Judgment :- T. Sudanthiram, J. 1.The appellant stands convicted for the offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC; and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 201 IPC and the sentences are to run concurrently. Against the said conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.07.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., in order to take revenge against his first wife for the instance that took place twenty days prior to the occurrence, the accused-father of the deceased, took his 7 years old daughter to his house by giving her the sweet and throttled her neck with his right hand; at the same time closed the nose and the mouth with his left hand and thereby caused her death. In order to escape from the crime, the accused kept the dead body of the deceased inside the bureau and at 00.00 hours, he took the dead body of the deceased and buried her in a bush near Ponnusamykulam. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 25 exhibits and produced 11 material objects. 4. The evidence let in by the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Kullalakundu village. He had deposed that he knows the accused. On 12.08.2003 at 9.30 p.m., while he was in duty along with his assistant, the accused was brought by one Sathyamoorthy. The accused confessed that it was he who killed her daughter Shanmugapriya and also gave a statement which was written by P.W.1. The accused, the said Sathyamoorthy and the assistant of P.W.1 signed in the statement, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Then, P.W.1 took the accused to the respondent police along with Ex.P.1. The Inspector of Police arrested the accused. The accused also gave a confessional statement before the Inspector of Police, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.P.2. The accused, the said Sathyamoorthy and the assistant of P.W.1 signed in the statement, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Then, P.W.1 took the accused to the respondent police along with Ex.P.1. The Inspector of Police arrested the accused. The accused also gave a confessional statement before the Inspector of Police, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.P.2. P.W.1, his assistant and others were the witnesses for the preparation of the Observation Mahazars and recovery of the material objects pursuant to the confessional statement given by the accused and they had also put their signatures in the athakshis. (b) P.W.2 is the resident of Kattakoothanpatti. She had deposed that her native place is Shozhavandan and the accused is her husband. P.W.2 was given in marriage to the accused nine years prior to the occurrence and the deceased Shanmugapriya was born out of their wedlock. She had stated that both were living happily for two years. After giving birth to the female child, she had been tortured by her husband and was sent out of the house. She started residing in her parental home. The accused married one Pandiselvi and when P.W.2 came to know about that, she went and enquired the accused. A panchayat was also convened in which it was agreed by the accused that he will vacate the Colony house and that he will deposit Rs.20,000/-in the Bank in the name of their child, Shanmugapriya. Later, P.W.2 started residing in the Colony house along with her deceased child. P.W.2 also stated that there was a dispute between the accused and his second wife due to which the said Pandiselvi went to her parental home. Ten days after the said Pandiselvi leaving the home, the accused came to the house of P.W.2 and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. But, P.W.2 scolded the accused and asked him to go out of the house. The accused, being raged, threatened P.W.2 and went away. Ten days after the occurrence, i.e., 26.07.2003, P.W.2 went for the job leaving the deceased child at home as it was a holiday for her. When P.W.2 returned home at 5.00 p.m., she found the child missing. She searched for the child in the nearby places. The accused also joined her in searching the child. After that, they went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. When P.W.2 returned home at 5.00 p.m., she found the child missing. She searched for the child in the nearby places. The accused also joined her in searching the child. After that, they went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. After some time, P.W.2 enquired Sathya, P.W.4, who was running a petty shop in that village, about her missing daughter. P.W.4 informed P.W.2 that the accused after purchasing and giving the sweet to the deceased from her shop, took the child along with him. When P.W.2 enquired about the same to the accused, he denied about the allegation. Therefore, P.W.2 went to her father’s place along with the accused and one Sathyamoorthy. When the accused was enquired in the presence of one Ramaiah, a panchayatdar, the accused had admitted his crime and stated that in order to take revenge against P.W.2, he took the child and killed her by throttling her neck. He also admitted that he kept the dead body inside the bureau and at late night, he buried the dead body near the Ponnusamy kanmai. The said Ramaiah, told them to appear before the Village Administrative Officer and the respondent Police Station. On 12.08.2003, P.W.2 went to the burial ground where the skull and the apparels of the deceased was shown to her. She identified that it was her daughter Shanmugapriya. She also gave M.O.6-photograph showing the deceased child. (c) P.W.3, is also the resident of Kattakoothanpatti. He had deposed that he knows the accused. He had further stated that he is working in a Soap company and that his wife is Sathya, P.W.4. He stated that his wife is a vegetable vendor in that village. He also deposed that he did know how the accused and P.W.2 were leading their life. He also stated that he knows that the accused and P.W.2 had a female child; but he did not know her name. The accused was staying along with his mother at a distance 300 feet away from P.W.3’s house. P.W.3 had been treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. (d) P.W.4, the resident of the same village, had deposed that P.W.3 is her husband and that he is working in a Soap company. She had stated that she knows the accused and she is a fruit vendor. P.W.3 had been treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. (d) P.W.4, the resident of the same village, had deposed that P.W.3 is her husband and that he is working in a Soap company. She had stated that she knows the accused and she is a fruit vendor. She had also stated that she knows that P.W.2 had a female child; but did not know where P.W.2 was residing. She had also deposed that the accused was living with his mother and that she did not know anything about the case. She was also treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. (e) P.W.5, the resident of Murugathooranpatti, had deposed that he is an agriculturist and was having land in Kattakoothanpatti, where he was harvesting flowers. He had stated that he knows the accused and had seen him in the village. He had further stated that P.W.2 and the accused was in search of their missing daughter. He had also stated that he did know anything about the case. P.W.5 was also treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution. P.W.6 is also the resident of Kattakoothanpatti. He is the panchayatdar in that village. He had deposed that he knows the accused and P.W.2; but did not know about the case. He was also treated hostile by the prosecution. (f) P.W.7, is working as a teacher in Kattakoothanpatti Panchayat Union Primary School. She had deposed that she is teaching for the standards I to III and the deceased was studying I standard. She had stated that the deceased Shanmugapriya attended the school on 25.07.2003 and did not attend the school from 28.07.2003 onwards since 26.07.2003 and 27.07.2003 happened to be Saturday and Sunday. (g) P.W.10 is the resident of Shozhavandan and is an agriculturist. He is one of the village Home guard (Oorkkavalar). He had deposed that he knows the accused, P.W.2 and the parents of P.W.2. He had stated that 15 days after the death of the child, P.W.2, the accused, the father of P.W.2 and one Sathyamoorthy-brother-in-law of the accused approached P.W.10 and asked him to enquire the accused about the missing child. When P.W.10 enquired, the accused kept silent. Later P.W.10 took the accused to a temple and asked the accused to say the truth after putting Rs. 1.25ps in hundial. The accused admitted about murdering the deceased and burying the body. When P.W.10 enquired, the accused kept silent. Later P.W.10 took the accused to a temple and asked the accused to say the truth after putting Rs. 1.25ps in hundial. The accused admitted about murdering the deceased and burying the body. (h) P.W.15, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station during the relevant period, received a complaint on 29.07.2003 at 12.00 noon from P.W.2 about her missing child. The complaint was treated as a petition and since no one was shown as the opposite party and since none represented either side subsequently and also a murder case was registered, the petition was closed. (i) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station during the relevant period was in duty. On 12.08.2003 at 11.30 p.m., P.W.1 along with the accused and his assistant appeared before him with Ex.P.1, based on which a case came to be registered in Crime No.399 of 2003 under section 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the printed First Information Report. He sent the First Information Report to the Nilakottai Magistrate through P.W.13 and also forwarded the copies to the Tahsildar and the higher officials. He also sent a requisition to the P.W.11, the Revenue Divisional Officer for conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He also sent wireless message to the Forensic Lab technicians and to the photographer and asked them to be at the scene of occurrence [burial ground]. The Investigating Officer went to the house of the accused and prepared Ex.P.3-the Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.1 and others. Then, the Investigating Officer along with the accused and others went to the Ponnusamykulam where the dead body was buried, which is situate half a kilometre from the house of the accused. The Investigating Officer prepared Ex.P.4-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.18-the rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. The accused also produced the Crowbar, M.O.9, which was used to dig the ground from the nearby bush under the cover of Athakshi-Ex.P.5. (j) P.W.11, was the Revenue Divisional Officer during the relevant period. On 13.08.2003 at 2.30 a.m., he received the post from the respondent Police Station through a constable. On a perusal of the same, he came to know about the occurrence and he was asked to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased. (j) P.W.11, was the Revenue Divisional Officer during the relevant period. On 13.08.2003 at 2.30 a.m., he received the post from the respondent Police Station through a constable. On a perusal of the same, he came to know about the occurrence and he was asked to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 went to the place where the dead body was buried along with P.W.1 and his assistant. At that time, the Inspector of Police and the other officials were enquiring the accused. P.W.11 also enquired the accused. The accused had pointed out the place where the body of the deceased was buried. Later, P.W.11 sent a requisition under Ex.P.8 to conduct postmortem on the dead body of the deceased to the medical team, Madurai. On the next day, i.e., 14.8.2003, at about 10.00 a.m., when the medical team for the said hospital reached the burial ground, P.W.11 showing the place where the dead body was buried, arranged to dig up that place. When the ground was dug up, a gunny bag was found tied. When unfolded, a decomposed dead body of a child was found. When P.W.11 enquired about the child to its relatives, P.W.2 and her parents identified that it was the daughter of P.W.2. Then P.W.11 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.15-the Inquest Report. He also sent requisition for preserving the skull and the internal organs for chemical analysis. (k) P.W.8, is presently working as a Professor in Theni Government Medical College. On 13.08.2003 at 2.00 p.m., he received an intimation from P.W.11 to conduct inquest. Upon intimation, he went to the place of burial on 14.08.2003 where P.W.11, Inspector of Police, P.W.1 and others were present already. He conducted autopsy on the dead body and gave Ex.P.10-the Postmortem Certificate wherein he has found the following: “It was partly skelitinized and partly decomposed body of a female aged about 7 years. The length of the body is 89 cms, and the breadth is 18 cms. Head found to be skelitinized and the postmortem disarticulation of the skull found at the level of axis of atlas, the remaining body found to be decomposed. The length of the body is 89 cms, and the breadth is 18 cms. Head found to be skelitinized and the postmortem disarticulation of the skull found at the level of axis of atlas, the remaining body found to be decomposed. Internal findings: Peritoneal cavity-contains 25 ml of decomposed fluid; Pleural cavities-contains 20 ml of decomposed fluid on each side; pericardium-contains 15 ml of decomposed fluid; Hyoid bone-missing, Heart,Lungs,liver, spleen, kidneys-decomposed. Anatomical configuration and structural configuration altered, stomach-contains 100 grams of partly digested cooked food materials, with smell of decomposition, mucosa decomposed; small intestine-contains 20 ml of decomplosed fluid with smell of decomposition; bladder-empty, uterus-normal cut section-empty.” The skull and mandible were preserved and sent for superimposition test. After the receipt of Viscera report-Ex.P.11, the doctor gave his final opinion in Ex.P.12 stating that no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death due to decomposition and skelitinisation of the body. P.W.8 was of the opinion that the death might have occurred two to three weeks prior to autopsy. (l) After the postmortem, the Investigating Officer recovered M.O.1-the earth from the buried ground, M.O.2-the sample earth, M.O.3 series-two gunny bags, M.O.4-shirt and M.O.5-Trouser of the deceased under the cover of the Athakshi, Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.W.1 and others and also obtained their signatures. He sent all the material objects recovered from the burial ground for chemical analysis along with a requisition under Ex.P.19, which resulted in Ex.P.25-the Chemical Analyst report. He also enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. (m) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took up the further investigation since P.W.16 got transferred. He took up the investigation on 08.03.2004. On 18.05.2003 he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also enquired the photographer who took photographs in the scene of occurrence and recovered M.O.10 series-photographs, the negatives of which are marked as Ex.P.11 series. After completing the investigation, on 23.06.2003, the Investigating Officer filed the final report against the accused. 5. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him. He denied as false. No defence witness was examined, but the accused had filed a written statement. 6. Mr. After completing the investigation, on 23.06.2003, the Investigating Officer filed the final report against the accused. 5. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him. He denied as false. No defence witness was examined, but the accused had filed a written statement. 6. Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, but the prosecution had deliberately attempted to introduce the circumstances against the accused. The circumstances are not proved by the prosecution and also the circumstances shown by the prosecution do not lead to the guilt of the accused/appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the First Information Report in this case is based on the Extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and which was reduced into writing as Ex.P.1, but the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and the existence of Ex.P.1 itself. The learned counsel also submitted that Ex.P.2, the admissible portion of the confession of the accused recorded by the police and the subsequent recovery in pursuance of the said confession are not admissible since the contents found in Ex.P.1 are the facts which had already been within the knowledge of the police as per Ex.P.2, the earlier document. The Extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to P.W.10 is very weak piece of evidence and further P.W.10 is the employer of P.W.2. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that the evidence of P.W.10 was only introduced for the purpose of the case and his statement recorded by the police was sent to the Court only along with the final report. It was further contended that as P.W.2 was living separately from the accused for a period of 7 years and her refusal for cohabitation with the accused could not be the motive to murder his own daughter. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that Ex.P.20, the petition given by P.W.2 for missing of her daughter is contra to the version of prosecution since according to Ex.P.20, the deceased was missing only from 28.07.2003 and therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken by the accused even on 26.07.2003 is not for acceptance. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that Ex.P.20, the petition given by P.W.2 for missing of her daughter is contra to the version of prosecution since according to Ex.P.20, the deceased was missing only from 28.07.2003 and therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased was taken by the accused even on 26.07.2003 is not for acceptance. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the cause of death is also not established by the prosecution. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also heard with regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the circumstances available in this case point out and only lead to the guilt of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the accused had first confessed about the occurrence to P.W.10 and thereafter, being forwarded to P.W.1-the Village Administrative Officer, the confession had been recorded in Ex.P.1 and thereafter the accused was produced before the respondent police before whom he had given the confession, Ex.P.2 and in pursuance to the confession, it was intimated to P.W.11-the Revenue Divisional Officer for exhuming the body and the place where the body was buried was pointed out to P.W.11 by the accused and thereafter, the body was exhumed. The dead body was also been identified as that of the deceased by P.W.2 and others. 10. We have carefully gone through all the evidence and materials available in this case and the rival submissions made by both parties. 11. It would be proper now to point out the circumstances against the accused and analyze them one by one: (1) Motive (2) Extra-judicial confession given to P.W.10 (3) Extra-judicial confession given to P.W.1 and Ex.P.1. (4) Ex.P.2-the confession recorded by the police and the recovery of the dead body and M.O.0-crowbar and (5) The evidence of P.W.11, the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding pointing out by the accused the exact location where the body was buried. I. MOTIVE: P.W.2 is the first wife of the accused and the mother of the deceased. Her evidence is that she was with the accused only for a period of two years and thereafter she had been living separately with the deceased. I. MOTIVE: P.W.2 is the first wife of the accused and the mother of the deceased. Her evidence is that she was with the accused only for a period of two years and thereafter she had been living separately with the deceased. Though the accused married second wife, about 20 days prior to the occurrence, the second wife of the accused had left the accused and therefore, he came to P.W.2’s house. But, she did not allow him and abused him saying that he had married another lady and if he comes to her place, he would be beaten with chappal. Then the accused challenged her that she would be oppressed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as P.W.2 was living separately for 7 years, there could not have been any immediate motive is not acceptable. It was only 10 days prior to the occurrence the accused come to the house of P.W.2, but he was driven out. The words of P.W.2 had provoked the accused and that in order to punish P.W.2, the accused could have taken a decision to murder his own daughter. II. Extra-judicial confession GIVEN TO P.W.10: As the child was missing, when P.W.2 questioned the accused, he had not answered anything. Therefore, P.W.2 and others approached P.W.10. P.W.10 summoned the accused and enquired him. During that enquiry only the accused had admitted that he had murdered the deceased and thereafter, he had buried the body of the deceased. In the cross-examination of P.W.10, there is nothing to discredit his evidence. The contention of the learned counsel that P.W.10 is the employer of P.W.2 and thereby, he is supporting P.W.2, cannot be accepted since he is an independent witness and he is an agriculturist owning 55 acres of land. He had no animosity against the accused. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.10 and the Extra-judicial confession given to him. III. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION GIVEN TO P.W.1-THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND EX.P.1: It is true that the Trial Court had not believed the Extra-judicial confession before P.W.1-the Village Administrative Officer for the reason that P.W.2 had admitted in her cross-examination that P.W.1 wrote under the dictation of the police at 11.00 p.m. when the accused was kept in the Police Station. III. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION GIVEN TO P.W.1-THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND EX.P.1: It is true that the Trial Court had not believed the Extra-judicial confession before P.W.1-the Village Administrative Officer for the reason that P.W.2 had admitted in her cross-examination that P.W.1 wrote under the dictation of the police at 11.00 p.m. when the accused was kept in the Police Station. It is to be seen whether the reason given by the Trial Court for rejecting the evidence of P.W.1 is correct or not. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 12.08.2003, at 9.30 p.m., while he was in his office, the accused was brought by one Sathyamoorthy and the accused gave the confession which was recorded in Ex.P.1. The said Sathyamoorthy is the brother-in-law of the accused and according to P.W.10 the said Sathyamoorthy was present along with P.W.2 while the accused was enquired by P.W.1. It is therefore, clear that after the accused admitting the offence before P.W.10, he was brought before P.W.1 as directed by P.W.10. It is only thereafter the accused was taken to the Police Station along with Ex.P.1. (ii)The evidence of P.W.2 is only to the effect that she did not accompany the accused to the place of P.W.1. But only after the accused was produced in the Police Station she had gone to the Police Station. It is also the case of the prosecution that after recording the First Information Report by the police on the basis of Ex.P.1, the confession of the accused was recorded by the police also in which P.W.1 had put his signature as a witness to the confession, Ex.P.2. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in P.W.1 being present in the Police Station while the accused was enquired and that has made P.W.2 to give such an answer in the cross-examination. It cannot therefore, be said that from the answer of P.W.2, Ex.P.1 was prepared only at the Police Station. P.W.2 also not given the answer referring to Ex.P.1. Under the said circumstances, the reasons given by the Trial Court for rejecting Ex.P.1 need not be accepted by this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Extra-judicial confession is always very weak piece of evidence and no reliance can be placed also cannot be accepted since it cannot be said in all cases, the Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Extra-judicial confession is always very weak piece of evidence and no reliance can be placed also cannot be accepted since it cannot be said in all cases, the Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. (iii)The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 607 [BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB] wherein in paragraph 8A it is held that: “8A: ............ (ii)Extra-judicial confession: An Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution, where an Extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an Extrajudicial confession.” (iv)But, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2006 (1) SCC 714 [SIVAKUMAR VS. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE], in paragraphs 44 to 47, had observed that: “44. Extra-judicial confession may or may not be a weak evidence. Each case is required to be examined on its own fact. In Sidharth Vs. State of Bihar, a Division Bench of this Court held: (SCC p.560, para 25) “He had also made Extra-judicial confession to P.W.8 Arko Prtim Banerjee. The confession made by appellant Arnit Das was not under any inducement, threat or promise and is voluntary in nature. Therefore, it is perfectly admissible under the Evidence Act.” 45. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, this Court observed: (SCC page 459, para 10) “The learned Sessions Judge regarded the Extra-judicial Confession to be a very weak type of evidence and therefore refused to rely on the same. Here the learned Sessions Judge committed a clear error of law. Law does not require that the evidence of an Extra-judicial Confession should in all cases be corroborated. In the instant case, the Extra-judicial Confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. There was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of Balbir Singh particularly when the Extra-judicial Confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty from the place of occurrence.” 46. Yet again in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram it was stated: (SCC page 192, para 19) “19. There was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of Balbir Singh particularly when the Extra-judicial Confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty from the place of occurrence.” 46. Yet again in State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram it was stated: (SCC page 192, para 19) “19. An Extra-judicial Confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that Extra-judicial Confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the Extra-judicial Confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” (emphasis supplied). 47. For the reasons aforementioned, the courts below must be held to have correctly come to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved as against the accused in view of the Extrajudicial Confession of the appellant before the Village Administrative Officer, recovery of the air gun from Pappannan Thottam Canal, the conduct of the appellant and that he was last seen with the deceased.” IV. EX.P.2-CONFESSION RECORDED BY THE POLICE: The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in Ex.P.2 said to have been given by the accused to the police is not admissible due to the fact that what is stated in Ex.P.2 is already found in Ex.P.1 which is earlier to Ex.P.2. As the facts are already known to the police, the facts stated in the alleged confession of the accused to the police are not the new facts so as to be discovered by the police and so as to be admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved:- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” (ii)The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision reported in 1994 (5) SUPREME COURT CASES 152 [SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 16 that: “16. ..... That section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that a statement made before the police is not admissible in evidence is not in doubt. However, vide section 27 of the Evidence Act, only so much of the statement of an accused is admissible in as distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact. Therefore, once the facts has been discovered, section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot again be made use of to ‘rediscover’ the discovered fact. It would be a total misuse-even abuse-of the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act. From the testimony of P.W.14, SI Kashmir Singh it transpires that in the presence of Pws Hari Dutt and Jugal Kishore during the interrogation by SI Amar Singh, Sukhvinder Singh appellant made a disclosure statement to the effect that he along with others had concealed the dead body of Varun Kumar in the stack of hay in the room and that he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.PW.10/B was accordingly recorded which was signed by him and attested by the panch witnesses. His disclosure statement Ex.PW.10/B was accordingly recorded which was signed by him and attested by the panch witnesses. Except for the discovery of the dead body of Varun Kumar on the basis of disclosure statement of Sukhvinder Singh implicating himself and others with the commission of the crime is admissible in evidence. After the disclosure statement was made by Sukhvinder Singh disclosing as to where the dead body of Varun had been concealed and from where it could be recovered, the recording of the disclosure statements of Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand Ex.PW 10/C and Ex.10/D wa a wholly impermissible exercise and an obvious attempt to rope in Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand with the aid of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Since, the information had already been given by Sukhvinder Singh, appellant in his disclosure statement Ex.PW.10/B, the two subsequent statements Ex.PW.10/C and Ex.PW.10/D were not admissible in evidence because at the best they were leading to the “rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery”. It has been admitted by P.W. 14 that the disclosure statement, Ex.PW 10/B made by Sukhvinder Singh was the first in point of time and that he had disclosed where the dead body had been concealed and that he could point out the place and get it recovered. The Investigating Officer should have immediately acted upon the disclosure statement Ex.PW.10/B, rather than wait and record two more statements, as if the authenticity of recovery of dead body could be achieved by the mere number of disclosure statements leading to the discovery of one and the same fact. In the fact of the admission of P.W.14 as noticed above, it is obvious that the so-called disclosure statements of Sukhdev Paula and Pran Chand Ex.PW.10/c and 10/D were not admissible in evidence and the Designated Court fell in error in relying upon the same. .......” In view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the decision cited above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted that no reliance could be placed on Ex.P.2 since already the same facts are disclosed in Ex.P.1. V. THE EVIDENCE OF P.W.11 REGARDING THE ACCUSED POINTING OUT THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE THE BODY WAS BURIED: P.W.11 is the Revenue Divisional Officer of Dindigul District and he is the respectful witness. V. THE EVIDENCE OF P.W.11 REGARDING THE ACCUSED POINTING OUT THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE THE BODY WAS BURIED: P.W.11 is the Revenue Divisional Officer of Dindigul District and he is the respectful witness. P.W.11 had stated that as he was requested to hold an inquest he had come to the place which is very wide open place as per the plan-Ex.P.18 and in that place, a particular place where the body of the deceased was buried was pointed out to him by the accused. Only on the information furnished by the accused to P.W.11, the place where the body was buried, was dug up and the body was exhumed. 12. In view of the above findings except rejecting Ex.P.2, the other circumstances are established by the prosecution. A perusal of Ex.P.20-the complaint given by P.W.2 regarding missing of the deceased also do not affect the prosecution case since it is not specifically stated by P.W.2 in Ex.P.20 from which date the deceased was missing. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P.20 is contra to the prosecution case also cannot be accepted. 13. The circumstances established by the prosecution, on cumulative effect, satisfies the test of proof of the guilt of the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence for the commission of the offence. One another important aspect in this case is that the body of the deceased was recovered only at the instance of the information furnished by the accused. Once this aspect is established, it leads to proximity of the accused with the commission of the crime and the hypothesis of guilt. If at all the accused wants to show that he is not involved, it is for him to offer an acceptable explanation. Though the cause of death is not established by the medical evidence, as the body was decomposed, it is for the accused to explain under what circumstance the body was buried. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “106.BURDEN OF PROVING FACT ESPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE:- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations: (a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. Illustrations: (a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. (b)A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” 14. The accused in this case neither given any explanation in his cross-examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., nor in his written statement. Even without taking the non-explanation of the accused as a circumstance against him, though it may be, the other circumstances let in by the prosecution, definitely and unerringly, are pointing towards the irresistible conclusion that the accused is involved in the commission of crime of murdering his own daughter and thereafter buried. 15. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The reasons given by the Trial Court in convicting the accused/appellant are acceptable. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. The convictions and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the Trial Court under sections 302 and 201 IPC are confirmed. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.