JITENDRA NATH CHAUDHURI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 370 of 1979 arises out of Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1979 (Sessions Case No. 275 of 1977) held by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwan. In the said trial, the appellant was found guilty of the offence under section 302 of I P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, and also to sentence of a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under section 201 I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE accused, Tarapada Baliri, was charged under section 302 of I. P. C. for murdering his wife Sefali Baliri sometime in between 6th January and 8th January, 1977 (22 P0 us to 24th Pous, 1339 B. S.) at Ajhapur, District Burdwan. He was also charged under section 201 I. P. C. for causing evidence of the said offence to disappear, by concealing the dead body of his wife with Shrubs and also concealing a Katari within the mud and water of an irrigation- channel, at Ajhapur, during the period mentioned hereinbefore, with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment, knowing that the murder of his wife bad been committed. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: From the morning of 7/1/1977, sefali Baliri; wife of the accused was found missing from the accuseds house at Ajhapur, P. S. Jatrialpur. In the evening of 8-1-77 some of the local cowherd boys detected some marks of blood, broken churis and some other articles besides a raised portion of the ground covered with leaves of parbles and wild creepers at a field known as Bhinchikurer Math, within Ajhapur, which they reported to the villagers. On 9-1-77 the informant in this case, Narayan Bauri (P. W. L.) alongwith the Chowkidar and other villagers went to the said place, which was then dug up and the body of Sefali, his sister-in-law was recognised by P. W. ). The accused is the younger full brother of P. W. 1. Thereafter, P. W. 1 along with the Chowkidar went to the Jamalpur Police Station and lodged the First Information report in this case (Ext. The accused is the younger full brother of P. W. 1. Thereafter, P. W. 1 along with the Chowkidar went to the Jamalpur Police Station and lodged the First Information report in this case (Ext. 9/1 ). Thereafter, on the basis of the said F. I. R. , after drawing up of the formal F. I. R. (Ext. 9) the present case being Jamalpur P. S. Case No. IS dated 9/1/1977 was started P. W. 18 S. 1. N. C. Das, the investigating officer in this case thereafter took ) 1p investigation and, visited Bhinchikurer Matht along with P. W. 1, Tarapada Bauri Vs. State IMPORTANT POINT Conviction based on retracted confession without corroboration is not illegal. held an inquest over the ,dead body, seized some alamats near the body, as well as some bloodstained earth with control and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He prepared a sketch map of the locale with index (Ext. 10) and requisitioned the service of a photographer. He examined a number of witnesses. The accused was arrested on 12/1/1977 by P. W. 15, by S. I. Satya Ghosh Hazra, the Officer-in-charge Jamalpur P. S. , at about 2. 20 a. m. at Kasirampur. On the statement of the accused, and led by the accused a Katari was produced by the accused being recovered by him from the bed of Gopal Dighi tank, Ajhapur in presence of witness. A confessional statement of the accused under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ext. 6) was recorded by P. W. 17, the learned S. D. J. M. , Burdwan on 13/1/77. P. W. 18 in course of investigation seized some wearing apparels of the accused, other alamats and also obtained his nail cuttings. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. On completion of investigation a charge- sheet was submitted on 25/8/1977 against the present accused. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. The defence case, as can be gathered from the cross-examination and the answers in the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. was that he had been falsely implicated. According to the defence, the accused had been forced to make a confessional statement under threat by the Police and that he did not bring out any Katari from Gopal Dighi Tank. P. C. was that he had been falsely implicated. According to the defence, the accused had been forced to make a confessional statement under threat by the Police and that he did not bring out any Katari from Gopal Dighi Tank. P. W. 7 Paresh Bauri, a resident of Ajhapur, deposed that along with some Cowherd boys, he went to graze cows in a field known as Banchikurer Math. T He noticed the cows to smell something in the field, and they appeared to be disturbed. When he went to ascertain why they were disturbed, he noticed some blood, some hairs and one Shankha lying there. Thereafter, he returned and reported what he had found to the villagers. In cross-examination, he stated that at about 3 p. m. he found the articles above mentioned and at about 4 p. m. he reported to the villagers about what he had found. The villagers in a body thereafter went to see for themselves. His village is about two miles from the field where the said articles were found. P. W. 6 Gopal Bauri, a day labourer also resides in the bank land of Thakur pukur at Ajhapur, in the same village as P. W. 7, P. W. 6 house is about 10/12 cubits from the house of the accused. The accused used to work at Calcutta, and was married to Sefali. Sefali used to occasionally work as a day labourer and used to reside in the home of the accused. He got an engagement for Sefali to work in the house of Kalipada Laha at Adampur for few days. He himself worked in the same house. Since Thursday in the month of Poush about the two years ago (the witness deposed on the 30th May. 1979) Sefali was missing from her house. He went to her fathers place on Saturday next, but did not find her. Her dead body was found at 'banchikurer Math. P. W. 7 reported that her body was lying in that field. Thereafter, the Darogababu brought the accused to the village. P. W. 6. along with the accused and others accompanied Darogababu Gopal Dighi and from a corner of the bank of the said tank accused produced one Katai as he could see from a distance. P. W. 7 reported that her body was lying in that field. Thereafter, the Darogababu brought the accused to the village. P. W. 6. along with the accused and others accompanied Darogababu Gopal Dighi and from a corner of the bank of the said tank accused produced one Katai as he could see from a distance. P. W. 6 was behind the accused arid the Daroga and he did not hear the accused to say anything to the Daroga. Darogababu disclosed that the accused brought but this Katari. On being shown Ext. 1 the witness deposed that a weapon of similar nature was produced on that occassion. He found some red marks on the Katari on that occasion. A seizure list was prepared by the Police on that occasion after the seizure of the said Katari and the witness put his left thumb impression on such list. The accused to address the witness as TTDA-DA by village courtesy. In cross-examination, he stated that at and P. W. 1 (Narayan Baliri), were made to stand at a distance and after sometime Darogababu brought one Katari and stated about the recovery of such weapon. The Katari was full of guagmire. The witness told about this occurrence to some of the villagers. P. W. 5 Smt. Gouri Bauri is a resident of Ajhapur, besides Thakur Pukur. The accused is her nephew (husbands sisters son ). The accused who was marked to Sefali used to work at Calcutta. About two years ago on a Thurs day in the month of Pous (the witness deposed on 30th May 1979) she went to collect some rice in the house of the accused. Sefali was preparing food. When the witness went to ask for rice, at that time some one crossed her by the door of that house, whereupon he asked Sefali as to who that person was, and was told by her it is your nephew. She thereafter, took the rice and went away. On the next day, at about 12 noon on her return from works she did not find Sefali in the house, since then, Sefali was missing. In cross examination, she stated that she had no talk with any body over the incident. The accused did not have good relation with his brothers and they were not on speaking terms with each other. In cross examination, she stated that she had no talk with any body over the incident. The accused did not have good relation with his brothers and they were not on speaking terms with each other. She further deposed TIJ came back after taking rice from bouma and I had no talks with her thereafter (then says) I only took rice from Sefali and had no talk with her. Sefali used to reside in her house alone, while the accused used to work at Calcutta. Her house being a bit away from the house of Sefali, she could not say whether anybody else visited Sefali. P. W. 1 Narayan Bauri, the informant in this case, is the elder brother of the accused. He is a resident of Ajhapur. The accused used to live in a house, which the accused had built beside his house. The accused lived there with his wife Sefali. The accused was vendor of flowers at Calcutta and seldom used to come to his house. P. W. 6 of the locality was requested by the accused to look after Sefali during his absence Sefali used to work in the house of P. W. 3 of Adampur. In the month of Pous, on a Thursday about two years ago (the witness deposed on the 28th May, 1979) Sefali returned back home and arranged for cooking and took her meal. Before he went to bed he saw Sefali closing the door of her house from inside. On returning from work on Friday he did not find Sefali in her house, the door of which, was lying ajar lie did not find her on search P. W. 6 went to search for her in her fathers place at Kasirampur, but did not find her there. On Saturday evening the cowherd boys reported having seen some blood-stained articles near the land where the witness drew parble. The next morning, he along-with Chowkidar Mahananda went to that place in Benchikurer Math and noticed bloods marks and some raised up ground covered with leaves of purble creepers. On the place being dug up he recognised the dead body of his sister-in-law Sefali. Thereafter, he along-with the Chowkidar went to the Police Station and lodged the F. IR. Thereafter, with the police he went to the place where Sefalis body was found. On the place being dug up he recognised the dead body of his sister-in-law Sefali. Thereafter, he along-with the Chowkidar went to the Police Station and lodged the F. IR. Thereafter, with the police he went to the place where Sefalis body was found. On his stating that thereafter he did not go anywhere else along-with the accused and the police, the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross examination by the prosecution he denied having stated before the 1. 0, that when P. W. 5 went to borrow rice from Sefali, on being asked by P. W. 6 Sefali disclosed that P. W. 5 nephew covering himself with a white chadder had just crossed her when she entered the room. P. W. 18, the 1. 0. of the case proved the said contradiction. He admitted that he along-with Darogabahu P. W. 3, the accused and one Shyam Mondal went to the north s8stern corner of Gopal Dighi at Ajhapur about 2/3 days after the discovery of Sefalis body. The accused brought out a Katari from the north-east corner of the bed of the Dighi. The Katari when produced was stained with mud and blood marks. He admitted the Katari, Ext. 1 appeared to be like he one produced by the accused on the occasion. The Police after seizing the Katari prepared a seizure list and he put his left thumb impression on the said list. He denied that as his own brother was involved he was not disclosing the facts clearly. In cross examination by the defence he stated that he was an illiterate person. The accused was a vendor of flowers at Calcutta and mostly resided there. P. W. 6 who was the Bhasur of Sefali used to visit her house as her guardian Sefali who was quite good looting used to reside alone in the house. The witness was not on talking terms with her. While the Darogababu took the accused, himself and other to the bank of the tank he kept them at a distance from the accused with whom the Daroga was engaged in talking. Darogababu brought out a Katari after some time. He did not see the Katari before it was brought by the Daroga from the bed of Gopal Dighi. While the Darogababu took the accused, himself and other to the bank of the tank he kept them at a distance from the accused with whom the Daroga was engaged in talking. Darogababu brought out a Katari after some time. He did not see the Katari before it was brought by the Daroga from the bed of Gopal Dighi. P. W. 3, Kalipada Laha is a resident of Adampur P. W. 6 was his labourer. P. W. 6 engaged the wife of the accused for cultivation work in his house on daily wages for a day or two. She worked, for the last time on 22nd Pous, 1385 B. S. I. and left his house in the after-no con of the 22nd Pous. On 25th Pous he was called by the Darogababu and along-with him, P. W, 1, P. W. 6, the accused and one Shyamapada Mondal all went to the bank of Gopal Dighi. 'darogababu asked Tarapada to produce the weapon with which he killed his wife. Tarapada brought out the Katari from the bed of Gopal Dighi in our village. Darogababu seized such Katari by preparing a seizure list in our presencett. On being shown Ext. 1 (Katari) the witness stated, that some. Weapon of the similar nature was produced, but he could not say if this particular weapon was produced since he saw it from a distance. He identified the signature in the said seizure list (marked Ext. 1 /2 ). In cross-examination, he stated that P. W. 1, P. W. 6 and Shyamapada were made to stand a bit away while the Darogababu took the accused Tarapada to the site wherefrom the Katari and told them that this weapon was recovered. P. W. 2, Ramani Ranjan Mitra, a resident of Ajhapur, saw the dead body of Sefali after it was already dug out at Banchikurer Math. P. W. 1 identified the dead body to be that of the wife of his brother Tarapada. He found multiple injuries on her, person and recognized the dead body to be that of Sefali, wife of the accused. He noticed some pieces of broken Choortes and blood, and dried up leaves of parble trees lying beside the dead body. The Police seized the, articles lying there, and he signed the seizure list Cross-examination was declined. He found multiple injuries on her, person and recognized the dead body to be that of Sefali, wife of the accused. He noticed some pieces of broken Choortes and blood, and dried up leaves of parble trees lying beside the dead body. The Police seized the, articles lying there, and he signed the seizure list Cross-examination was declined. P W. 4 a Police Officer, attached to the Photographer Cell, Burdwan DIB , on requisition took photographs of the dead body of Sefali. P. W. 8 Sadhan Bauri is a resident of Ajhapur and resides in the bank land of Thakurpukur. He deposed that Safali, the wife of the accused could not be traced from Friday in the month of Pous about two and a half years ago (the witness deposed on the 30th May, 1979 ). P. W. 6 went in search of her at her father's place, but the was not traced there. On Saturday cowherds found some broken Choories, some hairs and some blood lying at Benchlkurer Marh and reported the same to the villagers. On the next morning P. W. 1, the Chowkidar and the witness went to the spot in question and found a dead body after removing some leaves of parble trees from a raised site nearby He could identify the body to be that of Sefali. P. W. 1 and the Chowkidar went to inform the police asking them to keep watch on the body. Thereafter, Darogababu came, held an inquest over the dead body and seized the articles lying there. In crossexamination, he stated that the Police arrested P. W. 1 on the date when the body was recovered. The witness's house is intervened by a pond from the house of the accused. P. W 6's house is adjacent to the house of the accused, and PW. 6 used to visit the accused's house. He denied that the villagers suspected Sefalis, relation with P W. 6. P. W. 10 Nirmal Sarkar, is an agent of India Steam Laundry having his shop at 67/5/1, Strand Bank Road, Calcutta He knew the accused for a long time as working in a flower market at Jagannoth Ghat Road. The accused used to have his clothes washed in his laundry for a long time. P. W. 10 Nirmal Sarkar, is an agent of India Steam Laundry having his shop at 67/5/1, Strand Bank Road, Calcutta He knew the accused for a long time as working in a flower market at Jagannoth Ghat Road. The accused used to have his clothes washed in his laundry for a long time. On 7-1-77 the accused gave one terry cotton pant and Shirt for washing, as would appear from the carbon copy of the cash memo, the original of which was made over to the accused. While giving the marks of the laundry upon the clothes so received, he found blood marks on the terry cotton shirt of the accused. The Police seized these clothes under a seizure list which he signed: The witness identified the shirt in question ill Court He made a statement before a Magistrate at Burdwan under section 164 Cr. P. C. and was also examined by the 1. 0. In cross-examination, he stated that he recorded the name of the customer as Tarapada only. Tarapada also gave one ladys chaddar for washing, but he could not remember if there were any marks of blood on that chaddar. Both the shift and pant given by the accused for washing were washed before the Police Officer seized the same. He denied that he did not see any marks of blood, and that the shirt was not given for washing by the accused. He denied that he had deposed as a witness tutored by the Police. The accused was giving his clothes for washing at his laundry for 2t to 3 years therefore this occurrence. After 7-1-77 he did not give clothes for washing in his shop. P. W. 16, Bhim Chand Mondal is a resident, of Basuli Danga, P. S. Diamond Harhour. About 21/2 years prior to June, 1979 (the witness deposed on 12th June, 1979) he used to work in shop of Sunil Mukherjee under the old. Howrah Bridge. The accused Tarapada also worked in the same shop and both of them used to put up in the shop after working hours. At that time the accused took Rs. 2/- from him and left the shop at about 2/2-30 p. m. stating that he would go to the cinema. Howrah Bridge. The accused Tarapada also worked in the same shop and both of them used to put up in the shop after working hours. At that time the accused took Rs. 2/- from him and left the shop at about 2/2-30 p. m. stating that he would go to the cinema. He did not return to the shop that night but came back at 7/7-30 a. m. next morning and asked the witness to bring a soap and after he brought the soap the accused started washing his clothes. About 4/5 days later a Police Officer came to the shop and examined him. In cross-examination, he stated that he had no other place to reside in Calcutta besides the said shop room, at that time. He denied that be did not sleep in the shop room on the relevant night. A contradiction was brought on record by the defence that he stated to the 1. 0. that he did not sleep in that shop that night since he was alone. He denied that he had deposed falsely about the accuseds taking Rs. 2/- from him. The witness had given up the job about one year ago. He denied the suggestion that he did not sleep in the shop room on the relevant night but that the accused Tarapada slept there. P. W. 11 was the driver of a private Jeep at the time when he deposed in May, 1979 and previous to that, was a home guard. The nail cuttings and clothes of the accused were seized in his presence by the Police under two seizure lists (Exts. 4 and 4/1), which he signed. He identified the loongi, genji and underpant, being the wearing apparels of the accused seized on that occasion (Ext. 11 collectively ). Cross examination was declined. P. W. 12-a constable bearing No. C/1614 of Jamalpur P. S. at the relevant time, identified the dead body of Sefali to P. W. 9 who held the post-mortem examination in connection with this case. In cross-examination he denied that he did not identify the dead body to the doctor. ( 5 ) DR. S. L. Bhattacharji, was the Medical Officer attached to B. C. Hospital, Medical College, Burdwan at the relevant time. On 10-1-77 at 2. In cross-examination he denied that he did not identify the dead body to the doctor. ( 5 ) DR. S. L. Bhattacharji, was the Medical Officer attached to B. C. Hospital, Medical College, Burdwan at the relevant time. On 10-1-77 at 2. 10 p. m. he held the post-mortem examination on the body of Sefali Bauri, Hindu female aged 19 years of Ajhapur, Thakurpukur Jamalpur P. S. On being brought and identified by Constable No. C/1614 and another Constable No. C/1266 with reference to Jamalpur P. S. Case No. 5 dated 9-1-77 (which is the present case ). He detected the following injuries on her person: (a Two incised wounds in the scalp, 3 x 1/2 and 3 X 1/2 X 1/2 over the main parietal region obliquely placed. 2. One incised wound over the dorsum in between the scapulse obliquely placed -2 x 1/2 3. Most part of the leg (right side) and upper part of chest mussle and neck kidnapped by wild animals. Hyoid bones broken left side. Seminal discharges at vagina with matting of pubic hair detected. Multiple hemorrhagic spot seen. The body was decomposed. The death was due to throttling, manual strangulation, ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The incised injuries described may be caused by a sharp cutting weapon like the Katari shown to him in Court. Fracture of hyoid bones and conjectures of both the lungs lead him to opine about strangulation and throttling. Seminal discharge might have been due to cohabitation with a male person. The dead body was found quite identifiable. In cross examination, only one question was put in answer to which, the witness replied it is a fact that the body was identified by the constable before me. ( 6 ) P. W. 17-Sri D. Chakraborty, as S. D. J. M. , Burdwan on 13-1-77 recorded the confessional statement of the accused under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ext. 6 ). When he deposed in June, 1979 be was the Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol, on 13-1-77 the accused was produced at 10. 30 a m. , when he examined the accused and found him willing to make a confessional statement in this case. He sent the accused to Burdwan Jail with a direction that he be produced at 3 pm. on that date for the purpose of recording the statement. 30 a m. , when he examined the accused and found him willing to make a confessional statement in this case. He sent the accused to Burdwan Jail with a direction that he be produced at 3 pm. on that date for the purpose of recording the statement. He gave the necessary caution to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he did so his statement might be used against him as evidence and he may even be sentenced to death, so that he should think whether he would make any confession. He told the accused that he was a Magistrate and that the accused would not be remanded to Police custody if he refused to make any confessional statement. On that date at 3 p. m. the accused Tarapada Bauri was again produced before him from Burdwan Jail. He again remained accused about the effect of making any confessional statement. He kept the accused in his chamber in charge of his orderly peon to give the accused time for further reflection. No outsider or Police was allowed to enter his chamber. Thereafter, at 4. 30 p. m. after putting the preliminary questions mentioned in Ext. 6 and being of the view, that the accused was willing to make a voluntary statement, he recorded the confessional statement of the accused (Ext. 6), The said statement was read-over to the accused who admitted the correctness thereof and put his L. T. I. on each page of the statement The witness appended a necessary certificate after recording the confessional statement. He also recorded on the same date a statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. of P. W. 10, Nirmal Sarkar. On 15-1-77 he also recorded a statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. of one Sunil Mukherji. In cross-examination, he stated that he verified from the police report and also from the accused that he was produced from the jail custody at 3 p. m. on 13-1-77. He denied that the statement of the accused was not voluntarily made. No police personnel was visible from his chamber when his statement was recorded. ( 7 ) P. W. 13 is a formal witness who took over charge of the case from the 1. 0. P. W. 18, on his transfer. He denied that the statement of the accused was not voluntarily made. No police personnel was visible from his chamber when his statement was recorded. ( 7 ) P. W. 13 is a formal witness who took over charge of the case from the 1. 0. P. W. 18, on his transfer. He made over charge of the case to P. W. 14, and himself took no part in the investigation. Cross-examination was declined. P. W. 14 submitted the charge-sheet In this case on 15-8-77, after completion of investigation. Cross-examination was declined. P. W. 15, Satyabrata Ghosh Hazra, the C. I. (Sadar) Maida, at the time when he deposed, was the O. C. Jamalpur on 9-1-77. He seized the full-pant and the shirt from the shop of P. W. 10 and a cash memo receipt (copy) standing in the name of the accused. He arrested the accused at Kasirampur at the house of his father-in-law on 12-1-77, at 2. 20 a. m. He met the 1. 0. (P W. 18) and was present when the recorded the statement of the accused under section 161 Cr. P. C. wherein the accused stated that he would produce the Dao from the bed of Gopal Dighi, Ajhapur. He accompanied P. W. 18 and force to the spot on the bed on the northeastern corner of Gopal Dighi as led by the accused, wherefrom the accused produced the Dao (Ext. III ). In cross-examination he denied that the real culprit was not implicated in this case. No question was put in cross examination to these witnesses at all relating to the evidence against the accused as noted above. P. W. 18 - S. I. N. C. Das, is the first investigating officer of this case. On 9-1-77 at about 11. 30 a. m. he recorded the F. I. R. verbally lodged by P. W. 1 at the Jamalpur Police Station (Ext. 9/11 ). He drew UP the formal F. I. R. on the basis of the said F. T. R. and started the present case. Formal F. I. R. marked as (Ext. 9 ). He took up investigation and held an inquest over the dead body in presence of witness at Benchikurer Math, Ajhapur. 9/11 ). He drew UP the formal F. I. R. on the basis of the said F. T. R. and started the present case. Formal F. I. R. marked as (Ext. 9 ). He took up investigation and held an inquest over the dead body in presence of witness at Benchikurer Math, Ajhapur. He seized one blood stained satranchi, one broken Choori of red colour, one broken piece of Sakha in iron cord, some hair, some dried up leaves of parbles and some white cush grass with which the body was covered. He also seized some blood stained earth with grass with control, one yellow colour blood-stained blouze, a bloodstained (torn) printed saree one sky colour petticoat with blood stains, one tailsmen, one necklace of steel and one aluminum earring under two seizure lists (Exts. 1/3 and 1/4 respectively ). He identified the wearing apparels in Court (Ext. IV collectively ). He sent the body for post-mortem examination escorted by P. W. 12 and another constable No. C/1266. He prepared a rough sketch map of the locale with index (Ext. 10 ). He requisitioned the services of Photographer and examined witness. The accused, after being arrested by P. W. 15 on 12-1-77 made a statement in consequence of which a Katari was recovered from Gopal Dighi, as led by the accused. The same was recovered in the presence of witnesses and the seizure list was drawn up. He identified the Katari being (Ext. III ). He forwarded the accused for recording his confessional statement. Thereafter, he seized one under-wear, one half sleeve net genii, a lungi and some nail cuttings of the accused under two seizure lists. (Exts. v/3 and 4/4 ). On 14-1-77 he seized a ladys chaddar from the laundry of P. W. 10 with the connected receipt under a seizure list (Ext. 3/1 ). He identified the chaddar (Ext. VI ). He collected the postmortem report and submitted a prayer for recording the statement of P W. 10 and one Sunil Mukherji under section 164 Cr P. C. He sent the seized alamats for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. On his transfer, on 6-2-77 he made over charge or investigation to P. W. 13. In cross-examination, he denied that the F. I. R. was not recorded as per dictation of the dependent or that the same was not read over to the deponent. On his transfer, on 6-2-77 he made over charge or investigation to P. W. 13. In cross-examination, he denied that the F. I. R. was not recorded as per dictation of the dependent or that the same was not read over to the deponent. He denied that the accused was assaulted severely and then produced in Court. He denied that he tutored the accused to make a confessional statement or that the accused was forced to make such a confession under threat by the Police. In cross-examination, he further stated that the seizure list was prepared after the Katari was recovered. The Katari was produced by the accused. The accused made a statement and in fact, led to the recovery of the Katari from the spot himself. He did not arrest any other person besides the accused in connection with this case. He denied that he did truthfully record the statements of the witness under section 161 Cr. P. C. He denied the accused was arrested at Kashirampur on 10-1-77 by the O. C. of the Police Station. In his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. he stated that although it was true that the Darogababu took him to the north-eastern bank of Gopat Dighi, he did not bring out any Karari (Chopper ). He denied that he had come to his house as deposed to by P. W. 5. He denied that he did not return at night to the shop room as deposed to by P. W. 16, but stated that he was there in the shop room on that night in question. He denied further that he took any money from P. W. 16; He stated, TIJ was bed my own articles with my own soap. With regard to the confessional statement made before P. W. 17 he stated, Darogababu beat me severely and tutored me to confess the guilt and further said that 1 did not say accordingly he would beat me again. 1 was compelled to make that statement out of feartt. ( 8 ) MR. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the accused has submitted that the evidence in this case was insufficient to bring home the charges levelled against the accused. He has further submitted that the evidence with regard to the recovery of the Katari is not consistent. 1 was compelled to make that statement out of feartt. ( 8 ) MR. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the accused has submitted that the evidence in this case was insufficient to bring home the charges levelled against the accused. He has further submitted that the evidence with regard to the recovery of the Katari is not consistent. With regard to the confessional statement of the accused, recorded by P. W. 17, he has submitted that since the accused has retracted the same the Court should only real upon the same if it was satisfied that the confession was in fact, voluntary, true and received corroboration from other evidence. He has further submitted that an adverse inference under section 114 (g) of the evidence Act should be drawn against the prosecution for the non-examination of Sunil Mukherji. Mr. Mukherji, teamed Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the retraction of the confession is a belated one and the said statement received sufficient corroboration from other evidence and circumstances. He has submitted that the recovery of the Katari from the tank in consequence of the statement of the accused and his act of leading the Police to that place, speak volumes. ( 9 ) IN his confessional statement (Ext. 6) the accused has very clearly stated that he killed his wife Sefali, with the help of a Katari, since he was absolutely certain that she had been unfaithful to him, having had sexual intercourse with his step brother. Suddenly on returning to his village residence on n7th Pous last he became. certain that Sefali had just had sexual intercourse with his step brother, whom he saw coming out of the house. Next day he had his Katari sharpened and kept it in his house. He went to Calcutta. He came back from Calcutta after a few days on last Thursday. He had left his place of work in Calcutta on the plea of witnessing a cinema show. That night, he woke up Sefali in the ready hours of the morning on the pretext of taking her to her father who he had told Sefali falsely, was seriously ill. He set out with her on the pretext of taking her to her father and on the way he strict her with the chopper, which he had carried with him concealed. She fell down unconscious. He set out with her on the pretext of taking her to her father and on the way he strict her with the chopper, which he had carried with him concealed. She fell down unconscious. He lifted her on his shoulder and when they reached Banchikurer Math he laid her down on the ground. He found Sefali gazing at him and he struck her with the help of the chopper, and Sefali died. He then covered the dead body of Sefali with parable creepers grass etc. Then, he kept the Katari hidden inside the water of Gopal Dighi. He washed his hand and feet at the Railway Station and reached Calcutta by train. At his place in Calcutta he washed the blood stains off his wearing apparels. After a few days a person came to him from his father-in-Law's house and informed him about the murder of Sefali. Then, he went to his father-in-Law's house. The O. C. of the Police Station came in a jeep and took him to the Police Station from his father-in-Laws house. In Ext. 6 the accused stated that I confessed everything and 1 brought the Katari from the pond and gave it to the Darogababu. T ( 10 ) HUMAN blood was detected on the saree, saya and blouse of the deceased, as well as the earth seized from the place where Sefali's body was found. The Katari in question, the loongi and the nail cuttings of the accused contained blood stains, which are disintegrated and their origin could not be determined by the Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India. ( 11 ) WE have carefully considered the confessional statement of the accused (Ext. 6 ). We are fully satisfied that the said confession of the accused was both voluntary and true. We are satisfied that the learned Magistrate (P. W. 17) appropriately questioned the accused to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary and true. The retraction of the confession is a belated one the retraction being at the sessions trial. No complaint regarding any coercion, threat or any inducement was filed before any authority at any prior point of time. ( 12 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Ram Chand Sharma and others v. State of Bihar, that conviction based on retracted confession without corroboration is not legal. No complaint regarding any coercion, threat or any inducement was filed before any authority at any prior point of time. ( 12 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Ram Chand Sharma and others v. State of Bihar, that conviction based on retracted confession without corroboration is not legal. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows: In Pyaralal Bhargav v. The State of Rajasthan, A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1944 this Court, while pointing out that ordinarily corroboration is required, it is not a rule of law, but only a rule of prudence. It is also said that it is not an inflexible rule or practice or prudence that in no circumstances such a conviction can be based without corroboration on a retracted confession. ( 13 ) IT is clear that the facts stated in the confession of the accused (Ext. 6) are by themselves sufficient for upholding the conviction of the accused under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. In this case the said confession receives amole corroboration from the evidence already discussed, which, in our view, is also reliable. Further, even if we are to exclude the said confession (Ext. 6) wholly from our consideration, the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient for upholding the conviction of the accused, both under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. ( 14 ) THE evidence of P. W. 5 makes it clear that the accused wanted to conceal the fact that he had come to his village residence very shortly before Sefali was found missing. The evidence of P. W. 16 shows that the accused did not return to the shop on the night mentioned by the witness. On coming back next morning the accused washed his clothes with soap and water. He has deposed, as already noted hereinbefore, that the accused had left on the pretext of going to a cinema after taking Rs. 2/- P. W. 10 has deposed that he found blood mark spots on the terry cotton shirt of the accused given to him for washing by the accused. ( 15 ) THE fact that the Katari in question was recovered from Gopal Dighi, the Police having been led to the place of recovery by the accused, bas been deposed by P. Ws. 1. 3. 6. 15 and 18. ( 15 ) THE fact that the Katari in question was recovered from Gopal Dighi, the Police having been led to the place of recovery by the accused, bas been deposed by P. Ws. 1. 3. 6. 15 and 18. In this case, the evidence of the said five witnesses reliably show that it was the accused who led the Police to the particular place where the Katari had been kept concealed. Even though P. W. 15 and. P. W. 18 stated in their evidence that the accused led the Police and produced the Katari from the spot himself. No suggestion that this was not so, was given to them in cross-examination. The confession of the accused (Ext. 6) received full corroboration from the evidence of these five witnesses regarding the recovery of he had led the Police to the place of recovery. P. W. 1 has admitted in cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (later he was declared hostile) that I along with the Darogababu, Kalipada Laha, Shyam Mondal went to the northeast corner of Gopal Dighi at Ajhapur about 2/3 days after the occurrence. Tarapada was also with us and he brought out a Katari from the north-east corner of the bed of such, Dighi. T In the case of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration2, the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the judge of facts to consider in each case, whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. We do not find that as a result of his cross-examination by the prosecution, P. W. 1 stands so thoroughly discredited that no part of his testimony can be believed. ( 16 ) THE deceased Sefali was last seen in her house while the accused was there, as deposed to by P. W. 5, who stated when I went to ask for rice from her, at that time some one crossed me by the door of their house. I asked Bowma who was that person Bowma told me that it was your nephew. From the confessional statement of the accused (Ext. I asked Bowma who was that person Bowma told me that it was your nephew. From the confessional statement of the accused (Ext. 6) it is clear that the accused had come back to his village home with the definite plan of murdering his wife. The aforesaid statement of the deceased to P. W. 5 is admissible under section 32 sub-section (1) of the Evidence Act since it relates to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Moreover from both in the case (Golak Behari v. Emperor)3 which is a decision of the Division Bench and (Allijan Munshi v. State)4 which is also the decision of a Division Bench, it is clear that it has been held that section 32 of the Evidence Act is not a complete code relating to the admissibility of statement made by persons who are dead. We may point out that illustration (a) to section 6 (the by-standerst may not be alive at the time of the trial), Illustration (J. and K.) to section 8, and Illustration (1) to section 14 of the Evidence Act, go to show that. ( 17 ) THE plea of alibi taken by the accused in one of his answers in his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. and in the suggestion in cross examination of P. W. 16 has not been proved on the balance of probabilities by the accused. Under section 103 of the Evidence Act, and unparticular under just ration (a) thereof the onus of proof of the alibi lies on the accused. ( 18 ) THE accused in this came, as the evidence shows, after murdering his wife concealed her dead body. The provocation in this case given by the deceaseds conduct in having any adulterous relationship with the accused's step brother was certainly grave but not sudden. The accused even after he came to realise with certainty that his wife was being unfaithful to him waited and very carefully planned her murder. ( 19 ) WE are satisfied on the materials on record that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubt the charges under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. against the accused. We accordingly uphold the conviction and sentences both under section 302 and section 201 I. P. C. , and affirm the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.