Judgment :- D.P. SENGUPTA, J. (1). This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.99 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore in S.T. No. 1(12)/98 (S.C. No. 41 (8) 98) thereby convicting the accused appellant under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant was also convicted under section 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. (2). Prosecution case, in short, was that victim Saraswati Sardar was invited by present appellant Bimal Naskar of the same village on 24.10.88. At about 8 P.M. the victim went to the house of accused, but she was not offered meal as the son of the accused Bimal did not return till that time. So the victim came back to her house and again she went to the house of the accused at about 11.00 P.M. to attend the invitation on the occasion of Lakshmi Puja, but in that very night she did not return to her house. On the next day the son of the victim (defacto- complainant) visited the house of accused Bimal Naskar in search of his mother, but accused Bimal was also not available at his house. Further case of the prosecution was that on 2.11.88, i.e. 8 days after such missing of the victim, accused Bimal Naskar returned home and having received such information the defacto complainant (son of the victim) along with Kalipada Sardar (PW8), Atul Mondal (PW3), Brojen, Nakul Mondal (PW7) and others had been to the house of the accused Bimal Naskar, who in presence of all those persons confessed his guilt and stated that he along with Sarbeswar Naiya and Hari Gayen committed murder of Saraswati Sardar at 11.00 P.M. on 24.10.88 by drowning her in the tank of one Sanatan Ghosal while victim Saraswati was going towards the house of the accused on the fateful night. Accused Bimal confessed that after committing the murder the dead body of Saraswati Sardar was concealed under the ground in the banana garden situated on the northern side of the house of accused Bimal and he also snatched away two earnings, one noth, finger ring etc. from the dead body of Saraswati. Accused Bimal confessed that after committing the murder the dead body of Saraswati Sardar was concealed under the ground in the banana garden situated on the northern side of the house of accused Bimal and he also snatched away two earnings, one noth, finger ring etc. from the dead body of Saraswati. Accused Bimal Naskar himself thereafter recovered the dead body from that place and PW1 identified the same to be the dead body of his mother. It was the further prosecution case that about 8/9 months prior to this incident victim Saraswati gave Rs.1,500/-to accused Bimal Naskar, who assured to provide a job for her youngest son Shyamal. As accused Bimal failed to provide the job, victim Saraswati asked for return of that money and this was the reason for which the accused persons committed murder of the victim. (3). On the basis of a complaint lodged by Bimal Krishna Sardar (son of the deceased) a case was registered with Joynagar Police Station and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and charge was framed by the learned Trial Judge under sections 302/34 and 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (4). To bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses while none was examined on behalf of the defence. The defence of the accused was a plea of innocence and false implication. The learned Trial Judge convicted the accused appellant under sections 302 IPC and 302/201 IPC and he acquitted the other two accused persons of the charge framed against them. (5). There was no eyewitness and the present case entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Bimal Sardar, son of the victim, was examined as PW1 and he corroborated his earlier statement made in the FIR. He stated in his evidence that accused Bimal Naskar invited his mother to have a dinner at his house on 24.10.88 on the occasion of Lakshmi Puja. Accordingly his mother went to the house of the accused at 8.00 P.M. to attend invitation, but she was told that dinner would be served after return of the son of the accused. So his mother returned home and again at about 11.00 P.M., she went to the house of accused Bimal Naskar, but she did not return home in that night. So his mother returned home and again at about 11.00 P.M., she went to the house of accused Bimal Naskar, but she did not return home in that night. On the next morning PW1 went to the house of accused Bimal, but neither Bimal nor his mother was available and the house of the accused was found under lock and key. He searched for his mother and Bimal Naskar in the surrounding area but they were not available. Having received the information that accused Bimal Naskar returned to the village on 2.11.88 PW1 along with others had been to the house of accused Bimal, who in presence of PW1 and other villagers confessed his guilt and stated that he along with Sarbeswar Naiya and Haripada Gayen murdered Saraswati Sardar on 24.10.88 at about 11.00 P.M. on her way to the house of accused Bimal. Accused Bimal further stated that after committing murder deadbody of victim, Saraswati was concealed under the ground in the banana garden. Thereafter accused Bimal Naskar dug up the ground with spade and part of the deadbody was found and it was identified to be the dead body of mother of PW1. Everybody present there advised not to dig any further and accordingly it was left in the same position. After arrival of the police the dead body was taken out and it was found that a piece of cloth was inserted in her mouth. (6). It appears from the evidence on record that PWs. 2, 3, 4, 8 and 10 corroborated PW1 on all vital aspects. All the said witnesses stated that since the night of 24.10.88 Saraswati Sardar was found missing. On the following morning the said witnesses along with PW1 visited the house of accused Bimal Naskar but the accused was not found in his house, which was found under lock and key. It is also in their evidence that Bimal Naskar returned to village on 2.11.88, i.e. 8 days after the missing of the victim. On being asked by them the accused Bimal Naskar confessed his guilt and stated that he along with two others committed murder of victim Saraswati and concealed her deadbody under the ground in the banana garden situated on the northern side of the house of the accused. Pursuant to such statement, the deadbody of the victim was discovered at the instance of the accused Bimal. Pursuant to such statement, the deadbody of the victim was discovered at the instance of the accused Bimal. A part of the deadbody was found and it was identified by PW1 to be the dead body of his mother. As advised by the said witnesses not to dig any further, the deadbody was left in the same position till the arrival of the police. (7). Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that conviction in the present case was mainly based on extra judicial confession made by the accused and such confession was obtained under coercion. The learned Advocate referring to the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 4. 7 and 8 submitted that on interrogation by the said witnesses, accused Bimal Naskar made such confessional statement and as such it cannot be said that such confession was made voluntarily. But we are unable to accept such contention. It is in the evidence that victim Saraswati had been to the house of accused Bimal to attend the invitation on the occasion of Laxmi Puja on the fateful night. Since then she was found missing. On 2.11.88. PW1 and the aforesaid witnesses having received the information that accused Bimal returned to his house, had been to the house of the accused and asked him regarding whereabouts of victim Saraswati. It was at that point of time accused made such confessional statement on being asked by the said witnesses, it cannot be said that a confessional statement made by the accused on interrogation by the witnesses was obtained under coercion. It is the further contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant that before registration of the case, the deadbody of the victim was unearthed by the PWs. before arrival of the police, but such submission can also not be accepted by us. It appears from the evidence that after digging earth to some extent when part of the deadbody was found and was identified by PW1 it was left in the same condition without digging any further. Thereafter information was lodged with the police and after arrival of the police deadbody was taken put by digging the earth. The learned Advocate further submits that after missing of the victim, no step was taken by her sons to find out their mother and no report was made to the police. Thereafter information was lodged with the police and after arrival of the police deadbody was taken put by digging the earth. The learned Advocate further submits that after missing of the victim, no step was taken by her sons to find out their mother and no report was made to the police. This is also not correct in view of the evidence of PW1 who stated in his cross-examination that he had been to the police station but no G.D. was lodged as he was told by Bijoy, the brother of the accused, that victim Saraswati went to Puri along with Bijoys brother. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that he and his younger brother Shyama Prasad went to Puri in search of their mother but she was not available there. The learned Advocate of the appellant further argued that it was the prosecution case that victim Saraswati paid Rs.1,500/- to the accused, who assured to provide a job to her son Shyamal. Since the accused could not provide such job for Shyamal and since the said amount of Rs.1,500/-was not repaid to the victim Saraswati in spite of her repeated demand, the accused committed murder of the victim and this was the motive behind commission of such offence. The learned Advocate argued that Shyamal was not examined in the present case. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that other persons, who were invited in the house of the accused Bimal Naskar on the occasion of Laxmi Puja, were also not examined in the present case. According to the learned Advocate of the appellant, such non-examination of those vital witnesses casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the said witnesses. But such submission does not appeal to us. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. Non-examination of some witnesses does not matter if the witnesses examined unfold the prosecution case fully but it is well settled that witnesses essential to the unfolding of narrative, on which the prosecution is based, must be examined. In our considered view, the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case are the most vital witnesses and the evidence of those witnesses is sufficient for unfolding the case of the prosecution. In our considered view, the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case are the most vital witnesses and the evidence of those witnesses is sufficient for unfolding the case of the prosecution. The learned Advocate next argued that the prosecution case was that death was caused by drowning but from the P.M. report it appears that death was caused by asphyia. We find from the evidence of PW9 the autopsy surgeon that he found as many as 18 injuries in the dead body of the victim Saraswati. Regarding the cause of death, PW9 stated in his evidence that death in his opinion was due to effects of asphyia as a result of strangulation by ligature which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. It appears from the evidence of PW9 that after catching hold of the neck of the victim, she was drowned in the water by the accused which caused strangulation by ligature and ultimately led to her death. In such a case, the body of the victim was not completely drowned in the water for a long time and so there was no possibility of entering water in the respiratory track and the stomach of the victim. The learned Advocate of the appellant lastly argued that the spade by which earth was dug for unearthing the deadbody of the victim was not seized by police and the person, from whose land the deadbody was recovered, was not examined by police. This, in our considered view, does not affect the core of the prosecution case and the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only because of non-examination of the said witness and non seizure of a spade as pointed out by the learned Advocate of the appellant. It is also well settled that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when other evidence is found credible and cogent, in the ease of a defective investigation, it would not be proper in acquitting an accused person solely on account of such defect. (8). The learned Advocate of the appellant relies upon a Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 40 (Sahoo v. State of U.P.). (8). The learned Advocate of the appellant relies upon a Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 40 (Sahoo v. State of U.P.). From a reading of the said Judgment, it appears that the Honble Apex Court observed that before an extra judicial confession is accepted in evidence, it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if that is established, justice demands that such evidence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction and it may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. It further appears that in the said case, the Honble Supreme Court, however, accepted the extra judicial confession as relevant evidence, as the same corroborated the other circumstantial evidence. Since we have already found that the extra judicial confession is well corroborated with other circumstantial evidence, in the present case, the Judgment referred to above is not applicable in the present case. (9). The next Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate of the appellant is reported in AIR 1975 SC 258 , State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Ors. From a reading of the said Judgment, it appears that in the said case, the deadbody of the victims could not be identified. Features also could not be identified. The doctor did not find any ligature mark and could otherwise also not find out the cause of death. On perusal of the said Judgment, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances in which the extra judicial confession was not accepted as credible, was quite different from the present case. In the present case, the deadbody was very much identified by the witnesses including the son of the victim namely PW1 and the doctor (PW9) gave his clear opinion that death was due to effects of asphyia as a result of strangulation by ligature, which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. (10). The learned Advocate also relies upon a Judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1705 , Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab. In the said case extra judicial confession was accepted as evidence as there was no other corroborative evidence to such extra judicial confession. (10). The learned Advocate also relies upon a Judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1705 , Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab. In the said case extra judicial confession was accepted as evidence as there was no other corroborative evidence to such extra judicial confession. It was also conceded by the learned Advocate of the state that extra judicial confession, which was a very weak piece of evidence, was hardly of any consequence. After going through the Judgments referred to above, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances in which those Judgments were delivered by the Honble Apex Court, are quite different from that of the present case. (11). An extra judicial confession by its very nature is a very weak piece of evidence and it requires appreciation with great care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. Court generally looks for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession before convicting an accused on such confessional statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such a case would always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of circumstances of each particular case. (12). In the present case as discussed above, we find that the victim was invited by the accused Bimal Naskar in his house on the occasion of Laxmi Puja. The victim visited the house of accused at about 11.00 P.M. and thereafter she did not return home and was found missing. On the next day in the morning, PW1 along with other witnesses had been to the house of accused Bimal but could not find him in his house and the house of accused Bimal was found under lock and key. On 2.11.88 having received the information that accused Bimal returned to the village, PW1 along with other witnesses had been to the house of accused and on interrogation, accused confessed his guilt stating that he along with two others committed murder of the victim and concealed her deadbody under the ground. Pursuant to such confessional statement, the deadbody was discovered at the instance of the accused Bimal and the same was identified by PW1 to be the dead body of his mother. Pursuant to such confessional statement, the deadbody was discovered at the instance of the accused Bimal and the same was identified by PW1 to be the dead body of his mother. On the advice of the villagers, the deadbody was left in the same position without digging any further. Thereafter on arrival of the police, the deadbody was recovered and after holding inquest, it was sent for P.M. examination. It is settled law that in a case of murder in which the evidence available is only circumstantial in nature, then the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is required to be drawn by the prosecution, must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. In the present case, we find that the extra judicial confession of the accused appellant is well corroborated with other circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is complete to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses as referred to above. We find that said witnesses were cross examined at length and nothing infirm was elicited to cast even a slightest doubt on their veracity. It should not be lost sight of that there was no reason as to why the said witnesses would falsely implicate the accused person. There was no suggestion even of motive for such false implication. On scrutiny of evidence, we find the same acceptable. The totality of evidence of the said witnesses coupled with the extra judicial confession as also the medical evidence makes it clear and sufficient to hold that the accused committed the offence in the manner and at the place as alleged by the prosecution. (13). After appreciating the evidence on record, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. The accused appellant, who is now in jail custody, will serve out the remaining period of his sentence. A copy of the Judgment along with the L.C.R, may be sent down to the Court below immediately. Appeal dismissed