B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack whereby he has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack convicting the accused Jagannath Nana (petitioner No. 1) under 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, I. P. C.) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous, imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the first said offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, to under gorigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for the said second offence and further convicting him and his co-accused Nakula Rana, Rama alias Ramesh Rana and Kausalaya Rana (opposite parties 2 to 4 respectively) under section 201, read with section 34, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a direction that the sentences imposed on accused Jagannath Rana shall run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, shortly stated, is as under: Accused Jagganath is the son of accused Kausalya and accused Nakula and Rama alias Ramesh are his agnates and they all belong to village Harirajpur under Banki Police Station. Accused Jagannath. married Sarojini, the deceased of village Ranapur five years back and brought and kept her in his house at Harirajpur. Sometimes after the marriage accused Jagannath and Kausalya subjected Sarojni to mental and physical torture for which she was frequently going and staying in her mothers house. In one occasion the deceased Sarojni remained in her mothers house for a period of about six months, but at the intervention of some gentlemen, the deceased Sarojni returned to her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that notwithstanding such amicable settlement the accused Jagannath and Kausalya and their other family members continued to torture the deceased Sarojni both physically and mentally for which in the night of 2nd13rd August, 1987 she committed suicide by hanging and thereafter, the dead body of Sarojni was stealthily thrown away to river Mahanadi flowing by the side of their village at some distance apart before dawn at about 3 to 4a. M. ( 3 ) ON the following day of the fateful night, the sisters son of accused Jagannath (not examined) went to the mothers house of the deceased and enquired if Sarojni had come there. On such quarry Sarojnis mother and her other family members thought that Sarojini was missing and accordingly Sarojini s brother and uncle rushed to the house of accused Jagannath and finding Sarojini absent from the house, her brother lodged a missing report, on the same day i. e. 3. 8. 1987, at 2 p. m. which was registered as Station Diary No 50 (Ext. 5 ). About 15 minutes thereafter the accused Jagannath lodged a missing report as per Ext. 6. Both these missing reports were entrusted to the junior Sub-Inspector of Banki Police Station (P. W. 10) for inquiry. In courses of inquiry. P. W. 10 ascertains that the missing reports were not true and that in the fateful night the deceased Sarojini committed suicide by hanging as a result of the torture noted out to her by the accused persons and that in order to screen themselves from legal punishment the accused persons disposed of the dead body of Sarojini by throwing the same into the bed of river Mahanadi and accordingly he having submitted the F. I. R. (Ext. 3), the case was investigated by the Officer in-charge of Banki Police Station (P. W. 8 ). In course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased could not be traced but, however, Jour pieces of rope, one sickle and one saree (not admitted in evidence) were seized as per the seizure list, Ext. 1 on production by accused Kausalya and after completion of investigation charge-sheet having been placed; accused Jagannath and Kausalya faced trial for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 I. P. C. and further they along with their other two co-accused also faced trial for the offence punishable under section 201 red with section 34 I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE defence of accused Nakula and Rama alias Ramesh was complete denial. According to them, the case had been falsely foisted against them due to rivalry in the village. During his examination under section 313 Cr. According to them, the case had been falsely foisted against them due to rivalry in the village. During his examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. accused Jagannath while taking the plea that he was not responsible for the suicide of Sarojini, further stated that Sarojini having remained untraced, he submitted a missing report at the Police Station. Accused Kausalya, while pleading not guilty, expressed her ignorance as to how and where Sarojini died. It is some what significant to note that accused Kausalya did not take the plea that the deceased Sarojini left the house in the fateful night and remained untraced since then. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence to say that the deceased. Sarojini was in good term with accused Jagannath and Kausalya and that on his return from Bhubaneswar he heard two versions in the village; one being that the deceased Sarojini was un traced having gone away some where and the second being that she committed suicide. ( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses out of whom P. Ws. 1,2 and 6 are respectively the paternal uncle, mother and brother of Sarojini P. Ws. 5 and 9 are co-villagers of the accused persons. P. W. 7 is a witness to the seizure and P. Ws. 8 and 10 are the police officers who took some part or other in the investigation of the case. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge partly believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused persons, as stated above. The appeal filed by the accused having been dismissed, they have approached this Court. ( 7 ) MR. P. K. Dhal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that in order to secure a conviction against the petitioners it was first required for the prosecution to prove that Sarojini committed suicide and according to him, the evidence on this score is so much inadequate that the finding of the Courts below that Sarojini committed suicide cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below have relied upon the suggestion given by the defence counsel to some of the P. W s. that Sarojini committed suicide and such suggestion being inadmissible in evidence could not have been taken into consideration and if such evidence is taken out of consideration, the remaining evidence is quite insufficient to record such a finding. In other words, both the Courts below having based their conclusion that Sarojini committed suicide on inadmissible evidence and such conclusion having resulted in miscarriage of justice the same is liable to be interfered with. Mrs. C. Kasturi, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that such suggestion given by the defence counsel is inadmissible in evidence, the remaining evidence available in the case conclusively prove that Sarojini committed suicide and as such, the conclusion of the Courts below on that score are not liable to be interfered with. So, the question for consideration are whether the defence suggestion that Sarojini committed suicide is admissible in evidence and if not, whether there is other evidence on record to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Sarojini committed suicide. ( 8 ) AS regards the first question, the admission by way of suggestion by an advocate is admissible in evidence only under section 18 of the Evidence Act, which deals with admission by party to proceeding or his agent. A statement made by an agent or a party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by the party to make it, is an admission and admissible against the party, provided that the statement fulfils the evidentiary requirement enjoined in section 17. But it has to be seen whether an admission by an agent can be treated as evidence in a criminal case. In Ranonappa Courtdan v. Emperor, it has been held by a Bench that admissions dispensing with proof as distinguished from admissions which are evidential are not permitted in Criminal Trial. In S. C. Mitra v. The State, a Bench of Calcutta High Court has observed as under: The law makes no provision for an admission by counsel in a criminal case. No admission by counsel can relieve the prosecution of the duty of satisfying the Court by proper evidence. In S. C. Mitra v. The State, a Bench of Calcutta High Court has observed as under: The law makes no provision for an admission by counsel in a criminal case. No admission by counsel can relieve the prosecution of the duty of satisfying the Court by proper evidence. In Oche and another v. The State, a suggestion had been given to a prosecution witness and relying on such suggestion the trial Court found the accused guilty, but in appeal it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that the trial Court was not justified in using such suggestion as an admission. In Koli Trikamliveraj and another v. The State of Gujarat a similar question came up for consideration and a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that suggestions put in cross- examination are no evidence at all against the accused and on the basis of such suggestions no inference can be drawn against the accused that he admitted the facts referred to in the suggestions. An Advocate is engaged by an accused to defend him and not to admit facts which can prove his guilt and as such I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above cases by different High Courts. That being so, I hold that the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused that Sarojini committed suicide is inadmissible in evidence and the Courts below went wrong in relying on such inadmissible evidence. ( 9 ) IT is then to be found out whether on the remaining evidence on record the finding of the Courts below that Sarojini committed suicide by hanging can be sustained in law. No direct evidence, of course, has been led by the prosecution to show that Sarojini committed suicide by hanging, but it is seen from the evidence of the 1. 0. (P. W. 8) and the witness to the seizure (P. W. 7) that two days after the alleged occurrence on 5. 6. 1987 at about 12. 30 P. M. accused Kausalya gave recovery of a coir rope cut into four pieces, one sickle and two tom pieces of two different saree which were seized as per the seizure list, Ext. 1. Seizure of these articles will no doubt not prove the death of Sarojini by suicide, but the same may be considered along with other evidence on record. 1. Seizure of these articles will no doubt not prove the death of Sarojini by suicide, but the same may be considered along with other evidence on record. P. W. 9 Adikanda Sethi has clearly deposed that his house is at a distance of 40 to 50 yards from the house of the accused and that Sarojini is dead. He has also vouched that about two years back in the very early morning he saw all the four accused carrying a dead-body without any of the villagers accompanying them and such evidence is corroborated by his earlier statement before the Magistrate recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. (Ext. 4 ). P. W. 3 another co-villager has not supported the prosecution case but nevertheless his evidence is clearly to the effect that the wife of accused Jagannath died 1-1/2 years age. His competency to depose as such, can hardly be doubted as his house situates 22 to 25 houses apart from the house of the accused, P. W. 4 is another co-villager of the accused who has not fully supported the prosecution case, but he has categorically deceased that the wife of accused Jagannath died about 1-1/2 years back by committing suicide by hanging in the house of accused Jagannath as she had some ailment. No suggestion has been given to this witness that Sarojini did not commit suicide and his evidence on that score has gone unchallenged. P. W. 5 is another co-villager of accused who has corroborated P. W: 4 with the only exception that he does not know the cause of her death. At this stage it is worthwhile to recollect the version of accused Jagannath and Kausalya at the time of their examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. As indicated earlier, accused Jagannath first took the plea that he was not responsible for the suicide of Sarojini and then stated that Sarojini having remained untraced, he submitted a missing report at the Police Station. Likewise, accused Kausalya merely expressed her ignorance as to how and where Sarojini died. She did not state during her examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. that Sarojini went away somewhere in that night and remained un traced there after. Likewise, accused Kausalya merely expressed her ignorance as to how and where Sarojini died. She did not state during her examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. that Sarojini went away somewhere in that night and remained un traced there after. If Sarojini really went await somewhere in the fateful night, then a missing report could have been submitted in the following morning and not after a missing report was submitted by the brother of Sarojini. Further, accused Kausalya would not have given statement pleading ignorance as to how and where Sarojini died, if Sarojini left the matrimonial home for some other place. Law is well settled that the statement of an accused recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. cannot form the basis of his conviction but the same can be taken into consideration along with other evidence, while judging the truthfulness of the prosecution case. So, the statement of accused Jagannath and Kausalya are liable to be taken into consideration on along with other evidence on record. When their statements are taken into consideration in conjunction with the evidence of P. W s. 3 to 5 and 9, there remains hardly any room for doubt that Sarojini committed suicide by hanging and that the missing report submitted by accused Jagannath at the Police Station is just a pretext to cover up his own guilt and that of his co accused. ( 10 ) MR. P. K. Dhal for the petitioners wanted me to go through the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2 and 6 in his bid to persuade me to disturb the finding of the Courts below that the suicide of Sarojini was on account of the torture meted to her by accused Jagannath and Kausalya, but sitting in revision, I am not inclined to discuss their evidence because a careful consideration of the evidence of those witnesses the Courts below have arrived at such finding. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, although I have held that the Courts below committed illegality in relying on the suggestion of the defence counsel containing same admissions yet it has been found that the remaining evidence conclusively prove the death of Sarojini by suicide. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, although I have held that the Courts below committed illegality in relying on the suggestion of the defence counsel containing same admissions yet it has been found that the remaining evidence conclusively prove the death of Sarojini by suicide. The Courts below having found that the suicide by Sarojini was due to the torture meted out to her by accused Jagannath and Kausalya and that all the accused threw away the dead-body of Sarojini into the river Mahanandi in order to screen themselves from the legal punishment and such finding being not perverse, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. ( 12 ) IN the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.