BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1996 (ST. No. 24 of 1996) on 03. 09. 1996. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the Prosecution case is that the de facto complainant's elder brother Sushil Kumar Das @ Nanu, aged about 72 years, used to reside in his farmhouse at Tesimla. On receipt of an information on 11. 04. 1995 at about 3. 00 a. m. from Chanchal Sabar, an employee of the said farmhouse, that another employee Sushil Oraon assaulted his elder brother with an axe on his head on the last night at about 9. 00 p. m. , the de facto complainant (P. W. 1)with his youngest nephew Subrata Das (P. W. 12) immediately rushed to the farmhouse. On their call Sushil Oraon fled away but they found the wrist watch of his elder brother on the bed of his room and after thorough search they could find the dead body of his elder brother with bleeding injuries on head on the southern end of a tank. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/201, I. P. C. against the accused Sushil Oraon and under section 201, I. P. C. against accused Chanchal Sabar and Krishna Chettri. Hence, while accused Sushil Oraon was charged under Sections 302/201, I. P. C. , other two accused persons were charged under Section 201, I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. and as contended by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , is that no such incident took place. Accused Sushil did not bring out any axe from the bush near the tank called Majapukur nor any wrist watch was found from the side of his bed. Accused Sushil has been falsely implicated in this case. P. C. , is that no such incident took place. Accused Sushil did not bring out any axe from the bush near the tank called Majapukur nor any wrist watch was found from the side of his bed. Accused Sushil has been falsely implicated in this case. ( 5 ) 26 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, the learned Court below acquitted accused Chanchal Sabar and Krishna Chettri @ Kanchha of the charge under Section 201, I. P. C. (wrongly added Section 302 also) but found accused Sushil Oraon guilty under Sections 302/201, I. P. C. , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and R. I. for two years respectively. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused Sushil has preferred the present appeal. ( 7 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 8 ) THE important witnesses in this case are P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, 8, 11 to 18, 20, 24 to 26, others being formal. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of P. W. 13 Anjali Das, wife of the victim sushil Kumar Das @ Nanu, her husband came to their Station Road house in the morning of 10. 04. 1995 and after taking breakfast and marketing he left for his farmhouse at about 10. 30 a. m. At about 3. 00 a. m. Basu Oraon and Santosh, her labourers of Ata Mill in the house, called her and reported that she was being called by Chanchal. She opened the gate when Chanchal and his wife gita (P. W. 14) who were crying informed that her husband on being assaulted by Sushil with an axe at about 9. 30/10. 00 p. m. was lying unconscious near the ring-well and that they were not allowed by Sushil to come out but they anyhow managed to come out. She called Sunil (P. W. 1) and Bappa (P. W. 12) who then proceeded to Tesimla in a scooter. On 11. 04. 1995 at about 10. 00 a. m. she came to learn about death of her husband. She called Sunil (P. W. 1) and Bappa (P. W. 12) who then proceeded to Tesimla in a scooter. On 11. 04. 1995 at about 10. 00 a. m. she came to learn about death of her husband. About a month back her husband informed her that Krishna @ Kanchha would not be retained as he was in the evil company of Sushil and theft was being committed in tank fisheries. The above evidence is supported by P. W. 1 Sunil Kumar Das (de facto complainant)and P. W. 12 Subrata Das @ Bappa, brother and son respectively of the victim. P. W. 1 stated that on 10. 4. 1995 his elder brother Nanu Babu before leaving their residence at Station Road, Mal, for farmhouse asked him to go to the farmhouse at about 11. 00 a. m. on 11. 04. 1995 as fish would be caught from his tank. At about 3. 00 a. m. on the night between 10. 4. 1995 and 11. 4. 1995 chanchal Sabar and his wife Gita (P. W. 14) came to the house, called him and reported in presence of P. Ws. 12 and 13 that Sushil Oraon had assaulted Nanu babu with a tangi near ring-well inside the farm at about 8. 30/9. 00 p. m. on 10. 4. 1995, and on his query as to the reason for such delay in their arrival, chanchal reported that Sushil had threatened him with dire consequences if he discloses the event and forbade him not to go out. He along with Subrata (P. W. 12) reached the farmhouse in a scooter, jumped the farm gate which was locked, found his elder brother's door shut and called his elder brother but there was no response. He then rushed to the ring-well but did not find anything. He asked the whereabouts of his elder brother from Kanchha but he expressed his ignorance. Night-meal was found covered in the room of the victim. He again went to the ring-well and found the spectacle of his elder brother. Subrata (P. W. 12) then went to Sushil's room, but on seeing him Sushil fled away. He unsuccessfully searched for his elder brother and then started for hospital and p. S. , and on the way near Pampa Cinema Hall he found A. S. I. Ashis Chakraborty (P. W. 24) inside a patrol jeep. Subrata (P. W. 12) then went to Sushil's room, but on seeing him Sushil fled away. He unsuccessfully searched for his elder brother and then started for hospital and p. S. , and on the way near Pampa Cinema Hall he found A. S. I. Ashis Chakraborty (P. W. 24) inside a patrol jeep. He narrated the incident to him and leaving the scooter he boarded the jeep and came to the farmhouse when Subrata (P. W. 12)informed that his father's dead body was found out on the bank of a tank at a distance of about 160 metre from his residence. He found injuries on his head and his elder brother's wristwatch lying by the side of pillow on the cot in the room of accused Sushil. Deputing two constables at the P. O. he accompanied a. S. I. Ashis Babu to Mal P. S. and lodged an F. I. R. (Ext. 1 ). Being accompanied by O. C. , Mal P. S. (P. W. 26} they reached the P. O. at about 4. 30/5, 00 a. m. when O. C. held inquest (Ext. 2/2) over the dead body of the victim in presence of P. Ws. 1 and 12, seized his elder brother's spectacles (Mat Ext. I), a torch light (Mat Ext. IV) and bloodstained earth under a s. list (Ext. 3/1) and his wrist watch (Mat Ext. VII) from the room of accused Sushil under anothers. list (Ext. 4/2 ). With the help of photographer (P. W. 21) Ramesh Kumar Singh he took photographs (Ext. 9 series) of the ring-well along with bloodstained earth, spectacles, dead body of the victim with wearing apparels and torch in hand. I. O. sent the dead body through P. W. 22 constable Dal Bahadur Rai for PM examination. The villagers apprehended accused Sushil and brought him to the farmhouse at about 11,00 a. m. when Daroga Babu arrested him. Accused chanchal and Krishna were also arrested on that date. More or less similar is the evidence of P. W. 12 who further deposed that his uncle (P. W. 1) was also in search of his father. He went to the ring-well side and thereafter to the room of the Sushil, who was lying, and on seeing him he became frightened, started trembling and passing urine. On his query regarding the whereabouts of his father, he did not tell anything. He went to the ring-well side and thereafter to the room of the Sushil, who was lying, and on seeing him he became frightened, started trembling and passing urine. On his query regarding the whereabouts of his father, he did not tell anything. On being asked to go to the house of Chanchal, he proceeded and then fled away. He did not find his father in his room where the night-meal was kept. He advised his uncle to proceed to hospital and he (P. W. 1) then left the farm in a scooter. He rebuked Krishna @ Kanchha as to why he did not look after his father. Krishna then took Anchala (P. W. 8), bahamaya (P. W. 11), Gula (P. W. 15), Somra (P. W. 17) towards tank No. 9-10. On hearing shout that his father had been found out, he went there, found the dead body of his father lying on the bank of the tank with severe bleeding injuries on his head. He also found his father's Allwyn black-dialed wristwatch (mat Ext. VII) on the bed of Sushil. His uncle (P. W. 1) returned in a police jeep with a police officer Mr. Chakraborty (P. W. 24 ). Policemen then went to the bank of the tank and he narrated the event to police and his uncle. Deputing one policeman at the bank of the tank, his uncle left with other policemen in a jeep. Barababu Rabi , Chakraborty (P. W. 26) came to the P. O. , held inquest over the dead body of his father, seized the blood-stained spectacles (Mat Ext. I) of his father from the ring-well side. Then police officer came to the room of sushil and seized the wrist watch (Mat Ext. VII ). The villagers brought Sushil who was fleeing way to the farm. Sushil confessed in presence of all of them that he killed his father with an axe. Sometimes theft of fish from tank fishery used to take place and they suspected Sushil, Kanchha and others as thieves. P. W. 24 A. S. I. Ashis Chakraborty during his patrol duty with two armed policemen in a jeep on the night between 10. 04. 1995 and 11. 04. 1995 while proceeding towards Neora at about 3. 30/4. Sometimes theft of fish from tank fishery used to take place and they suspected Sushil, Kanchha and others as thieves. P. W. 24 A. S. I. Ashis Chakraborty during his patrol duty with two armed policemen in a jeep on the night between 10. 04. 1995 and 11. 04. 1995 while proceeding towards Neora at about 3. 30/4. 00 a. m. found Sunii (P. W. 1) coming in a scooter by the side of Pampa Cinema Hall and on his reporting that his brother was assaulted and he was in search of his brother at the hospital, he asked him to come to his jeep for proceeding to the P. O. P. W. 1 then kept his vehicle in front of a shop near Pampa Cinema Hall and they went to the P. O. at about 4. 00 a. m. , found an assembly of a number of persons. During search for nanu Babu he came to find spectacles near a ring-well on being pointed out by bappa (P. W. 12 ). In course of search, Krishna informed that Nanu Babu's dead body could be found out near the bank of a tank, and accordingly he went there along with his force and found the dead body of Nanu Babu in injured condition, injury being on Page 4 of 11 the upper portion of his body and head. He asked p. W. 1 to proceed to P. S. to lodge an F. I. R. At about 4. 30 a. m. P. W. 1 left for Mal ps. and at about 5. 15 a. m. O. C. R. N. Chakraborty (P. W. 26) along with P. W. 1 came to the farm compound when he narrated him the event that he witnessed. O. C. then started investigation and he left for the PS. P. W. 3 on coming to learn on 11. 04. 95 in the morning about murder of Nanu Babu by Sushil who was apprehended by village people, went to the farmhouse where Sushil confessed before him and others that he had murdered Nanu Babu with an axe. O. C. then started investigation and he left for the PS. P. W. 3 on coming to learn on 11. 04. 95 in the morning about murder of Nanu Babu by Sushil who was apprehended by village people, went to the farmhouse where Sushil confessed before him and others that he had murdered Nanu Babu with an axe. Similarly, p. W. 4 on coming to learn about murder of Nanu Babu caused by Sushil from gula, Baskey (P. W. 15), Somra Oraon (P. W. 16) and others had been to the farmhouse, found the members of the public had apprehended Sushil, the dead body of the victim with sharp-cut injury on head on the bank of a tank situated on plot Nos. 9 and 10 and the police to take away Sushil. P. W. 8 Anchala Mia who used to guard the tank of Nanu Babu, on hearing a hue and cry woke up and heard that Sushil had killed Nanu Babu, he saw Nanu Babu's dead body in injured condition on the bank of the tank and police officer arrested him. P. W. 11 Bahamaya Baskey, cook of the victim, on being called by Bappa (P. W. 12) in the morning of 11. 04. 95, searched for Nanu Babu and found his dead body on the bank of tank fisheries. P. W. 15 Gula Baskey (mother of P. W. 11) stated that in the dawn Sunil Babu (P. W. 1) and Bappa (P. W. 12) came to the farm compound and when asked her regarding the whereabouts of Nanu Babu, they all began to search for Nanu Babu and ultimately found his dead body on the bank of tank No. 9. Police came, arrested Sushil and took him to the PS. Sushil disclosed that he would find out the axe. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 16 Somra Oraon (son of Chhantra Oraon), P. W. 17 Somra Oraon, son of late Kuar Oraon and p. W. 20 Abdul Latif (son of late Gamisuddin ). It is the further evidence of P. W. 17 that the members of the public brought Sushil who confessed before them that he killed Nanu Babu. Police came and then arrested Sushil and took him to the PS. P. W. 14 Gita Sabar who had been to the ring-well at about 9. It is the further evidence of P. W. 17 that the members of the public brought Sushil who confessed before them that he killed Nanu Babu. Police came and then arrested Sushil and took him to the PS. P. W. 14 Gita Sabar who had been to the ring-well at about 9. 30 p. m. to cleanse her hand after preparation of food, found Sushil and Krishna at the said well. On being declared hostile she admitted her statement to the I. O. that on 10. 04. 1995 at about 9. 30 p. m. while she went out to answer nature's call nanu Babu was inspecting the well (place for storing fish) with a torch light, her husband Chanchal was then drawing water from the ring-well, then all on a sudden Sushil came out with a tangi and struck the same on the head of Nanu babu, for which he fell down and thereafter Sushil struck 2/3 blows, that she shouted out of fear but Sushil asked her husband not to tell anybody, that later she being accompanied by her husband came to Mal by walking along the side of a stream and finding nobody in the P. S. , they went to the residence of Nanu babu at the Station Road and reported the matter to his wife (P. W. 13 ). She was forwarded before the Magistrate for recording her statement and she stated to the Magistrate what she knew. P. W. 26 S. I. R. N. Chakraborty on the basis of an F. I. R. (Ext. 1) lodged by P. W. 1 at about 4. 50 hrs. on 11. 4. 1995, registered mal PS. case No. 51/95 dated 11. 4. 95 under Sections 302/201, I. P. C. against accused Sushil Oraon, proceeded at about 5. 05 hrs. to the farmhouse along with A. S. I. B. K. Singha (P. W. 25) and other police force, reached there at about 5. 20 a. m. , found the dead body of the victim with a deep sharp-cut injury on the back side of his head near left ear, and brain matter came out, lying on the north-west bank of a tank, held inquest over the said dead body in presence of p. Ws. 1, 12 and other witnesses. He was taken by Bappa @ Subrata to the ring-well side where he found a black framed bloodstained spectacles (Mat Ext. 1, 12 and other witnesses. He was taken by Bappa @ Subrata to the ring-well side where he found a black framed bloodstained spectacles (Mat Ext. 1 ). He seized the said spectacles, blood-stained earth, sample earth and torch light (Mat Ext. IV) clutched in the hand of the deceased under a s. list (Ext. 3/1) in presence of P. Ws. 1 and 20. The marks of dragging the dead body from the ring-well side of the tank, distance being about 100 metres, were visible and so it appeared to him that the victim was murdered near ring-well side and then the dead body was dragged to the bank of the tank. In course of recording the statement of P. W. 1 under Section 161, Cr. P. C. the village men brought Sushil before him as an accused and he arrested him. From the bedroom of Sushil he seized a black dialed Allwyn wristwatch (Mat Ext. VII) on being identified by RWs. 1 and 12 under another s. list (Ext. 4/2) and made over a copy of the same to the accused. He interrogated the accused and recorded his statement (Ext. 14), and pursuant to the said statement Sushil led him along with Gula Baskey (P. W. 15) and Somra Oraon (P. W. 16) to a bamboo bush by the side of a dried pond in the west of his house in search of axe. It was about 7. 00 p. m. on 11. 4. 1995 and as the axe was not found, he returned to the P. S. , again interrogated the accused and told that he would find it out in the daylight. In the next morning he led him to the same place in presence of those witnesses and at about 7. 30 a. m. on 12. 4. 1995 Sushil brought out from a bamboo bush an axe with handle (Mat Ext. Ill) stained with blood which was seized by him in presence of those two witnesses under a s. list (Ext. 15) and the same was duly labelled (Ext. 16 ). On 11. 4. 1995 the wearing apparels of the victim and post-mortem blood being produced by P. W. 22 Dal Bahadur rai, he seized the same under a s. list (Ext. 11/1 ). On 13. 4. 15) and the same was duly labelled (Ext. 16 ). On 11. 4. 1995 the wearing apparels of the victim and post-mortem blood being produced by P. W. 22 Dal Bahadur rai, he seized the same under a s. list (Ext. 11/1 ). On 13. 4. 95 in the morning p. W. 14 Gita Sabar came to the P. S. and stated to him that at about 9. 30 p. m. on Monday while she came out to attend nature's call and Babu (Nanu Babu)was seeing something in the ring-well with the help of his torch light and her husband was fetching water from the said well, all on a sudden Sushil Oraon came with a tangi and struck on the head of Nanu Babu from behind and after babu fell down 2/3 more blows were inflicted, and out of fear when she raised a hue and cry, Sushil asked her husband not to tell anything to anybody, that later she and her husband came to Mal along the side of the river, and seeing nobody in front of the P. S. , she and her husband came to the house of Nanu babu at Station Road and narrated the matter to the wife of the deceased. He recorded the said statement and made a prayer before the S. D. J. M. , Jalpaiguri for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. , and her statement was accordingly recorded. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, sent all the blood-stained alamats to FSL for examination, collected reports as also pm report and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under sections 302/201, I. PC. against accused Sushil Oraon and against other two accused persons under Section 201, I. P. C. The above evidence of P. W. 26 is buttressed by the testimony of RWs. 15, 16, 20 and 25. P. W. 23 Mr. C. L. Sinha, learned J. M. recorded the statement of P. W. 14 Gita Sabar under Section 164, cr. P. C. (Ext. 12) on 13. 4. 95. P. W. 18 Dr. Asit Kumar Ghosh, M. O. of Jalpaiguri sadar Hospital, on holding P. M. examination over the dead body of the victim, being identified by P. W. 22 Dal Bahadur Rai on 11. 4. 1995 at about 12. 30 p. m. found rigor mortis present and four injuries viz. P. C. (Ext. 12) on 13. 4. 95. P. W. 18 Dr. Asit Kumar Ghosh, M. O. of Jalpaiguri sadar Hospital, on holding P. M. examination over the dead body of the victim, being identified by P. W. 22 Dal Bahadur Rai on 11. 4. 1995 at about 12. 30 p. m. found rigor mortis present and four injuries viz. (1) 5" x 2-1/2 x 5" deep with sharp-cut margin transverse in position over the right eye with laceration and collapse of right eyeball and fracture of the underlying bone and sharp-cut over the roof of the nasal bone and right lateral end of frontal bone just lateral to the right eye, (2) 2" x 1/2" with fracture of underlying bone and with lacerated margin over the left side of the head 2" above the hair line vertically placed with exposure and loss of brain matter, (3) 3" x 2" x bone deep with loss of brain matter and lacerated margin just left lateral area of injury No. 2 vertically placed, dissection shows fracture of bones of skull and (4) 2" x 2"x 1/2" with lacerated margin bone deep wound over the left side of head 2" above the left ear transverse in position, clotted blood present all over the head, stomach contains blood, and opined that the death was due to effect of shock and haemorrhage following above noted injuries, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. It is his further opinion that injury No. 1 may be caused by sharp-cutting weapon like axe (Mat Ext. Ill) and other injuries may be caused by blunt and heavy weapon like the back portion of the axe. P. W. 19 Sri Haridas Maitra, Senior Scientific officer-in-charge, R. F. S. L, Jalpaiguri examined the contents of all the seven exhibits and sent a portion of each of such exhibits to the serologist, Government of India, Calcutta, got the report of serologist and thereafter prepared his report (Ext. 7 ). According to his report (Ext. 7), blood was detected on all the seven exhibits. Hair collected from sweater and axe were marphologically found to be similar and being of human head origin. Blood soaked in a piece of gauze (Item 28), earth (Item 29), earth (Item 30), sweater (cuttings) (Item 32) and lungi (cuttings) (item 33) are stained with human blood and item No. 28 is stained with 'o' group blood. Hair collected from sweater and axe were marphologically found to be similar and being of human head origin. Blood soaked in a piece of gauze (Item 28), earth (Item 29), earth (Item 30), sweater (cuttings) (Item 32) and lungi (cuttings) (item 33) are stained with human blood and item No. 28 is stained with 'o' group blood. Bloodstains on spectacles (Item 31) and axe (Item 34)are disintegrated and their origin could not be determined. Blood group in respect of items 29, 30, 32 and 33 were not sufficient for test. P. W. 7 Niranjan Saha was simply tendered for cross-examination. As per evidence of P. W. 9 Ashis Biswas, assistant Engineer at Chalsa, from 8. 40 a. m. to 9. 25 p. m. on 10. 04. 1995 there was loadsheding at Mal, Metelli, Balabari. P. W. 5, Financial Advisor of West bengal Tourism Development Corporation at Netaji Indoor Stadium, Calcutta had been to Malbazar Tourist Lodge with family for inspection of the lodge on 9. 4. 95, went to the farm of Nanu Babu on 10. 4. 1995 to have a discussion for promotion of tourism in the jheel of Nanu Babu, invited Nanu babu to Garumara forest but he did not stay at night as there was a possibility of theft of fish from his tank and so he left Garumara on the night of 10. 4. 1995 at about 9. 00 p. m. P. W. 6 Samir Ghosh, Barman at Malbazar Tourist Lodge, brought back the victim from Garumara forest to his farm gate at about 9. 30 p. m. , but according to the evidence of P. W. 10 Manik Das, driver, they dropped Nanu Babu at his farm at about 9. 00 p. m. ( 10 ) A glance to the above would reveal that the present case rests on direct as also circumstantial evidence, direct evidence being that of RW. 14 , sole eyewitness and circumstances being three-fold, viz. (i) abscondance of the accused immediately after the occurrence, (ii) recovery of wristwatch from the bed of the accused and (iii) recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of the statement of the accused and being led by him. 14 , sole eyewitness and circumstances being three-fold, viz. (i) abscondance of the accused immediately after the occurrence, (ii) recovery of wristwatch from the bed of the accused and (iii) recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of the statement of the accused and being led by him. ( 11 ) AS regards the direct evidence, though P. W. 14 was declared hostile, ultimately she admitted her earlier statement to the I. O. in her cross-examination by prosecution and the fact of recording her statement by a Magistrate. Mr. Kazi Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutor relying on the case of Dagdu v. State of M. P. , reported in 1998 SCC (Cr) 1511 contended that since the said witness cannot be permitted to get out of her admission, it must cast reflection on the evidence relating to the occurrence in full measure which appears to be appreciable. That on 10. 4. 1995 at about 9. 30 p. m. when she went out to attend nature's call, Nanu Babu was inspecting the well with a torch light and her husband Chanchal was lifting water from the ring-well, all on a sudden Sushil came out with a tangi and struck the same on the head of Nanu Babu, for which he fell down when Sushil gave 2/3 further blows, that she shouted out of fear and Sushil asked her husband not to divulge it to anybody, that she along with her husband reported the matter to the wife (P. M. 13) of the victim, as deposed by P. W. 14, there is no denial of it in her cross-examination. The above evidence relating to reporting the matter to the wife of the victim is supported by P. Ws. 1, 12, 13 and it is the specific evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 12 that on getting the information from Chanchal and his wife Gita (RW. 14) at about 3. 00 a. m. about assault by accused Sushil on the victim with an axe near the ring-well on the night of 10. 4. 1995 at about 9/9. 30 p. m. , they left for the farm and could trace out the dead body of the victim with severe bleeding injury on his head, lying on the bank of a tank. The number of blows inflicted on the victim with the weapon of offence is also quite in harmony with the medical evidence of RW. 30 p. m. , they left for the farm and could trace out the dead body of the victim with severe bleeding injury on his head, lying on the bank of a tank. The number of blows inflicted on the victim with the weapon of offence is also quite in harmony with the medical evidence of RW. 18 who found four injuries on head, one being sharp-cut and the balance caused by blunt and heavy weapon i. e. back side of axe, as opined by the said P. W. 18, f. I. R. was lodged immediately at about 4. 50 hrs. on 11. 4. 1995 itself. ( 12 ) MR. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the appellant, on referring the case of Sun/7 Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in a. I. C. L. R. (2003)4 872 and earlier statement of P. W. 14 recorded under Section 164, Cr. PC. (Ext. 12/1) contended that the above evidence of RW. 14 that the victim was inspecting the well is contradictory to her statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C, where she stated that the victim was drawing water from the well. Mr. Bhattacharya further contended that since no name of Chanchal's wife has been borne out in the F. I. R. and as P. W. 14 is the solitary alleged eyewitness, much importance should not be attached to her testimony. As P. W. 14 was not confronted with her said earlier statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. in accordance with the provision of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the appellant cannot take the benefit of the said minor contradiction. As a matter of fact, whether the victim was drawing water from the well at that time or inspecting the well is not the determinant factor but whether the accused committed the crime at that time and place. The incident having taken place in front of P. W. 14, she cannot exculpate the real offender. Regarding non-mention of the name of p. W. 14 in the FIR, it is to be borne in mind that FIR is meant to give only the substance of allegation, and it is not intended to be a detailed document nor it may contain all the details stated in Court. The case of State of U. P. v. Ballabh das, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1384 may be referred to. The case of State of U. P. v. Ballabh das, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1384 may be referred to. ( 13 ) AS a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, that unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute the Court should not insist upon corroboration except in cases where the nature of testimony of a single witness itself requires the same as a rule of prudence e. g. , in the case of a child witness or witness in a position analogous to that of an accomplice, and that whether corroboration of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be three classes of witnesses viz. (a) wholly reliable, (b) wholly unreliable and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The question of corroboration arises only in case of the witness of the last category in which the Court is called upon to be circumspect, as was held in the case of vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 . In this case, in addition to the discussion made above, no animus of P. W. 14 against the accused having been made out, it improbabilises the hypothesis of her false implication of the accused. We are persuaded that P. W. 14 is a witness for truth and her evidence is buttressed not only by medical testimony but also other circumstances on record. ( 14 ) IN regard to the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that as there was loadsheding at the relevant time, as is evident from the evidence of P. W. 9,the possibility of identification of the assailant on the part of P. W. 14 was remote, considering the overall evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 26 and the statement of P. W. 14 under Section 164, Cr. P. C. (Ext. 12/1), it appears that the incident took place sometime after 9. 30 p. m. The loadsheding, as disclosed in the evidence of P. W. 9, continued up to 9. 25 p. m. , and so the existence of light at the time of commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. The accused not only assaulted the victim but also threatened Chanchal not to divulge the incident to anybody when P. W. 14 shouted. 25 p. m. , and so the existence of light at the time of commission of the crime cannot be ruled out. The accused not only assaulted the victim but also threatened Chanchal not to divulge the incident to anybody when P. W. 14 shouted. So, in the above circumstances, even if there would have been no electric light, it would cause no difficulty on the part of P. W. 14 to identify the offender as he was well known to her and the incident took place at a close proximity. ( 15 ) MR. Bhattacharya on referring to the evidence of P. W. 26 adversely criticized for examination of P. W. 14 after two days on 13. 4. 95. Delayed examination of a witness by police does not render the evidence untrustworthy, as was held in the case of Ranbir v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1409 . Here, on account of the said threat by the accused, P. W. 14 with her husband Chanchal had to go to the residence of the victim on the Station Road at Mal along the side of a stream which gets support from the testimony of p. Ws. 1, 12 and 13. It is the evidence of P. W. 26 that P. W. 14 appeared before him in the morning of 13. 04. 95 and made a statement which was recorded by him on that date followed by his prayer before the Court for recording her statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. on that very date. So, there was no delay at all in recording her statement, and the above contention of Mr. Bhattacharya appears to be more captious than substantial. Moreover, no question having been put to I. O. by the defence as to the cause for the alleged delay (nor, of course, there was any scope for it), the defence cannot derive any advantage from it. In this connection, the case of Banti v. State of M. P. , reported in 2004 scc (Cr) 294 may be referred to. ( 16 ) IN regard to the circumstantial evidence, the first circumstance above is concerned, mere abscondance or disappearance of the accused by itself cannot form the basis of conviction, since even innocent person may when suspected on grave crime be tempted to evade arrest, such being the instinct of self-preservation. ( 16 ) IN regard to the circumstantial evidence, the first circumstance above is concerned, mere abscondance or disappearance of the accused by itself cannot form the basis of conviction, since even innocent person may when suspected on grave crime be tempted to evade arrest, such being the instinct of self-preservation. When a finger of false accusation is raised, an innocent person may behave like a guilty one to avoid a false charge or harassment. But when there are other evidence to connect the accused with the crime, abscondance itself is a useful piece of corroborative evidence and may lend weight to other evidence. In this connection, the case of Raghav propanna v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1963 SC 74 at 79 may be referred to. In the present case, it is the evidence of P. W. 12 that on arrival at the room of the accused he found him lying and on seeing him the accused became frightened, started trembling and passing urine and on his query regarding whereabouts of his father, he did not reply and when he asked him to go to the house of Chanchal, he proceeded and then fled away towards basti which remains controverted in his cross-examination. P. Ws. 3, 4, 12, 17, 20 and 26 deposed that the villagers apprehended the accused and brought him to the farmhouse which is admitted by the accused during his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. So, such conduct on the part of the accused to flee away from his room after the occurrence is an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence to connect him with the commission of the offence. ( 17 ) IN regard to the second circumstance, it is the evidence of P. W. 12 that after seeing the dead body of his father on the bank of the tank he went towards the room of the accused and found the Allwyn black dialed wrist watch of his father on the bed of the accused. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 1 who after return to the farmhouse in a police jeep with P. W. 24 found the said wrist watch lying by the side of pillow on the cot of the room of the accused. In terms of the F. I. R. and statement of P. W. 1 recorded under Section 161, Cr. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 1 who after return to the farmhouse in a police jeep with P. W. 24 found the said wrist watch lying by the side of pillow on the cot of the room of the accused. In terms of the F. I. R. and statement of P. W. 1 recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. , P. W. 26 went to the room of the accused and seized the said wrist watch on being identified by P. Ws. 1 and 12 under a s. list (Ext. 4/2) therefrom. In one place P. W. 26 deposed that pursuant to the statement of the accused he led him to the recovery of the wristwatch. What is alleged to be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the information or such part thereof as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. So only that part of the information which relates distinctly to the fact of discovery should have been exhibited and not the entire confession. Further more, Section 27 assumes that there should be a statement first followed by discovery. But in this case Ext. 14 shows that there was first recovery of the wristwatch followed by statement and accordingly the said statement is not admissible. Moreover, once a fact is already discovered from other sources, there cannot be any further discovery, and as such the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya who relied on the case of State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh, reported in A. I. C. L. R. (2003)4 729 is appreciable. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 12, the said evidence of P. W. 26 to that extent cannot be considered. Nevertheless, the above fact of recovery simpliciter and seizure of the said wristwatch belonging to the victim from the bed of the accused after the occurrence is another important piece of circumstantial evidence lending support to the prosecution story of involvement of the accused with the crime. ( 18 ) AS regards third circumstance above, it is the evidence of P. W. 26 that at the time of his recording the statement of P. W. 1 under Section 161, cr. P. C. , while the villagers brought the accused before him, he arrested him and pursuant to his statement (Ext. 14) recorded by him, he led him along with p. Ws. P. C. , while the villagers brought the accused before him, he arrested him and pursuant to his statement (Ext. 14) recorded by him, he led him along with p. Ws. 15 and 16 on 11. 4. 95 at about 7. 00 p. m. to a bamboo bush by the side of a dried pond situated to the west of his house in search of axe, but he could not find out it. In the next morning he led him to the same place and brought out from the bamboo-bush a bloodstained axe (Mat Ext. Ill) which was seized by him under a s. list (Ext. 15) in presence of those witnesses. As discussed above, it is clear from Ext. 14 that there was discovery first followed by recording statement, which is not admissible in evidence. However, Section 27 of the evidence Act prescribes two limits for determining how much of the information received from the accused is provable against him viz. (1) the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact i. e. the fact must be the consequence and the information the cause of its discovery, and (2) the information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. Section 27 allows proof of such part of information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered. If the police officer wants to prove the information, the Court would have to consider whether it relates distinctly to the fact discovered. In the case on hand, P. W. 26 acting upon the information furnished by the accused went straight in the morning of 12. 4. 95 to a bamboo bush by the side of a dried pond where from the accused brought out the offending weapon of offence i. e. axe (Mat Ext. Ill)which was seized by him under a s. list (Ext. 15) in presence of witnesses. Such evidence is admissible without attracting operation of Section 27. The case of R. M. Sharma v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1955 SC 104 may be relied on. Furthermore the evidence simpliciter that an accused led a police officer and brought out the weapon of offence from a bamboo bush where the incriminating article was hidden is admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act irrespective of whether any statement of the accused was contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27. The case of Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1979 SC 400 may be relied on. ( 19 ) INFERENCES which may arise leading to such recovery are : (i) the informant accused is connected with the fact so discovered and if the fact is incriminatory the connection of the accused therewith is established, (ii) the fact so discovered was within the exclusive knowledge of the informant, (iii) the fact is referable to the culpable possession of it by the informant, (iv) the informant has secreted away the fact with the culpable motive, and (v) the informant was a person who was responsible for the culpable act by reason of which the resultant fact is traced and available, and all these inferences may be circumstantial bringing the accused nearer the offence. If the authorship of the concealment is part of the information given by the accused that is an additional circumstance to fix criminality on him in the absence of any acceptable explanation leading to the innocence. So on being led and brought out the weapon of offence by the accused from the bamboo bush followed by seizure of the same by P. W. 26 is an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. ( 20 ) AS regards motive, the prosecution is not to prove it as it is known only to the accused. Moreover, the need on the part of the Court to find out motive behind the crime arises where only circumstantial evidence is available which is not the case here. Men do not act wholly without motive and failure to discover motive of the offence does not signify the non-existence of the cr,ime nor proof of motive is ever an indispensable factor for conviction, as was held in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1996, cr LJ 421 (SC ). In the present case, it is the evidence of RW. 12 that theft of fish used to take place sometimes from the tank fishery and they used to suspect sushil, Kanchha and others as thieves. P. W. 13 deposed that about a month back of the death of her husband, he told her that Krishna @ Kanchha would not be retained as he was in the evil company of Sushil and theft was committed in tank fisheries. P. W. 13 deposed that about a month back of the death of her husband, he told her that Krishna @ Kanchha would not be retained as he was in the evil company of Sushil and theft was committed in tank fisheries. Therefore, as the victim being the owner suspected the accused as a thief of fish from tank fisheries, it prompted the accused to commit the crime out of grudge. ( 21 ) IN the premises, the facts, circumstances and materials on record unerringly point to the guilt of the above accused, and there is no material to interfere with the decision of the learned Court below. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. ( 23 ) ALAMATS, if any be destroyed after the period of appeal is over. ( 24 ) LET a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent down at once to the learned Court below.