Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 76 (GAU)

S. Nalaya v. State of Assam

2004-02-06

I.A.ANSARI, P.G.AGARWAL

body2004
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This is an unfortunate case of murder of a teen-aged boy, K. Chandra Rao, for his refusal to part with a VCP, which the deceased had borrowed from one Rup Kamal Gogoi. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7.5.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 99(T)/94, convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentencing him, for his conviction under Section 302 IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5000 and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years and to undergo, for his conviction under Section 201 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1000 and, in default, suffer imprisonment for a further period of 6 months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case against the accused-appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows :- On 5.9.1994, at about 4.30 P.M., the deceased, K. Chandra Rao, borrowed a VCP from Rup Kamal Gogoi (PW 2) telling the latter that Dharamraj (PW 5), uncle of the deceased, had sent him (i.e., the deceased) to borrow the VCP. As Dharamraj was known to Rup Kamal Gogoi and had occasionally taken the VCP from him, Rup Kamal Gogoi handed over the VCP to K. Chandra Rao (deceased). When K. Chandra Rao, having so borrowed the VCP from the house of Rup Kamal, came near a bridge, located a little ahead of Itakhuli, the accused, who knew the deceased, met the deceased and asked him to hand over the VCP to him. As the deceased refused, the accused accosted the deceased, snatched away the VCP from his hands, strangulated him to death and threw his dead body into the river water. The accused handed over the VCP to one Kharga (PW 11) temporarily went to the house of his friend, Appala Rao, changed his wearing apparels there and, then, asked Kharga to sell the VCP. As the deceased did not return home on 5.9.1994, his family members got worried, they made enquiries and came to learn that the accused had been seen with the deceased. The accused was, accordingly, questioned by some persons and made extra-judicial confession to them. A written FIR (Ext. As the deceased did not return home on 5.9.1994, his family members got worried, they made enquiries and came to learn that the accused had been seen with the deceased. The accused was, accordingly, questioned by some persons and made extra-judicial confession to them. A written FIR (Ext. 6) was lodged with the police by Dharamraj aforementioned and on the basis of this FIR, the police registered a case. The search conducted in the presence of the police led to the discovery of the dead body of the said deceased from the river and the police held inquest over the said dead body. The police took the accused into their custody. When the search for the deceased had gathered momentum, Kharga (PW 11), out of fear, abandoned the VCP at the compound of the house of Phuleswar Gogoi (PW 3). When Phuleswar Gogoi (PW 3) happened to find the VCP, he informed the police. On being so informed, the police came there and seized the VCP. The accused made a judicial confession too and, on completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 4. The accused accordingly faced a trial on the charges framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. In all, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, on finding the accused guilty of the offences charged with, convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as hereinabove mentioned. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard Smt. B. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, and FH Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. In the present case, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution, as indicated hereinabove, rests on confessions, both judicial and extra-judicial, some circumstantial pieces of evidence and the medical evidence on record. 7. Let us, first, take note of the medical evidence on record. According to the evidence of PW 1 (Dr. 6. In the present case, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The case of the prosecution, as indicated hereinabove, rests on confessions, both judicial and extra-judicial, some circumstantial pieces of evidence and the medical evidence on record. 7. Let us, first, take note of the medical evidence on record. According to the evidence of PW 1 (Dr. R.K. Gogoi), he performed postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased, on 7.9.1994 at 11.30 A.M., and found as follows : "External appearance :- The deceased was found wearing yellow long pant. Chocolate full shirt, smartly complexion/built average. Rigor mortis passed off from the body. Epidermis peels off in the some part of the body. Body garment stained with mud. Multiple abrasion of different size were present over the front of the abdomen and right lateral side of the thoraw. A continuous ligature mark of 0.5 cm in size was found over the neck completely encircling at the level of lower border of cricoid in horizontal plane. The floor and margin showed pressure abrasion. On dissection, contusion of the soft tissue above and below the ligature in the front and also of muscle around the sides were found. The under laying hold bone was fractured. In larynx was contused." 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem strangulation by ligature in a homicidal manner and associated with ante mortem drowning, the time since death being approximately 24 hours to 48 hours. 9. Neither the findings of PW 1 nor his opinion have been challenged by the defence. This apart, we notice nothing in the findings of PW 1 and/or in the opinion given by him and/or in the materials on record, which could be taken to have belied the medical evidence on record. 10. Situated thus, we are firmly of the view that the said deceased met with his death as a result of asphyxia caused from ante-mortem strangulation, which was homicidal in nature. 11. Keeping in view the above medical evidence on record, we, now, turn to the evidence of PW 2 (Rup Kamal), a friend of PW 5 (Dharamraj), whose VCP allegedly led to the murder. According to the evidence of PW 2, he (PW 2) knew Dharamraj (PW 5) and, occasionally, Dharamraj used to borrow PW 2's VCP. 11. Keeping in view the above medical evidence on record, we, now, turn to the evidence of PW 2 (Rup Kamal), a friend of PW 5 (Dharamraj), whose VCP allegedly led to the murder. According to the evidence of PW 2, he (PW 2) knew Dharamraj (PW 5) and, occasionally, Dharamraj used to borrow PW 2's VCP. On the day of the occurrence, the said deceased came, at about 2 p.m., to the house of PW 2 and told PW 2 that he had been sent by PW 5 to borrow the VCP. PW 2 handed over the VCP to the said deceased and the said deceased left with the VCP. On the following day, as the VCP was not returned, PW 2 went to the house of Dharamraj (PW5) during the day time and, on being asked about the VCP, Dharamraj (PW 5), who was a relative of the said deceased, told PW 2 that the said deceased had not come back to him (PW 5). PW 5 also informed PW 2 that the said deceased was missing since the previous day. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that on the following day, PW 5 brought the accused to the house of PW 2, where the accused admitted that he had killed the said deceased for the VCP. It is also in the evidence of PW 2 that the police recovered the VCP (M. Ext. I), he (PW 2) identified the said VCP and the same, on being seized, was given to him (PW 2) on zimma. It is, however, in the evidence of PW 2 that when the accused was brought to him (PW 2) by Dharamraj (PW 5), Dharamraj (PW 5) and Nalaya (i.e., the accused) had spoke to each other in the South Indian language and he (PW 2) does not know their language and that he did not ask Nalaya (i.e., the accused) anything nor did Nalaya (i.e., the accused) tell him (PW 2) anything. 12. Close on the heels of evidence of PW 2, PW 5 has deposed that the deceased was his nephew and on a Tuesday, in the month of September 1994, he was informed by his elder brother, i.e., father of K. Chandra Rao, that K. Chandra Rao (i.e., the deceased) was untraceable. 12. Close on the heels of evidence of PW 2, PW 5 has deposed that the deceased was his nephew and on a Tuesday, in the month of September 1994, he was informed by his elder brother, i.e., father of K. Chandra Rao, that K. Chandra Rao (i.e., the deceased) was untraceable. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that he told the mother of the deceased that he (PW 5) had seen the deceased on the previous day in the evening with the accused, whereupon the mother of the deceased told PW 5 that they had already made an enquiry from the accused, but the accused had told them that the deceased was with him on the previous day in the evening for half-an-hour and, thereafter, he (accused) had left the deceased. PW 5, then, searched for the accused, Nalaya, and on finding the accused near a shop, PW 5 enquired from the accused about the deceased, the accused told PW 5 that on the previous day, the deceased was with him (accused) at about 6/7 p.m. and thereafter, he (accused) was chased by police in connection with theft of iron and that while he (accused) was so running away through the river, his wearing apparels got drenched in the river water and he, therefore, went to the house of his friend, V. Appala Rao, and dried his clothes there and came back by wearing the clothes of his said friend. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that he (PW 5), then, asked the accused to take him (PW 5) to the house of the said friend of the accused and show him (PW 5) the clothes and, on being so asked, the accused took PW 5 to the house of the said friend of the accused and showed PW 5 the said wearing apparels of the accused, which had been kept for drying. As PW 5 noticed blood stains on the said clothes, he asked the accused as to what those stains were of. Reacting to this query, the accused told PW 5 that those were the stains of Pan (i.e., betel-nut leaves). As PW 5 noticed blood stains on the said clothes, he asked the accused as to what those stains were of. Reacting to this query, the accused told PW 5 that those were the stains of Pan (i.e., betel-nut leaves). PW 5 has further deposed that he, then, asked the accused to take him to the place, where the accused had left the deceased, and the accused, accordingly, took PW 5 to a place, which was at a little distance from the bridge. It is in the evidence of PW 5 that the accused also told him (PW 5) that at the said place, the deceased had a scuffle with two boys and that one of the said boys had a knife in his hands and at that time, the deceased was holding a bag and when he (accused) enquired, the said boys threatened him (accused) and he (accused), thereafter, left the place. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that when he asked the accused as to why the accused had not informed PW 5 and others about the said occurrence, the accused told PW 5 that as his dress was wet, he (accused) had not informed them. 13. When we proceed further with the evidence of PW 5, we notice that according to this witness's evidence, when he searched the place, which had been shown by the accused, he (PW 5) saw a pair of chappals of the deceased lying near the bridge and he also noticed blood spots around the said place. PW 5 has clarified that there were some other persons also with him, who had searched for the deceased, and when the persons, who were so searching for the deceased, informed PW 5 that they had seen the dead body of the said deceased, PW 5 went to the police and informed the police accordingly, but the police asked him (PW 5) to see the deadbody himself and, then, give them the confirmation, whereupon PW 5 returned to the same place and, on confirming that the deadbody was of the said deceased, he (PW 5) went back to the police station and informed the police accordingly and lodged there a written FIR (Ext. 6) PW 5 has also clarified in his evidence that on the following day, i.e., on Wednesday, a VCP was found in the compound of one Phuleswar Gogoi (PW 3) and the police seized the same by M. Ext. 4. In his cross-examination, PW 5 has further clarified that when he was searching the place, the accused disappeared, but he (PW 5) cannot say whether the accused had fled away or he was taken away by someone. 14. On a combined reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 5, what becomes transparent is that PW 5, admittedly, saw the accused in the company of the deceased in the evening of the day, when the deceased disappeared. This apart, since there is no cross-examination of PW 5 with regard to what the accused had reported to him about the deceased, it clearly follows that according to what the accused had himself told PW 5, the deceased was in the company of the accused, when the deceased was allegedly accosted by two boys, one of the boys holding a knife in his hands. What is worth noticing, now, is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show nor has it been elicited by the defence by cross-examining any of the prosecution witnesses including the police that the accused was really being looked for by the police in connection with the alleged theft of iron. Be that as it may, a pair of chappals of the deceased was, admittedly, found lying near the place, where the deceased was, for the last time, in the company of the accused and the explanation of the accused that he did not inform the family members of the deceased about the said two boys, who had scuffled with the accused, because wearing apparels of the accused were wet, carry no conviction at all inasmuch as after the accused had changed his wet wearing apparels, there remained no impediment on the part of the accused to inform the family members of the deceased that the deceased had been accosted by two boys as hereinbefore claimed by the accused. This impression gets reinforced from the fact that the accused did not claim, at any point of time, that out of fear, he had not gone to the house of the deceased and/or informed the members of his family about what had happened. 15. This impression gets reinforced from the fact that the accused did not claim, at any point of time, that out of fear, he had not gone to the house of the deceased and/or informed the members of his family about what had happened. 15. What is, now, extremely important to note is that though PW 2 has claimed that the accused admitted to have killed the deceased for the VCP, PW 5 does not make any such a statement. This apart, the evidence of PW 2 is that it was PW 5, who had brought the accused to PW 2 and that the accused had made the said confession in the presence of PW 5, yet PW 5 does not claim that any confession was made by the accused. Thus, the evidence given by PW 2 that the accused had confessed to have killed the deceased for the VCP can be given ho credence at all. What, however, becomes transparent from the evidence of PW 2 is that the deceased did come to the house of PW 2, at about 2 p.m., on the day the deceased disappeared and borrowed the VCP telling PW 2 that PW 5 had asked him (the deceased) to borrow the same, but the deceased never came back to PW 5 to hand over the VCP to PW 5. We have carefully scrutinized the cross-examination of PW 2 and 5, but we find that no material cross-examination has been done by the defence on this aspect of their evidence. 16. It is, thus, clear that though the accused admitted to the effect that he had met the deceased at about 6/7 p.m. on the day the deceased disappeared, he (accused) gave PW 5 two contradictory versions regarding what had happened in the evening of the day of occurrence, one of the versions being that while the accused was in the company of the deceased, the police chased the accused and the accused fled away and, while the accused was so fleeing away, his wearing apparels got drenched in the river water and the other version being that while the accused was in the company of the deceased, two boys had accosted the deceased and also threatened the accused and, on being so threatened, the accused left. 17. 17. As regards the evidence of PW 5 that he had seen blood stains on the clothes of the accused, which the accused had kept for drying, it is pertinent to note that since the accused had claimed that the said stains were of Pan (leaves of betel-nut), the stains, in question, ought to have been serologically examined. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on record to show that any scientific investigation in this regard was carried out by the police and hence, we hold, in the absence of complete proof as to what those stains were really of, that the prosecution failed to prove that the said stains were of blood. 18. What, however, follows from the above discussion of the evidence of PWs 2 and 5 is that the deceased was in the company of the accused last at the very place (where the accused himself claims to have been met and left the deceased) from where the deadbody of the deceased was, eventually, recovered. 19. Lending substantial support to the evidence of PW 5, PW 9 (S. Apalaswami) has deposed that he knows the accused, he knew the deceased and on coming to know, on the day of the occurrence, at about 6 p.m., from the mother of the deceased that the deceased was not traceable, PW 9 searched for the deceased till 7 p.m., but could not find him (deceased) and, then, PW 9 went to attend his duty at 11 p.m. and, on returning back from duty in the morning, he was informed by the mother of the deceased that the deceased was taken away by the accused in a rickshaw. PW 9, then, enquired from the accused about the deceased and the accused told PW 9 that the deceased might have gone to his sister's house, whereupon PW 9 went to the house of the sister of the deceased, but did not find the deceased there either and, thereafter, PW 9 along with PW 5 came back to the accused and, on being asked by PW 5, the accused admitted that he had taken the deceased with him, but claimed that he (accused) had left the deceased near the bazar. PW 9 has also deposed that the accused told them that he (i.e., the accused) was chased by the police and when he (accused) was running away through the river, his clothes got drenched and he (accused) went to the house of his friends, Apalla Rao, and by keeping his (accused) weaning apparels for drying there and by wearing his friend's clothes, he (accused) came back PW 9 has further deposed that when he (PW 9) along with PW 5 went to Appalla's house with the accused, they found the clothes of the accused being dried and that those wearing apparels had red stains and, on being asked by them, the accused told them that those stains were of pan. 20. It is in the evidence of PW 9 that the owner of the VCP threatened to assault the accused if the VCP was not returned to him and, then, the accused told him (PW 9) that two persons had taken away the VCP along with accused to Jay Ram Pur, but, in the meanwhile, the chappals of the deceased and some blood spots were found near the river and the deadbody of the deceased was recovered. 21. Strangely enough, the material aspects of the evidence of PW 9 have remained completely unshaken in his cross-examination. We, therefore, see no reason not to believe what PW 9 has deposed and his evidence coupled with the evidence of PW 5 clearly shown that the accused was the person, who was, admittedly, with the deceased, at the time, when the deceased disappeared from near the bridge, where a pair of chappals of the deceased was, eventually, found, some blood spots were also noticed there and, upon a search being conducted, the deadbody of the deceased was recovered as described hereinabove. So far as PW 10 (K. Apalaswami), father of the deceased, in concerned, his evidence is that on the day of the occurrence, he had second shift duty from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and when he returned home, he found his son absent and his wife informed him that their son had not returned home. So far as PW 10 (K. Apalaswami), father of the deceased, in concerned, his evidence is that on the day of the occurrence, he had second shift duty from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and when he returned home, he found his son absent and his wife informed him that their son had not returned home. It is in the evidence of PW 10 that on the following day, in the morning, he looked for his son at different placed and, on being informed by the PW 5 that he (PW 5) had seen the deceased near the bazar in the company of the accused, at about 4 p.m., he (PW 10) searched for his son, but could not find him and when he (PW 10) was returning at about 2/2-30 p.m., he (PW 10) found that his son's deadbody had been recovered. The evidence of PW 10 has not been challenged at all by the defence. So far as the evidence of PW 12 (Abhijit Lahkar) and PW 13 (B. Appa Rao) are concerned, their evidence is not material inasmuch as none of these witnesses gave any evidence with regard to the alleged occurrence. 22. Keeping in view what has been discussed hereinabove, we, now, turn to the evidence of PW 3 (Phuleswar Gogoi), who is brother-in-law of Rup Kamal Gogoi (PW2). According to the evidence of PW 3, he knows the accused and also the deceased, the residence of the accused being at a little distance away from the house of the deceased. This witness has deposed that one day, on returning, from the night duty, in the morning, when he preceded towards his well to wash his face, he saw a bag with some hard substance lying inside the same. Since the bag was lying abandoned in a thatched hut, he (PW 3) suspected the same to be a bomb and informed his neighbours and also the police, whereupon the police came there, they took the said substance arid told him (PW 3) that it was a VCP. This witness has also deposed that the police accordingly seized the VCP and, later on, he came to know that the VCP belonged to his father-in-law Guna Gogoi, i.e., father of Rup Kamal Gogoi (PW 2). This witness has also deposed that the police accordingly seized the VCP and, later on, he came to know that the VCP belonged to his father-in-law Guna Gogoi, i.e., father of Rup Kamal Gogoi (PW 2). PW 3 has clarified in his evidence that the said well is located within the compound of his quarter, but the nearby people collect the water from the said well. 23. The evidence of PW 3 has remained, we notice, unchallenged by the defence and his evidence clearly shows that the VCP, which was taken away by the deceased from PW 2, was found, eventually, lying in an abandoned thatched hut near the well located within the compound of the quarter, which was in occupation of PW 3. 24. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 3, PW 11 (Kharga Lama) has deposed that the accused is his neighbour, the deceased was known to him (PW 11) and that accused gave him the VCP to enjoy cinema, but he (PW 11) does not know to whom the VCP belonged and when PW 11 made enquiry from the accused, the accused told PW 11 that he (accused) had brought the said VCP from his friend. PW 11 has also deposed that on the following day, he heard that the accused had murdered the said deceased, K. Chandra Rao, and on hearing about the same, he (PW 11) got frightened and kept the VCP in the compound of Phuleswar Gogoi (PW 3) and when Phuleswar Gogoi (PW 3) found the VCP and informed the police about the same, police brought him (PW 11) to the Out Post and he (PW 11) signed the seizure list there. 25. 25. PW 11 has clarified in his evidence that the VCP was given to him (PW 11) by the accused at about 9 p.m. and before the VCP was so handed over to him (PW 11), when he (PW 11) was sitting in the shop of one Bhaiti, he (PW 11) had seen the accused with his wearing apparels drenched and, on being asked by him (PW 11), the accused had told him that he (accused) had been chased by the police, the accused asked him (PW 11) to give him (accused) clothes to change his clothes, but PW 11 had declined to give his clothes to the accused, whereupon the accused, according to what PW 11 had learnt from the accused himself, had changed his wearing apparels in V. Appalla Rao's house, which is at a little distance from Bhaiti's shop. 26. There has been virtually no cross-examination of PW 11 and his entire evidence has remained unshaken. When the unshaken evidence of PW 11 is considered in the light of the evidence of PW 2, PW 5 and PW 9, what becomes abundantly clear is that the deceased came to the house of PW 2 and took the VCP from PW 2 telling PW 2 that PW 5 had asked him (deceased) to borrow the VCP from PW 2. When the deceased, carrying the VCP, came near the bridge aforementioned, the accused, admittedly, met the deceased and the deceased disappeared from near the place, where the accused himself claimed to have met the deceased. When the deceased, carrying the VCP, came near the bridge aforementioned, the accused, admittedly, met the deceased and the deceased disappeared from near the place, where the accused himself claimed to have met the deceased. It also clearly emerges from the evidence discussed above that the VCP, which was borrowed by the deceased from PW 2, was handed over by none other than the accused himself to PW 11 and, on the following day, a pair of chappals of the deceased was found near the place, where the accused claimed to have met the deceased and, on a search being conducted, the deadbody of the deceased was found lying under the river water near the very place from where the deceased had disappeared and, upon coming to know about the death of the deceased and about the wide spread suspicion that the accused had killed the deceased, PW 11 kept the VCP in an abandoned condition at the compound of PW 3 and when PW 3 found the said VCP, police were informed about the same and the said VCP was seized. All these material pieces of evidence, when culled together, leave no room for doubt that the accused procured the VCP, in question, from the deceased and the deceased since thereafter disappeared and his deadbody, as mentioned hereinabove, was, eventually, found. 27. Keeping in view the above chain of circumstances, we, now, turn to the evidence of PW 15 (Naba Kanta Bora). The evidence of this witness is that on 8.8.1994, when he was functioning as a Judicial Magistrate at Tinsukia, the accused was produced before him, at 12 noon, for recording his confession and after warning and giving him sufficient time for reflection, he recorded the confession of the accused, on Ext. 12, after 4 hours. We have very minutely examined Ext. 12, after 4 hours. We have very minutely examined Ext. 12 and we have found that PW 15 had clearly explained to the accused whatever was necessary for the accused to understand that PW 15 was a Magistrate and not a police officer, the accused was not bound to make any confession, but if he (accused) made any confession, the same might be used against the accused and that he (accused) should not say anything, because anyone had asked him to say so and that he (accused) was at liberty to say what he (accused) really desired to say and that he (accused) should not speak anything untrue. It is also on record (Ext. 12) that when PW 15 asked the accused as to why he wanted to confess, the accused replied by saying, "I have committed the crime". This apart, PW 15, as Ext. 12 reveals, also made it clear to the accused that even if the accused did not make confession, he would not be sent back to the police custody. To the assurance, so given by PW 15, the accused replied by saying that he (accused) understood his position. Coupled with all these essential requirements, PW 15 also took, we find, the precaution to ask the accused whether the accused wanted to make confess out of fear of the police, but the accused replied in the negative. What has been recorded in Ext. 12 further shows that PW 15 made it clear by mentioning in Ext. 12 that the confession was recorded in his chamber, where no one was present and that the accused made the statement without any fear and hesitation and that he was satisfied that the confession made was voluntary and true, PW 15 has, accordingly, prepared and signed the necessary memorandum. 28. We have carefully scrutinized the cross-examination of PW 15 at the hands of the defence. 28. We have carefully scrutinized the cross-examination of PW 15 at the hands of the defence. What we notice, while considering the judicial confession of the accused, is that the confessional statement was not retracted at all by the accused until the time, when the cross-examination of PW 15 took place and in this cross-examination also, the defence merely offered a suggestion to PW 15 that the statement of the accused was not voluntary, but, strangely enough, when the Investigating Officer (PW 16) was cross-examined by the defence, not even one question was put to him to show that the police had beaten, tortured and/or compelled the accused or induced the accused to make the confession. Hence, the suggestions offered by the defence to the Magistrate (PW 15) and the Investigating Officer (PW 16) that the said confession was made involuntarily carry no credence and have remained as mere suggestions. A suggestion, one must indicate, is no evidence and carries no value unless the suggestion is proved and/or, at least, probabilised by the evidence on record. In the case at hand, notwithstanding the said suggestion offered to the Investigating Officer, the same could not even be probabilised by the defence on the basis of the evidence on record. Far from this, the evidence on record, as indicated hereinabove, convincingly proves that the judicial confession made by the accused was voluntary. 29. Situated thus, the mere assertion by the accused, during his examination under Section 313Cr.PC, that he had made the confession out of fear of the police can be, in our firm view, given no credence at all. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the judicial confession, in question, was voluntary. 30. Let us, now, come to the question as to whether the judicial confession made by the accused is true. In his confessional statement, the accused is seen to have been stated thus:- "At about 4.30 P.M., on 5.9.1994, Monday, K. Chandra Rao had been coming taking a VCP from the house of Gogoi master. At 4 p.m. K. Chandra Rao had told me that he would bring a VCP from the house of Gogoi Master. When he came from Gogoi Master's house/with the VCP, I met him in front of the bridge, a little ahead of Itakhola and asked him to hand over the VCP to me. But he refused to give. At 4 p.m. K. Chandra Rao had told me that he would bring a VCP from the house of Gogoi Master. When he came from Gogoi Master's house/with the VCP, I met him in front of the bridge, a little ahead of Itakhola and asked him to hand over the VCP to me. But he refused to give. Giving him two slaps, snatched away the VCP from him after that I pressed his mount and nose hard with one hand and held his hands together with my other hand. When he died after that I threw the body in Kachai river. I had known his from before. After that I hid the VCP in the jungle in front of the bridge and called Kharku. I went to change my clothes adking Khakru to wait there. My wearings had got wet. Changing my cloths I asked Kharku to bring the VCP. Thereafter, kept the VCP at Khakru's house. When I asked him to sell the VCP he told me that he would not sell it then but would sell it 4/5 days later. At 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, police held me. I showed to the police the place of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, there had not been any people on the road." 31. How to ascertain if a voluntarily made judicial confession can be relied upon as true too, one can recall the decision in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248 wherein the Apex Court Observed thus: "If the first test is satisfied, the Court must before acting upon the confession; reach the finding that what is stated therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a confession, or for that matter of any substantive piece of evidence, there is no rigid cannon of universal application. Even so, one broad method, which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test," 32. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test," 32. In the present appeal, in order to determine if the judicial confession made by the accused-appellant is true, let us, now, ascertain if the confessional statement made by the accused receives necessary credible corroboration from the remaining evidence on record. 33. When the above confessional statement made by the accused is considered, in the light of evidence of PWs 2, 3, 5, 9 and 11, it dearly follows that the evidence of these witnesses corroborate, in material aspects, the confessional statement of the accused inasmuch as the confessional statement/when read with the evidence of the witnesses aforementioned, show that the deceased did meet the accused, on the 5th of September, 1994, at about 4.30 p.m., with the VCP belonging to the family of PW 2, the accused accosted the deceased and asked him to handover the VCP. When the deceased refused to part with the VCP, the accused did press the mouth and nose of the deceased hard enough to choke him and make him die out of asphyxia, as reflected from the medical evidence on record, and, then, threw him into the river. In the process, the wearing apparels of the accused got drenched in water. The accused changed his clothes at Appalla's house and handed over the VCP to PW 11 asking him to sell the VCP and it was this VCP, which was, on being left abandoned by PW 11, finally, found by PW 3 and the same was, then, seized by the police. In short, the confessional statement of the accused receives corroboration in material particulars from the medical and other evidence on record. 34. We may pause to point out, at this stage, that as PW 11 appears, in the face of the confessional statement, involved in the taking of the VCP, it is quite reasonable to infer that he (PW 11) initially, could have taken the VCP for sale, but when the identity of the accused as the assailant of the deceased surfaced, PW 11, out of fear, abandoned the VCP. Though the evidence given by PW 11 belies to some extent the confessional statement of the accused by showing that so far as coming into possession of the VCP by PW 11 is concerned, the same has not been correctly projected by PW, 11 in his evidence, yet the fact remains that even if this portion of the confessional statement is excluded, the remaining evidence on record, coupled with the confessional statement, leave no room for reasonable doubt that it was non, but the accused, who had killed the deceased for the VCP. 35. What crystallizes from the above discussion of the evidence on record is that the judicial confession, thus, receives substantial corroboration from the oral as well as the medical evidence on record. In other words, on comparing the events leading to the death of the said deceased (as reflected from the judicial confession) with the other oral, circumstantial and medical evidence on record, it becomes clear that the confessional statement projects a catalogue of events, which fits in, with the rest of the evidence on record and make thereby the judicial confession safe enough to place reliance thereon and act upon. 36. What logically follows from the above discussion is that the confessional statement of the accused is not only voluntary, but also true. 37. Thought the prosecution examined a number of witnesses, their evidence neither strengthen nor weaken the case of the prosecution, which the prosecution have, as already indicated hereinabove, established against the accused. We may, however, elude to the evidence of these witnesses. In this regard, we note that PW 4 (M. Appalaswami) had given evidence to the effect that after the deadbody was recovered, he had given two slaps to the accused and the accused admitted, in the presence of the police, that he had committed the murder. Since this alleged extra-judicial confession was made in the presence of the police and as a result off coercion applied on the accused, we find that the alleged extra-judicial confession, so made, is not admissible at all. This, however, does not, we may hasten to add, weaken the case of the prosecution, which they have, we may reiterate, successfully established, independent of the evidence of PW 4, against the accused. This, however, does not, we may hasten to add, weaken the case of the prosecution, which they have, we may reiterate, successfully established, independent of the evidence of PW 4, against the accused. So far as PW 6 (S.S. Chinnado), PW 7 (Krishna Murthi) and PW 8 (K. Gurulu) are concerned, their evidence are merely on recovery of the deadbody of the said deceased from the river water. Their evidence does not, in any way, impair the case of the prosecution nor do their evidence help the defence of the accused. 38. On a dispassionate and careful scrutiny of the evidence, as a whole, we find that the medical and other circumstantial evidence on record, coupled with the judicial confession, which is voluntary and true, leave no room for reasonable doubt that it was the accused-appellant, who had killed the deceased intentionally and thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and by causing disappearance o the evidence, namely, dead-body of the said deceased in a capital offence, the accused-appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC too. 39. For what have been discussed above, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal and we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and/or sentence passed against the accused-appellant. 40. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 41. Send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed.