ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THE sole appellant, Sasanka Ghosh, was convicted under section 302 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Hooghly in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 37 of 1988 and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. Sasanka ghosh thereafter preferred this appeal from jail challenging his conviction and sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that Sasanka Ghosh was husband of Anima ghosh since deceased, who was niece of Sufal Ghosh of village Duadanda under p. S. Khanakul. On 25th May, 1987 Sasanka with his wife Anima spent night in a room at the house of Sufal Ghosh and on the next morning Anima was found dead. Sufal Ghosh by lodging a written complaint with O. C. , Khanakul P. S. suspected that Sasanka murdered Anima by strangulation. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the written complaint of Sufal Ghosh, O. C. , Khanakul P. S. started a specific case under section 302 of the IPC against Sasanka and thereafter S. I. , Mihir Mukherjee of Khanakul P. S. took up the investigation and after conducting the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against sasanka under section 302 of the IPC. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302 of the IPC against Sasanka Ghosh and Sasanka Ghosh pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed for trial. ( 5 ) DURING trial, prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses of whom P. W. 4 was FIR maker Sufal Ghosh, P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 were the local residents of village duadanda who deposed about extra-judicial confession given by Sasanka to them soon after the occurrence, P. W. 10 was the younger sister of deceased anima, P. W. 14 was doctor P. G. Bhattacharya who conducted post-mortem examination and P. W. 17 was Investigating Officer S. I. Mihir Kr. Mukherjee. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION, during trial, also produced the original complaint, copy of inquest report, copy of post-mortem report and also original statement of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the cr. PC. It appears from record that Sasanka Ghosh also examined one witness on his behalf. Mukherjee. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION, during trial, also produced the original complaint, copy of inquest report, copy of post-mortem report and also original statement of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the cr. PC. It appears from record that Sasanka Ghosh also examined one witness on his behalf. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing both prosecution and the accused person found from record that Sasanka Ghosh on the fateful night of 25th May, 1987 resided with his wife Anima Ghosh in the same room along with their baby and on the next morning Anima was found dead and her younger sister P. W. 10 found blood coming from mouth and nose of Anima and from this fact and circumstances as disclosed by P. W. 4 and P. W. 10, the learned Judge was of the view that Anima for the last time before her death was in the company of Sasanka Ghosh alone. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge after considering P. M. report and evidence of doctor p. G. Bhattacharya P. W. 14 was of the view that Anima died out of manual strangulation. ( 9 ) THE learned Judge finally considered the statements of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 along with their statements given before the learned Judicial Magistrate during investigation under section. 164 of the Cr. PC and from those statements the learned Judge was of the view that Sasanka, soon after the occurrence, gave extra-judicial confession to independent witnesses confessing his guilt regarding murder of his wife Anima. ( 10 ) THUS, the learned Trial Judge having regard to the fact and circumstances disclosed from prosecution evidence and having regard to the extra-judicial confession of accused Sasanka Ghosh came to the conclusion that Sasanka murdered his wife Anima by strangulation and hence, the learned Judge recorded his order of conviction and sentence against Sasanka ghosh. ( 11 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. ( 11 ) APPEARING for the appellant, Mr. Safiullah both through his oral submission as well as through his written note of argument has strongly challenged the order of conviction and sentence contending inter alia that prosecution in order to claim conviction of the appellant simply relied on the extra-judicial confession of appellant alleged to have been made before P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 and also on the post-mortem report and substantive evidence of Dr. P. G. Bhattacharya P. W. 14. ( 12 ) DRAWING his inspiration from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of State of M. P. vs. Dayaram Hemraj, reported in AIR 1981 sc 2007 and Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2000 SCC (Criminal)page 236, Mr. Safiullah submits that it is accepted position of law that extra-judicial confession cannot be ordinarily accepted as a basis of conviction unless such extra-judicial confession gets corroboration from reliable and independent evidence. Mr. Safiullah also submits that before acting on extra-judicial confession, the Trial Court must be satisfied that the witnesses supporting such extra-judicial confession must be reliable, trustworthy and consistent in their statement supporting such extra-judicial confession. ( 13 ) MR. Safiullah submits that from the statement of P. W. 14 we do not get sufficient confirmation that victim Anima actually died due to manual strangulation and in that background when we look at the statement of P. W, 5 to P. W. 7, we notice that all the three witnesses made divergent statements about the cause of death of Anima. ( 14 ) MR. Safiullah submits that on close scrutiny of the statements of P. W. 5. P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 separately we shall notice that each of them gave their own version about the alleged confessional statement of Sasanka made to them and this divergent and inconsistent testimony of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 gives enough room to raise strong doubt about the credibility of these witnesses supporting the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by appellant Sasanka. ( 15 ) MR. ( 15 ) MR. Safiullah contends that in criminal trial prosecution alone is duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no scope for prosecution to draw any adverse presumption from the fact and circumstances even if such fact and circumstances go against the conduct of the accused person. ( 16 ) MR. Safiullah, therefore, submits that when post-mortem report and opinion of doctor was not certain about the actual cause of death of Anima, when FIR maker P. W. 4 lodged the FIR out of mere suspicion and when prosecution mainly relied on extra-judicial confession allegedly made by appellant Sasanka and when such extra-judicial confession did not get corroboration from any independent witness, following the ratio of decision rendered in the case of State of M. P. vs. Dayaram Hemraj (supra) and Balbir singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), this Court of Appeal should not support the order of conviction, and sentence recorded by the Trial Court and this Court of appeal on consideration of prosecution evidence should hold the appellant not guilty of the charge under section 302 of the IPC and should record an order of acquittal. ( 17 ) MR. Goswami appearing for the State-respondent, on the other hand, submits before us that in an appropriate case if extra-judicial confession made by an accused of a criminal trial appears to be reasonable, acceptable and trustworthy from the statement of witnesses before whom such contention was made, there is no legal bar for a Trial Court to record an order of conviction on the basis of such extra-judicial confession alone and no corroboration of such extra-judicial confession is felt necessary. Mr. Goswami to substantiate his point has drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Ram Singh vs. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1967 SC page 152, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kanda Gapaludu, reported in 2006 (2) SCC (Criminal) page 121 and in a case reported in AIR 1975 SC page 1020. ( 18 ) MR. ( 18 ) MR. Goswami contends that from the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court of India rendered in the above three reported cases one thing is very clear that if the Trial Court finds from the scrutiny of the statement of prosecution witnesses that accused charged with a criminal offence really gave extra-judicial confession regarding his guilt and if the Trial Court finds that the persons supporting such extra-judicial confession were in no way interested about the conviction of the accused person, but, as independent and impartial witnesses they simply reproduced the extra-judicial confession of the accused made before them, the Trial Court can bank upon such extra-judicial confession alone, without looking for any corroboration of the same to record an order of conviction. ( 19 ) MR. Goswami contends that in the FIR of P. W. 4 a suspicion was raised regarding involvement of Sasanka Ghosh behind the murder of Anima since both Anima and Sasanka spent night in a room exclusively under their occupation and this suspicion of P. W. 4 was strengthened further from the post-mortem report and opinion of P. W. 14 who conducted the post-mortem examination. ( 20 ) MR. Goswami contends that P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 at the investigating stage gave statement to the learned Judicial Magistrate disclosing the confession of the accused person made before them and during trial also these three witnesses did not retract from their earlier statement and on an overall examination of the statement of these three witnesses along with the cross-examination of investigating Officer P. W. 17, we do not find any contradiction or omission of any significant nature to raise any reasonable suspicion about the veracity and credibility of the prosecution case. ( 21 ) MR. ( 21 ) MR. Goswami, therefore, submits that when circumstances available from prosecution evidence namely P. W. 4 and P. W. 10 were against the appellant, when post-mortem report and opinion of doctor indicated death of anima due to manual strangulation and when appellant alone was last seen in the company of Anima and when three independent and impartial witnesses without hesitation supported extra-judicial confession of the appellant, the Trial court had no option, but, to record an order of conviction and in such a situation, there appears no ground to interfere with such order of conviction which was both legal and proper and based on correct appreciation of fact and evidence on record. ( 22 ) WE have considered the decisions referred to by both Mr. Safiullah and mr. Goswami and, frankly speaking, on examination of all the five reported decisions cited by both the sides, we do not find any conflict amongst the decisions, rather, we find that all the decisions supported the same principle of law that in appropriate case if the Court finds sufficient grounds to accept extra-judicial confession of an accused, without looking for further corroboration, conviction order can be passed on the basis of such extra-judicial confession. ( 23 ) WE find from prosecution evidence not disputed by either party that here in this case prosecution mainly relied on the extra-judicial confession supported by P. W. 5 and P. W. 7 and, that apart, prosecution, as a matter of abundant precaution, sought corroboration of the extra-judicial confession from the opinion of doctor P. W. 14 and from the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time as highlighted by P. W. 4 and P. W. 10. ( 24 ) WE find from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that the Trial court also relied on the extra-judicial confession as well as on the post-mortem report and the circumstances disclosed by P. W. 4 and P. W. 10. ( 25 ) MR. Safiullah was very much critical about the veracity of the prosecution case as established through P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 and through their statement about the extra-judicial confession. We have carefully considered all the points taken by Mr. ( 25 ) MR. Safiullah was very much critical about the veracity of the prosecution case as established through P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 and through their statement about the extra-judicial confession. We have carefully considered all the points taken by Mr. Safiullah through his written note of argument and on careful examination of the statement of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 along with their statements given before the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr. PC and also from cross-examination of the Investigating Officer P. W. 17, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Safiullah challenging the statements of P. W. 5 to P. W. 7. ( 26 ) WE find that in spite of minor omissions and contradictions, P. W. 5 to p. W. 7 consistently supported the extra-judicial confession of appellant Sasanka given to them soon after the occurrence and at the same time we find that P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 had no relation with the deceased and none of them had any hostile relation with the appellant and thus, we are inclined to hold that P. W. 5 to p. W. 7 gave true disclosure regarding the extra-judicial confession of appellant made to them confessing his guilt regarding murder of Anima. ( 27 ) AS an abundant precaution, we find from evidence 011 record that there was corroboration of the extra-judicial confession. Post-mortem report and opinion of doctor Bhattacharya P. W. 14 supported the extra-judicial confession regarding the cause of death. ( 28 ) P. W. 4 and P. W. 10 supported the prosecution case that appellant spent the night with Anima alone in one room and no third party had any access to that room and it was available from the statement of P. W. 10 that blood was coming out from the mouth and nose of Anima indicating her death through manual strangulation. ( 29 ) THUS, after hearing submissions of both Mr. Safiullah and Mr. ( 29 ) THUS, after hearing submissions of both Mr. Safiullah and Mr. Goswami and in the light of ratio of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as placed before us by both the sides, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court rightly relied on extra-judicial confession of the appellant made before P. W. 5 to P. W. 7 and, that apart, the extra-judicial confession of appellant got sufficient corroboration from other fact and circumstances which totally went against the appellant and indicating only his involvement behind the homicidal death of Anima. ( 30 ) THUS, after considering prosecution evidence, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Trial Court and for that reason, we are unable to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. ( 31 ) IN the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( 32 ) THE order of conviction and sentence recorded against appellant Sasanka ghosh are hereby confirmed. ( 33 ) WE find from record that appellant is in detention and accordingly we direct office to forward a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of correctional Home where the appellant is detained for his information. Appeal dismissed.