JUDGMENT 1. - Multana has filed this appeal from jail against his conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 24-4-76 in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1975. In the Sessions Trial aforesaid, the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife Noori and for having buried the dead body to cause the evidence to disappear with intention to screen himself legal punishment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2-4-75, Bhoora Ram PW 12, the father of the deceased Noori submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, wherein it was stated that he, namely Bhoora Ram had learnt that four days ago, Ganpat Gurda had performed the 'Kriya Karam at the house of Kirta in village Hamira and it was learnt that the accused buried the dead-body of Noori after killing her. The aforesaid report was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, to the S. H. 0., Police Station, Nachna and it was presented by Bhoora Ram on 4-4-57 at 9.00 a.m. A case under Section 302 I. P. C. was registered at Police Station, Nachna and, thereafter, the investigation into the case was commenced by Bakhtawar Singh (PW 11) S.H.Q. Police Station Nachna. The accused was arrested on 5-4-75 at village Ajasar, vide arrest memo Ex. P. 13-While in police custody, the accused gave in formation, vide memo Ex. P. 14, that he had buried the dead-body of his wife and on the basis of the said information, the dead body of Noori was recovered after digging from the place mentioned by the accused Post-mortem of the examination, the body was fully decomposed and no skin or viscera were there and the causes of death could not be ascertained. According to the post-mortem report, the death had taken place 20 to 25 days from the time of post-mortem examination. On 6-4-75, the accused gave information about his having concealed a brass 'Tashla' vide information memo Ex. P. 18 and on the basis of the said information, a 'Tashla' was recovered from the hut of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P. 5. On 9-4-75, the S. H. O., Police Station, Nachna, submitted an application Ex. P. 7. On 6-4-75, the accused gave information about his having concealed a brass 'Tashla' vide information memo Ex. P. 18 and on the basis of the said information, a 'Tashla' was recovered from the hut of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P. 5. On 9-4-75, the S. H. O., Police Station, Nachna, submitted an application Ex. P. 7. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pokaran, for recording the confessional statement of the accused and, thereupon, the accused was sent to judicial lock-up. The accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pokaran, on 15-4-75 and on that date, his confessional statement Ex. P. 8 was recorded. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pokaran and he was committed to the court of Sessions for trial in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses, namely, Ganpat PW 1, Balia PW 2, Bhanwarlal PW 3, Achalsingh PW 4, Shivdansingh PW 5, Dr. Jitendra Kumar P" 6, Narpatsingh Rajawat PW7, Jagdish Narain PW 8, Narain PW 9, Jagmalsingh PW 10, Bakhatwar Singh S.H.O. PW 11 and Bhoora Ram PW 12-the father or the deceased. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., retracted from the confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate and stated that the police had beaten him and electric current was also applied to him. The accused also denied to have got the 'Tashla' recovered or having identified the clothes of the deceased. 6. The Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 27-4-76, convicted the accused of both the charges. The sessions Judge was of the view that the most material evidence in the case was the confession made by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pokaran, namely, Shri Narpat Singh Rajawat PW 7. The learned Sessions Judge found that the aforesaid confessional statement appeared to be both voluntary and true and that it gets sufficient corroboration in material particulars from the other evidence on record and therefore, it can be made the basis of conviction. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal. 7. The learned Sessions Judge found that the aforesaid confessional statement appeared to be both voluntary and true and that it gets sufficient corroboration in material particulars from the other evidence on record and therefore, it can be made the basis of conviction. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction, the accused has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Shri B. L. Purohit, the learned counsel for the accused and Shri M. C. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State.Since the prosecution, in support of its case, has mainly relied upon the confessional statement of the accused, Shri Purohit has concentrated his attack on the said confessional statement. Shri Purohit has urged that no reliance should be placed on the confessional statement for the reason that it is not true and further that it has not been corroborated in material particulars. 8. In support of his submission that the confessional statement that was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate was not true, Shri Purohit has pointed out that in the said confessional statement, which was recorded on 15-4-75, the accused had stated that he had committed the murder of the deceased 15 to 16 days earlier, meaning thereby, that the murder was committed near about 31st March or 1st April, 1975, Shri Purohit has, in this connection, referred to the statement of Dr, Jitendra Kumar PW 6 as well as the post-mortem report Ex. P. 6 which show that the death of the deceased had taken place 20 to 25 days back from the time of post-mortem examination which was conducted on 5-4-75. Shri Purohit has submitted that according to the medical evidence, the death must have taken place near about 15th of March and since the date of death as mentioned in the confessional statement is different, the confessional statement cannot be accepted to be true. We have carefully perused the confessional statement of the accused. In his statement aforesaid, the accused has stated as under- 15&16 fnu igys eSaus mldks ekj Mkyk ! gksyh igys ekjh Fkh! gksyh ls 4&5 fnu igys ekjhA It would thus be seen that in the confessional statement, the accused, while saying that the murder was committed 15 to 16 days earlier, has further specified that it, was done before the Holi festival and that it was 4 to 5 days prior to the Holy festival. gksyh igys ekjh Fkh! gksyh ls 4&5 fnu igys ekjhA It would thus be seen that in the confessional statement, the accused, while saying that the murder was committed 15 to 16 days earlier, has further specified that it, was done before the Holi festival and that it was 4 to 5 days prior to the Holy festival. The calender for the year 1975 shows that the Holi festival fell on 26-3-75. Thus according to the confessional statement made by the accused, the murder had been committed on or about 20th of March, 1975 and the period 15 to 16 days referred to by him in the earlier sentence should be construed to mean 15 to 16 days from the date of his arrest and not from the date he made the confessional statement. If the date of the murder is 20-3-75 according to the confessional statement, then there is not much difference between the confessional statement and the medical evidence. Moreover, the medical evidence about the time of death can only be on the basis of opinion and cannot be very exact and, therefore, the difference of about five days in the time of death between the medical evidence and the confessional statement cannot be said to be of such a material significance as to belie the confessional statement. 9. Another submission that was urged by Shri Purohit with regard to the truth of the confessional statement was that the accused is a disabled person and that is was not possible for him to have dug up the pit and conceal the dead body of the deceased. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Purohit has invited our attention to the statement of Bhoora Ram PW 12 and Bakhtawar Singh PW 11. Bhoora Ram PW 12, during the course of cross-examination, has stated that the left leg and arm of the accused are weak and bent and they were so earlier also. Bakhtawar Singh PW 11 has stated that the hand and the foot of the accused are defective and that one hand is thinner and both the hands were not similar. He has further stated that he did not find traces of paralysis on the hand and the foot In view of the evidence aforesaid, it can be said that there is some defect in one hand and one leg of the accused. He has further stated that he did not find traces of paralysis on the hand and the foot In view of the evidence aforesaid, it can be said that there is some defect in one hand and one leg of the accused. But merely because of the aforesaid defect in one of the hands and one of the legs, it is not possible to hold that the accused could not have dug up the pit with the 'Tashla' with his other hand and to bury the dead body of his wife Noori in the said pit. 10. Another contention that was urged by Shri Purohit in this regard was that if the murder had taken place only 15 to 16 days from the date of arrest of the accused, namely, near about 20th of March, 1975 and the body was also recovered on 5-4-75 within 15 to 16 days from the date of death, the body would not have been found in such a decomposed state as it was found during the course of post-mortem examination. The submission of Mr. Purohit was that the fact that dead body was found in such a decomposed state, without any skin and viscera, indicates that the death had taken place much earlier and not 15 to 16 days before the post-mortem examination as suggested by the prosecution. In our opinion, there is no force in the aforesaid contention. From the evidence of Bhanwarlal PW 3, it appears that the deceased went to work as labourer with him and that she was very weak. Bhanwarlal has also stated that after lifting five or six 'Tagaris', the deceased had said that she was not in a position to work. In the confessional statement, the appellant has stated that he and his wife were both starving and that he was not in a position to earn. He has further stated that the deceased was ill and the appellant had killed her because they were starving. This would show that the physical condition of the deceased was very weak and there was not much flesh on her body. It is, therefore, possible that the entire flesh on the body might have decomposed within a period of 15 to 16 days while it was buried in the pit and before it was exhumed. This would show that the physical condition of the deceased was very weak and there was not much flesh on her body. It is, therefore, possible that the entire flesh on the body might have decomposed within a period of 15 to 16 days while it was buried in the pit and before it was exhumed. Therefore, only on the ground that no flesh was found on the dead body at the time when it was exhumed, it cannot be said that the murder had not taken place 15 to 16 days earlier as stated by the accused and had taken place much earlier. Thus, none of the contentions that have been urged by Shri Purohit to challenge the truth of the confessional statement made by the accused can be accepted. We have carefully perused the aforesaid confessional statement and we are satisfied that the same was voluntary and true and we are fully in agreement with the findings that have been recorded by the Sessions Judge in that regard. 11. Shri Purohit has next submitted that since the confession has been retracted by the accused, it is necessary that it should be corroborated in material particulars by other evidence and that in the present case, the confessional statement has not been so corroborated. In so far as retracted confessions are concerned, the law is well settled that a retracted confession may form a legal basis for conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. It is not a rule of law that the retracted confession must be corroborated but it is a rule of prudence and it is not on inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances can a conviction be made without corroboration, the court may, in a particular case be convinced of the absolute truth of the confession and be prepared to act upon it without corroboration (see Phyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1094 ) . In the present case, we have already found that the confessional statement made by the accused was voluntary and true. We are of the opinion that the conviction can be based on the basis of the aforesaid confessional statement even in the absence of corroboration. In the present case, we have already found that the confessional statement made by the accused was voluntary and true. We are of the opinion that the conviction can be based on the basis of the aforesaid confessional statement even in the absence of corroboration. But in the present case, we are further of the opinion that the confessional statement has been corroborated by the other evidence on material particulars. In this regard, it may be observed that the confessional statement is corroborated by the memo of information Ex. P. 14 given by the accused about his having concealed the dead body of the deceased and the recovery of the dead body on the basis of the aforesaid information given by the accused at his instance. In addition, there is the memo of information Ex. P. 18 with regard to concealing the 'Tashla' and the recovery of the said 'Tashla' at the instance of the accused from his hut vide recovery memo Ex.P.5. Another circumstance which corroborates the confessional statement is the identification of the clothes found on the person of the dead body of the deceased after it was recovered at the instance of the accused. The said clothes have been identified by Bhoora Ram, the father of the deceased as having been presented by him to the deceased on the occasion of the marriage of the son of the witness. 12. Shri Purohit has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of Bhanwarlal PW 3 and Narain PW 9 as corroborating the confessional statement. According to Shri Purohit, the evidence of the aforesaid witness does not corroborate the confessional statement. 12. Shri Purohit has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of Bhanwarlal PW 3 and Narain PW 9 as corroborating the confessional statement. According to Shri Purohit, the evidence of the aforesaid witness does not corroborate the confessional statement. In this regard, Shri Purohit has pointed out that Bhanwarlal PW 3 in his statement recorded on 1-12-75 has stated that the accused along with his wife had come to work as labourers at Hamira village, about 5 to 6 months back, meaning thereby, that the accused along with his wife had come to work as labourers with him at Hamira village, about 5 to 6 months back, meaning thereby, that the accused and the deceased had come to the said witness sometime in the month of June, 1975 whereas the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was murdered sometime in March, 1975 Shri Purohit has also pointed out that Narain PW 9, who is the conductor of the bus has stated that on 5-3-75, the accused and his wife had travelled in the bus of which he was the conductor, from Pokaran upto Tota bus-stand. Shri Purohit has submitted that according to this witness, the murder must have taken place on or about 5-3-75 whereas according to the prosecution case, the murder must have been committed sometime on or about 20-3-75. It is true that the evidence of the aforesaid witness with regard to the date on which they saw the accused and the deceased does not tally with the prosecution case and, therefore, the evidence of these two witness cannot be invoked for the purpose of corroborating the confessional statement of the accused. But we are of the opinion that even if the evidence of Bhawarlal PW 3 and Narain PW 9 is excluded from consideration, there is other evidence on record to corroborate the confessional statement of the accused. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the Confessional statement made by the accused before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran, is voluntary and true and is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence on record and that the conviction of the accused can be based on the said confessional statement. 14. 14. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the sentence imposed on the appellant for the said offences is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 15. We have noted with concern, anxiety and anguish that the present one is a case where the appellant was driven to the extreme unfortunate incident of killing his own wife on account of extreme poverty resulting in starvation of both. It has come on record that the appellant was handicapped and infirm and his wife was also so infirm and weak that she was unable to perform any work to earn their livelihood. In our Constitution, we have made provisions in the Directive Principles to have social welfare legislation for providing equal opportunity and dignity of human beings to disabled persons. Unfortunately, a precious life was lost because both of them could not manage to have two square meals a day. In our sacred Constitution, the founding fathers resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Republic and to secure to all citizens, justice, social and economic with equality of status and opportunity and assured dignity of the individual. Inspite of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, and other various guarantees to weaker sections, the disabled, infirm, handicapped and underdog, down-trodden people have to commit murder due to starvation, is a poor homage to our socialist goals. 16. The tragic circumstances under which this unfortunate offence happened has persuaded us to take notice of this extreme poverty of the unfortunate infirm starving couple and to recommend that under section 432 Cr. P.C., the State Government may favourably and sympathetically consider the case of of the appellant for remission and commutation of the sentence. A copy of this judgement may, therefore, be sent to the State Government for appropriate orders under Sec. 432 Cr. P. C. for remission of the sentence. 17. The accused is in jail since 1975. His counsel has stated that he has got no hope of survival outside jail and for fear of starvation death, he wants to live in jail. This tragic state of affairs has further compelled us to make this recommendation on humanitarian grounds. P. C. for remission of the sentence. 17. The accused is in jail since 1975. His counsel has stated that he has got no hope of survival outside jail and for fear of starvation death, he wants to live in jail. This tragic state of affairs has further compelled us to make this recommendation on humanitarian grounds. It would be for the State to examine and then decide, as to upto what extent relief can be given under Section 432 Cr.P.C. while passing an order under Section 432 Cr.P.C. it is further desired that the State Government may first ensure the appropriate steps to rehabilitate him by providing some assistance at the State rehabilitation centres or by social welfare department or by some other state agency so that the appellant is not to be in a further humiliating and miserable condition of not getting any means of subsistence after coming out from jail.Appeal dismissed. *******