JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Smt. Jog, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-6-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 94/1995 whereby appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees five hundred, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. 3. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, states that the prosecution case is mainly based on the extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra as well as evidence of P.W. 5 Mangla, who has last seen the deceased with the accused. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused is not voluntary and, therefore, same is hit by the provisions of section 24 of Evidence Act. It is further contended that the extra judicial confession by itself is a weak type of evidence and conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of extra-judicial confession. In the instant case, the material particulars disclosed by the accused in the extra judicial confession are not corroborated by the other evidence and, therefore, conviction which is recorded by the trial Court solely on the basis of extra judicial confession is not sustainable in law. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of prosecution in respect of deceased last seen with the accused is also a weak kind of evidence and, therefore, that by itself will not justify order of conviction passed against the accused. It is contended that the medical evidence is of no consequence since the Doctor could not opine whether injuries, which were found on the person of the deceased were ante mortem or post mortem. It is submitted that the medical evidence, therefore, does not corroborate the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. 5. It is contended that the medical evidence is of no consequence since the Doctor could not opine whether injuries, which were found on the person of the deceased were ante mortem or post mortem. It is submitted that the medical evidence, therefore, does not corroborate the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though appellant and his wife left the home on 31-3-1995 and Sagunabai, mother of the accused, lodged the report on 1-4-1995 that accused and his wife were missing from home, she was not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the said report. Even otherwise, on 31-3-1995, P.W. 1 Bhalchandra, Sarpanch of the village, deputed some persons of the village to search the accused and his wife in the forest. Though these persons went in search of accused and his wife in the forest, they could not trace out any of them. Similarly, on 1-4-1995 again villagers made search in the nearby area about the accused and his wife. However, even then, they could not trace out either the accused or his wife. It is contended that the story put forth by the accused in the extra judicial confession cannot be accepted. It is submitted that if search was made by the villagers for the accused and his wife, who were in the same forest, the villagers ought to have seen them. However, villagers, who had gone in search of the accused and his wife, neither saw the accused in the forest nor could they locate the dead body of his wife. It is, therefore, contended that the extra judicial confession made by the accused firstly is not voluntary and same is also not truthful in view of other circumstances. 6. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to take into consideration the vital shortcomings in the prosecution evidence, which has resulted in not only recording unsustainable finding of conviction, but has also caused grave injustice to the accused. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of murder against the appellant and, therefore, the impugned order of conviction needs to be set aside. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of murder against the appellant and, therefore, the impugned order of conviction needs to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in (Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab)1, 1996 S.C.C.(Cri.) 59 and (Dwarkadas Gehanmal v. State of Gujarat)2, 1998(4) Crimes 114(S.C.). 7. On the other hand, Smt. Jog, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment and findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and states that the extra judicial confession is rightly accepted and relied on by the trial Court, which is also corroborated by the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence adduced by the prosecution unfolds the entire prosecution case and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The material circumstances, which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant for the offences charged are, in nutshell, as follows : On 2-4-1995 P.W. 1 Balchandra along with P.W. 2 Naresh and other villagers went to the house of the accused. The accused and his mother were present in the house. The accused made extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra, who was sarpanch of the village and disclosed that he had killed his wife and her dead body was lying in the forest. The accused further disclosed in the extra judicial confession that he killed his wife by an axe since he was suspecting her character. P.W. 1 Bhalchandra immediately lodged first information report on 2-4-1995 itself in which all the material particulars of the extra judicial confession made by the accused are mentioned. P.W. 2 Naresh is another prosecution witness, who was present along with P.W. 1 Bhalchandra at the house of the accused on 2-4-1995 and in his presence accused made aforesaid extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. 9. P.W. 3 Girjabai in her evidence has stated that the accused was ill-treating his wife since he was suspecting her character. P.W. 2 Naresh is another prosecution witness, who was present along with P.W. 1 Bhalchandra at the house of the accused on 2-4-1995 and in his presence accused made aforesaid extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. 9. P.W. 3 Girjabai in her evidence has stated that the accused was ill-treating his wife since he was suspecting her character. P.W. 4 Yogita has stated in her evidence that on 31-3-1995 at about 10 a.m. the accused came to her house and borrowed an axe (article 'A) from her to cut wood in the forest. This witness has also identified the axe (article 'A'). P.W. 5 Mangala had seen the accused and his wife, who went in forest on 31-3-1995 to bring fire wood and since then neither the accused nor his wife returned. This is the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the aspect of accused last seen with his wife. P.W. 6 Prabhulkumar is the panch witness examined by the prosecution in order to prove inquest panchanama (Exh. 10). P.W. 7 Dr. Meshram is the Medical Officer, who has performed post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 2-4-1995 and noticed following injuries : 1) Oval separated injury present near lateral end of left clavical, 1" below tip shoulder obliqual in direction elongatated covered with magotes size : 2½ x 1½", age of injury within 48 to 72 hours. 2) Lacerated wound present over frontal and right parietal region of scalp, margine irregular, covered with magotes size 4" x 2" x Bonee-deep. 3) Compound fracture of frontal and right parietal bone covered with magotes 4" x 2". P.W. 7 Dr. Meshram has opined that the injury to scalp is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and injuries mentioned in column Nos. 17 and 19 are possible by sharp, hard and blunt object. The age of injuries as given by the Doctor was within 40 to 72 hours. P.W. 8 Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. 10. In the instant case, the prosecution case is primarily based on the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra and, therefore, it will be appropriate at this stage to scrutinise the evidence of P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. P.W. 8 Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. 10. In the instant case, the prosecution case is primarily based on the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra and, therefore, it will be appropriate at this stage to scrutinise the evidence of P.W. 1 Bhalchandra. This witness has stated in his evidence that on 31-3-1995 at about 8.30 p.m. Sagunabai (mother of accused) had come to him and informed him that his son (appellant/accused) and daughter-in-law went to collect fire wood, but they did not return. She requested P.W. 1 Bhalchandra to send somebody from the village in search of her son and daughter-in-law. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Bhalchandra that some villagers went in a tractor in search of the appellant and his wife on 31-3-1995 and on 1-4-1995, again search was conducted. However, they did not find either accused or his wife in the forest. This witness has stated that on 2-4-1995, he came to know that the accused had returned from the forest and was at his house and, therefore, he and others went to the house of the accused. The accused was present in the house. His mother Sagunabai was also present in the house. The accused made an extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra and disclosed that he killed his wife and her dead body was lying in the forest. The accused had also disclosed that he killed his wife by an axe because he was suspecting her character. After accused made extra judicial confession to this witness, this witness along with others from the village, went in the forest and found dead body of wife of the appellant and noticed wounds on her head and an axe, which was embedded in her chest. It has further come in his evidence that he immediately went to the Police Station and lodged a report. He has also identified the axe (article 'A') before the Court. In the first information report, which was lodged by P.W. 1 Bhalchandra on 2-4-1995, he has stated all the material particulars, which were disclosed to him in the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The first information report was lodged by P.W. 1 Bhalchandra almost immediately after the disclosure made to him by the accused in respect of the crime in his extra judicial confession. The first information report was lodged by P.W. 1 Bhalchandra almost immediately after the disclosure made to him by the accused in respect of the crime in his extra judicial confession. The material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by P.W. 1 Bhalchandra in the first information report stand totally corroborated by his ocular testimony in the Court. The evidence of P.W. 1 Bhalchandra does not suffer from any contradiction or omission and the ocular testimony of this witness has not been shattered in the cross-examination. 11. Lodging of first information report almost immediately by P.W. 1 Bhalchandra rules out the possibility of concoction or fabrication. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that P.W. 1 Bhalchandra was on inimical terms either with the accused or with his family members. There is not even a suggestion given to this witness by the defence in the cross-examination in this regard and, therefore, the relations between P.W. 1 Bhalchandra and accused as well as his family were cordial. This witness being a Sarpanch of the village, was known to the accused and, therefore, mother of the accused Sagunabai went to the house of P.W. 1 Bhalchandra on 31-3-1995 and told him that the appellant and his wife went in the forest for collecting fire wood and did not return home and requested this witness to do something in this regard. All these circumstances show that relations between P.W. 1 Bhalchandra and accused were friendly and cordial and, therefore, it is very difficult to hold that P.W. 1 Bhalchandra would unnecessarily and without any rhyme or reason implicate the accused in the crime in question. 12. The disclosure made by the accused in the form of extra judicial confession, in our considered view, is voluntary and there is nothing on record even to suggest that it has been extracted from the accused either under threat or pressure. We must remember that after committing a crime, the thought of guilt overpowers the mind of such person and such person gets emotionally disturbed and needs to come over the aspect of guilt and therefore, emotional outburst is in the form of extra judicial confession, which he normally makes to a person known to him, knowing fully well that such confession would implicate him in the crime he has committed. It is no doubt true that unless the extra judicial confession is voluntary, it cannot be admitted in the evidence. The Court while admitting the extra judicial confession in the evidence, must also see whether same is corroborated by other circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. 13. In the instant case, the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W. 1 Bhalchandra is also corroborated by P.W. 2 Naresh. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 2 Naresh that he went with P.W. 1 Bhalchandra to the house of the accused. The mother of the accused was present and accused confessed that he had killed his wife in the forest by an axe. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of this witness and, therefore, in our view, the evidence of extra judicial confession is totally corroborated by the testimony of this witness and in the circumstances, we have no hesitation to accept the extra judicial confession made by the accused as voluntary and truthful and same is admissible in evidence. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has brought on record the circumstances, which show that the accused also had a motive to kill his wife. The accused himself stated in his extra judicial confession that he killed his wife since he was suspecting her character. P.W. 3 Girjabai, who is grand-mother of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that the accused used to beat his wife since he was suspecting her character. Similarly, P.W. 1 Bhalchandra has also stated this fact, which was disclosed to him by the accused in his extra judicial confession. In the instant case, there is evidence available in respect of motive for committing crime and, therefore, evidence of P.W. 3 Girjabai to that extent corroborates the contents of the extra judicial confession. 15. The evidence of P.W. 5 Mangla shows that this witness had been accused and his wife going in forest on 31-3-1995 for collecting fire wood. She has also stated that accused at the relevant time had an axe and his wife had a basket. The evidence of this witness demonstrates that on 31-3-1995 accused and his wife went in a forest together and thereafter accused for the first time returned home on 2-4-1995. She has also stated that accused at the relevant time had an axe and his wife had a basket. The evidence of this witness demonstrates that on 31-3-1995 accused and his wife went in a forest together and thereafter accused for the first time returned home on 2-4-1995. So the evidence of last seen together in the facts and circumstances of the present case, assumes importance and is an additional circumstance, which corroborates the prosecution case. Similarly, evidence of P.W. 4 Yogita shows that the accused went to her house on 31-3-1995 and borrowed the axe (article 'A') from her to cut wood in the forest. This witness has also identified article 'A'. This witness, in our view, also lends corroboration to the fact that the accused went in the forest along with his wife and had an axe with him. 16. All the material particulars of the prosecution case, which are brought on record by the above referred prosecution witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Meshram. The Medical Officer conducted the post mortem examination of dead body of deceased Gitabai and noticed injuries on the person of deceased Gitabai, which could be caused by axe (article 'A') and injury on scalp was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is no doubt true that the Doctor could not give positive opinion whether injuries were ante mortem or post mortem and, therefore, it may not be possible to conclusively hold anything in this regard. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the post mortem was conducted by the Doctor on the dead body of the deceased after about forty hours and the dead body was decomposed and, therefore, the Doctor could not give positive opinion in respect of status of the injuries. At the same time, the fact remains that injuries were found on the person of the deceased by the Doctor, which could be caused by an axe and the injury to the scalp was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The defence has conducted a cryptic cross-examination of this witness and, therefore, version of this witness has practically gone unchallenged. In any case, the evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Meshram is, in that sense, consistent with the prosecution case. 17. The defence has conducted a cryptic cross-examination of this witness and, therefore, version of this witness has practically gone unchallenged. In any case, the evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Meshram is, in that sense, consistent with the prosecution case. 17. Another circumstance, which also lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution, is the Chemical Analyser's report, which discloses that the blood detected on the baniyan of the accused was a human blood. Similarly, blood detected on the half pant of the accused was that of a blood group 'A' whereas blood group of the accused is 'O'. In Question No. 28 it was put to the accused in his examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he was asked what he had to say in respect of the fact that on 3-4-1995 he was sent to the hospital and the Doctor collected his blood and same was attached under the panchanama Exh. 16. The clothes of the accused, which were seized, were sent to the Chemical Analyser and the report was received from the Chemical Analyser, which is Exh. 46. The only answer given by the accused is "it is false". There is no explanation whatsoever given by the accused in this regard and, therefore, finding of human blood is a circumstance, which, in our view, corroborates the prosecution case. 18. Taking into consideration the totality of the prosecution evidence referred to hereinabove, in our considered view, the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. As far as judgment in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 S.C.C. (Cri.) 59 is concerned, the Apex Court rejected the evidence of extra judicial confession by observing in para 13 thus: "Again, according to P.W. 3, when she met P.W. 2 and her mother-in-law on coming out of the house of the appellant after he had made an extra judicial confession to her, Tejinder Kaur, P.W. 2 started crying on seeing her while her mother-in-law Ajmer Kaur kept silent. This is an apparent improvement made by her at the trial since in her statement in the F.I.R. Ex. P.B., with which she was duly confronted, she had stated that both Tejinder Kaur and Ajmer Kaur were weeping and crying. When asked to explain this improvement at the trial, P.W. 3 stated that she had "nothing to say". This is an apparent improvement made by her at the trial since in her statement in the F.I.R. Ex. P.B., with which she was duly confronted, she had stated that both Tejinder Kaur and Ajmer Kaur were weeping and crying. When asked to explain this improvement at the trial, P.W. 3 stated that she had "nothing to say". In view of the hostility which the appellant had with P.W. 3, for leading his wife astray, we find it rather difficult to accept that the appellant could have made any extra judicial confession to her." The Apex Court, therefore, rejected the evidence of extra judicial confession in view of the above referred facts and circumstances. However, in the instant case, we have already held that relations between appellant and P.W. 1 Bhalchandra were cordial and, therefore, there was no rhyme or reason for P.W. 1 Bhalchandra to concoct a false story in the form of extra judicial confession. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment does not help the defence in the instant case. 19. Similarly, ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in Dwarkadas Gehanmal v. State of Gujarat, 1998(4) Crimes 114(S.C.) is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since extra judicial confession was rejected by the Apex Court in the said case by observing thus: "The conduct of this witness, in our opinion, is inconsistent with the conduct of an ordinary human being. Moreover, the witness who was suspecting that his wife was having illicit relations with the appellant and since he had disclosed this to Noorbhai, it would be highly improbable that the appellant would take this witness into confidence to disclose about such a heinous crime if committed by him." The Apex Court in the light of the above circumstances refused to rely on the extra judicial confession. However, in the instant case, the conduct of the appellant/accused, in our view, is most natural and the extra judicial confession, which is made, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is voluntary in nature and truthful in character. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment in our view, does not further the cause of the defence in the instant case. 20. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment in our view, does not further the cause of the defence in the instant case. 20. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----