J. N. CHAUDHURI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 243 of 1983 arises out of Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1983 (Sessions Case No. 28 of 1983) held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol. In the said trial the appellant has been convicted under S. 304 (Part I), I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, by the judgment and order dt. 19-8-83. The charge against the appellant was that on or about the 23rd of June, 1982 at Sealdanga, Chamarpara, P. S. Kulti, District Burdwan, he caused the death of his wife Smt. Lakshmi Ruhi Das, with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 304 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on the 23rd June, 1982, during day time, the appellant assaulted his wife Lakshmi at his house at Chamarpara, Sealdanga, Kulti, following a domestic quarrel between his wife and himself, and that as a result of such assault, Lakshmi died at about 8. 30 p. m. on the same night. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses and has relied on the retracted confession of the appellant made before the learned S. D. J. M. , Asansol on 25-6-82. The said confession was retracted by the accused during the said Sessions Trial. ( 3 ) THE defence has not adduced any evidence. The defence of the accused as will appear from the trend of cross-examination and answers of the accused in his examination under S. 313, Cr. RC, is that his wife Lakshmi fell down from a ladder and that as a result of such fall, she ultimately died. ( 4 ) P. W. 1 (Badal Ch. Das), a resident of Sealdanga, is the informant in this case, and the written FIR of this witness has been marked as Ext. 1. This written information was received by the police on 24-6-1982 at 01. 45 hours and Kulti P. S. Case No. 49 dated 24-6-1982 under S. 304, I. P. C. was started, being the present case. P. W. 1 is the Secretary of the Nagarik Committee for the Sealdanga area. P. W. 5 (Dibabar Mitra) is also a resident of Sealdanga and is connected with the said Nagarik Committee. Both P. Ws. 45 hours and Kulti P. S. Case No. 49 dated 24-6-1982 under S. 304, I. P. C. was started, being the present case. P. W. 1 is the Secretary of the Nagarik Committee for the Sealdanga area. P. W. 5 (Dibabar Mitra) is also a resident of Sealdanga and is connected with the said Nagarik Committee. Both P. Ws. 1 and 5 went to the house of the appellant when the police arrived there. Both of them knew the appellant from before. P. W. 2 (Chinta Haran Tripathi) also a resident of Sealdanga, knew the accused from his (the witness's) boyhood since the accused was a resident of Muchipara, within Sealdanga. It is the evidence of P. W. 2, that P. W. 1 on the way to the house of the accused took him with him at about 11. 30 p. m. in the night of 23/24th July, 1982. The police had already been informed, and when the police arrived at about 12. 15/12. 30 hours in the night, he, with others, followed the police inside the house, where they found the body of a woman lying on the floor on a hessian cloth in one room. When they went there, a son of the accused by his first wife was sleeping in front of the house on the road side (P. W. 6 ). P. W. 6 was aroused from his sleep. The first wife of the accused was inside the house. The witness could not say whether the deceased (Lakshmi) was the second or third wife. He was a witness to the seizure of articles from the room by the police, the other witness to the seizure being P. W. 1. ( 5 ) P. W. 4 is a resident of the same locality as the accused. Lakshmi who was one of the wives of the accused had no children. The accused did not inform the witness of Lakshmi's death. Hearing the row created by the members of the Nagarik Committee he was aroused from his sleep on the night in question and came to know of the death of Lakshmi. The house of the accused was close to his. Cross-examination of this witness was declined. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 (Charan Ruhi Das) is a son of the accused, Lakshmi being his step-mother. Lakshmi used to live in the same house. The house of the accused was close to his. Cross-examination of this witness was declined. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 (Charan Ruhi Das) is a son of the accused, Lakshmi being his step-mother. Lakshmi used to live in the same house. On the date of her death he had gone out to work at 7 a. m. and after finishing the day's work and witnessing a cinema show he returned home at about 9. 30 p. m. Reaching home he found Lakshmi lying down in the room. At that time the accused was out of the house. After finishing his meal the witness went to sleep in the verandah of the road-side room. From where he was aroused from sleep by the police. The police arrested the accused and took him away. In cross-examination, he has stated that when he returned at about 9. 30 p. m. there was no Golmal in the house. He enquired of his mother as to why Lakshmi was lying down in the room. In reply, his mother told him something (what has been recorded in evidence as the reply of the mother is inadmissible in evidence in our view since the mother has not deposed as a witness ). ( 7 ) P. WS. 8, 9 and 10 are police witnesses, P. W. 8 is the constable who identified the dead body of Lakshmi to P. W. 3, the Doctor who held the post-mortem examination. Cross-examination of this witness was declined P. W. 9 was a Sub-Inspector of police attached to Kulti P. S. in 1982. He received the FIR (Ext. I) and started the present case after drawing up the formal FIR. At that time, owing to the temporary absence of the O. C. , he was holding charge and he authorised P. W. 10 to investigate this case. ( 8 ) P. W. 10 (N. C. Dutta) is the investigating officer of this case. At about 2 a. m. on 24-6-82 in course of investigation of Kulti P. S. Case No. 49 dt. 24-6-82, i. e. the present case he went to the house of the accused and found the accused's wife Lakshmi lying dead inside the room of the accused. The accused was present in the house at that time. He held an inquest from 2. 24-6-82, i. e. the present case he went to the house of the accused and found the accused's wife Lakshmi lying dead inside the room of the accused. The accused was present in the house at that time. He held an inquest from 2. 15 a. m. He found injuries on the left wrist, on the nose and on the right leg below the knee of the deceased. He sent the body for post-mortem examination. He arrested the accused and made a prayer for recording the confessional statement of the accused while forwarding the accused to SDJM, Asansol on 24-6-82. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 24-6-82 he seized in presence of witnesses. P. Ws. 1 and 5 a torn piece of hessian cloth on which the dead body was lying, as well as a piece of black thread which was bound at the waist of the deceased, a red petticoat which the deceased was wearing and a cotton chaddar which was covering the torso of the dead body. He received a copy of the confessional statement from the Court and after completing the investigation he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under S. 304, IPC. ( 9 ) IN cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had threatened the accused that if he did not make a confessional statement before the Magistrate then he would implicate all the inmates of the house and forward them to Court in connection with this case. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased had died as a result of fall from a ladder or that being influenced by the people of the locality who had enmity with the accused, he had falsely implicated the accused in this case. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 Shri B. Banerji was posted as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Asansol in 1982, with 1st class powers. On 24-6-82 the present appellant was produced before him under arrest with a prayer by the I. O. for recording his confessional statement. The accused expressed his willingness to make a confessional statement. The witness cautioned him and sent him to Asansol Special Jail for reflection fixing the next day for production before him. On 25-6-82 when the accused was produced before him from Jail custody and was again cautioned in the words as recorded in Ext. 3. The accused expressed his willingness to make a confessional statement. The witness cautioned him and sent him to Asansol Special Jail for reflection fixing the next day for production before him. On 25-6-82 when the accused was produced before him from Jail custody and was again cautioned in the words as recorded in Ext. 3. Thereafter, he recorded the confessional statement of the accused under S. 164, Cr. P. C in his chamber. No police officer was present, and in fact except the accused and himself no other person was present in his chamber at that time. The statement was recorded in the witness's own hand. The same was read over to the accused and explained to him and the accused signed the same. On being satisfied that the accused had made the statement voluntarily, the witness recorded a certificate to that effect after the recorded statement of the accused and also signed the same. The confessional statement has been marked as Ext. 3. ( 11 ) P. W. 3 (Dr. R. K. Banerji) is the Medical Officer, Asansol S. D. hospital since 1977. On 24-6-82 he held the post-mortem examination of Lakshmi Ruidns, aged 30 years after identification of the dead body by P. W. 8. He found the subject to be of average built. He found the following injuries : -1) Multiple bruises over body. 2) Both hands swollen. 3) Lacerated wound " X " over right leg. 4) Echymosis below both eyes, and haemotoma on eye brow. 5) Brain membrain congested and subdural haemotoma present. 6) Fracture of ribs right side from 2nd to 5th and left side from 2nd to 6th. ( 12 ) DEATH, in his opinion, was as a result of shock due to the injuries described, ante-mortem in nature. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death to a human being. Multiple bruises on the body, together with fracture on ribs on both sides, as found, indicated, according to the evidence of the doctor that the injuries were caused by blows with hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. According to him, it was not probable that all the injuries on the person of the deceased would have been caused by a single fall from a high altitude, In cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries found would not have been caused with bare hands. According to him, it was not probable that all the injuries on the person of the deceased would have been caused by a single fall from a high altitude, In cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries found would not have been caused with bare hands. It was not likely that a person would suffer fracture of so many ribs by falling more than once on a hard floor. ( 13 ) IN his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. the accused has stated that he was not in his house and when he came home at 10 p. m. on the night in question he came to know from his first wife (Baro Bou) that his youngest wife (3rd wife) Lakshmi slipped from the stairs. He saw her lying and went to the hospital for making arrangements for a doctor. On returning from the hospital, he found that police had arrived, and he was arrested on the spot. He further stated that he was seriously assaulted in the police station and the police threatened him that if he did not falsely confess, all the members of his family would be arrested. For this reason he made a confessional statement before the Magistrate as taught by the police. ( 14 ) IN the confessional statement (Ext. 3) before the learned Magistrate on 25th June, 1982 the appellant stated that on the date in question at about 9 a. m. in the morning there was a quarrel between Lakshmi and the accused, as the children of one of his wives aged about 3/4 years had complained to him that Lakshmi had eaten two or three pieces of fried fish without giving them any. Thereupon, he had slapped her twice or thrice forcibly on her back and under the neck and as a result, she had fallen down twice or thrice on the edge of the verandah and was injured on the head. Lakshmi was 30 years of age and was his third wife. She had no children. The other two wives were alive and had borne children. Lakshmi was 30 years of age and was his third wife. She had no children. The other two wives were alive and had borne children. ( 15 ) IT has been urged by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant that since P. W. 1 had stated in cross-examination that a ladder was found lying inclined in the courtyard of the house in question, this supported the defence case that the injuries on the deceased resulted from a fall from a ladder. He has further submitted that the confession (Ext. 3) should not be relied upon, and also that Ext. 1 was inadmissible. ( 16 ) THE learned Advocate for the State has submitted that the conduct of the accused and the other inmates of the house, when considered along with the nature of injuries on the victim, rules out any accidental fall. He has further submitted that the judicial confession (Ext. 3) should be relied upon. ( 17 ) IN our view, the evidence of P. W. 2 that the police had arrived at about 12. 15/12. 30 hours in the night makes the information lodged by P. W. 1 at 01. 45 hours on 24-6-82, which has been marked as Ext. 1, inadmissible, as the same was recorded in course of investigation of a cognizable offence. The provisions of S. 162, Cr. P. C. make Ext. 1 inadmissible in law. ( 18 ) IN our view, the defence case of the injuries on Lakshmi being the result of a fall from a ladder is totally falsified by the nature of injuries found by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination (P. W. 3 ). It is not the defence case that the victim suffered more than one fall. It is absolutely clear that the multiple injuries found on the victim cannot be the result of one fall. Moreover, the conduct of the inmates of the house, including the accused in not summoning any medical help or informing any of the neighbours is totally inconsistent with injuries resulting from any accident. The callous behaviour of the inmates in letting the victim just die without any medical help while they themselves went to sleep, speak volumes. Although the accused has said in one of his answers in his examination under S. 313, Cr. The callous behaviour of the inmates in letting the victim just die without any medical help while they themselves went to sleep, speak volumes. Although the accused has said in one of his answers in his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. that he went to the hospital to make arrangement for a doctor when he learnt that Lakshmi had slipped from the stairs, no suggestion to this effect was given to any of the witnesses. ( 19 ) THE judicial confession (Ext. 3) in our view, is voluntary and materially true. We are satisfied from the evidence of P. W. 7 and what is recorded in Ext. 3 that the accused was given sufficient time for reflection and was properly cautioned. The preliminary questions put to the accused before recording the confession as recorded in Ext. 3 are adequate. No complaints were made by the accused at any point of time to any learned Magistrate about any threat by the police even though he has been all along on bail. The retraction of the confession is very belated, the retraction being made only in course of the Sessions trial itself, by way of questions in cross-examination to the investigating officer (P. W. 10), and in the answers of the accused in his examination under S. 313, Criminal Procedure Code. It is obvious that the accused in the said confession has introduced the story of slaps by him in order to try and mitigate the gravity of the offence. Reading the confession in the light of the other circumstances in the case, such as, the non-calling of any doctor or any neighbour, and the multiple injuries found including the fractures on the ribs, we are of the view that this judicial confession can be safely relied upon. Moreover, the accused was produced for the judicial confession on the 24th itself and not after a period of being in police custody. ( 20 ) IN the opinion of the doctor who held the post-mortem examination (P. W. 3) the injuries on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The charge in this case from the very beginning has been under S. 304, Part I, I. P. C. , as the language of the charge shows. ( 20 ) IN the opinion of the doctor who held the post-mortem examination (P. W. 3) the injuries on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The charge in this case from the very beginning has been under S. 304, Part I, I. P. C. , as the language of the charge shows. There can be no doubt, considering the nature and gravity of the multiple injuries that there was the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. ( 21 ) IN the result, on the materials on record, we hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused under S. 304, Part I, I. P. C. beyond any reasonable doubt. In a case of this type, on the facts as they appear in evidence, no question of mitigation of sentence as prayed for can arise. We uphold the conviction of the appellant under S. 304, Part I, of the I. P. C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years (10 years ). This will be subject to any set off to which he may be entitled under the law. The judgment and order of the learned trial court, appealed from, is affirmed. This appeal fails and is dismissed. G. C. CHATTERJI, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.