SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 4th Court, midnapore, in Sessions Trial Case No. XLVII of September, 2001, arising out of G. R. Case No. 141 of 2000, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 201 of IPC with a further direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE fact of this case to be stated in brief is that on 17th May, 2000, in the early morning the de facto complainant Rabindranath Ghosh (Prodhan) Gochati gram Panchayat came to know from the local people that a deadbody was lying smeared with blood at Nayanjuli in a public place on the southern side of the metalled road at village Tajpur. It was learnt from the local source that the deceased Najrul Mollah, aged about 45/46 was a resident of 24-Parganas (South)and he used to live in the house of Aloke Maji as tenant at village Tejpur, P. S. Daspur as a mason. According to him on 16/17. 05. 2000 he was killed by unknown assailant. There was bitter squabble between uncle and nephew and as a result, out of grudge he was killed. On the basis of FIR (Exhibit 1) lodged by P. W. 1, rabindranath Ghosh at Daspur Police Station, the O. C. Daspur P. S. , Swapan roy, P. W. 14 filled. in the formal FIR (Exhibit 10) and endorsed the case to p. W. 15, Debkusum Das for causing investigation of the case. On the basis of fir, Daspur P. S. registered case number 43 of 2000 dated 17. 05. 2000 under section 302 of IPC. The S. I. , Debkusum Das, P. W. 15 as I. O. took up the investigation of the case and he visited the place of occurrence and prepared sketch map with index vide (Exhibit 11 ). He also prepared inquest report in respect of the deadbody of victim after visiting the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses, P. W. 1, Rabindranath Ghosh, P. W. 2 Nitai Chandra Saw, P. W. 3 ausotosh Susmal, P. W. 4 Kanan Kumar Bijoli vide (Exhibit 2) series. The I. O. also seized at P. O. on 17. 05. He also prepared inquest report in respect of the deadbody of victim after visiting the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses, P. W. 1, Rabindranath Ghosh, P. W. 2 Nitai Chandra Saw, P. W. 3 ausotosh Susmal, P. W. 4 Kanan Kumar Bijoli vide (Exhibit 2) series. The I. O. also seized at P. O. on 17. 05. 2000 two pieces of half broken brick with bloodstained wooden butt and 'bonti' in two pieces, blood-stained mud and controlled earth, one lungi, one gamcha in presence of witnesses, P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 under a seizure list vide (Exhibit 3) series, collectively marked as 'material' (Exhibit1 ). The statements of witnesses P. W. 8 Md. Anarul Mollah, P. W. 12, Amiruddin sekh, P. W. 13, Mahidul Mollah were recorded by him under section 161 of Cr. PC and in addition to this, the I. 0. recorded the statements of above witnesses under section 164 of Cr. PC through P. W. 10, Chandrakala Dhirajlal Bhora, magistrate, 1st Class vide (Exhibits 4, 7 and 8) respectively. In addition to this, the I. O. after arresting the accused produced him before the Magistrate, P. W. 10, who after giving the accused due caution recorded his confessional statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide (Exhibit 6 ). The I. O. in course of investigation sent the deadbody of the victim, Najrul Mollah, to Dr. Binoy Kumar Dutta, P. W. 9, M. O. Ghatal, S. D. hospital through constable No. 1066, Mongal Kisku, P. W. 11, who identified the deadbody of the victim before the doctor and the doctor accordingly held P. M. examination of the victim and prove the P. M. report vide (Exhibit 5 ). After P. M. examination of the victim, p. W. 11 produced the lungi owned by the victim and he seized the same at P. S. on 18. 05. 2000 under seizure list vide (Exhibit 9) series. The photograph of the victim was taken by P. W. 16, Ashis Baran Maiti and the photographs, negatives and envelope have been exhibited as (Exhibits 12 and 14 ). However, the I. O. after completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused, siraj Mondal, under section 302 of IPC. The I. O. prior to arrest of the accused sent a requisition to the O. C. Diamond Harbour P. S. vide (Exhibit 13 ). However, the I. O. after completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused, siraj Mondal, under section 302 of IPC. The I. O. prior to arrest of the accused sent a requisition to the O. C. Diamond Harbour P. S. vide (Exhibit 13 ). ( 3 ) THE accused has been charged under section 302/201 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused/appellant as appearing from the trend of the cross-examination, his examination under section 313 of Cr. PC and the confessional statement under section 164 of Cr. PC made by him is that he is innocent and at the material point of time the victim provoked him and assaulted him and in order to save himself he assaulted the victim with carnice, used by the mason and brick and as a result Najrul Mollah, the victim expired. ( 4 ) IN the Court below, the accused did not examine any witness from his side; on the other hand, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the statement of eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. 8, Anarul Mollah, P. W. 12 Amiruddin sekh, P. W. 13 Mahidul Mollah, the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and also P. M. report came to a conclusion that the confessional statement made by the accused vide (Exhibit 6) series has been fully corroborated by the eyewitnesses and the other materials on record. The story of right of private defence as set up by the accused appellant was disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge and the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302/201 of IPC as indicated above. ( 5 ) POINT for consideration : can we sustain the order of conviction of sentence passed by the learned trial Court? ( 6 ) IN this case, the victim Najrul Mollah died unnatural death and it is alleged by the prosecution that he was killed by the appellant/accused Siraj mondal. The lodging of FIR by P. W. 1 prompted P. W. 14 to register Daspur police Case No. 43 of dated 17. 05. ( 6 ) IN this case, the victim Najrul Mollah died unnatural death and it is alleged by the prosecution that he was killed by the appellant/accused Siraj mondal. The lodging of FIR by P. W. 1 prompted P. W. 14 to register Daspur police Case No. 43 of dated 17. 05. 2000 under section 302 of IPC and simultaneously U. D. case was started and the I. O. P. W. 15 Debkusum Das held inquest in respect of the deadbody of the victim which was found lying smeared with blood in a ditch southern side of Gopiganj-Sultan Nagar Road at village Tajpur under Daspur P. S. at a distance of 15 yards from the house of aloke Maji and 50 yards from the Primary School. This inquest report was prepared in the presence of witnesses vide (Exhibit 2) series and the I. 0. sent the deadbody of the victim Najrul Mollah, Muslim male of 24 years, through constable No. 1066, P. W. 11, Mangal Kisku to Ghatal S. D. Hospital for postmortem examination and the deadbody of the victim. Najrul Mollah, Muslim male being identified by the constable, P. W. 11, Dr. Binoy Kumar Dutta, P. W. 9 held P. M. examination. On examination of the deadbody of the victim Najrul mollah, Muslim male, he found the following injuries :1. One deep cut throat wound on left side at the junction of neck and shoulder - 5 inch x 3 inch x 3 inch. 2. One deep cut throat wound on right side on the base of the neck - 4 inch x 2 inch x 2 inch. 3. One lacerated wound over the scalp over occipital area along with fracture of occipital bone. ( 7 ) THE doctor has opined that the above injuries were ante-mortem and the death is due to shock and heamorrhage and homicidal in nature. The doctor further opined that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 might be caused by bonti (Exhibit I)and injury No. 3 might be caused by brick (Exhibit 1 ). ( 8 ) IT transpired from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, p. W. 5, Gita Rani Bera, P. W. 8, Md. Amirul Mollah, P. W. 12 Sk. Amiruddin and P. W. 13 Mahidul Mollah that the victim and the accused resided in the same premises of Aloke Maji at village Tajpur, P. S. Daspur. ( 8 ) IT transpired from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, p. W. 5, Gita Rani Bera, P. W. 8, Md. Amirul Mollah, P. W. 12 Sk. Amiruddin and P. W. 13 Mahidul Mollah that the victim and the accused resided in the same premises of Aloke Maji at village Tajpur, P. S. Daspur. It further transpires from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, P. W. 8, P. W. 12 and P. W. 13 that on 16. 05. 2000 at about 9 p. m. there was a quarrel between the victim and the accused over the payment of money and in the process the accused at first hit the victim with the bonti inside the room on his neck and thereafter further assaulted the victim outside the room with brick which caused serious injuries to the victim and which ultimately took away his life. The oral testimony of P. W. 9, Dr. Binoy Kumar Dutta, who held P. M. examination of the victim, confirms the evidence of P. Ws. 8, 12 and 13. Therefore, the oral testimonies of p. Ws. 8, 12 and 13 to the effect that it was the accused who killed the victim najrul Mollah cannot be doubted. ( 9 ) MR. R. B. Mahato, appearing on behalf of the appellant as State defence advocate, drawing our attention to the deposition of P. W. 6 and P. M. report, (Exhibit 5) submits that P. W. 6, Kanan Kr. Bijoly (declared hostile by the prosecution) did not find any injury on the deadbody of the victim and that apart, Dr. Binoy Kumar Dutta, who held P. M. examination on the body of a hindu male. was not the victim and, therefore. the identity of the deadbody of the victim becomes doubtful and as such the conviction of the accused is not warranted. On the other hand, the learned prosecutor Mr. Tapan Kumar duttagupta, drawing our attention to the deposition of other prosecution witnesses as also inquest report, (Exhibit 2) series, Exhibit 5, the confessional statement of the accused vide Exhibit 6, and the deposition of P. W. 9 submits that the inquest report in respect of the victim Najrul Mollah was held by I. 0. Tapan Kumar duttagupta, drawing our attention to the deposition of other prosecution witnesses as also inquest report, (Exhibit 2) series, Exhibit 5, the confessional statement of the accused vide Exhibit 6, and the deposition of P. W. 9 submits that the inquest report in respect of the victim Najrul Mollah was held by I. 0. P. W. 15, who sent the deadbody of the victim (Mushim male) to Ghatal S. D. Hospital through P. W. 11, constable No. 1066 for P. M. examination and this constable identified the deadbody of the victim before Dr. Binoy Kumar Dutta, p. W. 9, who thereafter held the P. M. examination of the victim. It is found in the P. M. report that the victim was described as H/m 24 years instead of Muslim male and P. W. 9 in his evidence has explained that instead of writing Muslim male by mistake he wrote H/m. So there is no doubt that the doctor examined the victim Najrul Mollah who was a Muslim male of 24 years old and this has been admitted by the accused in his confessional statement vide Exhibit 6. Mr. Duttagupta, therefore, submits that in the circumstances the deadbody of the victim was fully identified and the conviction of the accused is justified. ( 10 ) WE have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record and we are convinced that the victim Najrul Mollah was sufficiently identified and P. M. was held in respect of his deadbody a Muslim male who was killed by the accused as witnessed by P. Ws. 8, 12 and 13. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the accused (appellant ). ( 11 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellant, Mr. Mahato drawing our attention to the confessional statement of the accused/appellant vide Exhibit 6, submits that prior to the incident of assault the victim gave provocation and he assaulted the accused and in the process the accused in order to save himself assaulted the victim firstly with a carnice used by the mason, and thereafter with brick. The accused admittedly fled away from the place and subsequently he was arrested on 5. 07. 2001. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. The accused admittedly fled away from the place and subsequently he was arrested on 5. 07. 2001. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. Mahato that the accused/ appellant killed the victim Najrul Mollah in exercise of his "right of private defence" and, therefore, the conviction under section 302 of IPC is not justified. ( 12 ) THE learned prosecutor, Mr. Duttagupta, however, drawing our attention to the deposition of eye-witnesses as also the P. M. report and the materials used for killing the victim vide (Exhibit 1) submits that the defence taken with regard to 'right of private defence' by the accused should not be accepted by this Court as there is no evidence to support his version. Mr. Duttagupta, therefore, submits that in the circumstances the conviction under section 302/ 201 of IPC should be sustained by this Court. It is apparently clear that the victim died unnatural death and the eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 8. 12 and 13 saw him killing the victim with bonti and thereafter by brick. The eye-witnesses referred to above never stated in their evidence that the victim provoked the accused and he assaulted the accused which compelled the accused/appellant to kill the victim Najrul Mollah. Admittedly, the accused did not examine any witness from his side to support his defence with regard to the right of private defence. On the contrary the eye-witnesses who saw the incident of assault upon the victim by the accused did not support the defence story with regard to the right of private defence. In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution it can be safely concluded that the admission made by the accused for killing the victim in his confessional statement made under section 164 of Cr. PC finds total and satisfactory corroboration with regard to killing of the victim by the accused with the help of bonti and brick. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, in our view, cannot be accepted. ( 13 ) LEARNED advocate, Mr. Mahato further drawing our attention to the statement made by the accused during his examination under section 313 of cr. PC submits that in answer to question No. 12 the accused had stated that he was assaulted badly at the police station and he was threatened that he would be subjected to further assault if he did not confess. Mahato further drawing our attention to the statement made by the accused during his examination under section 313 of cr. PC submits that in answer to question No. 12 the accused had stated that he was assaulted badly at the police station and he was threatened that he would be subjected to further assault if he did not confess. According to Mr. Mahato, the confessional statement made by the accused under section 164 of cr. PC (Exhibit 6), is not voluntary statement, so it should be ignored by this court. On the contrary, learned prosecutor, Mr. Duttagupta, appearing for the state drawing our attention to the statement made by the accused under section 313 of Cr. PC submits that question No. 12 and question No. 19 and answers given by the accused in this connection if read together it would show that the accused was not subjected to any torture while making the statement and he voluntarily made the confessional statement. In this connection, learned prosecutor drawn our attention to the deposition of P. W. 10, Ms. Chandrakala dhirajlal Bhora, the then SDJM, Ghatal, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused and other witnesses. It is also pointed out by him that the testimonies of P. W. 10 and other prosecution witnesses would reveal that the accused was arrested on 5. 07. 2001 and he was produced before the magistrate on 6. 07. 2001 with a prayer for recording his confessional statement under section 164 of Cr. PC, but the learned Magistrate on 06. 07. 2001 gave him statutory caution and sent the accused jail 'to be kept in segregation' for reflection till 07. 07. 2001 and on 07. 07. 2001 when the accused was again produced he was given due caution and as the accused wanted to make confessional statement voluntarily, the learned Magistrate recorded his statement and appended a certificate to that effect. There is nothing to show that the accused was tortured or threatened before making such confessional statement under section 164 of Cr. PC and, therefore, it should be deemed that the accused made the confessional statement voluntarily. As such the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant should not be accepted by this Court. ( 14 ) WE have gone through the deposition of witnesses referred to above as well as the. PC and, therefore, it should be deemed that the accused made the confessional statement voluntarily. As such the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant should not be accepted by this Court. ( 14 ) WE have gone through the deposition of witnesses referred to above as well as the. record of the case and, we are of the view, that prior to recording confessional statement of the accused under section 164 of the Cr. PC due caution was given to him and he was given time for reflection. Therefore, if question nos. 12 and 19, and answers given thereof are read together in the context of evidence lead by the prosecution there cannot be any doubt that the accused made the confessional statement under section 164 of Cr. PC before the magistrate voluntarily. So, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant. As regards the conviction under section 201 of IPC and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court we find no reason to interfere because the incident of assault by bonti upon the victim by the accused occurred in a room let out to the accused by Aloke Maji and the second incident of assault by brick by the accused upon the victim occurred outside the room and the deadbody was found 15 yards away of the said house in a ditch which was 50 yards away from the school. It is admittedly clear that the accused fled away from the place of occurrence after the incident and he was arrested from Tangara, kolkata by the police on 05. 07. 2001, so there cannot be any doubt that the accused prior to leaving the P. O. shifted the deadbody of the victim and dumped it in a ditch indicated above. The conduct of the accused confirms that he tried to cause disappearance of evidence. In the circumstances, we find that conviction under section 302/201 of Cr. PC is justified. ( 15 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record we find that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court under section 302 read with section 201 of IPC are justified and the same does not call for interference by this Court. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Amit Talukdar, J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.