person and an information was sent to the police. One Sub-Inspector went to the spot and an F.I.R was recorded. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. Charge was framed against him u odor S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The defence was a plea of innocence. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version, found the accused guilty under S. 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rupees two thousand in default, to suffer imprisonment for two years. 4. The appeal is by the accused from jail. 5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant has contended that there is no eye-witness to the murder. The case stands (Iii circumstantial evidence. The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty under S. 302 I P.C. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the accused was rightly convicted. 7. The prosecution witness no.1 Kali Ghosh saw the dead body of an unknown female lying on the field situated in between Rashikgunge and Bishnupur Railway Station on 22.11.1974. She at once rushed to Rashikgunge and narrated the incident in the presence of P.W.2, Shyama Prosad Ghosh, who has corroborated her on the point. He gave an information to the police over phone. She at once rushed to Rashikgunge and narrated the incident in the presence of P.W.2, Shyama Prosad Ghosh, who has corroborated her on the point. He gave an information to the police over phone. P.W.19 Gangadhar Banerjee, Circle Inspector, went to the spot and received the written complaint (Ext.1) from the P.W.2 Shyama Prosad Ghosh. Then the formal F.I.R. Ext. 1/3 was drawn up. The dead body was sent to the morgue. The P.W.15 Dr. S.K. Mondal held the post mortem examination on the dead body on 22.11.1974 at about noon. He says that he found (1) one ante mortem incised wound 1" x 1/6" x subcutaneous tissue deep over chin, (2) one ante mortem incised wound over lower hp ½" x 1/6" x subcutaneous tissue deep, (3) one ante-mortem lacerated injury 1" x ¼" x subcutaneous deep over right eyebrow and (4) one ante-mortem stab wound with clean margin obliquently placed over epigastrium and left hypochondriym – 4" x 1 ½" x deep up to abdominal cavity. Coils of intestines and a portion of stomach were seen protruded outside through the wound. He also says that on opening the abdominal cavity, he found blood inside abdominal cavity, left lobe of liver was seen injured, injury to liver was clean cut about 1" in length and 14" deep. He says that in his opinion, death was due to such injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. He further says that he found rigormortis present at the time of examination and death was caused within 24 hours from the time of the examination made by him. The prosecution version in this respect is believed and is held that on the night of the 21st of November, 1974, the deceased Durga Rani was murdered. 8. It remains to be seen whether the accused was in any way connected with such crime. It appears that the accused’s wife was hospitalized at the Health Centre at Patrasayer and the accused took the deceased Durga to the place for looking after his ailing wife. Next' we can see from the evidence of P.W.16 Gadadbar on 21.11.l974 in the afternoon while he was going to Bankura, be was waiting at Patrasayer bus-stand and when he boarded the bus he found the accused and Durga boarding the bus together. He further says that when he alighted from the bus at Kamalpur. Next' we can see from the evidence of P.W.16 Gadadbar on 21.11.l974 in the afternoon while he was going to Bankura, be was waiting at Patrasayer bus-stand and when he boarded the bus he found the accused and Durga boarding the bus together. He further says that when he alighted from the bus at Kamalpur. he saw the accused and Durga in the same bus and they proceeded towards Bishnupur. We find no reason to disbelieve this evidence. 9. The next chapter of the prosecution case begins at the tea stall of Dhanapati at Rashikgunge. P. W.10 Biswanath Kolay says that he is a worker of the tea-stall and about 8 or 9 p.m. on the day previous to that when the dead body was recovered, one man and a woman went to their tea-stall. The man took singara and a cup of tea and the woman remained outside the tea-stall. He identified the accused as the man who went to the tea-stall and took tea and singara. He says that Ext. V is the photograph of the woman who accompanied the accused on that night. It is relevant to point out that the P. W. 3 Haridas Karmaka is a photographer. He says 'hat on 22.11.1974 he took three photographs of the dead body of the female and he made over the same to the Police officer. The P.W.11 Nirmal Kumar Sarkar says that on the night in question at about 8 p.m. he took tea in the shop of Dhanapati and at that time the P.W. Biswanath served tea to him. He further says that the accused and a woman went into that tea-stall. The accused took tea and the woman remained outside the tea-stall. He identified the accused in the Court and he showed the photograph (Ext. V) of the woman whose dead body was found on the following day. We find nothing to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. It has already been indicated that Durga's dead body was found in the field on the following morning. We therefore, hold that the accused was last seen with the deceased on the afternoon of 21.11.1974 and also at night, that is, at about 8 or 9 p.m. in the tea-stall of Dhanapati at Rashikgunge. 10. This evidence adduced by the prosecution was placed before the accused when he was examined by the Court. We therefore, hold that the accused was last seen with the deceased on the afternoon of 21.11.1974 and also at night, that is, at about 8 or 9 p.m. in the tea-stall of Dhanapati at Rashikgunge. 10. This evidence adduced by the prosecution was placed before the accused when he was examined by the Court. He did not say anything. He maintained silence all along and did not report the matter to anyone. The conduct of the accused speaks a volume in this case, because he himself took the deceased to look after his ailing wife at the Health Centre. Her dead body was found in the field in the morning In the normal course it was expected that he would inform the police if she was missing or of she was murdered by somebody else. Reference may be made to the observations of Mr. Justice Hedayatulla in the well-known Supreme Court case of Anantalagu v. State of Bombay, reported in 1960 Criminal Law Journal 682 that conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence of the accused could alone be considered as material. The circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused have already been pointed out. In our opinion, such conduct of the accused destroys his presumption of innocence. 11. the last chapter of the prosecution case begins with the evidence of P W. 24 Ramesh Chanara Pal, Sub-Inspector, who was attached to the police station. Bishnupur, at the relevant time. He has stated that be interrogated the accused and the latter stated that he would be able to discover the iron blade of the knife, which be had kept concealed under the muddy water near the place of occurrence. He also says that the accused stated that he had committed the murder with that knife. He further says that the accused took him to the place of occurrence, made a search and he himself brought out the knife (Ext. X) in the presence of the P. W. 12 Basanta Kumar Agarwala and P. W. 13 Bejoy Sarkar and he prepared seizure list. Ext. 4. 12. Law in this respect is well settled after decision of Pulukuri Kotayya Y. King Emperor, reported in L. R. 74 Indian Appeals 65. The statement that the accused committed murder is inadmissible in evidence and that statement has to be dissected. Ext. 4. 12. Law in this respect is well settled after decision of Pulukuri Kotayya Y. King Emperor, reported in L. R. 74 Indian Appeals 65. The statement that the accused committed murder is inadmissible in evidence and that statement has to be dissected. But the other statements leading to the discovery of the weapon which was concealed is relevant, After following the principles of Pulukuri's case it bas been stated by Mr. Justice Wanchoo, in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh anr. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 at pages 1792 and 1793 that the fact discovered within the meaning of S. 27 the Indian Evidence Act embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to that fact. In that case the accused stated that he would produce the knife concealed in the roof of the house. It has been stated by the Supreme Court that if the information supplied by a person in custody that I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house leads to the discovery of the knife, that shows that the accused concealed that knife in his house and be had knowledge of the same and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the crime the fact of discovery is relevant. 13. The P.W. 12 Basanta Kumar Agarwala and P.W. 13 Bejoy Sarkar say that the accused took them to the field where the dead body of a female lay and the knife was recovered. They say that the handle was not fixed with the iron blade. Their evidence is believed. We can refer to the aforesaid evidence of P.W. 15 Dr. S.K. Mandal to show that the incised injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 could have been caused with a sharp cutting weapon like the knife (Ext. X) He also says that lacerated injury on the right eyebrow could be caused with any hard and blunt substance like the handle of a knife (Ext 11). So the evidence of the doctor also supports the prosecution version that death was caused with the knife within 24 hours of the examination made by the doctor on 22-11-1974 at about 12 noon. The accused concealed the knife and murder was committed with it. So the evidence of the doctor also supports the prosecution version that death was caused with the knife within 24 hours of the examination made by the doctor on 22-11-1974 at about 12 noon. The accused concealed the knife and murder was committed with it. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant can not be accepted. We therefore bold that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and the conduct of the accused can also be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. The charge has been brought home to him beyond reasonable doubt and we find that on the' 5th of Agrahayana, 1381 B.S., that is, between 21st and 22nd day of November, 1974, at Bishnupur the accused intentionally murdered Durga Bala Kesh and he is guilty under S. 302 I.P.C. The appeal is dismissed. The prisoner be informed accordingly. P.C. Borooah, J I agree. Appeal dismissed.