P.K. Musahary, J:- 1. This is a case of a barbarous most murder close to the category of the rarest of the rare cases deserving capital punishment but for the leniency sentenced to life imprisonment, having found the accused husband guilty of cutting his enceinte wife into pieces and threw into the river not to find her corpus delicti "even after a good searching by police". 2. The prosecution story is rather brief but most disturbing. On 9.5.2001 accused/appellant took his wife to a nearby jungle on river bank for collecting fire wood. Both husband and wife went missing. Husband returned home alone after 10(ten) days on 19.5.2001. On being enquired about his wife, he told his own maternal uncle that he had killed his wife and thrown pieced dead body into the river Kakodanga. Ganga Sagar Bhuyan, maternal uncle of the accused informed the police by lodging a written FIR dated 19.5.2001. The crime was registered as Dergaon P.S. Case No. 76/2001 under section 302, IPC. The investigation resulted into filing of charge sheet against the accused and committed to Sessions Judge, Golaghat for trial. Charge being framed under section 302, IPC the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial but he adduced no evidence in his defence although the prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses during the trial. The accused/appellant stood convicted under section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, further RI for 1(one) month by the Sessions Judge, Golaghat vide Judgment dated 11.3.2002. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal through jail. Unrepresented as he was one Sri P.K. Barman was appointed as amicus curiae. We are told at the bar that the said learned counsel was killed few years back in tragic road accident. Eventually we had to request Mr. R. Adhikari to appear for the accused/appellant amicus curiae, who accepted our request and discharged his duties to our great assistance. 4. Appearing for the accused/appellant amicus curiae, Mr. Adhikari submitted that there is no eye witness to the killing of his wife and the dead body was also not recovered. The prosecution failed to adduce any eye witness and also to recover the dead body to prove the fact of death of the wife of the accused/appellant. Mr. 4. Appearing for the accused/appellant amicus curiae, Mr. Adhikari submitted that there is no eye witness to the killing of his wife and the dead body was also not recovered. The prosecution failed to adduce any eye witness and also to recover the dead body to prove the fact of death of the wife of the accused/appellant. Mr. Adhikari submitted that the prosecution has relied only on the so called extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 which are not at all reliable and sustainable under the law. 5. It is necessary to examine from the evidence about the manner and the circumstances under which the accused appellant made the extra judicial confession before the aforesaid witnesses. PW-1, the informant and the maternal uncle of the accused categorically stated in evidence that his nephew told him that he had killed his wife Kunti and laid the dead body on the river bank. The said extra judicial confession was made in presence of other witnesses namely Golap and Dina who were examined as PW-2 and PW-5. PW-2 Golap Bauri is a tea garden labourer. He deposed that the police took the accused to the forest on the bank of river Kakodanga and found some garments like a petty coat, saree; blouse etc. stained with blood. The accused Ajit himself produced the said clothes and confessed that he had cut his wife and thrown away the dead body in the river. The police seized the clothes as produced by the accused but the police could not find out the dead body, PW-5 Dina Mirdha is also a tea garden worker. He deposed that police showed him some clothes which belonged to the wife of the accused. Besides the above PWs, PW-3, who is also a daily labourer, deposed that accused produced wearings of the deceased from the jungle which were seized by the police; The PW-3 accompanied the village people to the forest who had been to forest with the police to find out the dead body of the deceased. 6. The other witness, PW-4 who is a co-worker of deceased Kunti deposed that a few days after the missing of his wife, the accused Ajit led the Police to the bank of Kakodanga river, and showed that he had cut his wife and threw the dead body into the Kakodanga river. 6. The other witness, PW-4 who is a co-worker of deceased Kunti deposed that a few days after the missing of his wife, the accused Ajit led the Police to the bank of Kakodanga river, and showed that he had cut his wife and threw the dead body into the Kakodanga river. He produced a blouse, petty coat and a saree belonging to deceased Kunti from the forest where he had hidden them. In the cross-examination, PW-4 made a significant statement that previously deceased Kunti got married to another person. 7. The evidence on record shows that the accused, in confidence, made the extra judicial confession before his maternal uncle PW-1, who took the accused, accompanied by some villagers, including some PWs to the police station and on the basis of the information furnished by the accused the police proceeded to the place led by the accused himself near the river bank Kakodanga and recovered the aforesaid clothes, etc., from the place shown by the accused. The extra judicial confession as stated above, was primarily made before the maternal uncle as his guardian in confidence that he would be able to guide or save him from the problem faced by him. The police came to know about the extra judicial confession made by the accused only after he was brought before the police station by the maternal uncle and there is no chance to presume that such extra judicial confession was made due to pressure created by the police on the accused. It was a clear and voluntary confession made before the relation/guardian leaving little room for doubt by me defence. Moreover it is the evidence on record that the clothes belonging to the deceased wife of the accused were recovered when he led the police along with villagers to the place where he kept them hidden. The said clothes recovered were seized in presence of the villagers which has been testified by some of the PWs as stated earlier. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused admitted the fact that he produced the seized materials. In this connection, answer to question No. 3 and 4, may be quoted from the statement recorded under section 313, Cr.PC as under: "Q3. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused admitted the fact that he produced the seized materials. In this connection, answer to question No. 3 and 4, may be quoted from the statement recorded under section 313, Cr.PC as under: "Q3. Adducing evidence PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7, Investigating Officer and SI of Police, P. Saikia have stated that you had produced your wife's wearings from the place of occurrence where those had been left. What do you have to say ? Ans.: Yes, I had produced them. Q4. PW-7 SI of Police, Mr. Saikia and other witnesses have stated in evidence that the said clothes were seized vide exhibit 1. What do you say? Ans.: Yes, those clothes were seized." 8. As regards the non-recovery of dead body of the deceased, the witnesses deposed that the accused, after killing his wife, throw the dead body into the river. The police, therefore, failed to recover the same. 9. Again, the accused in his statement under section 313 replied to a question put by the trial court as under: "Q6. What do you have to say in your defence ? Ans.: On the day of the occurrence I had gone to collect fire wood. I was breaking the twigs for fire wood on the top of a tree. My wife was under a tree. Suddenly1.1 saw that she was nakedly enjoying sex with a man. Getting down, when I gave her a stroke she ran away with that man. Since then I have not seen her again. I have not killed her." From the aforesaid statement it is confirmed that the accused had been with his wife till she was missing. He did not disclose to anybody about the fact that his wife fled away with another man and he himself was not returning home till 19.5.2001. It was not stated by the accused that he has been making effort to find out his missing wife during the said period of time. This conduct of the accused is unusual and cast shadow on his honesty and his retracted statement that he was not involved in killing his wife. 10. The accused/appellant's father who is no longer in this world confessed his guilt before his maternal uncle as his guardian, and quite naturally, expected something from him by way of assurance or protection. This conduct of the accused is unusual and cast shadow on his honesty and his retracted statement that he was not involved in killing his wife. 10. The accused/appellant's father who is no longer in this world confessed his guilt before his maternal uncle as his guardian, and quite naturally, expected something from him by way of assurance or protection. That was a natural human conduct but his maternal uncle, in his turn, as a law abiding person, lodged the FIR and made his accused nephew to confess before the police and got the matter investigated in accordance with law. PW-1 has done so for the sake of justice without being let himself influenced by emotion or affection for his nephew. There is nothing on record that PW-1 had enmity with the accused to give false evidence against his accused nephew. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 or to impeach the credibility of his evidence simply because the accused/appellant has retracted his confession or the corpus delicti was not discovered. It is even unbelievable or unnatural had the accused/appellant made the confession before someone from whom he could expect nothing or on whom he could repose no faith. The evidence of other PWs on the extra judicial confession are also equally believable and credit worthy. They are all tea garden labourers in the same tea estate where the accused and his deceased wife used to work. They are all co-workers and knew each other intimately. The accused after commission of murder thought it proper and safe to confess the guilt before them. No evidence is on record that those PWs had any enmity with the accused and they deposed against him out of enmity or revenge. Even in the statement under section 313, Cr.PC, the accused did not say that false evidence had been adduced by those PWs against him out of revenge or enmity. The evidence of PWs in regard to extra judicial confession, having found consistent and corroborated each other, even with the central evidence of PW1, we are prepared to accept their evidence as natural, reliable and trustworthy on the basis of which conviction and sentence can be ordered and sustained. 11. The evidence of PWs in regard to extra judicial confession, having found consistent and corroborated each other, even with the central evidence of PW1, we are prepared to accept their evidence as natural, reliable and trustworthy on the basis of which conviction and sentence can be ordered and sustained. 11. Next we are to examine whether recovery of corpus delicti of the victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of violence is a must to establish that homicidal death has been committed by the accused. It was so under the old English law because in those days capital punishment or execution was the only punishment for murder and, therefore, it was a must to have the corpus delicti discovered. The law has under gone changes by now, and in India, recovery of dead body of the victim bearing marks of physical violence was never considered so essential to prove the guilt of committing murder. The other reason for not insisting on having the dead body recovered to prove the case of murder against the accused, is that in the modern age the perpetrators would make their way of escape after committing the murder by disposing the dead body without leaving any trace of it through some advanced method or technique. In fact, many crimes of committing murder have taken place in the society in which the dead body of the victim's could not be traced out and if the law is interpreted in such a way that the discovery of victim's dead body is invariably required to be recovered as a matter of rule, the law would not be able to reach the culprits and book them for punishment. We are not, prepared to pursue ourselves to accept the submission of the learned amicus curiae that the prosecution failed to prove its case as it failed to discover the dead body of the victim. 12. It is an established principle that in absence of any direct or ocular evidence, the court should bend upon the circumstancial evidence for conviction of the accused. On perusal of the records we find that the learned trial court, apart from relying on the evidence on extra judicial confession, has considered the circumstancial evidence available against the accused/appellant for the sake of appreciation of the same. On perusal of the records we find that the learned trial court, apart from relying on the evidence on extra judicial confession, has considered the circumstancial evidence available against the accused/appellant for the sake of appreciation of the same. The circumstantial evidence available in this case is that: (1) The accused/appellant went out with his wife on 9.5.2001 for collecting fire wood. (2) The accused found his wife nakedly enjoying sex with a man. (3) Out of anger the accused gave his wife a strike and she ran away with that man. (4) The accused returned after 10(ten) days home alone. (5) Immediately on return, he confessed before his maternal uncle about the killing of his wife. (6) He presented himself before the police along with his maternal uncle and other witnesses and made the same confessional statement before the police. (7) He himself led the police and other local people and helped the police to seize the articles belonging to his deceased wife from the bank of river Kakodanga. 13. The aforesaid circumstances are of definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused/appellant which lead to conclusion that within all human probabilities, the offence was committed by the accused himself and none else. Had his deceased wife fled away with the man with whom she had sex openly under the tree, it would not have been possible on the part of the accused to discover the wearing apparels/clothes of the deceased from a hidden place. 14. On careful consideration of the extra judicial confession, though retracted by the accused which itself found to be substantial piece of evidence due to corroboration by the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7 and circumstantial evidence as narrated above, we are satisfied to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court rightly passed the impugned Judgment convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. 15. The appellant has failed to make out a case for interference with the aforesaid Judgment convicting and sentencing him and as such we uphold and confirm the same. 16. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 17. Before parting with the record, we must also put on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. R. Adhikari as amicus curiae, who should be paid legal remuneration of Rs. 3,000 by the State respondent. 18. Send down the L.C.R.