This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of Bojja Uppara Muthyalu, the sole accused, who had been charged with murder of his wife Lakshmamma. The prosecution case is that on 6th September, 1958 about 6-30 p.m., in a field called “Chakalavani Chenu” near the village of Gooty-Anantapur which is about a mile from Gooty, the accused caused injuries to the deceased Lakshmamma with M.O. 1, a sickle, and brought about her death. The accused and the deceased were married about six years prior to the occurrence. They lived in the same house where his elder brother Bojja Narayana (P.W. 1), bis mother Uppara Narayanamma (P.W. 2) and his niece (P.W. 4), i.e., the daughter of P.W. 1 lived. The accused suspected that his wife was on intimate terms with one Chakala Veranna; and on that account there used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. At about 3 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, the accused and the deceased started from their house in a double bullock cart to their fields to get fuel. He was seen carrying a sickle in his hand and both the accused and the deceased Lakshmamma were seen while going by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5, viz., his brother, mother, and another neighbour respectively. The accused and the deceased were also seen in the field loading fuel by Golla Jangam Ramaiah (P.W. 6) at about sun-set time. Chakali Chinna Govindappa (P.W. 7) also saw them putting fuel in a cart in their field on that day. It was thereafter found that the accused and the deceased did not return to their house that night. According to the prosecution, at about 8 p.m., one Lalireddi and Kummara Narayana informed Bojja Narayana (P.W. 1), the brother of the accused, that the accused had killed the deceased. It may here be mentioned that these two persons have not been examined. It is said that P.W. 1 could not go to the field that night because it was raining heavily. It is only the next morning that P.W. 1 went to the field, saw the dead body of Lakshmamma and while returning gave the Village Munsif (P.W. 11) a report (Exhibit P-1) at about 8 a.m. The Village Munsif also went to the field and saw the dead body. It is only the next morning that P.W. 1 went to the field, saw the dead body of Lakshmamma and while returning gave the Village Munsif (P.W. 11) a report (Exhibit P-1) at about 8 a.m. The Village Munsif also went to the field and saw the dead body. He found a number of foot-prints near the dead body and without disturbing those foot-prints made arrangements to preserve them and sent express reports (Exhibits P-2 and P-3) to the Magistrate and the police. The Sub-Inspector of Police who arrived at the scene of offence on 7th September, 1958, held the inquest at 3 p.m. that day and examined P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5. The Sub-Inspector found the deceased clutching a piece of cloth (M.O. 5). He thereafter seized a shirt (M.O. 2) from the house of the accused and found M.O. 5 correspond to the torn portion of M.O. 2. But it may be observed that the shirt (M.O. 2) has not been identified as the shirt of the accused. This Sub-Inspector, however, was not examined as he was not available. The Circle Inspector of Police (P.W. 20) reached the village at 5-30 p.m. on 9th September, 1958 and took over investigation and examined all the material witnesses that night. The accused was absconding and could be arrested only on 14th September, 1958, in a hillock near the village called Thondapadu which is five miles from Gooty-Anantapur. At the time of the arrest the accused was wearing M.O. 4 a dhoti, and M.O. 3 a towel. These were seized as they contained washed blood-stains. What the accused stated when questioned by the Circle Inspector had been recorded in Exhibit P-7 of which Exhibit P-6 is the admissible portion of that statement. In this the accused gave the information that he buried the sickle (M.O. 1). The accused took the Circle Inspector to a place 100 yards from the scene of occurrence and took out the sickle (M.O. 1) which was buried under the sand near a palm tree. The accused was remanded to judicial custody from 15th September, 1958 and on 19th September, 1958, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, (P.W. 15) for the purpose of recording his section 164 statement. The accused was remanded to judicial custody from 15th September, 1958 and on 19th September, 1958, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, (P.W. 15) for the purpose of recording his section 164 statement. The Magistrate gave the accused all the prescribed warnings on 19th September, 1958 and questioned him in accordance with the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The Magistrate sent the accused back to judicial custody and gave him time to reflect till 22nd September, 1958. When the accused was brought back from judicial custody, the Magistrate warned the accused and again questioned him. As the Magistrate believed that the accused was making a voluntary statement, he recorded the confession of the accused Which is marked as Exhibit P-10, The accused, however, denied having made any confession even in the committal Court. In his statement before the Sessions Court, the accused denied the offence and did not explain any circumstances against him. At the trial a feeble attempt was made by the accused to make it appear that he was of unstable mind. Under orders of the Sessions Court, the accused was therefore placed from 2nd May, 1959 to nth May, 1959, in the Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur, under observation. The doctor (C.W. 1) found that there was nothing wrong with the accused as he did not exhibit any signs of any mental disease and that he was of the opinion that the accused is capable of making his defence in the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstantial evidence which, according to the prosecution, consisted of firstly the motive; secondly, the fact that the accused was seen in the company of the deceased at or before the time of the alleged offence; thirdly, the evidence furnished by the foot-prints; fourthly, the fact that M.O. 5 corresponded with M.O. 2; fifthly, the recovery of M.O. 1 at the instance of the accused; sixthly, the recovery of M.Os. 3 and 4 with blood-stains from the person of the accused; and lastly, the corroboration provided by the evidence of the medical witness as to the nature of the injuries. He was of the view that the prosecution was not able to prove the immediate motive for the commission of the offence. 3 and 4 with blood-stains from the person of the accused; and lastly, the corroboration provided by the evidence of the medical witness as to the nature of the injuries. He was of the view that the prosecution was not able to prove the immediate motive for the commission of the offence. It is absolutely true that the accused was frequently quarrelling and suspecting that the deceased was being kept by one Chakali Veeranna. In support of these frequent quarrels the evidence of P.W. 2, the mother of the accused, Las been believed. As regards the illicit intimacy with Chakali Veeranna, the statement of P.W. 1, the brother of the accused, has been accepted. As regards the next circumstance, viz., that the accused and the deceased were seen going in a double bullock cart and that the accused had a sickle in his hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and P.W. 5, a neighbour, has been relied upon. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 that the accused was last seen with the deceased before sun-set at the place where the body of the deceased was subsequently found, has been held to support the prosecution case. It is no doubt true that P.W. 7 had to be treated hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution; but nevertheless there was no variation in regard to this aspect of the case, viz., his seeing the accused and the deceased together in the field at about 4 p.m. on the date of the occurrence. It may be observed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution case as to the circumstances referred to above by the witnesses mentioned above, though he has been definitely of the opinion that none of these witnesses is willing to implicate the accused, but on the other hand, are out to help the accused. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that towards this attempt P.W. 1 has gone to the extent of denying that M.O.1 is not the sickle which he saw in the hand of the accused while the accused started in the bullock cart with the deceased to his field. P.W.2, the mother, put forward the plea on behalf of the accused that the accused is mad and “bugulu” (of unsteady mind). P.W.2, the mother, put forward the plea on behalf of the accused that the accused is mad and “bugulu” (of unsteady mind). She wanted to make it appear that the accused used to go away to the fields without returning home or informing his mother or others and that he used to be away for days together. Obviously this is meant to explain away the conduct of the accused which consisted in his going away on the date of occurrence and not returning till he was arrested. P.W. 3 has gone to the extent of saying that the deceased and the accused were living amicably. P.W.4 said that the accused used to beat the deceased. He gave it as his reason that it was because the deceased did not do work. P.Ws. 6 and 7 go to the extent of suggesting that Chakali Veeranna, the paramour of the deceased, was cutting cholam in his fields near about the time of occurrence and Chakali Veeranna had not also been seen in the village after the date of occurrence. P.W. 8 the mother of the deceased, would have it that she did not know of any quarrels between the accused and the deceased and did not know anything about the character of her daughter. P.W. 12, the karnam, accepts the suggestion that Veeranna was not to be seen in the village from the date of offence relating to the murder of Lakshmamma although he had not stated so to the police when he was examined. As to the evidence furnished by the footprints, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly, in our view, held that it is inconclusive as the accused accompanied the deceased and both of them were in the field that afternoon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not accept that any circumstance against the accused is made out by the recovery of M.O. 5 which is a piece of cloth torn from the shirt (M.O. 2) inasmuch as there is absolute lack of evidence that M.O. 2 belonged to the accused. It is pointed out that M.O. 1, the sickle, had blood marks, but it was not possible to say that it was human blood as the stains have disintegrated. It is pointed out that M.O. 1, the sickle, had blood marks, but it was not possible to say that it was human blood as the stains have disintegrated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the view that once no bloodstains are found on M.O. 1, the information given by the accused which led to the discovery is not a circumstance which can be taken as incriminating the accused and that the evidence relating to the information given by the accused itself becomes inadmissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Public Prosecutor disputes this proposition as the discovery of the weapon could be proved when it is at the instance of the accused and it is only the corroborative piece of evidence relating to bloodstains that falls to be considered thereafter by the Court. We entertain no doubt about this; and although the want of identification by P.W. 1 of the weapon is, for obvious reasons as stated above, viz., to help his brother the accused in distress, the recovery of the weapon would be a circumstance against the accused. The evidence furnished by M.Os. 3 and 4, viz., the towel and dhoti, could in our view, also be an incriminating circumstance against the accused and provide corroboration if the confession could be held as not vitiated. The presence of human blood on the towel and dhoti also goes a long way. There then is the evidence of the doctor in regard to the injuries and as to whether a weapon like M.O. 1 could have caused those injuries. The opinion of the doctor has been that a sharp-edged weapon like the sickle could have caused these injuries. Therefore, it is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the doctor’s evidence also provides corroboration to the confessional statement should find acceptance with us. We find no reason to have to differ with the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this aspect of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that one essential circumstance arising out of the conduct of the accused after the occurrence has not been fully appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. That circumstance relates to the manner in which the accused left his wife and the village and was not seen till the 14th September, 1958. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that one essential circumstance arising out of the conduct of the accused after the occurrence has not been fully appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. That circumstance relates to the manner in which the accused left his wife and the village and was not seen till the 14th September, 1958. The accused has no explanation whatsoever as to this strange behaviour; but it is only, as has been pointed out, P.W. 2, bis mother, has been putting forward that the accused was wayward in his mind and often used to go away without informing her. Beyond the interested testimony of P.W. 2 in this respect, there is nothing further which gave an indication of the instances in which the accused was seen behaving likewise. The accused having been found to be normal in his mental condition cannot be expected to make no effort to find his wife or keep quiet without reporting about the death of his wife but merely remain away and in hiding as has been spoken to by the witnesses in whose presence P.W. 20, the Circle Inspector, arrested him. The learned Public Prosecutor therefore contends that having regard to the chain of circumstances so established in this case, the accused must be found guilty of the offence of murder of his wife Lakshmamma and that the circumstances so established Were enough for the lower Court to have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also urged that in this case there is the confession of the accused which though retracted has been corroborated by the circumstances proved against the accused. The further argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the confession has been wrongly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as he misconstrued the law applicable thereto and has insisted upon the Magistrate (P.W. 15) repeating the questions on 22nd September, 1958 in accordance with rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice even though the questions specified in that rule have been put to the accused on 19th September, 1958, when the accused was brought before the Magistrate for the first time. The learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to Exhibit P-11 which contained the following questions as having been put to the accused on 22nd September, 1958. The learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to Exhibit P-11 which contained the following questions as having been put to the accused on 22nd September, 1958. They are: Question 1.-Do you know that you are not bound to make any confession before me? Answer.-I know. Question 2.-Do you know that if you make any confession it would be used as evidence against you. Did you think over this matter? Answer.-I thought over this matter and am giving. The Magistrate (P.W. 15) was therefore satisfied that the accused was willing and prepared to give voluntarily a statement before him. The Magistrate has spoken to this in his deposition. He no doubt stated that apart from these two questions, he did not put any other question to the accused. Taking the stand that it is not necessary to repeat the questions A to Z as specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice every time the accused is brought before the Magistrate from judicial custody and maintaining that section 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the taking of evidence by the person who has recorded the statement for the purpose of finding out whether the statement is voluntary or not, it is argued that the confession (Exhibit P-10) in the instant case when found as a fact to be voluntarily made is admissible. The trial Court, however, relying upon the decision in Karunthambi v. State1, held that the failure of the Magistrate to put all the questions to the accused on 22nd September, 1958, as required under rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is a defect of substance which vitiates the confession altogether. No doubt, in this decision Govinda Menon, J., speaking for a Division Bench consisting of himself and Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., expressed his opinion that though a confession made by an accused person who had not been warned according to the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, is admissible in evidence under section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, still it is necessary to find out how far such a confession can be acted upon if the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with. The learned Judge posits: “In our opinion, though the confession is admissible still it suffers from the infirmity that the necessary pre-requisites validating a confession and making it acceptable in Court are absent if the accused had not been warned that he was not bound to make a confession.......” and adds: “We feel that the learned Magistrate ought to have satisfied himself on the day of his recording the confession that the confession was being made voluntarily and the failure to do so is a defect not of form but of substance, which, in our opinion, has vitiated the confession.” The learned Judge has, however, adverted to the opinion of Waller, J., in Vellamoonji Goundan, In re2, that there is a conflict between section 29 of the Evidence Act and section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, and that section 29 of the Evidence Act says that even if the accused had not been warned that he was not to make a confession still a confession made by an accused person can be used if admissible against him. Therefore, the learned Judge’s opinion as adumbrated in this decision has not only qualified what Waller, J., had observed in Vellamoonji Goundan, In re2, but has not been pin-pointed and made applicable to a case where the Magistrate has been examined as provided under section 533 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the observations of that Division Bench would certainly govern the facts of that case only, but should not be taken as also applying to a case where questions have been put as required under sub-section (3) of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Magistrate has also expressed the opinion when examined under section 533, Criminal Procedure Code, that the confession had been made by the accused voluntarily. It is pertinent to have to notice in this context the decision reported in Ramana Reddy, In re3, wherein Mack, J., delivering the judgment for a Division Bench consisting of Govinda Menon, J., and himself observed: “The criterion as to whether a confession is voluntary or not is whether it was voluntarily made by an accused person before the Magistrate recording it.....after he has been removed from police influence and has been given clearly to understand by the Magistrate in compliance with section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, that anything he says may be used in evidence against him, that he was not bound to make any confession, that if he does so, it would be used as evidence against him and that he would not be taken as an approver.” The learned Judge thereafter went on to say at page 503: “We can find nothing in section 164, Criminal Procedure Code or even in rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which requires a Magistrate to put all these questions afresh after any break in the recording of a confession, say after a luncheon interval or the next day.” Though, no doubt, what that Division Bench was considering was the procedure to be adopted after the commencement of the recording of the confession and further recording has been adjourned to sometime after luncheon or to another day, the reasoning of that Division Bench that the questions suggested in rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice have a two-fold object, viz., (i) to make perfectly clear to the accused the consequences of making a confession and (ii) to assist a Magistrate to satisfying himself that the confession was voluntarily made, implies that it is not always necessary again and again to clear the ground in regard to the first object even after the accused was taken away from police custody and is brought before the Magistrate after having been put in judicial custody after time for reflection has thus been given to the accused. In the course of the discussion in that judgment, while referring to yet another case in Manicka Nagendra Bagavathar v. The King1 decided by Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, JJ., the distinguishing feature which led to the dicta therein has been stated to be the presence of a certificate appended by the Magistrate at the end of the confession as required under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. We also find in Rangappa v. State2, lucid exposition of the position in respect of confessions where oral evidence can be admitted to correct the error committed by the recording Magistrate and also about the admissibility of a confession where otherwise relevant as provided by the provisions of section 29 of the Evidence Act. As has been pointed out by Gajendra-gadkar, J., (as he then was), what was to be looked into is the nature of the irregularity alleged and whether the same can be cured by taking the evidence of the Magistrate under section 533 of the Criminal Procedure Code, though undoubtedly the case of a Magistrate who does not purport to act under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, is indeed outside the purview or ken of section 533, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, having regard to the dicta of these decisions, we are clearly of the view that in the instant case where the Magistrate has put the questions as required in sub-section (3) of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and appended a certificate that the accused had made the statement voluntarily and has been examined as provided under section 533, Criminal Procedure Code, there is no defect of substance which would vitiate or invalidate the confession. Also we cannot but observe that the use made of the case in Tadi Ganireddy, In re3, by the trial Court in this case is due to a misunderstanding of the passage quoted by it. Also we cannot but observe that the use made of the case in Tadi Ganireddy, In re3, by the trial Court in this case is due to a misunderstanding of the passage quoted by it. A clear and thorough reading of the judgment of Chandra Reddy, J., (as he then was) in that case brings out that whatever be the conflict of decisions as to the need for putting all the questions before the recording of a confession, the position created by the presence of section 533 in the Code of Criminal Procedure is depicted by the learned Judge as follows: “It is manifest from this section that even if the provisions of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, are not complied with, if there is evidence of the person recording the statement that the statement was duly recorded, it is then cured by that section. It follows that the view of the lower appellate Court that this document is admissible in evidence has to be upheld.” We find ourselves in respectful agreement with this dicta as laid down by that learned Judge. Having regard to this, it is unnecessary for us to embark upon any disquisition as to the effect of section 29 of the Evidence Act concerning the admissibility of a confession irregularly recorded. We have no hesitation in finding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the confession (Exhibit P-10) as inadmissible in evidence. We have given above the reasons how the circumstantial evidence by itself establishes the unbroken chain upon which the conviction of the accused could be based. In any case, these circumstances corroborate the confession and therefore the mere fact that the confession has been retracted will not detract from the value to be attached to this confession as evidence against the accused. From the above, it follows that the accused has to be found guilty of the offence of murder of his wife. We, therefore, convict him of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him, in the circumstances of this case, to imprisonment for life. In the result the appeal filed by the State is allowed and the acquittal of the accused has been set aside. A.S.R. ----- Appeal allowed and accused convicted.