Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 520 (CAL)

Ratan Ruidas v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-05-12

G.C.GUPTA, KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD

body2008
Judgment : GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgement dated 26th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 48 of 1999 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25(l)(a)/section 27 of the Arms Act and an order dated 27th March, 2002 by which the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. No separate sentence, however, was passed under section 25(l)(a)/section 27 of the Arms Act. (2.) The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 30th August, 1995, at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant Ratan Ruidas shot dead the victim, Jiten Ruidas at Chapui Suripukur within the limits of Raniganj PS. He thereafter, stabbed at random and in the process sustained a cut injury in his little finger of the left hand. He thereafter, reported to the Raniganj Police Station and made a confessional statement in vernacular at about 22.10 hours on 30th August, 1995 which has been marked Exhibit 1. A summary of the confessional statement recorded in the Raniganj Police Station marked Exhibit 1 is as follows: "I Ratan Ruidas son of late Basu Ruidas, resident of Joyramdanga PS Barabani, aged about 24 years state that during my childhood I lost my father. I have since then been living in the house of my uncle late Rabin Ruidas (mothers sisters husband) at village Chapui. I treated my aunt and uncle as my parents. I am an illiterate. I grew up together with my aunts son Jiten. About 1 and 1/2years ago Jiten my contemporary got married. Ever since his marriage he developed disliking for me and tried to force me out of their house. Since I have nowhere to go nor do I have any connection with my original family I tolerated the oppression meted out to me by my cousin Jiten. Gradually, the oppression meted out by him became unbearable. Three or four days ago I decided to kill him. I procured a loaded pipegun and a dagger and was looking for an opportunity to kill Jiten. Gradually, the oppression meted out by him became unbearable. Three or four days ago I decided to kill him. I procured a loaded pipegun and a dagger and was looking for an opportunity to kill Jiten. This evening around 7 Oclock, I tricked Jiten into accompanying me towards the eastern side of our village Chapui on the pretext of going there to respond to the natures call. We were walking along the fields. Jiten was ahead of me. Jiten was bare bodied except for a stripe lungi. At an opportune moment, I took out the pipegun and shot Jiten on his back. Jiten screamed and fell down. At that time, I stabbed on the body of Jiten at random. There was then none at the place of occurrence i.e. Suripukur. I threw the pipegun in an adjoining bush. I threw the dagger a little further from the gun. At the time of stabbing Jiten I accidentally suffered an injury on my ring finger (anamika). Thereafter, I walked down to G. T. Road; boarded a mini bus; alighted at Raniganj; wondered aimless for sometime and after 10.00 p.m. I have reached the police station. I made this statement to you. I have voluntarily with a premeditated plan killed my cousin Jiten being unable to tolerate his tortures." (3.) P. W. 2 Amit Roychowdhury, the then Officer-in-Charge of Raniganj Police Station, deposed inter alia, as follows: "...That time I noticed cut injury on the little finger of the left hand and I also noticed blood-stain on his wearing shirt. On seeing the injury and blood- stain and on hearing the statements of Ratan Ruidas, I had the suspicion that Ratan Ruidas might have committed an offence. Thereafter I diarised the entire statements of Ratan Ruidas. This is that GD Entry No. 1330 dt. 30.8.95 of Raniganj PS under my hand-writing and signature. Let the GD Entry No. 1330 dt. 30.8.95 be marked Exbt.-1. Thereafter I seized the wearing apparel of Ratan Ruidas under a seizure list. This is that seizure list under my handwriting and signature. Let the seizure list of wearing shirt be marked Exbt-2, I also took LTI of Ratan Ruidas in Exbt-2. I procured signature of the witnesses on Exbt-1/2. Thereafter, informed SI Satyabrata Ghoshal of Nimcha IC and asked him to meet me at village Chapui. This is that seizure list under my handwriting and signature. Let the seizure list of wearing shirt be marked Exbt-2, I also took LTI of Ratan Ruidas in Exbt-2. I procured signature of the witnesses on Exbt-1/2. Thereafter, informed SI Satyabrata Ghoshal of Nimcha IC and asked him to meet me at village Chapui. To testify the veracity of the statements of accused Ratan Ruidas, I along with SI P. Sahu and other forces left for village Chapui. At that time Ratan Ruidas was also with us. After reaching at village Chapui, we went to the house of Jiten Ruidas as per guidance of the accused Ratan Ruidas. I also met SI Satyabrata Ghoshal at village Chapui. We searched Jiten Ruidas at his house but he could not be traced out. Thereafter, I asked Uttam Ruidas, the brother of Jiten Ruidas to call the local respectable persons. Subsequently, Bijoy Ruidas, Laxman Ruidas, Jagai Ruidas and others came to me and asked me as to why they were called. I disclosed the reasons of my presence to those persons, I also disclosed that my presence at that place was for some enquiry also disclosed those persons about the statements of Ratan Ruidas. Thereafter, Ratan Ruidas took us towards Suripukur. Ratan Ruidas pointed out the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. Uttam Ruidas identified that deadbody to be the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. I found that Jiten Ruidas was lying facing towards earth and there were some injuries on his back and parts of the body. We detected that Jiten Ruidas expired. Thereafter Ratan Ruidas led us to a nearby bush and the accused showed us arms that were used by him for causing injuries of Jiten Ruidas. Thereafter, I seized that pipegun and a knife under two seizure lists in presence of witnesses. These are two seizure lists written and signed by me. I procured the signature of the witnesses and the accused on these seizure lists. Let the seizure lists be marked Exbt-3 and 4. Thereafter, I submitted a written complaint at the Raniganj PS and that written complaint was written standing by the side of Suripukur of village Chapui. I forwarded the written complaint to the OC Raniganj PS through SI Parimal Sahu. This is that written complaint, written and signed by me. Let the written complaint be marked Exbt-5. Thereafter, I submitted a written complaint at the Raniganj PS and that written complaint was written standing by the side of Suripukur of village Chapui. I forwarded the written complaint to the OC Raniganj PS through SI Parimal Sahu. This is that written complaint, written and signed by me. Let the written complaint be marked Exbt-5. This formal FIR was filled in and signed by SI Parimal Sahu. I know the handwriting and signature of SI Parimal Sahu. Let the formal FIR be marked Exbt-6. I endorsed this case to SI Satyabrata Ghosal for investigation. I was at the place of occurrence during the whole of that night. SI S. B. Ghosal was with me at the place of occurrence till my departure." (4.) In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 admitted that he did not record the statement of the accused leading to discovery of seizure of weapons. He further deposed that the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the deceased, Jiten, is at about half a kilometer, but it took ten minutes to reach the place. He also admitted that he did not get the accused medically examined nor did he take any fingerprints. (5.) P. W. 3 Bijoy Ruidas deposed, inter alia, as follows: "On the knocking of Uttam, I came out from my room and asked Uttam as to why he had called on me. Uttam told me that O/C, Raniganj PS was calling me. Thereafter, I along with Laxman Ruidas, Sudhan Ruidas, Taruni Ruidas, Uttam Ruidas and others went in front of the house of Uttam Ruidas. At that place, I found OC Raniganj PS along with accused Ratan Ruidas. OC Raniganj asked Ratan to disclose the fact. At the direction of OC Raniganj PS the accused narrated the incident. Thereafter, the accused led us to the southern bank of Suripukur. There we found Jiten was lying facing towards earth. I also found marks of bullet injuries on the back of Jiten Ruidas. I also found marks of injuries on the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. Thereafter, I found the accused to bring a pipegun from a distance of about 10/12 ft. from me. Thereafter, the accused again brought a knife from a distance of about 10/12 ft. from me. The accused himself picked up the pipegun and knife and made over the same to police. Thereafter, I found the accused to bring a pipegun from a distance of about 10/12 ft. from me. Thereafter, the accused again brought a knife from a distance of about 10/12 ft. from me. The accused himself picked up the pipegun and knife and made over the same to police. The accused told before me that he had committed murder of Jiten Ruidas with that pipegun and knife. The police officer seized some bloodstained mud from that place under a seizure list and the police officer also wrapped the pipegun with a paper. Police officer also seized the pipegun and the knife. Those are my signatures on the seizure lists. Let the signature of the witness be marked Exbt.3/1 and 4/ 1. Just at about 6.00 a.m. of the following morning, I went back to my house from the place of occurrence." P.W. 3 in his cross-examination admitted that "Wife of Jiten has married to Uttam Ruidas and she is now residing at the house of Uttam Ruidas." (6.) P. W. 5, Uttam Ruidas, deposed as follows: "On 30.8.95 at about 7.00 p.m. I was at my house and at that time accused Ratan Ruidas took away Jiten Ruidas from our house on the plea of soiling in the field. Ratan Ruidas and Jiten Ruidas did not turn back. On that very night at about 11.00 p.m. OC Raniganj PS along with other police officers came to our house. At the call of OC Raniganj PS, I came out from my room and at that time OC Raniganj PS asked me about my relationship with Jiten Ruidas. In turn I replied that Jiten Ruidas was my elder brother and at that time I found Ratan Ruidas being roped was in police custody. OC Raniganj PS asked me to call some persons of our area, and thereafter, I went to the house of Bijoy Ruidas. Thereafter, Bijoy Ruidas along with Laksman Ruidas, Jagai Ruidas, Sudhan Ruidas, Tarani Ruidas and myself came to our house where police personnel were standing. Therefore, Ratan Ruidas led us to the southern bank of Suripukur. On going to that spot, I found Jiten Ruidas was lying facing towards earth. Thereafter, Bijoy Ruidas along with Laksman Ruidas, Jagai Ruidas, Sudhan Ruidas, Tarani Ruidas and myself came to our house where police personnel were standing. Therefore, Ratan Ruidas led us to the southern bank of Suripukur. On going to that spot, I found Jiten Ruidas was lying facing towards earth. Thereafter, Ratan Ruidas stated he had murdered Jiten Ruidas with pipegun and knife and Ratan also led the police to the place where pipegun and knife were hidden." (7.) P.W. 5 admitted in his cross-examination that he had not told the police that the deceased, Jiten had left the house accompanied by Ratan for the purpose of responding to natures call. He further admitted in his cross-examination that his statement was reduced to writing by police which was read over and explained to him and he thereafter put his signature thereupon. This was, however, denied by the P.W.12, SI, Satyabrata Ghosal. According to him "It is not correct to suggest that on 30th August, 1995 at about 11.00 p.m. police arrived at the house of Uttam Ruidas and accosted him and reduced his statement to writing in which he put his signature." According to the P.W.12, Uttam Ruidas, was examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31st August, 1995 between 7.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. at the place of occurrence, that is near Suripukur. (8.) P. W. 6, Jagai Ruidas, deposed as follows: "On 30.8.95 at about 11 p.m. Uttam, Bijoy, Lakshman, Jayanta and others called on me at my house. Thereafter, I along with the above persons went near the house of Jiten Ruidas. At that place, I found the O/C, Raniganj PS the accused Ratan Ruidas, Bijoy, Lakshman and others. Thereafter, Ratan Ruidas took us to the southern side of Suripukur. At that place, we found the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. At that place, Ratan told us that he had committed murder of Jiten Ruidas by firing and by stabbing. I noted bleeding injuries on the person of Jiten Ruidas. Thereafter, Ratan brought out the knife and pistol and made over the same to O/C Raniganj PS. O/C, Raniganj PS took the pistol and knife in his custody after preparing two seizure lists. O/C Raniganj PS also caused inquest on the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. I put signatures on the seizure lists and the inquest report. Thereafter, Ratan brought out the knife and pistol and made over the same to O/C Raniganj PS. O/C, Raniganj PS took the pistol and knife in his custody after preparing two seizure lists. O/C Raniganj PS also caused inquest on the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas. I put signatures on the seizure lists and the inquest report. Let the signature of the witness on the inquest report be marked Ext. 7/3. Let the signatures of the witness on the seizure lists be marked Ext. 3/2. Ext. 4/2 and Ext. 8/2. Police officer sent the deadbody for post-mortem." (9.) In his cross-examination he deposed that Ratan Ruidas told in presence of everyone including himself, near Suripukur, that he had murdered Jiten with pistol and knife. (10.) P.W. 7 Lakshman Ruidas deposed as follows: "On 30.8.95 at about 11.00 p.m. Bijoy Ruidas, Uttam Ruidas, Jagai Ruidas, Tarani Ruidas and Subhodh Ruidas called me from my house. Thereafter, I came near the house of Jiten Ruidas. On coming to that place I found many people, police personnel and the accused Ratan Ruidas. Thereafter, we went near the southern side of Suripukur where we found a deadbody was lying facing towards earth. Ratan took us to that place. At that time Ratan told that he had committed murder of Jiten Ruidas with knife and firing. I also noticed bleeding injuries on the person of that deceased. I could identify that deadbody to be of Jiten Ruidas. Thereafter, Ratan Ruidas showed the pistol and knife under two separate seizure lists. The contents of the seizure lists were read over to me. Thereafter, I put my signature on that seizure lists. I passed school final examination. Thereafter, police also seized some blood-stained mud from that place under seizure list. I also put my signature on that seizure list. Police also seized a white blue stripe lungi under a seizure list. Police also prepared one inquest report on that deadbody. I also put my signature on the seizure lists and inquest report. Inquest report was held at about 6.00 a.m. Thereafter police sent the deadbody to Asansol SD Hospital for post-mortem. I also accompanied with that deadbody upto S.D. Hospital at about 12.00/12.30 p.m. At the relevant time, wife of Jiten was at her fathers house for termination of her pregnancy. These are my signatures on the seizure lists and inquest report. Inquest report was held at about 6.00 a.m. Thereafter police sent the deadbody to Asansol SD Hospital for post-mortem. I also accompanied with that deadbody upto S.D. Hospital at about 12.00/12.30 p.m. At the relevant time, wife of Jiten was at her fathers house for termination of her pregnancy. These are my signatures on the seizure lists and inquest report. Let the signatures of the witnesses be marked Exbts. 3/3, 4/3, 8/3 and 7/4." (11.) P.W. 4, Dr. Das, deposed that he conducted the post-mortem at 5.15 p.m. on 31st August, 1995 on the deadbody of Jiten Ruidas at Asansol S.D. Hospital, A bullet was extracted from his deadbody. Incised wounds were also found. The post-mortem report has been marked Exhibit-9. According to the P.W. 4, the injury was sufficient to cause death. (12.) P.W. 10, SI, Parimal Sahu, deposed that the accused had led the police and the witnesses to the discovery of the deadbody of Jiten and the knife and the pipegun which were seized. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had accompanied the Officer-in-Charge, P.W. 2. (13.) Mr. Ram Prosad Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that all the witnesses examined in this case belonged to the same community. They were also interested witnesses according to him. He submitted that the police has made a perfunctory investigation. The real culprit, according to him, is the P.W. 5, Uttam, who was benefitted by the death of Jiten. (14.) Uttam admittedly married the wife of the deceased Jiten. Wife of the deceased Jiten is Bhakti, the P.W. 8. She deposed that she gave birth to a male child on the day following the death of Jiten. She could not see the deadbody of her husband, Jiten. At the material time, she was at her fathers house. On the day following the death of Jiten, she came back to her father- in-laws house but due to labour pain she could not see the deadbody of her husband. She admitted that after 3-4 months of the death of Jiten, she married Uttam Ruidas, the P.W. 5. Uttam Ruidas, the P.W. 5, is the younger brother of the deceased Jiten. (15.) Mr. She admitted that after 3-4 months of the death of Jiten, she married Uttam Ruidas, the P.W. 5. Uttam Ruidas, the P.W. 5, is the younger brother of the deceased Jiten. (15.) Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate, for the appellant, drew our attention to the following part of the evidence of P.W.8 in cross-examination: "Not a fact that I have falsely implicated the accused Ratan Ruidas as I had/have illicit relation with Uttam Ruidas. (The witness keeps herself mum). It is false to say that village people used to gossip about any illicit relation with Uttam Ruidas. The accused is elder to my husband." (16.) Mr. Bhattacharyya also submitted that there was already an illicit relationship between P.W. 8 Bhakti and the P.W. 5 Uttam. In order to get rid of Jiten, Uttam had killed the deceased and thereafter married the wife of Jiten. He submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. (17.) We are unable to accept the submission in the absence of any evidence in support thereof. The mere fact that Uttam married the widow of his elder brother, cannot be an indication that he was interested or had any motive to kill his elder brother. Widow marriage was introduced to this part of the country more than a century ago by bringing in a revolutionary change in the social norms in order to combat a greater social evil. (18.) Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the fact that the marriage was solemnized within 3-4 months of death goes to show that the P.W. 5 wanted to get rid of his elder brother. (19.) We are also unable to accept this submission. The members of the bereaved family are usually, in such cases, interested in seeing that the widow is settled in life at the earliest possibility. In order to ensure the future of the widow and the child, this is a measure largely accepted throughout the country. If the marriage between the brother of the deceased and the widow of the deceased is delayed, say for 2/3 years, the brother of the deceased may not be agreeable to the match. In order to ensure the future of the widow and the child, this is a measure largely accepted throughout the country. If the marriage between the brother of the deceased and the widow of the deceased is delayed, say for 2/3 years, the brother of the deceased may not be agreeable to the match. Therefore, as a matter of prudence, those who are at the helm of the affairs of the society or at the helm of the domestic affairs are usually interested in getting the deal done before the shock arising out of the untimely death of the member of the family heals up. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya that P.W. 5 had any motive to get rid of his elder brother Jiten. The alleged relationship between the P.W. 5 and the P.W. 8 has not been supported by any of the witnesses examined in this case. The theory sought to be propounded by Mr. Bhattacharyya is devoid of any merit for it is not backed by any evidence whatsover. (20.) Mr. Bhattacharyya drew our attention to the judgement in the case of Ram Ashrit and Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1981 SC 942 , wherein Their Lordships expressed the following view: "...When all the material witnesses in a murder case were either related or otherwise interested in the prosecution, their testimony had to pass the test of close and severe scrutiny before their testimony could be safely acted upon." (21.) He also relied on a judgement in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC page 1622. He drew our attention to the following portion of the observation to be found in paragraph 48 of the judgement: "Para 48: All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that this is done consciously but even unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the Court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution." (22.) No one may have any quarrel with the principles laid down by the judgements cited by the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant. It can be pointed out that neither of the witnesses examined in this case is an eye-witness to the actual act of killing except for the deposition of the P.W.5 that the accused took away the deceased at 7.00 p.m on 30th August, 1995 on the pretext of responding to natures call. There is as such no scope for any exaggeration or embellishment. (23.) Mr. Bhattacharyya also drew our attention to the judgement in the case of Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 1990 SC page 2140. He relied on paragraph 7 wherein the following view was taken: "Para 7.... An unambiguous extra-judicial confession possesses a high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of its falsity. But in the process of the proof of the alleged confession the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary one and does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise envisaged under section 24 of the Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and to find whether the extra-judicial confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of the law suggesting that it may not be true one. For this purpose the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. For this purpose the Court must scrutinize all the relevant facts such as the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made and finally the actual words used by the accused. Extra-judicial confession if found to be voluntary can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record. Therefore, even the extra-judicial confession will also have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made and the circumstances in which it came to be made and the actual words used by the accused. Sometimes it may not be possible to the witness to reproduce the actual words in which the confession was made. For that reason the law insists on recording the statement by a Judicial Magistrate after administrating all necessary warnings to the accused that it would be used as evidence against him." (24.) Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate, appearing for the State, drew our attention to a judgement in the case of Bharat vs. State of U. P., reported in 1971(3) SCC page 950. He drew our attention to paragraph 7 of the following judgement wherein the following view was expressed by Their Lordships: "Para.7 ...The law as to confessions is perhaps too widely stated Confessions can be acted upon if the Court is satisfied that they are voluntary and that they are true. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged in the context of the entire prosecution case. The confession must fit into the proved facts and not run counter to them. When the voluntary character of confession and its truth are accepted it is safe to rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most patent piece of evidence against the maker. Retracted confession, however, stands on a slightly different footing. As the Privy Council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. Indeed a confession, if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most patent piece of evidence against the maker. Retracted confession, however, stands on a slightly different footing. As the Privy Council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. A Court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look for the reasons for the making of the 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. If the Court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an after thought 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. All the same, the Courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it, but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retraction was an afterthought and that the earlier statement was true. This was laid down by this Court in an earlier case reported in Subramania Gounden vs. State of Madras." (25.) It may be pointed out that this judgement, in our opinion, has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case before Their Lordships, there was a confessional statement made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is not before us. We have a confessional statement made by the accused to the police which cannot be placed as high a statement as one under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question is as to the value to be attached to confessional statement made by the accused. This question was considered by Their Lordships in the case of Bheru Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in JT 1994(1) SC 501. Their Lordships expressed the following view: "Para-19. ... The question is as to the value to be attached to confessional statement made by the accused. This question was considered by Their Lordships in the case of Bheru Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in JT 1994(1) SC 501. Their Lordships expressed the following view: "Para-19. ... From a careful perusal of this First Information Report we find that it discloses the motive for the murder and the manner in which the appellant committed the six murders. The appellant produced the bloodstained sword with which according to him he committed the murders. In our opinion, the First Information Report Ex. P-42, however is not a wholly confessional statement, but only that part of it is admissible in evidence which does not amount to a confession and is not hit by the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The relationship of the appellant with the deceased; motive for commission of the crime and the presence of his sister- in-law PW. 11 do not amount to the confession of committing any crime. Those statements are non-confessional in nature and can be used against the appellant as evidence under section 8 of the Evidence Act. The production and seizure of the sword by the appellant at the police station, which was blood-stained, is also saved by the provisions of the Evidence Act. However, the statement that the sword had been used to commit the murders as well as the manner of committing the crime is clearly inadmissible in evidence. Thus, to the limited extent as we have noticed above and save to that extent only the other portion of the First Information Report Ex.P-42 must be excluded from evidence as the rest of the statement amounts to confession of committing the crime and is not admissible in evidence." (26.) Another important circumstance in the facts of the case is the total silence on the part of the accused, during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not explain as to how his wearing apparels got stained with blood. He did not explain as to how did he suffer injury in the ring finger of his left hand. He did not explain as to how did he know as to where was the body of the deceased Jiten lying. He did not explain as to how his wearing apparels got stained with blood. He did not explain as to how did he suffer injury in the ring finger of his left hand. He did not explain as to how did he know as to where was the body of the deceased Jiten lying. He did not explain as to how he came to know as to where were the weapon was lying. He, in fact, gave no explanation as regards any of the aforesaid circumstances which assume great importance in assessing the evidence. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the judgement in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, reported in 2000 (1) SCC page 471, wherein the following view was taken: "Para 26.-We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a deadbody or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the Criminal Court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the Criminal Court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well- justified course to be adopted by the Criminal Court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in section 27 of the Evidence Act." (27.) The accused has in answer to question No.8 admitted that he was arrested when he went to the Raniganj Police Station. In answer to question No. 9 he has admitted that his wearing apparels were seized by the police. He has denied that he accompanied the police or that the deadbody or the offending weapons were shown by him. The FSL report, marked Exhibit 13, goes to show that the knife seized by the police and examined by them contained human blood. He has denied that he accompanied the police or that the deadbody or the offending weapons were shown by him. The FSL report, marked Exhibit 13, goes to show that the knife seized by the police and examined by them contained human blood. The examination of the blood-stains appearing on the wearing apparels and the blood-stained earth was inconclusive because the blood had disintegrated. The sanction accorded by the District Magistrate under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act has been marked Exhibit 14 in this case. (28.) Considering the evidence on the record in its entirety, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove-(a) that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased Jiten. (b) The blood-stained wearing apparels of the accused and the injury suffered by him in his left hand ring finger had both remained unexplained. (c) The guilty knowledge of the accused is established by the discovery of the offending weapon and the deadbody pursuant to information furnished by him. (d) Absence of any explanation, on the part of the accused, provides an additional link. (29.) We are under the circumstance of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There is thus no scope for any interference with the judgement under challenge. (30.) Mr. Bhattachaa by way of an alternative submission urged that the accused is in custody for more than twelve years. That may or may not be true but the fact remains that this is a case where the accused is shown to have committed a premeditated cold-blooded murder. The conviction of the accused under section 302 could not be displaced by us. The minimum punishment under section 302 is life imprisonment. (31.) We are, therefore, unable to interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge. The appeal in the circumstances fails and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby affirmed. The appellant is in jail. Therefore, he is directed to serve out the remaining part of the sentences as awarded by the learned Trial Court. (32.) Let a copy of this judgement along with the Lower Court Records be remitted back to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. The appellant is in jail. Therefore, he is directed to serve out the remaining part of the sentences as awarded by the learned Trial Court. (32.) Let a copy of this judgement along with the Lower Court Records be remitted back to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. Send a copy of this judgement to the Superintendent, Correctional Home where the appellant is now under detention for information and necessary action.