JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Ms. M. Jain, learned Amicus curiae, for the appellant and Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The accused appellant had done to dead his own brother Labin Surin striking thrice of his head by an axe at around 6.30 PM on 04.10.2000 in his residence and surrendered himself before the Police with the crime weapon axe. The next day in the early morning at 5:00 AM, their uncle Ranjan Surin lodged an FIR and a case was registered Under Section 302 IPC by the Missamari Police Station. The crime was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid. Thereafter, the Addl. Session Judge, Sonitpur, framed charge Under Section 302 IPC against the accused, to which, on being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. 3. The prosecution examined in all, 13 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer but the accused examined none in his defence. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, by Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2002, convicted the accused Under Section302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for life without imposing any fine. This conviction and sentence has been challenged by the accused by preferring this appeal through jail. 4. At the time of admission of this appeal on 13.09.2002, this Court appointed Mr. S.C. Goswami, learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae but unfortunately he failed to turn up when the matter was called upon for hearing and this Court had to appoint Ms. M. Jain, learned Counsel as Amicus curiae to assist this Court. 5. The prosecution's star witnesses are PWs-3 and 5 who are none other than the accused's own sisters. They were inside the house at the time of occurrence as they were busy in cooking rice. PW-3, Suni Surin deposed that her sister-in-law (deceased's wife) was out to fetch water while her elder brother (deceased Labin) and others were outside. At about 7 O'clock she heard shouting by deceased Labin from outside and when she came out she found deceased Labin was lying in the courtyard with injuries on his head. She saw her accused brother Puran running away along the road with an axe in his hand. She found blood spilling out from the head of her injured brother. At about 7 O'clock she heard shouting by deceased Labin from outside and when she came out she found deceased Labin was lying in the courtyard with injuries on his head. She saw her accused brother Puran running away along the road with an axe in his hand. She found blood spilling out from the head of her injured brother. She sprinkled water on his head and he was lying till her sister-in-law returned. Her sister-in-law informed their uncle Ranjan (PW-1) who came with his son Karma Surin (PW-2). In her examination in chief, she clearly stated that her elder brother Labin was killed by her brother Puran, but in cross-examination, she stated that she came outside on hearing shout from Labin and she did not see Puran killing Labin and she did not know why Puran ran away. She however, stated that her statement to the effect that Puran had killed Labin was on conjecture only. 6. PW-5 corroborated the evidence of PW-3 to the extent that she was also inside the house cooking rice but she also denied having seen the occurrence. She was declared hostile to the prosecution as she denied her earlier statement made before the Police Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that on 04.10.2000 at about 6/7 PM, deceased Labin and accused Puran picked up a quarrel while she was present in the varandah of their house and all of a sudden accused Puran went inside the house and came back with an axe and gave a blow on the head of deceased Labin in the courtyard and fell down, and the accused gave 2/3 more blows on the head and then the accused ran away with the axe. She, however, corroborated the evidence of PW-3 that her uncle Ranjan came to the place of occurrence. 7. The informant PW-1, Ranjan Surin (uncle of deceased and accused) and his son Karma Surin (PW-2) came to the place of occurrence on being informed by deceased's wife. PW-1 stated that he came to deceased's house and found Labin lying in the courtyard with injury in the head and blood spilling therefrom. He did not find accused Puran as he had already fled the scene after committing the crime. He later came to know that the accused Puran surrendered himself before the Police with an axe. PW-1 stated that he came to deceased's house and found Labin lying in the courtyard with injury in the head and blood spilling therefrom. He did not find accused Puran as he had already fled the scene after committing the crime. He later came to know that the accused Puran surrendered himself before the Police with an axe. In cross-examination, he truthfully deposed that he did not see the occurrence but at the same time he denied the suggestion that Labin's wife did not tell him that accused Puran killed deceased Labin with an axe. He also denied the suggestion that accused Puran did not surrender before the Police with the axe. PW-2, son of informant Ranjan (PW-1), also deposed that the deceased's wife came to his house and informed that Puran had assaulted Labin on the head with an axe. He came with his father (PW-1) to Labin's house and saw Labin lying at the courtyard in an injured state. Accused Puran was not present at home. In cross examination, PW-2 deposed that he came to know about the occurrence after Labin's wife had told about it and Labin died before he reached the place of occurrence. 8. PW-10, Prafulla Bora and PW-12 Deben Chandra Nath are Police constables on duty at Missamari Police Station. Both of them deposed that accused Puran appeared at Police Station with an axe in his hand at about 6:30 PM and told them that he had cut his elder brother Labin at his house. Then the O.C., on being informed, came to the Police Station and seized the axe (Mat. Ext-1) in presence of them. They put their signatures on the seizure list as witnesses. In cross-examination they denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused Puran did not come to Police Station with an axe, (Mat. Ext.1) and that he did not tell them that he came to Police Station after killing his elder brother. 9. PW-11, Krishna Kanta Kalita, is also a constable of said Police Station who deposed that, at about 9:00 PM on 04.02.2000 he returned to Police Station after doing duties outside with the O.C. and he was told by PW-10 that a boy appeared in the Police station with an axe and told him that he cut his elder brother. 9. PW-11, Krishna Kanta Kalita, is also a constable of said Police Station who deposed that, at about 9:00 PM on 04.02.2000 he returned to Police Station after doing duties outside with the O.C. and he was told by PW-10 that a boy appeared in the Police station with an axe and told him that he cut his elder brother. He also deposed that the O.C. seized the axe in his presence and he put his signature on the seizure list as a witness. 10. PW-13, Tilak Ch. Bora, is the O.C. of the Missamari Police Station, and the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in this case. He deposed that accused Puran appeared at the Police Station with an axe in his hand at around 9:30 PM of 04.10.2000 and told him that at around 6:30 PM, a quarrel took place with his elder brother Labin over a domestic matter and cut him with an axe. Keeping the accused in Police custody he made a General Diary entry and seized the axe, (Mat. Ext. I). He thereafter visited the place of occurrence but returned as it drew night. On the next day, i.e. 05.10.2000, he received a written Ejahar (Ext.1) from Ranjan Surin (PW-1) and registered a case. He even proceeded to the place of occurrence and carried out necessary formalities. He held inquest on the dead body, drew up a sketch map and thereafter sent the dead body to Hospital for autopsy and examined witnesses. In cross-examination, he stated that the seized axe was not sent to F.S.L. However, he denied the suggestion that when surrendering himself at the Police Station, the accused Puran did not confess his guilt. On being re-examined, PW-13 stated categorically that Shinta Surin, PW-5 told him that her elder brother deceased Labin and accused Puran quarreled on 04.10.2000 at around 6/7 PM, and at that time, she was standing at the verandah. Her younger elder brother accused entered the house and coming out with an axe in his hand hit on the head of his elder brother Labin who was standing on the courtyard and when he fell on the ground accused Puran again assaulted Labin on his head twice and then accused Puran fled away with the axe. 11. PW-9, Dr. Atul Ch. Saikia, deposed that he conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1. 11. PW-9, Dr. Atul Ch. Saikia, deposed that he conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1. Sharp cut on the right temporal region of size 3" x 1" x bony deep. Brain matters exposed. 2. 2 cut mark on the left temporal region, out of them one size 3" x 1" x skin deep. Bleeding present. Second one size 2" x 1" x Skin deep. Bleeding present. 3. Sharp cut on the occipital region. Size 2" x 1" x Skin deep. Skin deep. Bleeding present. 4. Sharp cut on the right side on the cheek. Size 2" x ½" x Skin deep. Bleeding present. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature. In my opinion the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained. These injuries are sufficient to cause death, in ordinary course of nature. 12. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know how these injuries were sustained. He however, stated in certainty that such type of injuries could not be caused by falling on sharp edged weapon. 13. From the above evidence on record, the following facts are found proved in this case: (1) That the deceased Labin was killed in his own house and he was found lying on the courtyard with injuries on his head. (2) That accused Puran's sisters, PWs-3 and 5 were at home and they were busy cooking meal inside the house at the time of occurrence and on hearing the cry they came out and saw their elder brother Labin lying on the courtyard in an injured state and in pool of blood. (3) That PWs-3 and 5 saw their accused brother Puran quickly running away along the road with an axe in his hand. (4) That accused came straight to the Police Station and presented himself there with an axe. (5) That the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. 14. The only fact remains to be proved is whether the accused voluntarily and truthfully confessed his guilt before the Police and retracted it later because of an afterthought or advice. This Court is also to find out whether it was the accused or somebody else who hit the deceased by axe. 15. 14. The only fact remains to be proved is whether the accused voluntarily and truthfully confessed his guilt before the Police and retracted it later because of an afterthought or advice. This Court is also to find out whether it was the accused or somebody else who hit the deceased by axe. 15. PWs-3 and 5 are sisters of the accused and they were the two possible eye witnesses who had the chance of witnessing the occurrence. That is why, PW-3, in clear words deposed in examination in chief that "elder brother Labin was killed by Puran''. Because, on hearing the shouting of deceased Labin from outside, she immediately came out and saw Labin lying on the courtyard and Puran running away from the scene with an axe in his hand. Her coming out from inside was so immediate, may be even in a fraction of a second that she could even locate her deceased brother Labin near the place of occurrence. She could also find none around the place of occurrence except her accused brother Puran. Therefore, it can safely be said that PW-3 was an eye-witness and what she initially said about Labin being killed by Puran was as true as probable although she later in cross-examination tried to undo it by saying that her earlier statement was made in conjecture. The other sister, PW 5 completely denied having seen the occurrence although she was also present inside the same house and came out along with PW-3. She even denied having made any statement before the Police about the scene, far less saying anything about the quarrel between the brothers (the deceased and accused) preceding the occurrence. These two illiterate and unsophisticated rustic girls at their tender age of about 16 years, are not expected to speak the untruth at the initial stage, particularly when they witnessed one brother killed the other brother, and therefore, in their heart and in full conscience they divulged before the Police the true story but with the passing of days to more than 1 (one) year by the time they came to depose before the Court, they must have, as it could happen to every human being, changed their minds in afterthought to save the erring accused elder brother out of brotherly love and affection. It is to be noted here that, like PWs-3 and 5, the accused also retracted his confessional statement. This Court is faced with the real problem as to how it can re-evaluate the retracted confessions and as to how it should be acted upon such retracted confession. 16. The Apex Court in a Judgment rendered in the case of Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, held that the Court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look for the reasons for the making of confession as well as for its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession or not, and if the Court is satisfied that, it was retracted because of an afterthought or advice, the retraction may not weigh with the Court, if the general facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user. It was further held that the Courts should not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. The principle laid down in the aforesaid case in regard to evidentiary value of retracted confession was followed in the case of State (NCT) of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu reported in 2005 CriLJ 3950 and the Apex Court further held that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence of corroboration that the retraction was an afterthought and that the earlier statement was true. It is held that corroboration is not the rule of law, but is only rule of prudence and it cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances can such a conviction be made without corroboration, for a Court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration. However, the Apex Court laid down as general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the Court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. However, the Apex Court laid down as general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the Court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. As to the extent of corroboration, it is held that it would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession. One broad method by which a confession can be evaluated is that, the Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. 17. In this case, there is a corroborative evidence of PWs-10, 11, 12 and 13 that the accused, just after a couple of hours of the alleged incident, presented himself before the Police Station at about 6:30 PM with an axe. The fact of the accused having surrendered himself before the Police stood proved if the evidence of PWs-3 and 5 (accused sisters) who had at least stated that they saw the accused going towards the road with an axe in his hand just after the incident, is read with the evidence of Police personnel, PWs-10, 11, 12 and 13. It also stood proved that the Police did not come and arrest the accused from his house as he was not in Police custody until he himself surrendered at the Police Station. In such circumstances, Police had no occasion to put undue pressure, influence or threat upon the accused to make confessional statement. The natural conclusion, therefore, is that, the accused voluntarily and truthfully confessed his guilt before the Police out of repentance and deep sorrow for doing his own brother to dead but he has retracted the same at the subsequent stage. 18. The surrounding circumstances was that, the accused was present in the house along with his sisters PWs-3 and 5. He was seen by PWs-3 and 5 going away from the scene with an axe in his hand. Had his deceased brother Labin was attacked by some other persons, he could have cried for help or tried to challenge or catch hold the perpetrator to save his brother Labin. He was seen by PWs-3 and 5 going away from the scene with an axe in his hand. Had his deceased brother Labin was attacked by some other persons, he could have cried for help or tried to challenge or catch hold the perpetrator to save his brother Labin. He would have immediately gathered the co-villagers and told them that his brother was attacked and killed by some body but he had chosen to leave his seriously injured brother without rendering any help and even enquiring his condition. The said surrounding circumstances plus the unnatural conduct of the accused tell the real tale of the probabilities of the case pointing the accusing finger at the accused. Tested on the basis of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are to hold firmly that the accused retracted his confessional statement in his afterthought prompted by the advice of his near relations, which is reflected in the evidence of PWs-3 and 5 to stay away from the charge of murdering his own brother. That t apart, the retracted confession of the accused is belied by the other cogent and unimpeachable corroborative evidence of PWs-10, 11, 12 and 13 on the fact of his surrendering before the Police Station with an axe, and the other evidence of his own sisters PWs-3 and 5 who had at least testified the fact that they saw him moving out towards the road with an axe just after the occurrence. We may next advert to Postmortem report Ext. 3 and the evidence of Medical Officer, PW-9. They proved that the deceased received as many as four cuts as described earlier. These injuries fit in to the injuries that might be caused by a sharp edged weapon like an axe or it can be connected with the axe the accused was seen to have been carrying just after the occurrence. 19. On the basis of the evidence on record and the materials made available before this Court, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused in accordance with law which warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, we confirm the impugned Judgment and Orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. In the result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. 20. Accordingly, we confirm the impugned Judgment and Orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. In the result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. 20. Before parting with the record, we put in our appreciation for the assistance, however minimal, rendered by Ms. M. Jain, as Amicus Curiae, expecting greater and effective assistance from her in future, and asking the State to pay her the fee which we quantify at Rs.2,500/-. 21. The Lower Court record may be sent down soon. Appeal dismissed.