JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.5.2004, recorded by the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 63(A)/2000 under Section 302 IPC, against the Appellant Md. Sahidul Islam and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.9.2000 the accused killed his wife Fulmala Begum by Strangulation at about 2 a.m. in the night and to cover up the murder set fire on the dead body after pouring Kerosene oil. A first information report, exhibit-1 was lodged by Md. Nowsad Ali, P.W. 1 in Jogighopa Police Station in the morning of the 19th June, 2000, stating inter-alia that around 4.30 a.m. on that day his sister Ashiwa Khatun, mother of the accused, when coming out to the courtyard in order to offer the 'Fazarar Namaaz' (morning prayer) saw smoke billowing out from her son's room and started raising commotion. The neighbouring people on hearing halla came to the place of occurrence and thereafter on entering in to the room they found Sahidul's wife Fulmala Begum burning inside the room. The people present there then doused the fire by pouring water on her body and they found that Fulmala Begum had already died. It has also been stated in the said first information report that Sahidul Islam, the accused made an extra judicial confession before the villagers stating that he had strangulated his wife. The police on receipt of the said information registered Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 29/2000 Under Section 302 IPC and took up the investigation. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the charge was framed against the accused Appellant by the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon on 18.1.2003 under Section302 IPC. When the charge was explained and read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused Appellant examined 10 witnesses including the informant, parents of the accused Appellant, the Investigating Officer, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the learned Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused Appellant. During trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused Appellant examined 10 witnesses including the informant, parents of the accused Appellant, the Investigating Officer, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the learned Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused Appellant. The confessional statement of the accused Appellant recorded by the learned Magistrate on 21.6.2000, was exhibited as exhibit-7. 3. The learned Session Judge after recording the evidences of the prosecution witnesses recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon perusal of the evidences on record, by the impugned judgment of conviction, convicted Appellant under Section302 IPC and passed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay the fine, as stated above, after hearing the accused on the point of sentence. Hence the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent and also perused the judgment of conviction and the evidences on record. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that though the prosecution case is that the accused made an extra judicial confession before the villagers including mother of the accused, the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not stated anything about making of any extra judicial confession by the accused and therefore, the conviction can not be based on extra judicial confession. It has further been submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witness do not support the prosecution story and therefore, accused is entitled to be set at liberty by setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded against him. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Sr. Counsel, has further submitted that there is no circumstantial evidence to link the accused Appellant to the offence alleged and the chain of circumstances being not complete no conviction can be recorded against the Appellant. Challenging the confessional statement exhibited as exhibit-7, the learned Sr. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Sr. Counsel, has further submitted that there is no circumstantial evidence to link the accused Appellant to the offence alleged and the chain of circumstances being not complete no conviction can be recorded against the Appellant. Challenging the confessional statement exhibited as exhibit-7, the learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that it is a settle position of law that the entire confessional statement has to be read into evidence as a whole and part of the said statement cannot be relied upon for recording the conviction leaving aside the other part. Referring to the exhibit-7, confessional statement it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that by reading the confessional statement as a whole, it is evident that the said statement cannot be termed as confessional statement as the accused has not admitted his guilt. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that accused is entitled to acquittal from the charge levelled against him. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Session Judge, on the other hand, has submitted that though the prosecution could not prove making any extra judicial confession by the accused Appellant before the villagers, admitting his guilt, because of the hostility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the judgment of conviction was rightly passed convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC as there was strong circumstantial evidence linking accused to the crime. It has further been submitted by the learned P.P. that the learned Session Judge ought not to have held that the confessional statement was not voluntary as sufficient was time not given for reflection, as on face of exhibit-7 as well as the deposition of the learned Magistrate; who recorded the confessional statement, that though the accused was initially produced from the police custody on 20.6.2000, the learned Magistrate sent him to judicial custody on that date and recorded the confessional statement only on the next date i.e. 21.6.2000, thereby giving sufficient time for reflection. The learned P.P. has submitted that the requirement of the provision of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure having been fully complied with by the learned Magistrate while recording the confessional statement of the accused and the learned Magistrate having put the questions prescribed by the High Court in recording the such confessional statement and having cautioned the accused, the conviction can be based on such confessional statement as the same is voluntary, reliable and truth. 7. P.W. 1, the Nowsad Ali, the informant, in his deposition has stated that on 19.6.2000 at about 6.30 a.m. when he heard his sister Asiya Khatoon shouting, he came out of the house and rushed to the place of occurrence where he found Fulmala Begum, wife of the accused lying with burn injuries. P.W. 2, Md. Rupchan Ali, a co-villager also in his deposition has stated that he saw the dead body in complete burnt condition and also saw that her nose was bleeding. The father as well as mother of the accused, who were examined as P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 have also stated that they saw their daughter-in-law Fulmala Begum in burning condition. P.W. 4, Saiful Islam, who is another co-villager also deposed before the court that he found Fulmala Begum lying in the bed in the house of the accused burning condition. P.Ws. 6 and 7, Joban Ali Ahmed and Md. Abu Taleb Ahmed also deposed that they found the deceased in the house of the accused in the room filled with smoke of Kerosene oil and half burnt condition. There is no cross examination of those witnesses by the defence on the point that those witnesses found the deceased Fulmala Begum, in the room where the accused lived and in burning condition. P.W. 6, the brother of the deceased has also stated that he noticed swelling on her neck. The said witnesses was not at all cross-examined by the defence on the said injury which he had noticed. 8. Dr. Buddeswar Majumdar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Fulmala Begum on 19.6.2000 has deposed before the court that he found the following injuries: III-THORAX 1. Walls ribs and cartilages: Chest wall is burnt ribs,Cartilages Normal. 2. Pleurae: Normal 3. Laryax and trach ere: There is extensive bruising is epiglottis, floor of the mouth base of tongue. Walls ribs and cartilages: Chest wall is burnt ribs,Cartilages Normal. 2. Pleurae: Normal 3. Laryax and trach ere: There is extensive bruising is epiglottis, floor of the mouth base of tongue. The laryax is sqeezed, there is fracture of greather cornu of thyroid bone on both sides. There is fracture of the thyroid cartilage. There are focal haemorhages at the fracture side indicates that these are sustained during life. Right Lung Lungs congested. Left Lung: Lungs congested Pericar (dium): Blood stained fine froth is seen in the bran chin. Heart: Normal Vessels: The sheath and intima of carotid are lacerated with effusion of blood in the walls. IV-THORAX 1. Walls: Burnt 2. Peritonoum: Normal 3. Mouth, Pharynx, Oesophagus: Mouth pharyna congested swllent oesophagus normal. 4. Stomach and its contents: Normal, contains partially digested food particles. 5. Small intestine and its contents: 6. large intestine and its contents: Normal, contain food. 7. Liver: Normal 8. Spleen: Normal 9. Kidneys: Normal 10. Bladder: Normal 11. Organs of generation, external and internal: External organs burnt outside. Internal organs normal. The doctor has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual compression of the neck, which is homicidal in nature and the body was burnt after death. The defence though cross-examined the said witness could not bring out anything to show that the death was not caused because of asphyxia due to manual compression of the neck. The defence in fact has not cross-examined the doctor on the injuries found on the body of the deceased. 9. From the above narration of the evidences on record including medical evidence, it is therefore, evident that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The learned trial court therefore, has rightly recorded the finding that it was a case of homicidal death. 10. Though, the prosecution case was that the accused Appellant made extra judicial confession before the villagers including the mother of the accused, P.W. 5, no witness has deposed before the court about making any extra judicial confession by the accused. The mother of the accused P.W. 5, who was not declared hostile by the prosecution, also did not state anything about making any such extra judicial confession by the accused; therefore, the prosecution could not prove that extra judicial confession was made by the accused admitting his guilt before the villagers. 11. The mother of the accused P.W. 5, who was not declared hostile by the prosecution, also did not state anything about making any such extra judicial confession by the accused; therefore, the prosecution could not prove that extra judicial confession was made by the accused admitting his guilt before the villagers. 11. A confessional statement, exhibit-7, was recorded by the learned Magistrate, who was examined as P.W. 10, on 21.6.2000. The said statement of the accused is reproduced below: Around 8 p.m. of 18.6.2000 my wife Fulmala and I had a quarrel qver some family matters. Then I had my meal and watched the T.V. for sometime. Then we retired to bed. There was another bout of quarrel between the two of us. We were having a rift from before. Around 10 p.m. I held my wife Fulmala by her throat out of anger. Then I went out of my house. I came back home the next morning. Later I came to known that my wife had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. 12. The act of recording confession under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate is a very solemn act and the Magistrate in discharging his duties under the said provision of law must take care to see that the requirements of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure are fully satisfied and he puts the questions prescribed by the High Court, giving him caution as required under the law and also the time for reflection. The learned Magistrate before recording such statement must satisfy itself that the person is not making any confessional statement under threat or inducement and/or because of the fear of the police. The safeguards in Sub-section (2) to (4) of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure are salutary to ensure that the confession is voluntarily made by the accused after being apprised of the implication of making such confession. After this requirement for acting on a confession is satisfied, the court is required to consider the evidence against the accused and to see whether there is any circumstances appearing from the record which may cast a doubt on the voluntary nature of the confession. If the court finds that the statement was made voluntarily and is satisfied about its truthfulness, the conviction can be based on such confessional statement even without there being any corroborative evidence available on record. If the court finds that the statement was made voluntarily and is satisfied about its truthfulness, the conviction can be based on such confessional statement even without there being any corroborative evidence available on record. If the confession has been made voluntarily, free from threat and inducement, it can be regarded as presumptive evidence of its truth. Still there may be circumstances to indicate that the confession cannot be true wholly or partly, in which case it loses much of it evidentiary value. In order to be assured of the truth of confession, as a rule of prudence, the court should look to corroboration from other evidence, which need not be of each and every material particulars, but broadly there should be corroboration so that confession taken as a whole fits into the facts proved by other evidence. In substance court should be assured from all angles that retracted confession was infact voluntary and it must have been true. Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam reported in (2004) 7 SCC 779 . 13. It is a settled position of law that the confessional statement has to be read into evidence as a whole. The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by a judicial Magistrate under Section164 Code of Criminal Procedure from an accused is confessional or non confessional is not by dissecting the statement into different sentences and then to pick out some as not inculpative. The statement must be read as a whole and then only the court should decide whether it contains admissions of his incriminatory involvement in the office. If the result of that test is positive them the statement is confessional statement, otherwise not. Lokeman Shah and Anr. v. State of W.B. reported in (2001) 5 SCC 235 . 14. In the instant case, it appears from the evidences of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that the deceased Fulmala Begum was found in the room of the accused in a burning condition. These witnesses have also stated that the room was full of smoke of kerosene oil. The father of the accused, Md. Hakmat Ali, P.W. 3 in his evidence has made a categorical statement that on the night of occurrence accused was sleeping with Fulmala Begum in their house. These witnesses have also stated that the room was full of smoke of kerosene oil. The father of the accused, Md. Hakmat Ali, P.W. 3 in his evidence has made a categorical statement that on the night of occurrence accused was sleeping with Fulmala Begum in their house. The mother of the accused, P.W. 5, also in her evidence stated that she found the accused room open and accused was missing from the bed. Though the defence by examining the defence witness namely Salamuddin as D.W. 1 sought to take the defence that on the date of occurrence he was not in the house but was with the D.W. 1, the said version cannot be accepted as the father of the accused has specifically stated in answering the question put by the court, that on the date of occurrence accused was sleeping with Fulmala Begum in their house. P.W.6 in his evidence has also stated that he noticed the swelling in the neck of the deceased. The defence though cross-examined this witness did not put any question to the said witness about the swelling he noticed on the neck of the deceased, therefore, the said version remains uncontroverted. The medical evidence is also clear and specific. The doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, has opined that the death was due to asphyxia because of the manual compression of the neck and the burnt injuries were caused after the death. 15. The confession statement, exhibit-7, was recorded by the learned Magistrate, who was examined as P.W. 10. It appears from the exhibit-7 as well as deposition of the P.W. 10 that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate from police custody on 20.6.2000 for recording the confession statement. The learned Magistrate on that day sent the accused to the judicial custody with a view to give him time for reflection as he was produced from police custody. The accused was then produced before the learned Magistrate from judicial custody on 21.6.2000. He was thereafter kept in the chamber of the learned Magistrate in-charge of the peon for one hour. The accused was then produced before the learned Magistrate from judicial custody on 21.6.2000. He was thereafter kept in the chamber of the learned Magistrate in-charge of the peon for one hour. It is also evident from the said confessional statement recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accused was given all the necessary warning and all the necessary questions prescribed by the High Court was put to him and he was also warned that in case he made any statement confessing his guilt, the same may be used as evidence against him. The defence during cross-examination of P.W. 10, the learned Magistrate, could not bring out anything even to suggest that all the precautions enjoyed by law before recording the confession were not adopted by the learned Magistrate and other formalities prescribed under the law had been infringed. 16. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the accused by following all the requirements of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, by putting all the questions prescribed by the High Court and by giving necessary warning and caution including time for reflection. The finding recorded by the learned Session Judge that the confessional statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction as the same was recorded without giving time for reflection cannot be accepted. 17. A confessional statement if recorded properly and if it is voluntary, true and reliable, conviction can be based on such confessional statement even if the same is retracted by the accused in course of examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely because a confession is retracted by the maker of it, it does not become unreliable. The Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutti Allies Lakshmi Narasimhan reported in 2001 (6) SCC 550 has held that it is not the law that once a confession is retracted the court should presumed that the confession is tainted. To retract from a confession is the right of the person making it and all the accused person against whom confession were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It has further been held that it would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. To retract from a confession is the right of the person making it and all the accused person against whom confession were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It has further been held that it would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning confession by looking at all aspects and to ascertain whether it was voluntary and true. The court is also required to see whether there is any other reason, which stands in the way of acting on it. Even for that, retraction of confession, as held by the Apex Court, is not a ground to throw the confession over board. 18. As discussed above, the death was due to asphyxia because of manual compression of the neck. The accused in his confessional statement has made the categorical statement that he pressed the neck of the deceased out of anger at about 10 p.m. and left the house. No doubt the accused has also made a statement that in the next morning when he came back home, he came to know that his wife committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. In view of doctors evidence that the death was due to asphyxia because of manual compression of the neck, it cannot be said that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was exculpatory in nature as the accused has specifically admitted pressing of neck of his wife due to anger. The statement that he on the next day came to know about committing suicide by her wife by setting herself ablaze, cannot be termed as exculpatory statement absolving himself, as the death was not found to be caused due to the burn injuries but because of the asphyxia due to manual compression of the neck. By taking into account entire confessional statement as a whole, it is therefore, evident that the accused has made the statement containing admission of his incriminating involvement in the offence and therefore, the said statement is a confessional statement and hence can be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused even without any corroboration. But in the instant case, as discussed above, the medical evidence corroborated the version of the accused recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. But in the instant case, as discussed above, the medical evidence corroborated the version of the accused recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover the father and mother of the accused have also stated in their deposition that the accused on the date of occurrence was with the deceased but was found missing. The accused has retracted from the confession after about four years of making it. From the discussion of the aforesaid evidence on record there is no doubt about voluntariness of the statement and also its reliability and truthfulness as well as the same being free from any threat and inducement. There is also no circumstances to indicate that confession is not true. We have already recorded the finding about the voluntary nature of such statement of the accused and also found that the statement is reliable and true. Hence the accused can be convicted by relying on the confessional statement, which has duly been corroborated by the medical as well as other evidence. The learned Session Judge, therefore, has committed illegality in rejecting the confessional statement. The accused, therefore, can be convicted on the basis of the said confessional Statement. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no doubt in our mind that the accused is guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife Fulmala and therefore we maintain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for another six months. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed