JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 4.12.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.34 of 1993 (S.C. No.227/95 GDC) wherein while acquitting the accused persons of the offence under Sections 498-A/404 I.P.C., he convicted them for the offence under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for life, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and was pleased not to pass separate sentence for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details the prosecution case is that accused Niranjan Prusty married deceased Niladri, daughter of Biswanath Swain of village Dhanija about the year 1978. Out of their wed-lock one son and one daughter were born. In the year 1987 accused Niranjan Prusty sold away some of his landed proper¬ties, pledged the gold ornaments and with the money he got start¬ed a LIA factory at village Kendupadar. During his stay at Kendu¬padar, he developed illicit relationship with the co-accused Basanti. When the villagers protested it, both the accused per¬sons left the village for Surat where accused Basanti gave birth to a son through the co-accused. Around the month of July, 1990 both of them with their baby son returned Kendupadar and lived there in a rented house. During their stay at Kendupadar accused Niranjan very often visited his house at Sunapali and persuaded the deceased Niladri to live with accused Basanti together under one roof, but she did not yield to his persuasion. 3. On 29.9.1990 accused Niranjan brought the co-accused and their baby son to his original house at Sunapali and again insisted the deceased to live with them. As she did not agree to it, he threatened to stab her to death. Being afraid of her life the deceased along with his two children came to her parental house on 2.12.1990, narrated the incident before her father Biswanath and asked him to go to village Sunapali and decide the matter finally. On the very day Biswanath left the deceased and her children at Sunapali and requested on Bharat Prusty to settle the matter. On 7.10.1990 when he came to village Sunapali to see his daughter, he found her absent. On being asked accused Niran¬jan and his mother Magi told that she had gone to village Dhani¬ja. On the very day Biswanath left the deceased and her children at Sunapali and requested on Bharat Prusty to settle the matter. On 7.10.1990 when he came to village Sunapali to see his daughter, he found her absent. On being asked accused Niran¬jan and his mother Magi told that she had gone to village Dhani¬ja. So, immediately Biswanath returned back to village Dhanija only to find the deceased absent there also. Again he went to village Sunapali and searched for the deceased. When she was not traced out he orally reported the incident before the I.I.C., Aska Police Station who got it reduced to writing, treated it as F.I.R. and directed S.I. Paresh Kumar Ray to investigate into the matter. When it was under investigation on 9.10.1990 at about 10.00 A.M., Grama Rakhi Trinath Nayak of village Panialbadi informed Mr. Ray that a dead body of a female in naked condition was lying at Chenakhai in the river bed of river Rusikulya. Immediately S.I. Sri Ray proceeded to that place and found the information to be correct. Biswanath identified the dead body to be that of his daughter Niladri. So, after holding inquest over the dead body, the S.I. despatched it to M.K.C.G. Medical through escort party for autopsy, visited the house of the accused persons and seized a Kantha as it was found to have contained blood like substance. He arrested accused Magi Prusty on 10.10.1990 at about 8.30 A.M. and Niranjan at 9.30 A.M. While in police custody accused Niranjan confessed his guilt and stated that on 6/7.10.1990 at about mid-night while the co-accused closed the mouth of the deceased he throttled her to death. Then he carried the dead body being accompanied by accused Basanti to Rusikulya river and threw it there. He further confessed that to give an impression that Niladri committed suicide he wrote a suicidal note showing to have been written by her and kept it on her (deceased) upper cupboard and so saying led the I.O. and the witnesses there and brought out the suicidal note, which was seized. On that very date i.e. 10.10.1990 at 11.30 A.M. the I.O., arrested accused Basanti Prusty who while in police, custody, confessed that on 6/7.10.1990 at about mid-night accused Niranjan throttled the de¬ceased Niladri and while she made sound, she herself closed her mouth for which she died. On that very date i.e. 10.10.1990 at 11.30 A.M. the I.O., arrested accused Basanti Prusty who while in police, custody, confessed that on 6/7.10.1990 at about mid-night accused Niranjan throttled the de¬ceased Niladri and while she made sound, she herself closed her mouth for which she died. She further stated that she took away the nose and ear ornaments from the dead body and concealed the same beneath a cupboard wherefrom the I.O. seized the ornaments in presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list in respect thereof. On 11.10.1990 the I.O. collected the specimen handwrit¬ing of accused Niranjan in ten sheets and sent the same for expert opinion. He also seized some dowry articles, given at the time of marriage of the deceased to accused Niranjan from the house of the latter and made over the same to Biswanath on 11.10.1990. The I.O. forwarded all the accused persons to Court. After completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, he submitted charge sheet against them for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/302/404/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Before the case was committed to the Court of Session Magi died, so the case against her was abated. 4. The case of the remaining accused persons after being committed to the Court of Session, was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. The trial Court charged both accused Niranjan and Basanti for the offence under Sections 302/201/404 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Niranjan was further charged for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The plea of the accused persons is complete denial of their complici¬ty in the crime in question. 5. The trial Court charged both accused Niranjan and Basanti for the offence under Sections 302/201/404 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused Niranjan was further charged for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The plea of the accused persons is complete denial of their complici¬ty in the crime in question. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined eight witnesses in all; of whom P.W.1 turned hostile to the prosecution, P.W.2 is a witness to the illicit relationship of accused Niranjan with Basanti, P.W.3 is a witness to the inquest over the dead body, P.W.4 is the younger brother of accused Niranjan who deposed about the presence of the deceased in the house of the accused persons on the previous day of her death, P.W.5 is a witness to the confession made by both the accused persons leading to the dis¬covery of material objects, P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 is father of the deceased who informed the I.I.C. of Aska Police Station about the missing of the deceased and P.W.8 is the I.O. The defence did not choose to examine any witness. 6. Admittedly there is no direct evidence against the accused persons. Basing on the circumstantial evidence and their confessional statements, leading to discovery of the suicidal note and the gold ornaments, the trial Court was pleased to convict the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sen¬tence, the accused persons (hereinafter referred as ‘appellants’) have preferred this appeal. 7. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.6, the doctor that on 10.10.1990 at about 11.00 A.M. he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Niladri Prusty, wife of appel¬lant Niranjan Prusty and did not notice any external injury. On dissection he found one scalp haemotoma of size 4" x 3" x 1” on left frontal area, another haematoma of size 4" x 2" 1/2" x 1" on vertex area and a third haematoma of size 4" x 4" x 1" on occipital region. The left temporalis muscle was found to be grossly con¬tused. According to P.W.6, the injuries of scalp and temporalis muscle were ante mortem in nature and death of the deceased ws due to the head injury. The left temporalis muscle was found to be grossly con¬tused. According to P.W.6, the injuries of scalp and temporalis muscle were ante mortem in nature and death of the deceased ws due to the head injury. Time since death was 3 to 4 days by the time of post mortem examination. The internal haemorrhage of the brain was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury on the scalp was possible by blunt and hard weapon like Lathi of considerable width or wood. Minimum three blows were required to cause the injuries. P.W.6 specifically deposed that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. During cross-examination he stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could not be possible by fall. The defence did not challenge the homicidal death of the deceased. Taking the evi¬dence of P.W.6 and the fact that the defence did not challenge the homicidal death of the deceased into consideration, the trial Court rightly held that the deceased died a homicidal death. 8. Admittedly deceased was the first wife of appellant Niranjan Prusty. During her life time and while the marriage was in subsistence Niranjan Prusty married Basanti. P.W.2 deposed regarding the illicit relationship of Niranjan with Basanti prior to their marriage. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.4, the younger brother of appellant Niranjan Prusty that the latter brought co-appellant Basanti to his house at Sunapali where they stayed with Niladri for 8 to 10 days. It further transpires from his evidence that thereafter Niladri was found missing. On perus¬al of the evidence of P.W.7, it is found that the deceased and appellant Niranjan did not pull on well, since the latter de¬veloped illicit relationship with the co-appellant. The deceased was very often complaining him against the ill-treatment meted out to her by Niranjan. Death of the deceased occurred 8 to 10 days after the appellants came to Sunapali and lived with her under one roof. So, from the circumstances of the case, it ap¬pears that the appellants had a strong motive to do away the life of the deceased so as to lead a happy life. 9. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.4 that the appellants and the deceased were living together. Deceased was found missing 4 to 5 days before her dead body was recovered on 9.10.1990. 9. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.4 that the appellants and the deceased were living together. Deceased was found missing 4 to 5 days before her dead body was recovered on 9.10.1990. As per the case of prosecution, Niladri was mur¬dered on 6/7.10.1990 night. According to the opinion of the doctor, she died 3 to 4 days before the post mortem examination was conducted over her dead body. Autopsy having been conducted on 10.10.1990, it corroborates, the case of the prosecution that the deceased died on 6/7.10.1990 night. From the evidence of P.W.4, it can be said that the deceased was there with the appel¬lants in the same house on 6.10.1990. 10. Admittedly dead body of the deceased was found on 9.10.1990 at Chenakhai on the bed of river Rusikulya. It tran¬spires from the evidence of P.W.8, the I.O. that he arrested appellant Niranjan Prusty on 11.10.1990. It further transpires from his evidence and the evidence of P.W.5 that while he was in the police custody, he confessed his guilt stating that he throt¬tled the deceased and while she made sound the co-appellant gagged her mouth with her hand for which she died and that to create an impression that the deceased committed suicide he wrote a suicidal note showing as if written by the deceased and further stated that he had kept the said note on the upper cupboard of the deceased. So saying he led them to the cupboard and pointed out the alleged suicidal note which was seized. The I.O. recorded the confessional statement of the said appellant in verbatim in the seizure list Ext.11, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “GAN LOKANK MANARE NILADRI NIJE MARI JOICHHI BOLI BISWAS JANMAIBA PAIN NILADRI NIJE LEKHILA BHALI GOTIA LEKHA LEKHI NILADRI RA ALMIRA RE REKHI DELI.” Confession before a Police Officer is not admissible being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but Section 27 of the said Act provides an exception to it. To attract the applicability of Section 27 two conditions are pre-requisite, namely (i) the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (ii) the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered. In the present case the state¬ment “LOKANK MANARE NILADRI NIJE MARI JAICHHI BOLI BISWAS JANMAI¬BA PAIN NILADRI NIJE LEKHILA BHALI GOTIA LEKHA LEKHI NILADRI RA ALMIRA RE RAKHI DELI”. In the present case the state¬ment “LOKANK MANARE NILADRI NIJE MARI JAICHHI BOLI BISWAS JANMAI¬BA PAIN NILADRI NIJE LEKHILA BHALI GOTIA LEKHA LEKHI NILADRI RA ALMIRA RE RAKHI DELI”. The first part of the sentence does not satisfy the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But “LEKHA NILADRI RA ALMIRA RE RAKHI DELI” fulfils both the two conditions required thereunder. So, that part of the statement is admissible. 11. It further transpires from the evidence of I.O. (P.W.8) that while appellant Niranjan was under his custody, on 11.10.1990 he collected his specimen hand-writings in ten sheets in presence of witnesses as per Exts.23 to 23/I and on 5.1.1991 sent the same along with the so-called suicidal note (Ext.3) to the Deputy Director, Hand Writing Bureau, S.F.L., Rasulgarh for comparison. It transpires from the report of the Deputy Director, Hand Writing Bureau, S.F.L., Rasulgarh that the suicidal note (Ext.3) and the specimen handwritings Exts.23 to 23/1 were writ¬ten in one hand. So, there is not a grain of doubt that the so-called suicidal not was written by appellant Niranjan Prusty. The circumstances against this appellant were that the deceased was there with him in the night of occurrence and that he confessed to have kept Ext.3 in the cupboard of the deceased and led P.W.5 and the I.O. there, wherefrom it was recovered and seized. As stated earlier as per the opinion of Scientific expert the hand¬writing in the suicidal note (Ext.3) and the specimen handwritings of appellant Niranjan were written n one hand. It is also found from the evidence on record that there was a strong motive on the part of appellant Niranjan to eliminate the de¬ceased from the way of his happy conjugal life with the co-appellant. To divert the attention of the villagers and the investigating agency he wrote a suicidal note showing as if writ¬ten by the deceased. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.7 that on 7.10.1990 he had been to the house of appellants to visit his daughter, but he did not find her there. Niranjan told that the deceased left for his (P.W.7) house. But in fact she had not gone three. This conduct of appellant Niranjan also points an accusing finger at him. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.7 that on 7.10.1990 he had been to the house of appellants to visit his daughter, but he did not find her there. Niranjan told that the deceased left for his (P.W.7) house. But in fact she had not gone three. This conduct of appellant Niranjan also points an accusing finger at him. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances show that after assaulting the deceased to death appellant Niranjan carried her dead body and threw it on the bed of river Rusikulya near Chenakhai to screen the evidence of murder. The decision as cited on behalf of the appellants would be of no help to him. So, the trial Court has rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 302/201 I.P.C. 12. As regards appellant Basanti, it is found from the evidence of P.W.8, the I.O. that he arrested her on 10.10.1990 at about 11.30. A.M. While in his custody she confessed before him that on last Saturday i.e. 6/7.10.1990 at about mid-night appel¬lant Niranjan throttled the deceased Niladri and as she screamed she closed her mouth for which she died. She further stated that she took away the nose and ear ornaments from the dead body of the deceased and concealed the same beneath a cupboard. P.W.8 recorded the exact version of accused Basanti in seizure list Ext.4, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- “MUN NILADRI NAKARU O KANARU SUNA KADHI BIRUA TALE LUCHAI RAKHILI”. So saying she showed the place to the witnesses and the I.O. wherefrom the latter seized the gold ornaments (M.Os. I to IV). This part of evidence of P.W.8 has been corroborated by P.W.5 in material particulars. The information given by appellant Basanti led to the discovery of the fact i.e. keeping of the articles by her in a cupboard. The discovery of the fact deposed to is not discovery of the ornaments, but the discovery of the fact that the ornaments were kept by the accused at a particular place. There is no evidence on record worth the name to say that the deceased had worn those ornaments at the time of her death. The discovery of the fact deposed to is not discovery of the ornaments, but the discovery of the fact that the ornaments were kept by the accused at a particular place. There is no evidence on record worth the name to say that the deceased had worn those ornaments at the time of her death. Even if it is held that appellant Basanti had also motive to cause death of the deceased and that she made the confession as stated above before P.W.5 and the I.O., the same are not sufficient to find her guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. There is no legal evidence whatsoever to connect her for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. So, the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court against appellant Basanti deserves to be set aside. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants sub¬mitted that both the appellants were convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Once appellant Basanti is acquitted of the offence under Section 302/201/34 I.P.C. then appellant Niranjan alone cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. Even if both the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and one is acquitted thereof, the other one can be convicted for the offence under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to him. Learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy us that the acquittal of Basanti would cause prejudice to the co-appellant. 14. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. as has been passed against appellant Basanti Prusty is set aside and she is acquitted thereof. The order of conviction as has been passed against appellant Niranjan Prusty for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. is converted to Sections 302/201 I.P.C. He has been sentenced by the trial Court to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Sec¬tion 201 I.P.C. The trial Court ought to have sentenced appellant Niranjan Prusty to undergo imprisonment for life instead of R.I. for life. So, appellant Niranjan Prusty is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified to that extent. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part.