I. N. HORE, J. ( 1 ) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1966 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapur in Sessions Trial No. 26 of September, 1983 convicting appellant Guru Prasad Gurupada Mishra under Sections 302 /34 and 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. Two other accused persons Jagmohan Adhikari Khokan and Milan Acharjya were acquitted of both the charges under Section 302/34 and 20 1/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is as under: Mohini Mishra of village Sudampur, P. S. Moina, District Midnapur was a music teacher. He was a married man living with his wife and cousin in his house at Sudampur. Appellant Guruprasad Mishra and PW Banibrata were pupils of Guruprasad Who used to live with him in his house. Accused Milan Acharjya is the Bharabhai (sister-in-laws husband) of the deceased. The other accused Jagamoban is a close friend of Milan. Both these friends used to visit the house of Mobini Mohan and Milan picked-up intimacy with Manju and Alpana who are the wife and cousin of Mohini Mohan respectively. A few days before the occurrence, Mohini Mohan protested against the conduct of these two friends and at this Milan threatened him with dire consequences. They gave a large sum of money to appellant Guru-pada and with his help killed Mohini Mohan with an axe on the night of 3. 7. 81 while Mohini Mohan and Gurupada only were inside the house - Thereafter, they secreted the evidence of murder, packing the dead body in a gunny bag and thre wing it in, river Chandia about 100 cubits away from the house of the deceased. On enquiries by Makhanlal Mishra, the younger brother of the deceased (PW 3), Banibrata Das (PW 5) and others the appellant told them that some unknown persons had taken Mohini Mohan to Calcutta in a taxi. On 6. 7. On enquiries by Makhanlal Mishra, the younger brother of the deceased (PW 3), Banibrata Das (PW 5) and others the appellant told them that some unknown persons had taken Mohini Mohan to Calcutta in a taxi. On 6. 7. 81 the appellant, however, made a confession to PW 12 Amal Kumar Maity and PW 9 Sukdev Jana that he along with two unknown persons killed Mohini Mohan and put his dead body in a gunny bag and threw it in, river Chandia, Sukdev then informed Anchal Prodhan PW 18 Ashoke Taru Hera. At first PW 18 did not take it seriously but when the gunny bag with the dead body was found floting on 7. 7. 81 and bad odour was coming out from it; PW 18 sent a written information to the Police Station. PW 1 A. S. I. Sarat Chandra Sarkar, on receipt of the said information, started a U. D. case and visited village Sodampur. The gunny bag containing the dead body was brought on the shore and the dead body of Mohini Mohan was recovered. PW 1 held inquest and sent the dead body to the morgue, PW 1 drew up a suo moto First Information Report on the basis of which, a police case was started. PW 20 S. I. B. B. Salla took up investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet-against the appellant and others which in due course ended in the committal of the case to the Court of Session. 3. The defence case was one of denial simpliciter. 4. In order to bring home the charges to the accused the prosecution examined 20 witness, while the defence examined none. ( 3 ) THE murder of Mohini Mohan is not disputed before us and has also been proved by overwhelming evidence. The evidence of PW5. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 18 shows that on 7. 7. 81 the dead body of Mohini Mohan Wills recovered from river Chandia by PW 1. It was wrapped up in a gunny bag which wall floating on the river PW 1 held inquest. There were marks of injuries on the neck, face and nose. PW 15 Dr. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 18 shows that on 7. 7. 81 the dead body of Mohini Mohan Wills recovered from river Chandia by PW 1. It was wrapped up in a gunny bag which wall floating on the river PW 1 held inquest. There were marks of injuries on the neck, face and nose. PW 15 Dr. H. K. Roy the then S. D. M. O. Tamluk, who held the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohini Mohan Mishra found the following injuries: 1 One incised gaping wound 6 x 4 x vertebral bone deep on the back of upper part of the neck: 2 One incised wound 4 x 3 x bone deep on the scapular region. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injury on the neck described above which was antemortem and homicidal in nature. According to the doctor, the two injuries were sufficient to cause instantaneous death. There is, therefore, no doubt that the deceased was brutally murdered and the dead body was wrapped up in a gunny bag and thrown in the river Chandia with the object of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder in order to screen the offender from legal punishment. 6. The next question, and the crucial one, is whether the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased and causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. 7. There is no direct evidence of any eyewitness in this case. The prosecution case rests upon extra-judicial confession, since retracted, and circumstantial evidence. Let us first consider the alleged extra judicial confession, According to the prosecution, the appellant made two extra judicial confessions - the first before PW 12 Amal Kumar Maity and the second before PW 9 Sukdev lana. PW 12 Amal Kumar Maity was a student of the deceaood and he used to 12 to the house of the deceased tot take lessons in music on every Sunday on payment of a remuneration of that- per month. His evidence does to show that on Sunday, 21st Ashar corresponding to 5. 7. 81 he went to the house or the deceased at of about 11. 00 A. M. At that time appellant Gurupada used to stay in the house of the deceased. On his queries, Gurupada told him that the deceased bad gone to Calcutta. His evidence does to show that on Sunday, 21st Ashar corresponding to 5. 7. 81 he went to the house or the deceased at of about 11. 00 A. M. At that time appellant Gurupada used to stay in the house of the deceased. On his queries, Gurupada told him that the deceased bad gone to Calcutta. He stayed in the house of the deceased with Gurupada on that night. Next day (6. 7. 81) he had lunch cooked by Gurupada in the house of the deceased. After lunch when he was about to leave the hone of the deceased for his village between 1. 30 P. M ( 4 ) 2. 00 P. M. he hadded over the remuneration of the deceased to Gurupada for making payment to him (the deceased) Gurupada then cried out and told him that the deceased was killed on Friday evening Iii about 7. 00 /7. 30 P. M. He rebuked Gurupada for not divulging the incident. Gurupada told him - that as he was threatened with dire consequences, he did not dare to divulge the incident to anybody. Gurupada told him that when the deceased was taking Khichuri in the kitchen, four unknown persons came in a taxi, two of them were waiting in the taxi on the bank of the river and two others came to the house. One of them asked for an axe from Gurupada who supplied the same. One of the two unknown persons hit the deceased on the neck with that axe and the deceased fell down. The two persons then asked Gurupada to cut the body with II. Tbantit but as the banti was not very sharp, Gurupada could not cut the body. The two persons then wrapped the body of the deceased with a gunny bag tied with nylon rope of a cradle. They asked Gurupada to help them in holding the gunny bag. They ultimately threw the gunny bag in the river Chandia. According to P. W. 12, the appellant further stated that these murderers promised to pay him Rs 5,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been paid to him earlier and the balance was be paid after completion of the murder. They ultimately threw the gunny bag in the river Chandia. According to P. W. 12, the appellant further stated that these murderers promised to pay him Rs 5,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been paid to him earlier and the balance was be paid after completion of the murder. After hearing the above confessional statement of the appellant P. W. 12 went to the house of P, W. 9 Sukhdev Jana and narrated to him what he had heard from the appellant. Sukdev then came to the house of the deceased with P. W. 12 and the appellant made another extra-judicial confession to Sukdev in his presence. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 Sukdev Jana lives in a rented house at Sudampur and he has a tailoring shop at Balaipanda at a distance of about 400 yards from Sudampur. The testimony of PW 9 is that on receipt of information from PW 12 be went to the house of Mohinibabu and found appellant Gurupada there. Gurupada at first told him that about 3 days before Mohini had gone to Calcutta with two unknown persons. On further queries by PW 9, Gurupada stated that two men came to the house and made some proposal to Mohini but Mohini expressed his inability to accept their proposal. At this the said two unknown person got angry and asked Mohini as to why he could not make himself ready and was harassing them as they had come from such a long distance. At that time Mohini was taking Khichuri as dinner. The two persons then asked for an axe from Gurupada. As he supplied the axe, one of them dealt a blow with it on the neck of Mohini who fell down crying Oh, Ma go (Oh mother!), The two unknown persons asked Gurupada to cut Mohini with a Tbanti. Gurupada made an attempt but as the banti was not sharp enough nothing serious happened. The two persons then put the body of Mohini inside a gunny bag and carried it to the bank of the river and threw it into the river. Gurupada helped them in this regard. Gurupada further reported that these two persons threatened him with dire consequences if he disclosed the matter to anybody. The two persons then put the body of Mohini inside a gunny bag and carried it to the bank of the river and threw it into the river. Gurupada helped them in this regard. Gurupada further reported that these two persons threatened him with dire consequences if he disclosed the matter to anybody. After hearing the confessional statement, PW 9 at once left the house and reported the matter to PW 11 Sarbeswar Samanta whom he met on the bank of the river. Sarbeswar advised him to report the incident to Anchal Prodban. Thereafter, PW5. 9 and) 1 went to the house of PW 18 Ashoke Taru Hera, Anchal Prodhan. PW 11 Sarbeswar Samanta does not really support PW 9. According to him, PW 9 narrated the incident to PW 1 is in his presence but he does not state what was narrated by Sukdev to PW 18. According-to PW 18, Sukdev told him that Guruprasad killed Mohini while the latter was taking his dinner and then threw the dead body wrapped up in a gunny bag. So Sukdev did not say anything about the part played by two unknown persons. The two extra-judicial confessions alleged to have been made to PW5 12 and 9 respectively within a short interval differ in some important respects. According to the first confessional statement made to PW 12, 4 unknown persons came in a taxi and two of them were waiting in the taxi on the bank of the river and the two others came to the house but according to the second confessional statement made to PW 9 only two unknown persons came in a taxi. It appears from the first confessional statement that the murder was pre-planned and the appellant was paid money for assisting the unknown persons in committing the offence. There is no whisper of any altercation between the assailants and the deceased but the alleged second confessional statement suggests that the crime was not deliberate and pre-planned and that it was preceded by an altercation between the two unknown assailants and the deceased. There is no whisper of payment of any money to the appellant in the second confessional statement. The story of threat is also absent in the first confessional statement. The alleged two confessional statements are mainly exculpatory in nature. The second confessional statement is more exculpatory then the first one. There is no whisper of payment of any money to the appellant in the second confessional statement. The story of threat is also absent in the first confessional statement. The alleged two confessional statements are mainly exculpatory in nature. The second confessional statement is more exculpatory then the first one. The confessions appear to be in the nature of self-defence. It sounds quite improbable that the two unknown persons who came to the deceased to take him to name place as per previous appointment would brutally murder him in presence of ( 6 ) PUPIL merely because the deceased was not willing to go with them. Such a prolonged altercation was likely to attract the attention of PW 4 who was in the adjacent house. The story of two unknown persons murdering the deceased in the manner alleged appears to be highly improbable and considered in the context of other facts and circumstances of the case which we shall consider presently, we are unable to place any reliance upon the alleged extra-judicial confessions. We therefore, keep the alleged confessions of the appellant out of consideration. ( 7 ) LET us next advert to the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution relies may be catalogued below: (1) The deceased was murdered inside his house; (2) The appellant and the deceased were last seen together in the house of the deceased; (3) The deceased and the appellant only were present in the house and the appellant alive had opportunity to kill the deceased; (4) On 3. 7. 81 at or about 8. 00 P. M. cry of the deceased Oh mother, I am finished was heard coming from the kitchen. On enquiries by PW 3 Smt. Elokeshi Mishra, the appellant made a raise statement from the kitchen that while the deceased was taking his meal a piece of stone struck his wounded tooth causing it to fall. (5) When PW5. 00 P. M. cry of the deceased Oh mother, I am finished was heard coming from the kitchen. On enquiries by PW 3 Smt. Elokeshi Mishra, the appellant made a raise statement from the kitchen that while the deceased was taking his meal a piece of stone struck his wounded tooth causing it to fall. (5) When PW5. 3, 12 and others made enquiries about the where-about of the deceased, the appellant gave a false explanation that he had gone to Calcutta with some unknown persons in taxi; (6) Recovery of a blood-stained banti and the wrist watch belonging to the deceased from hidden places at the instance of the appellant; (7) The appellant asked for some nona mati (mud for dressing the floor) from PW 4 obviously with the intention of removing traces of blood and the evidence of murder; (8) On 6. 7. S1 the body of the deceased which was wrapped in a gunny bag and thrown into river Chandia about 100 cubits away from the house of the deceased floated and foul smell was coming from it. Being questioned by PW 2 the appellant lave a false explanation that someone killed a smell, placed it inside a gunny bag and throw it inside the river. On that day the appellant left the house of the deceased hand in cover the key to PW 4. ( 8 ) IT is now well-settled that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In Other word. , there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave and reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the set must have been done by the accused. 11. In Other word. , there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave and reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the set must have been done by the accused. 11. Bearing the above in mind let us now proceed to consider whether the circumstances catalogued above have been fully established and whether the circumstances so established irresistibly lead to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused-appellant and exclude any other reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 12. On 8. 7. 81 PW 20 S. I. RB. Salla, the Investigating Officer, seized a blood-stained axe (Mat. Ext. V)1 blood stained earth with control earth, small wooden pot with blood stains, a broken earthen pot containing blood stains and mud with a blood stained napkin inside it, a pillow cover placed on the earthen pot, a blood stained lungi of the deceased and a cradle (Ext. 2) from the kitchen of the house of the deceased under a seizure list (Ext. 5 ). PW5. 3 and 6 who are seizure list witnesses have proved the seizure of the said articles. PW 20 also seized some blood stained earth from the mud-wall of the kitchen under a seizure list (Ext. 6 ). PW5. 3 and 6 have proved the seizure of the same. The report of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 16) shows that the axe was stained with human blood. According to the medical evidence it was the like), weapon of the offence. The wooden napkin cutting and earth containing brown, stains WIR found to have been stained with blood but their origin could not be determined duo to disintegration. PW 1 A. S. I. Sarat Chandra Sarkar seized the gunny bag with which the body of the deceased was wrapped and a nylon cord with which the gunny bag was tied under the seizure list Ext. 3. PW5. 2 and 6 have proved seizure of the same. The gunny bag and the nylon cord are marked Mat. Ext. 1 collectively. PW 3 Makhanlal Mishra, younger brother of the deceased, has identified the nylon cord with which the cradle (Mat. Ext. 11) was kept hanging in the house of the deceased. 3. PW5. 2 and 6 have proved seizure of the same. The gunny bag and the nylon cord are marked Mat. Ext. 1 collectively. PW 3 Makhanlal Mishra, younger brother of the deceased, has identified the nylon cord with which the cradle (Mat. Ext. 11) was kept hanging in the house of the deceased. This part of the testimony of PW 3 has not been challenged in the cross-examination. It is clear that the nylon cord with which the gunny bag containing the body of the deceased was tied was removed from the cradle in the house of the deceased. The evidence of PW 4 Elokeshi Mishra, wife of PW 3 shows that at or about 8. 00 P. M. on the night of occurrence, she heard a cry of the deceased Oh mother, I am finished coming from the kitchen. From the evidence discussed above it is clear that the prosecution has proved satisfactorily that the deceased was murdered in the kitchen of his house. Circumstance no. 1, therefore, stands clearly established. We get from the evidence of PW 3 that the deceased was a music teacher by profession and his cousin Alpana Mishra and pupils Banibrata (PW 5) and Guruprasad used to live in his house. There is no dispute about this. At the relevant time Mohinis wife was pregnant and she was living in her fathers house at Kusumda PW 5 Banibrata Das went to Mallesh on 2. 7. 81 he to attend Rathejatra festival. After Visiting Mallesh, Oakshineswar and Kamarpukur he returned to the house of the deceased on 3. 7. 81 at about mid-night but did not find the deceased in the house. The specific evidence of PW 3 is that on the date of occurrence i. e. 3. 7. 81 he found only the appellant in the house of the deceased. When in the evening he left for Tonarchak to act as a priest in a marriage ceremony, he saw the deceased and the appellant only in the house of the deceased. This part of his testimony has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The evidence of PW 4 also shows that when her husband left home to attend a marriage ceremony the appellant was in the house of the deceased. PW 5 returned to the house of the deceased at about mid-night and found the appellant strolling impatiently in the verandall. This part of his testimony has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The evidence of PW 4 also shows that when her husband left home to attend a marriage ceremony the appellant was in the house of the deceased. PW 5 returned to the house of the deceased at about mid-night and found the appellant strolling impatiently in the verandall. He did not find the deceased in the house. On his query the appellant stated that the deceased had left for Calcutta with some persons in a taxi and that he was expected to return by Tuesday or Wednesday. Since then the deceased was not seen or heard of till the recovery of his dead body from the river on 7. 7. 81. PW 3 returned home from Tonarchak at about 2. 30 A. M. He brought some sweets which he intended to give to the deceased but he did not find the deceased in his house. On his queries the appellant stated that some unknown persons had come in a taxi and taken the deceased to Calcutta and that he would return a few days after. PW 3 then offered some sweets to the appellant who took one or two sweets very reluctantly. The evidence of PW 4 also shows that on the night of the occurrence Mohini (the deceased) and the appellant only were in the house of the deceased. At or about 8. 00 P. M. she heard a cry of the deceased Oh mother, I am finished coming from the kitchen. On hearing the cry she called the appellant Guruprasad and asked him what had happened to Mohini. The appellant replied from the kitchen that while the deceased was taking his meal a piece of stone struck a wounded tooth of the deceased causing it to fall. The evidence of the autopsy surgeon does not show that any tooth of the deceased was mis6ing PW 20 also did. But find any such tooth in the kitchen. The explanation offered by the appellant to PW 4 appears to be false. In all probability, the cry was raised by the deceased on receipt of the fatal blow. The explanation for absence of the deceased in the house as given by the appellant to P. Ws. 4 and 5 shortly after the occurrence was palpably false. The explanation offered by the appellant to PW 4 appears to be false. In all probability, the cry was raised by the deceased on receipt of the fatal blow. The explanation for absence of the deceased in the house as given by the appellant to P. Ws. 4 and 5 shortly after the occurrence was palpably false. As held by the Supreme Court in Golam Majlbuddin and another v. State of West Bengal1 the evidence of false explanation is not only relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act but is of considerable importance when it was given soon after the alleged occurrence and was apparently designed to give the facts an appearance favourable to the accused. In the peculiar facts of the case, the false explanation given by the accused soon after the occurrence that the deceased went to Calcutta in a taxi along with some unknown penson is highly incriminating. From the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has firmly established circumstance Nos. 2 to 5. The wrist watch (Mat, Ext, IV) and one blood-stained banti were seized by PW 20 at the instance of the appellant under the seizure list. Ext. 4, PW5, 2 and 8 are the seizure witnesses who have proved the seizure of the said articles, Their evidence goes to show that the wrist watch was recovered from a heap of straw on the first floor of the house of the deceased, being pointed out by the appellant, The bam;t was also recovered from underneath the fuel in the kitchen at the instance of the appellant, PW 10 Haripada Bhowmick, a school teacher, identified the wrist watch which he gave to the deceased in lieu of remuneration when he was a student of the deceased, PW 8 has also deposed, that the wrist watch belonged to the deceased Circumstance No. 6 has therefore, been clearly established. The testimony of PW 4 shows that in the morning of 4. 7. 81 the appellant asked for some nona mati (mud for dressing the floor) PW 4. On her query, the appellant told her that he required nona mati for dressing the room of Mohini, She informed him about the place where nona matit would be available. Her testimony in this regard has been corroborated by PW 3. 7. 81 the appellant asked for some nona mati (mud for dressing the floor) PW 4. On her query, the appellant told her that he required nona mati for dressing the room of Mohini, She informed him about the place where nona matit would be available. Her testimony in this regard has been corroborated by PW 3. There is, however no clear evidence that the floor of the kitchen was actually dressed with nona mati in order to remove the stains of blood. We are not inclined, therefore, to attach any importance to this circumstance. The evidence of PW 2 Buoy Krishna Pal goes to show that on 6. 7. 81 at about 900 A. M he saw the appellant and others on the bank of the river Chandia. He saw something in the river Chandia and a very bad smell was coming from it and some crows were flying over it. Being questioned by him, the appellant stated that possible someone killed a snake and placed it inside a gunny bag and threw it inside the river. The unchallenged evidence of PW 4 is that on that day at or about 3. 00, ( 9 ) P. M. the appellant hadded over the key of the house of the deceased to her and left the house telling her that he was going home to attend a marriage party. Circumstance No. 8 has, therefore, been clearly established. This circumstance, taken by itself, may not be incriminating but considered in the context of other facts and circumstances it assumes some importance. We have seen (hat on the night of occurrence the appellant and the deceased were alone in the house of the deceased and that soon after the occurrence the appellant gave a false explanation that some unknown persons had taken the deceased in a taxi to Calcutta, though as a matter of fact the deceased had already been murdered in his house and the dead body. had been removed and thrown into the river PW5. 3, 4 and others apparently believed the explanation\ and did not suspect any foul play. This was quite natural inasmuch as the appellant was a beloved student of the deceased and used to live in the house of the deceased as a member of his family. had been removed and thrown into the river PW5. 3, 4 and others apparently believed the explanation\ and did not suspect any foul play. This was quite natural inasmuch as the appellant was a beloved student of the deceased and used to live in the house of the deceased as a member of his family. But when the gunny bag containing the body of the deceased was found floating in the river, full of hyacinth, on 6. 7. 81 and bad Odom was coming out of it and the people became suspicious, the appellant offered the absurd explanation that a snike was killed, placed inside a gunny bag and thrown into the river Realising that the body of the deceased was likely to be discovered soon and the suspicion of the villagers would fall on him, he decided to leave the village on the plea of attending a marriage ceremony. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, circumstance Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 which have been clearly established, considered together, respectably lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant and the appellant only who committed the murder and removed the dead body of the deceased and exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. The accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code, is himself not proper. The charge was framed against the appellant and two other persons specifically named os Jaga Mohan Adhikari Kbokan and Milan Acharjya and no other else. After acquitting Jagamohan Adhikari and Milan Acharjya the appellant could not be convicted under Section 302 and Section 201 with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code. We have already seen that the circumstances irresistibly lead to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant only. The appellant may, therefore, be safely convicted under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code simpliciter. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, while upholding the sentence, we alter the convictions of the appellant under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34, Indian Penal Code to these under Sections 302 and 201 simpliciter. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.