K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21. 9. 2001, in S. C. No. 139/2001, convicting and sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 ipc and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 I PC. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are stated briefly as follows. Accused is the husband of P. W. I. As P. W. I could not beget any child, they adopted a female child. Ten days prior to 23. 10. 2000, the accused drove his wife out of the house. She went to her parents house. She wanted to take the child with her. The accused did not allow her to do so. On the date of incident, as the child was continuously crying, accused got fed up and killed her and buried the dead body in a corner of his house. As the child was not seen, neighbours grew suspicious and questioned the accused about her whereabouts. He informed them that he buried the dead body in a corner of his house. Thereafter, P. W. 10 lodged a report- ex. P4 with the police. P. W. 11-Inspector of Police took up investigation. He sent a letter each to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and Medical Officer, Bellampally. As the Medical Officer stated that the case should be handled by a forensic expert, he sent a letter to a forensic expert, Kakatiya medical College, Warangal. On 1. 11. 2000 at 1. 30 p. m. , PW9 got exhumed the dead body and conducted inquest. P. W. 2 conducted autopsy and opined that the baby died due to smothering. P. W. 11 examined witnesses. He arrested the accused and remanded the accused for judicial custody. Charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused. He denied the guilt. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 18 documents, besides M. Os. 1 to 3 case properties. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record believed the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5 and 10 and came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Questioning the correctness and legality thereof, the accused preferred the present appeal. 1 to 3 case properties. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record believed the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 5 and 10 and came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Questioning the correctness and legality thereof, the accused preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant contended that the opinion of P. W. 2 cannot be taken as a basis for arriving at the conclusion that the death of the child was homicidal, that there is no evidence to show that the accused committed the murder of the deceased, that there is no reason for the accused to commit the murder of his own adoptive child, and that the child died as a result of continuous weeping for its mother, and therefore the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused gave extra-judicial confession before P. Ws. 3 to 5 who have no enmity with the accused, that at his instance the dead body was exhumed from a corner of his own house, that the Doctor found antemortem injuries on the dead body and his evidence is clear that it is a case of homicidal death, and that the Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, and so there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. ( 4 ) THERE is no direct evidence in this case. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law which is now well settled about circumstantial evidence is that the circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The law which is now well settled about circumstantial evidence is that the circumstantial evidence should be such as to point only to the guilt of the accused and the evidence should exclude all other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the Court on the following aspects - (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. These aspects were highlighted by the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79 . ( 5 ) THE Prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case - (I) the death of the deceased was homicidal, (ii) accused showed the place where he buried the dead body and the dead body was exhumed from that place, and (iii) extra- judicial confession made by the accused before P. Ws. 3 to 5. ( 6 ) P. W. I is the wife of the accused. As P. W. I could not beget children out of their wedlock for 12 years, they adopted a female child when the child was 5 days old. The child was aged about 1 1/2 years by the date of incident. Ten days prior to the incident, the accused beat his wife which led to the wife leaving his house. She wanted to take the child with her. The accused did not allow her to do so. The child remained with the accused. The fact that P. W. 1 left the company of her husband and that the child and the accused were alone residing in the house of the accused has been spoken to by P. Ws. She wanted to take the child with her. The accused did not allow her to do so. The child remained with the accused. The fact that P. W. 1 left the company of her husband and that the child and the accused were alone residing in the house of the accused has been spoken to by P. Ws. 3, 5 and 6 also. Therefore, it has been established that the child and the accused alone were residing in the house of the accused by the date of incident. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 was working as Assistant professor in Forensic Science, Kakatiya medical College, Warangal, at the relevant time. On receipt of a requisition from P. W. 9, he was deputed to attend the exhumation and to conduct autopsy. On 1. 11. 2000, he reached the house of the accused and conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the child. He stated that the grave in which the dead body was buried was identified by the accused. The dead body was exhumed in the presence of p. W. 9 and police officials. P. W. 2 further, stated that they found, a fertilizer bag in the grave. On opening the bag the dead body of the deceased was found. The condition of the dead body was in an advanced state of putrefication. The skin was peeled off. This witness found two ante-mortem injuries on the dead body one contusion of 0. 5 cm on inner side of left side of upper lip and another contusion of 2 x 1 cm on inner side of lower lip extended to the gingival margin of lower jaw. He opined that the deceased died as a result of smothering about 7 to 10 days prior to the post-mortem examination. He also staled that external injuries 1 and 2 indicated that there was some violence used by the assailant when the baby was alive. He further stated that there was application of blunt force around the mouth and air passage of nose. This part of the evidence of this witness has not been challenged in cross-examination. Except giving a suggestion that the deceased died naturally, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination. The reasons given by this witness for the conclusions drawn by him have been clearly stated by this witness. This part of the evidence of this witness has not been challenged in cross-examination. Except giving a suggestion that the deceased died naturally, nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination. The reasons given by this witness for the conclusions drawn by him have been clearly stated by this witness. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 8 ) P. WS. 3 to 5 are neighbours of the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 5 shows that 10 days prior to the incident, p. W. 1 left the house of the deceased. She wanted to take the child with her. The accused did not allow her to do so. The accused went to these witnesses and told them that the girl was missing. They questioned him as to how she was missing. Initially he maintained silence. But on being persistently questioned, he told them that he had killed the child and buried the dead body in a corner of his house. Learned counsel for appellant contended that this extra-judicial confession is not free and voluntary. The law does not require that an extra-judicial confession should, in all case, be corroborated. If the evidence of extra- judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which might tend to indicate that he might have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, and the words spoken to by the witness is clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing has been committed by the witness which may militate against him, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, his evidence can be accepted. This has been enunciated by the Apex Court in State v. A. K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 . ( 9 ) IT is true that a confession made by | an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by inducement, threat or promise, as per section 24 of the Evidence Act. ( 9 ) IT is true that a confession made by | an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by inducement, threat or promise, as per section 24 of the Evidence Act. To make a confession relevant under this Section, it must be shown that it has been made by an accused person, it is voluntary, and in order to make it foundation for conviction, it must be further shown that it is true. Any inducement in the nature of a promise or of a threat proceeding from a person affects its voluntary character and vitiates the confession. To find out whether there was any inducement, threat or promise, the position in which the accused stands to the person who makes the inducement or causes the inducement to be made has an important bearing on the question. A promise or threat made by a person must be made directly to the accused. The coercion may be physical as well as mental. ( 10 ) THE question in the present case is whether the persisting questioning of the accused by P. Ws. 3 to 5 amounts to "threat" within the meaning of Section 24 of the evidence Act? ( 11 ) P. WS. 3 to 5 questioned the accused persistently to reveal the whereabouts of the girl. They did not use any offensive language nor did they threaten him that they would take him to police or lodge a complaint against him if he did not reveal the whereabouts of the girl. They simply persistently questioned the accused. It may also be, noted here that the accused himself initially went to these witnesses and told them that the girl was missing. When they asked him as to how she was missing, his answer was only silence. Therefore, they had to question him persistently. It is also in their evidence that the accused on being questioned persistently spilled the beans. Till the accused revealed that he killed the deceased, they did not know that the deceased was killed. It means that they were persistently questioning the accused to say the whereabouts of the girl and not whether he had killed her. It is also in their evidence that the accused on being questioned persistently spilled the beans. Till the accused revealed that he killed the deceased, they did not know that the deceased was killed. It means that they were persistently questioning the accused to say the whereabouts of the girl and not whether he had killed her. They could not have questioned him whether he had killed her, because as we already stated above the witnesses did not know that the girl was killed until the accused made the revelation. They had every reason to persistently question the accused as they were his immediate neighbours and the accused himself went to them and told them that the girl was missing. Therefore, this persistent questioning does not fall within the meaning of "threat" under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of these witnesses in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony except giving a suggestion to them that the accused never confessed before them of having killed the deceased. They had no enmity or grouse against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. The defence has not succeeded in surfacing any material discrepancy or deviation during the course of their cross-examination which could weaken their testimony, which being free from any material infirmity, carries an intrinsic ring of truth about it. Therefore, we hold that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is true and voluntary and can be acted upon. ( 12 ) AS regards the other circumstance that the accused pointed out the place where he buried the dead body, the evidence of p. Ws. 3 to 5 and 10 is relevant. P. W. 10 lodged a report-Ex. P4 immediately with the police. A perusal of this report shows that the accused informed this witness and the other witnesses that he had killed his daughter by throttling her, packed the dead body in a plastic bag, and buried it in a corner of the house. The earliest version of the incident is completely in corroboration with the evidence of this witness. No doubt, there was a delay in exhuming the dead body. But that cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of Prosecution witnesses, because their evidence is otherwise reliable. ( 13 ) THE FIR was lodged on 24. 10. 2000. The earliest version of the incident is completely in corroboration with the evidence of this witness. No doubt, there was a delay in exhuming the dead body. But that cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of Prosecution witnesses, because their evidence is otherwise reliable. ( 13 ) THE FIR was lodged on 24. 10. 2000. Immediately P. W. ll addressed a letter to p. W. 9-the Mandal Revenue Officer, bellampalle, and. Medical Officer, bellampalle. The Medical Officer expressed that the case should be handled by a forensic expert. P. W. I 1 then addressed, a letter on 24. 10. 2000 to Kakatiya Medical College, warangal, to depute a forensic expert. P. W. 9 in fact received the letter on 24. 10. 2000 itself, and he explained for not exhuming the body immediately. His explanation was that exhumation was to be conducted in the presence of a forensic expert who was to come from Warangal. On 27. 10. 2000 the professor and Head of the Department of forensic, Kakatiya Medical College, warangal, received the requisition sent by p. W. 9 and P. W. 2 was deputed for exhuming the dead body and conducting post-mortem examination. On 1. 11. 2000 PW. 2 reached the house of the accused. The dead body was exhumed in his presence and he conducted autopsy. Therefore, the delay of 7 days in exhuming the body cannot be attributed to the investigating agency, as it promptly acted upon Ex. P4 without any delay at its end. Under these circumstances, the delay in exhumation cannot be a ground to disbelieve the Prosecution case. ( 14 ) P. W. 6 is neighbour of the accused. According to him, one day prior to the deceased, the accused informed him that he did not want to keep the girl with him and that he would give away to somebody else in adoption. He stated that from the next day the girl was missing. This statement of the accused to P. W. 6 shows that he wanted to mislead his neighbours so that they would not question him about the girl if she was not seen later. It also shows that he had intention and idea to get rid of the girl. ( 15 ) P. WS. 7 and 8 were mediators present at the time of exhumation of the dead body. It also shows that he had intention and idea to get rid of the girl. ( 15 ) P. WS. 7 and 8 were mediators present at the time of exhumation of the dead body. These two witnesses specifically stated that the accused pointed out the place where the dead body was buried. Their evidence on this aspect remains unchallenged. P. W. 9 is the M. R. O. who categorically stated that on the accused pointing the place, the dead body was exhumed. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. simply denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, but he admitted that P. W. I was his wife and they adopted the deceased. The accused was expected to explain his misleading and false statement made to p. W. 6, and his statements to P. Ws. 3 to 5 that the girl was missing. He did not say anything at all. The circumstances as proved by the Prosecution clearly and unerringly point out the guilt toward the guilt of the accused, and the accused alone. The Trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record in a right perspective convicted and sentenced the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court.